Past Paper Qs Flashcards
What can we learn from Frazer’s mistakes?
Ethnocentrism, Evolutionism, Misinterpretation, Lack of engagement, Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Anthropology starts from curiosity at the margins of empires. Discuss
Colonial Encounters and Ethnographic Curiosity, Imperial Knowledge Production, Othering and Power Dynamics, Anthropological Fieldwork on diverse communities, Critiques and Decolonisation
What are the features of UK anthropology?
UK : Historically influenced by British colonialism and imperialism.
Strong emphasis on social anthropology, particularly focused on the study of “society” and social structures.
Influenced by functionalist and structuralist theoretical frameworks.
Often engaged in ethnographic research in colonial and post-colonial contexts.
Strong tradition of interdisciplinary engagement with sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
Compare the theoretical frameworks of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown
Malinowski: Functionalism, Participant Observation, Culture as an integrated system e.g. Trobriand Islanders’ Kula Ring, Fishing Expeditions, Ceremonial Gift Exchange
Radcliffe-Brown: Structural Functionalism, Comparative Method, Social Structure e.g. Kinship Systems of matrilineal Nuer and patrilineal Australian Aboriginal, Political organisation of segmentary lineage system among the Nuer, Economic exchange of goods and services among the Aboriginal Australians, where reciprocity and redistribution play key roles in maintaining social cohesion and solidarity.
Who are the key UK scholars?
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown: Known for his contributions to structural functionalism and the study of social structures in the Andaman Islands.
Bronisław Malinowski: Considered one of the founders of modern anthropology, Malinowski conducted ethnographic research in the Trobriand Islands and advocated for participant observation as a research method.
E.E. Evans-Pritchard: Renowned for his studies of kinship, political organisation, religion among the Nuer, and the development of structural-functionalism.
Mary Douglas: Known for her work on symbolic anthropology, particularly her analysis of cultural symbols, rituals, and taboos.
Edmund Leach: Notable for his structuralist analyses of kinship systems and social organisation, Leach emphasised the role of symbolic classification in shaping social relationships.
What are the features of US anthropology?
Shaped by the colonial history of North America and engagement with Indigenous cultures.
Emphasis on cultural anthropology, with a focus on the study of “culture” as a holistic system of beliefs, values, and practices.
Influenced by historical particularism, cultural relativism, and the rejection of cultural evolutionism.
Strong tradition of fieldwork-based research and ethnographic immersion.
Interdisciplinary engagement with psychology, linguistics, and archaeology.
Who are the key scholars of US anthropology?
Franz Boas: The Father of American anthropology, Boas advocated for cultural relativism and conducted pioneering ethnographic research among the Kwakiutl people in British Columbia.
Margaret Mead: Known for her studies of gender and sexuality in non-Western cultures, Mead conducted influential fieldwork in Samoa.
Ruth Benedict: Notable for her cultural studies, particularly her analysis of cultural patterns and configurations, as exemplified in her work “Patterns of Culture.”
Clifford Geertz: Renowned for his contributions to symbolic anthropology and interpretive anthropology, Geertz emphasised the role of symbols, rituals, and meaning-making in culture.
‘Anthropology is about studying other cultures.’ Discuss, in relation to Marxism and Anthropology
Critique of Orientalism: Marxist anthropologists, influenced by the work of Edward Said, have critiqued traditional anthropological approaches that exoticise and essentialise non-Western cultures as “other.” They argue that this perspective perpetuates colonial stereotypes and reinforces power dynamics between Western and non-Western societies.
Historical Materialism: Rather than viewing cultures as static and timeless entities, Marxist anthropologists analyse how social relations, modes of production, and economic structures shape cultural practices and beliefs. This perspective highlights the interconnectedness of culture, economy, and politics and challenges deterministic views of cultural development.
Class Struggle and Social Change: Marxist anthropology focuses on the dynamics of class struggle, inequality, and social change within societies. Rather than simply studying “other” cultures as isolated entities, Marxist anthropologists examine how capitalist globalisation, imperialism, and colonialism impact social relations and cultural practices around the world. This perspective emphasises the agency of marginalised groups in challenging dominant power structures and shaping processes of social transformation.
‘Anthropology is about studying other cultures.’ Discuss, in relation to Feminism and Anthropology
Critique of Ethnocentrism and Androcentrism: Ethnocentric and androcentric biases in anthropology contribute to the invisibility and marginalisation of women in cultural representations. Feminist anthropology advocates for a more inclusive and intersectional approach that recognises the diversity of women’s experiences across different cultures and societies.
Gender as a Social Construct: Feminist anthropologists challenge essentialist views of gender and emphasise the social construction of gender roles, identities, and relations. They analyse how gender is shaped by historical, cultural, and political contexts. This highlights the variability and fluidity of gender across cultures and how power dynamics intersect with gender inequality.
Engagement with Activism and Social Justice: Feminist anthropology emphasises the importance of political engagement and social activism in addressing gender inequality and social justice issues. Rather than maintaining a neutral or detached stance, feminist anthropologists advocate for collaborative research methods, participatory approaches, and advocacy on behalf of marginalised groups. This underscores the ethical imperative for anthropologists to use their research to promote social change and challenge systems of oppression.
‘Anthropology has an elective affinity with anarchism.’ Discuss the strengths of this claim.
Strengths:
Emphasis on Non-Hierarchical Social Relations: Anarchists advocate for the abolition of coercive authority and the creation of decentralised, self-governing communities based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anthropology often seeks to understand and celebrate the diversity of human social organisation, including non-hierarchical forms of governance found in Indigenous societies and small-scale communities.
Critique of Power and Domination: Anarchist theory critiques the state, capitalism, and other forms of authority that perpetuate inequality and exploitation. Anthropology examines how power operates within societies, challenging ethnocentric biases and exposing the ways in which dominant groups maintain their privilege at the expense of marginalised communities.
Focus on Direct Action and Social Change: Anarchism emphasises the importance of direct action, solidarity, and grassroots organising as means of challenging unjust social hierarchies and creating alternative forms of social organisation. Similarly, anthropology has a long history of engagement with activism and social justice movements, with many anthropologists working alongside marginalised communities to address issues of social inequality, environmental justice, and human rights.
‘Anthropology has an elective affinity with anarchism.’ Discuss the limitations of this claim.
Ethical Dilemmas and Neutrality: Anthropological research often involves navigating complex power dynamics, conflicting interests, and ethical considerations, which may complicate direct alignment with activist agendas or political movements.
Diversity of Perspectives: Anarchism encompasses a diverse range of perspectives, ideologies, and practices, from individualist and mutualist anarchism to syndicalism and anarcho-feminism. Similarly, anthropology encompasses a wide spectrum of theoretical orientations, methodological approaches, and political commitments.
Practical Challenges of Implementation: While both anarchism and anthropology advocate for non-hierarchical social relations, the practical challenges of implementing anarchist principles on a large scale are significant. Anthropologists may engage in ethnographic research and community-based activism to promote social justice and equality, but transforming complex social systems requires sustained collective action, institutional change, and broader political mobilisation.
‘Female is to male as nature is to culture.’ Discuss in a historical context.
Historical Roots: In Ancient Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, women were often viewed as closer to nature due to their reproductive capacities and perceived connection to the cycles of life, while men were associated with reason, civilisation, and the shaping of cultural norms and institutions.
Enlightenment Ideals: During the Enlightenment era, Jean-Jacques Rousseau further developed this dichotomy, portraying women as inherently nurturing and tied to the domestic sphere, while men were depicted as rational agents capable of shaping society and culture.
‘Female is to male as nature is to culture.’ Give Feminist critiques.
Essentialism: This equation reduces complex human experiences and identities to simplistic binaries. Reinforces gender stereotypes and erases the diversity of women’s experiences and roles within society.
‘Female is to male as nature is to culture.’ Give alternative perspectives.
Intersectionality: Nature of gender, race, class, and other social categories highlights the ways in which multiple forms of oppression intersect and shape individuals’ experiences. This recognises the diversity of women’s experiences and challenges simplistic binary oppositions.
Social Constructionism: Gender roles, identities, and norms are socially constructed and historically contingent. This acknowledges the fluidity and variability of gender across different cultures and historical contexts.
‘Anthropology cannot remain aloof from the world – it must take sides.’ Discuss with reference to feminist anthropology.
Positionality and Reflexivity: Acknowledging the ways in which one’s own identities, experiences, and biases shapes one’s interpretations and analyses, aiming to avoid reproducing oppressive structures and to amplify the voices of marginalised individuals and communities.
Ethical Commitments: Commitment to social justice, gender equality, and the empowerment of marginalised groups. Prioritise research that addresses issues of gender-based violence, reproductive rights, economic inequality, and intersectional forms of oppression. They advocate for participatory research methods, collaborative partnerships with community members, and ethical practices that prioritise the well-being and agency of research participants.
Political Advocacy: Engage in activism and advocacy alongside their research, using their expertise to challenge patriarchal norms, advocate for policy change, and support grassroots movements for gender equality.
Historical Materialism vs Cultural Evolution
Social Relations/ Economic Structures: Historical materialism emphasises social relations and economic structures, rather than inherent cultural traits or stages of development, in shaping historical change. Instead of viewing cultures through fixed stages of evolution, historical materialism examines how changes in modes of production, class relations, and economic systems lead to shifts in cultural practices and beliefs.
Dialectical Approach: Historical materialism employs a dialectical approach to understanding historical change, which emphasises the dynamic interplay between social forces, contradictions, and conflicts. This recognises the complexity and contingency of historical processes, rejecting linear and teleological views of cultural development.
Critique of Eurocentrism: Historical materialism challenges Eurocentric narratives of progress and civilisation associated with cultural evolutionism instead of valorising Western societies as more advanced or civilised. This emphasises the diversity of human experiences and the historical specificity of social formations, highlighting the agency of oppressed groups.
Materialist Analysis: Historical materialism focuses on the material conditions of existence - with economic relations and class struggles as primary drivers of historical change.
Anthropology cannot remain aloof from the world – it must take sides. Discuss with reference to Marxist anthropology.
Critique of Capitalism: Marxist anthropology is grounded in a critique of capitalism and the social inequalities it produces. Anthropologists drawing from Marxist theory analyze how capitalist modes of production shape social relations, class divisions, and exploitation within societies. By taking a critical stance towards capitalism, Marxist anthropologists challenge the status quo and advocate for alternatives that prioritize economic justice and human well-being.
Engagement with Class Struggle: Marxist anthropology emphasizes the centrality of class struggle in shaping historical change and social dynamics. Anthropologists influenced by Marxist theory study how class relations manifest in various forms, such as labor exploitation, land ownership, and access to resources. By aligning with the struggles of working-class and marginalized communities, Marxist anthropologists seek to amplify their voices and support their efforts to resist oppression and achieve collective liberation.
Participatory Research: Marxist anthropology often employs participatory research methods that involve collaboration with community members and social movements. Anthropologists work alongside activists and organizers to document their struggles, analyze power dynamics, and develop strategies for social change. By actively engaging with grassroots movements, Marxist anthropologists ensure that their research is grounded in the realities and priorities of the people they study, rather than remaining detached or neutral.
Political Advocacy: Marxist anthropologists see their work as inherently political and advocate for policies and practices that challenge capitalist exploitation and promote social justice. They use their research to inform public discourse, influence policy decisions, and support movements for progressive change. By taking a clear stance against oppression and inequality, Marxist anthropologists contribute to broader struggles for economic democracy, environmental sustainability, and social transformation.
However, it’s important to note that Marxist anthropology is not without its critiques and complexities. Critics argue that Marxist approaches may oversimplify social phenomena, prioritize economic factors at the expense of other dimensions of social life, or neglect the agency of individuals and communities.
Anthropology cannot remain aloof from the world – it must take sides. Discuss with reference to anthropology of the far right.
Ethical Imperative: Anthropologists studying the far right face an ethical imperative to take a clear stance against ideologies that promote racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry. Remaining aloof or neutral in the face of such ideologies can be interpreted as tacit support or complicity with systems of oppression. Anthropologists must recognize the ethical implications of their research and take proactive measures to challenge far-right narratives and promote social justice and human rights.
Engagement vs. Endorsement: Anthropologists must navigate the delicate balance between engaging with far-right movements to understand their beliefs, motivations, and practices, while also condemning their discriminatory ideologies and actions. This requires careful reflexivity and ethical decision-making to ensure that anthropological research does not inadvertently legitimize or amplify far-right narratives or contribute to the normalization of hate speech and violence.
Critical Analysis: Anthropologists studying the far right must take sides in terms of critically analyzing and contextualizing far-right ideologies within broader historical, social, and political contexts. This involves uncovering the underlying social, economic, and psychological factors that contribute to the rise of far-right movements, as well as examining the intersections between far-right ideologies and systems of power, privilege, and inequality. By taking a critical stance, anthropologists can challenge far-right narratives and expose the root causes of social divisions and conflict.
Advocacy for Social Justice: Anthropologists studying the far right can use their research to advocate for social justice and human rights, particularly for marginalized communities targeted by far-right ideologies and policies. This may involve collaborating with advocacy groups, providing expert testimony in legal cases, or engaging in public outreach and education to raise awareness about the dangers of far-right extremism and the importance of countering hate speech and discrimination.
Is Historical Materialism deterministic? Yes
Teleological Assumptions: Social progress is seen as inevitable and societies are believed to evolve towards a predetermined endpoint e.g. communism. This implies that historical development follows a linear path, with predictable stages of development, and overlooks the contingency and complexity of historical processes.
Reductionism: Focuses on economic factors at the expense of other dimensions of social life. Oversimplifies complex social phenomena by reducing them to economic determinants, neglecting the role of cultural beliefs, political ideologies, and individual actions in shaping change.
Neglect of Contingency: Downplays the role of contingency and unpredictability in historical development. Identifies broad patterns and trends in historical change but may overlook the role of chance events, unexpected developments, and human agency in shaping historical outcomes.
Is Historical Materialism deterministic? No
Dialectical Approach: Emphasises the dynamic interplay between opposing forces, contradictions, and conflicts. This recognises the complexity and contingency of historical processes and the possibility of multiple outcomes.
Agency and Resistance: Acknowledges the role of human agency and resistance in shaping historical change. While economic factors may exert influence on social relations, individuals and social groups also possess agency to challenge existing power structures, contest oppressive conditions, and pursue alternative futures.
Historical Specificity: Historical materialism emphasises the historical specificity of social formations, highlighting the ways in which historical development is shaped by unique combinations of economic, political, and cultural factors. This allows for contextualised analyses that account for the diverse trajectories of different societies and historical periods.
“Society is now clear in two main senses: as our most general term for the body of
institutions and relationships within which a relatively large group of people live; and as
our most abstract term for the condition in which such institutions and relationships are
formed” (Raymond Williams).
Discuss this statement with reference to TWO ethnographic texts written before 1960.
“Argonauts of the Western Pacific” by Bronisław Malinowski (1922):
Malinowski’s ethnography of the Trobriand Islanders in Papua New Guinea provides insights into the concrete institutions and relationships within their society, as well as the abstract processes of social formation. Malinowski’s detailed study of Kula exchange, kinship structures, and religious rituals offers a rich understanding of the social organization and cultural practices of the Trobriand Islanders. Through participant observation and detailed fieldwork, Malinowski illuminates the intricate web of social relationships and institutions that define Trobriand society.
At the same time, Malinowski’s ethnography also sheds light on the abstract processes of social formation within Trobriand society. He examines how institutions such as the Kula exchange and the matrilineal kinship system contribute to the formation of social cohesion and identity among the Trobriand Islanders. Malinowski’s analysis reveals the ways in which abstract concepts such as reciprocity, prestige, and social status are embedded within concrete social practices, shaping the dynamics of Trobriand society.
“The Nuer” by E.E. Evans-Pritchard (1940):
Evans-Pritchard’s ethnography of the Nuer people of Sudan similarly provides insights into the concrete institutions and relationships within their society, as well as the abstract processes of social formation. Through his meticulous study of Nuer kinship, political organization, and religious beliefs, Evans-Pritchard offers a detailed portrait of Nuer social life and cultural practices. His analysis of Nuer social structure, including lineage organization and age sets, illuminates the complex patterns of social interaction and authority within Nuer society.
Additionally, Evans-Pritchard’s ethnography explores the abstract concept of social order and its formation within Nuer society. He examines how Nuer rituals, such as cattle raids and age-grade ceremonies, contribute to the maintenance of social cohesion and the reproduction of cultural values. Evans-Pritchard’s analysis reveals the ways in which abstract notions of honor, lineage, and reciprocity shape Nuer social life and help to maintain the stability of their society.
How do religious ideas influence economic practices? Discuss with relation to the
emergence of capitalism in Protestant nations.
Weber:
Work Ethic: Protestantism, especially Calvinism, promoted the idea of a “calling” or vocation, wherein individuals viewed their worldly work as a means of serving God. The Protestant work ethic emphasized hard work, diligence, and thrift as moral virtues. This attitude towards labor contributed to the development of a disciplined and industrious workforce conducive to capitalist production.
Asceticism and Frugality: Protestantism encouraged asceticism and frugality as virtues, discouraging ostentatious displays of wealth and promoting a modest lifestyle. The emphasis on saving and reinvesting profits rather than indulging in luxury consumption facilitated capital accumulation and investment in productive enterprises.
Risk-taking and Entrepreneurship: Protestantism encouraged individuals to take risks and seize opportunities for economic advancement, as success in worldly endeavors was seen as a sign of divine favor. This entrepreneurial spirit fostered innovation, trade, and economic growth, driving the expansion of capitalist markets and industries.
Individualism and Rationality: Protestantism emphasized the individual’s direct relationship with God and personal responsibility for salvation. This emphasis on individualism and rationality encouraged critical thinking, autonomy, and initiative, qualities conducive to capitalist enterprise and economic development.
What might be the benefits of taking indigenous categories at face value?
Discuss with reference to ‘Great’ and ‘Little’ traditions of religion.
Cultural Sensitivity: Accepting indigenous categories at face value demonstrates respect for the cultural perspectives and beliefs of the people being studied. It acknowledges the validity and complexity of indigenous worldviews and religious systems, fostering mutual understanding and dialogue between anthropologists and the communities they study.
Avoiding Ethnocentrism: By suspending judgment and refraining from imposing external categories or interpretations onto indigenous religious practices, researchers can avoid the pitfalls of ethnocentrism and cultural bias. This approach allows for a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of diverse religious traditions and their significance within their cultural contexts.
Insider Perspectives: Accepting indigenous categories at face value may provide insights into the internal dynamics and meanings of religious practices from an insider perspective. It allows anthropologists to explore how members of a community understand and interpret their own religious traditions, shedding light on the symbolic, ritual, and moral dimensions of religious life.
What might be the pitfalls of taking indigenous categories at face value?
Discuss with reference to ‘Great’ and ‘Little’ traditions of religion.
Essentialism: Taking indigenous categories at face value runs the risk of essentializing cultures and religions, reducing complex and dynamic belief systems to static and monolithic constructs. This can obscure the diversity of religious practices and beliefs within a community and overlook historical changes and adaptations over time.
Misinterpretation: Accepting indigenous categories without critical scrutiny may lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of religious beliefs and practices. Without contextual understanding, certain aspects of religious symbolism or ritual may be misunderstood or misconstrued, leading to inaccurate or superficial interpretations.
Ignoring Power Dynamics: Indigenous categories may reflect power dynamics and social inequalities within a community, such as gender hierarchies or class distinctions. Accepting these categories at face value without examining their social context may obscure underlying power relations and inequalities that shape religious practices and institutions.
