Practicing anthropologists are not alone in wrestling with new ethical issues. The new era in anthropology touches everyone. The old model of colonial style research is no longer viable. First of all, the old notion that anthropologists should stay out of their informants' lives to avoid ethical entanglements is not an ethically neutral stance. Today, indigenous populations are increasingly viewing this neutrality as ethically Questionable, for in their eyes it reflects an unwillingness to help the population from which the anthropologist gained so much. For example, how can an anthropologist work with American Indians today and not be an advocate for the changes they desire? Secondly, there are few nonliterate populations left who are uninterested in the manner in which their comments are included in published work (Fluehr-Lobban 1991:229). Debates on intellectual property are bringing to the fore the question of ownership of knowledge. Even in traditional areas of anthropological inquiry, the research subjects are raising questions about the ethical nature of the anthropologists' practice of protecting their subjects' identity while making careers or publishing their ideas. The view of research subjects as passive and powerless and in need of our protection has given way to one of subjects who are active participants in an interactive research process in which they are involved in the design and outcome of the work. Researchers can no longer hide their work from the subjects, nor can they dismiss the subjects' criticisms as a simple reflection of the insider's difficulty in seeing his/her own culture clearly. The subjects, whether they be corporate employees or American Indian communities, are holding the researcher accountable for the contents of their reports. This is a new era for all of anthropology and an era I, for one, welcome. The potential for anthropology is exciting. I believe that this interactive process will bring methodological and theoretical advancements to our field. We need not let fear of ethical impropriety prevent our entry into these new areas of research, but neither should we be complacent about the potential dangers. The dangers are there and we should proceed with vigor, but also with caution. References American Anthropological Association. 1971. Statement on Ethics: Principles of Professional Responsibility, Adopted by the Council of the American Anthropological Association. . 1990. Revised Principles of Professional Responsibility. Appell, C. N. 1978. Ethical Dilemmas In Anthropological Inquiry: A Case Book. Waltham, Massachusetts: Crossroads Press. Cassell, Joan and Sue-Ellen Jacobs. 1987. Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Chambers, Ecve. 1991. Acceptable Behaviors: The Evolving Ethos of Ethics Talk. In Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, ed., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn, ed. 1991. Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Craves, William III and Mark A. Shields. 1991. 'Rethinking Moral Responsibility in Fieldwork: The Situated Negotiation of Research Ethics in Anthropology and Sociology.' In Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. National Association of Practicing Anthropologists. 1988. National Association of Practicing Anthropologists' Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners. Wax, Murray L. and Joan Cassell, eds. 1979. Federal Regulations: Ethical Issues and Social Research. Boulder: Westview Press. BOOK REVIEWS The Workplace Within: Psychodynamics of Organizational Life. Larry Hirschhorn. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988, x + 265 pp. Christa L Walck Michigan Technological University T his sequel to Beyond Mechanization (1984) could have been entitled "Beyond Bureaucracy." Hirschhorn sets an ambitious and compelling agenda: to develop a psychodynamic conception of work life and a theory of work in postindustrial society. Building on Melanie Klein's psychological theories of object relations, Wilfred Bion's theories of group dynamics, and the sociotechnical theory of Tavistock Institute researchers, Hirschhorn invites us to interpret behavior in the postindustrial workplace as a struggle between conflicting desires both to reduce anxiety by distorting our perceptions of others and to repair those distortions and make our vision whole. He expands the domain of object-relations psychology from personal space to work space. The text is divided into four parts. Part I explains the psychodynamic theory of "social defenses" (see below). Part II presents two case studies, in which Hirschhorn demonstrates both the operation of social defenses in the workplace and his method of analysis. Part III explores postindustrial society and the breakdown of traditional social defenses, and includes additional short cases studies. Part IV offers Hirschhorn's solution of a "reparative culture" for the problems presented by postindustrial society. The text concludes with an appendix, "Consulting as a Method of Research," in which Hirschhorn constructs his consulting methodology to survey research, field work, and participant observation. 26 Anthropology of Work Review Volume XIII, Numbers 2-3