Department of
Social Anthropology
SA2001
Handbook
2012/13
INTRODUCTION
The Second Level Modules in Social Anthropology have a pivotal position in the department's
programme. For some students they are the pathway to the Social Anthropology Honours
Programme; for others they represent the completion of a quite intensive and sophisticated Sub‐
Honours anthropology experience. The department therefore considers that Second Level
anthropology constitutes a comprehensive grounding in all basic areas of the discipline. Added to
the First Level modules students who accomplish Second Level will have a thorough understanding
of Social Anthropology. They will appreciate its historical roots, how it has built a range of theories
concerning human societies and cultures, and the holistic vision by which it explores the relations
between economic, political and ideological domains of human life. The learning outcomes of
Second Level Anthropology will extend those of First Level. In addition, students who take Second
Level will appreciate:
1.
The relevance of historical thinking to the discipline of social anthropology, and the relation
between theory and ethnographic experience and observation.
2.
The relevance of social anthropology in relation to other academic disciplines.
3.
How a theoretical understanding the difference between social worlds becomes relevant to the
practical accomplishment of life in one's own society, as someone who works, takes place in
family life and interacts with many types of people, social institutions and diverse cultural
principles.
4.
How the Sub‐Honours modules lay the foundations for further study at Honours level in Social
Anthropology. The Sub‐Honours programme grounds students theoretically and gives them the
opportunity to develop and explore their interests in Social Anthropology, through
ethnographic study as well as by discussing and evaluating particular anthropological issues and
problems.
2
SA2001
THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN SOCIAL LIFE
This module examines the historical conditions in which modern anthropological practice, concepts
and categories have emerged. This includes a survey of the major intellectual developments in the
discipline and the major shifts between schools of thought. We focus on the debates that have
animated professional anthropology since its inception at the beginning of the twentieth century,
including a look at the most recent discussions of anthropological theory and practice. As well as
considering competing modes of anthropological analysis, students will be invited to engage with
key ethnographic texts. By the end of the course, you should have a clear sense of the history of
ideas within professional anthropology (i.e. the relationship between notions such as
‘functionalism’, ‘structural functionalism’, ‘structuralism’, ‘Marxist anthropology’, ‘feminist
anthropology’, ‘postcolonialism’ & ‘poststructuralism’), but also a sense of the shifts and
development of ethnographic modes of writing. A note on course essays: in addition to readings
suggested by lecturers and tutors wherever possible, students should refer to the general texts
referred to in each section and also to those cited for the relevant lectures. Essay topics connect
directly to sections of teaching but you must show judgement in how you choose relevant case
material for your answer. The more widely and in depth you read, the better your answer is likely
to be.
KEY READINGS FOR THE MODULE
•
•
Barnard, Alan (2000) History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge, University Press.
Clifford, James & George Marcus [eds.] (1986) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of
ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
•
Kuper, Adam (1996) Anthropology and Anthropologists. London, Routledge.
___________________________________________________________________________
Module Convener:
Dr Huon Wardle (hobw). Please address all problems to him.
Lecturers:
Dr Huon Wardle (hobw), Professor Peter Gow (pgg2), Dr Adam Reed (ader), Dr
Stavroula Pipyrou (sp78)
20
Three lectures per week. Plus one workshop/film per week. Also weekly tutorials.
Attendance in each component is compulsory.
11am Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday in OUD (Old Union Diner)
These are held WEEKLY in either the department seminar room or in the Arts
Building
The whole lecture class workshops will be held in OUD (Old Union Diner). These
will be held in one of the class hours of each lecturer’s slot of teaching.
These will be shown in one of the class hours of each lecturer’s slot of teaching.
They are shown in OUD (Old Union Diner).
Two assessed essays = 40%
Two hour examination = 60%
Credits:
Teaching:
Lecture Hour:
Tutorials:
Workshops:
Ethnographic films:
Course Assessment:
A Reader Pack is available for this module. It contains key readings for the course including all those
necessary for the tutorials and a core of those required for the essays. The packs can be purchased
through the Online Shop, https://onlineshop.standrews.ac.uk/ and collected from the Departmental
Office. Other readings are available in Short Loan and, in some cases, via MMS.
3
SECTION ONE
THE EMERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC ANTHROPOLOGY
WEEKS 1 & 2
Prof Peter Gow pgg2@st‐andrews.ac.uk 1st Floor, 71 North Street
This section of the course will explore the rise of professionalized fieldwork and the development of
theoretical frames within the modern discipline.
LECTURE 1: THE INVENTION OF PRIMITIVE SOCIETY
We examine the origin of the concept of "primitive society" in the nineteenth century. This includes
the concern for the origin of religion, evolutionist thinking and the ranking of societies.
•
Frazer, James. "The magic art" in The Golden Bough.
•
Kuper, Adam. The Invention of Primitive Society.
•
Stocking, George. "Animism, Totemism and Christianity: A Pair of Heterodox Scottish
Evolutionists" in After Tylor.
LECTURE 2: RIVERS AND THE BEGINNING OF FIELDWORK
In this lecture we explore the shift towards scientific methodology in anthropology. We look at the
beginnings of fieldwork and its roots in natural science and the naturalistic approach to human
thought.
•
W.H.R. Rivers. "The Primitive Conception of Death" in Richard Slobodin (ed.) W.H.R. Rivers:
Pioneer Anthropologist, Psychiatrist of the Ghost Road
•
Slobodin, Richard. Sections 1‐3 from "Work" in Richard Slobodin (ed.) W.H.R. Rivers: Pioneer
Anthropologist, Psychiatrist of the Ghost Road
George Stocking. "From the Armchair to the Field: The Darwinian Zoologist as Ethnographer"
in After Tylor.
LECTURE 3: MALINOWSKI: FIELDWORK AND FUNCTIONALIST ANALYSIS
We examine the development of ethnographic research by participant observation. Our attention
falls on the density of ethnographic data and on culture as a functional totality.
•
Malinowski, Bronislaw. "Baloma" in Magic, Science and Religion.
•
Kuper, Adam. "Malinowski" in Anthropology and Anthropologists.
•
Stocking, George. "From Fieldwork to Functionalism" in After Tylor.
LECTURE 4: RADCLIFFE‐BROWN AND STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
4
This lecture looks at the development of a theory of society; set against history and evolutionism.
We look at how comparison was put forward as the key scientific method.
•
Radcliffe‐Brown, A.R. 'Introduction', in A.R. Radcliffe‐Brown and D. Forde (eds.) African
Systems of Kinship and Marriage, Oxford, OUP.
•
Kuper, Adam. "Radcliffe‐Brown" and "The Thirties and the Forties" in Anthropology and
Anthropologists.
•
Fortes, M. 'Introduction', in J. Goody (ed.) The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups.
LECTURE 5: LÉVI‐STRAUSS
We look at the move to the human mind, and the examination of nature and culture. This includes
examining what comparison says about the nature of what it is to be human.
•
Lévi‐Strauss, C. "Race and History" in Structural Anthropology.
•
Leach, Edmund. "Rethinking Anthropology" in Rethinking Anthropology.
•
Mary Douglas. "If the Dogon ..." in Implicit Meanings.
LECTURE 6: THE ARRIVAL OF CULTURE
Finally, we look at the arrival, from the USA, of the concept of culture. Do all humans have culture?
This includes the shift away from society towards the person and culture.
•
Wagner, Roy. "Chapter 1: The assumption of culture" in The Invention of Culture.
•
Strathern, M. "No nature, no culture" in C. McCormack and M. Strathern (eds) Nature,
Culture and Gender.
•
Fortes, M. "The concept of the person" in Religion, morality and the person.
ETHNOGRAPHIC FILM—STRANGERS ABROAD 3: WH RIVERS‐EVERYTHING IS RELATIVES
In this celebration of one of anthropology's foremost ancestors, the life and work of Rivers are
clearly explained. In particular, the documentary outlines his genealogical method for
understanding kinship, returning to the same locations visited by Rivers to test his theories out
against contemporary realities.
WORKSHOP
Topic to ponder: Now we all know about, and even celebrate, "cultural differences". This popular
understanding of "culture" has a very long history in anthropology, and makes it hard for us now to
understand just how difficult it was to move from racist evolutionism to modern anthropology.
5
SECTION TWO
SOCIETY AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM
WEEKS 3-5
Dr Huon Wardle [email protected] Room 20, United College
TOPIC 1: 4 STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION: THE PROFESSIONALISATION OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY
On the idea of ‘function’
At its simplest, functionalism describes a question addressed to particular ideas and behaviours;
‘socially speaking, what use are these practices for these people?’ The first lectures for this part of
the course deal with the emergence and refinement of the ideas of structure and function in social
anthropology from the 1930s to the mid-1950s. We look initially at some of the classic functionalist
ethnographies of the 1930s. These texts demonstrate a focus on small-scale (often island-based)
societies and a common aim of showing how social roles, rights, responsibilities, institutions and
behaviours are coordinated and respond functionally to basic human needs. The emphasis in these
functionalist works is on methodological induction – collecting as large a quantity of observations as
possible in order to arrive at generalisations. Functionalism as a movement is closely connected to
the seminars run by Malinowski at the LSE during the 1930s. Gellner has distinguished function as
the method of collecting data with a view to the social usefulness criterion, from function as a
doctrine (the principle that everything in a society has a ‘purpose’ within the whole). He argues that
the latter assumption is suspect, while the former idea has enduring value.
Diffusionism
As an approach, functionalism is in part a reaction against the historical speculation characteristic of
evolutionist and diffusionist writing. A good example of the diffusionist approach is this article by WHR
Rivers.
Rivers, W.H.R. ‘Massage in Melanesia’ in B. Goode et al. (ed.) A Reader in Medical Anthropology. Ch. 1.
Function
•
Kuper, A. 1979. Anthropology and Anthropologists. Chapter 3 (‘the 1930s and 1940s’).
•
Firth, R. 1936. We the Tikopia. (Esp. Chapter VI).
•
Fortune, R. 1932. Sorcerers of Dobu.
•
Richards, A. 1932. Hunger and Work in a Savage Tribe. Especially Ch. 1.section 4.
•
Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, Volume II, ‘The Sociological Function of
Magic’. (this is available via the web:)
http://www.archive.org/stream/coralgardensandt031834mbp - page/n275/mode/1up/search/240
On the idea of ‘social structure’
Structural functionalism analyses society as a system of interrelating parts asking the question ‘what
is the function of X practice in relation to the overall social structure?’ The approach, drawing
inspiration from Radcliffe-Brown, comes to the fore in the 1940s, as a more abstract anthropology
also emerges. Radcliffe-Brown had placed weight on a view of society as akin to an articulated social
organism (an idea of Herbert Spencer’s). The emphasis in structural functionalist texts is more
6
analytical and deductive –models and holistic social logics are applied to a body of observations.
Evans-Pritchard’s The Nuer represents a high point of this development.
Structural Functionalism
•
Radcliffe-Brown, A. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Intro. Chap 1.
•
Metcalf, P. 2005. Anthropology: The Basics. Chapters 3 and 4.
•
Wilson, M. 1951. ‘Witch-beliefs and Social Structure’ American Journal of Sociology, 56(3):307-13.
*
(Or chapter 22 in Marwick M. (ed) Witchcraft and Sorcery).
•
Evans-Pritchard, E. 1940. The Nuer.
•
Kaberrry, P. 1952. Women of the Grassfields.
http://www.era.anthropology.ac.uk/Kaberry/Kaberry_text/
•
Fortes, M. (et al, eds) 1940. African Political Systems.
•
[1959]1971. ‘Primitive Kinship’ in Spradley, J. (ed) Conformity and Conflict.
Additional Readings
•
Gay y Blasco, P. and Wardle, H. 2006. How to read Ethnography. Chapter 3 (‘Relationships and
Meanings’).
•
Gellner, E. 1987. The Concept of Kinship. Chapter 7 (‘Sociology and Social Anthropology’).
•
Goody, J. 1995. The Expansive Moment.
•
Grimshaw, A. and K. Hart. 1993. Anthropology and the Crisis of the Intellectuals.
•
Hsueh-Chin, T. [C.18]1917. Dream of the Red Chamber.
•
Leach, E. The Essential Edmund Leach. Vol. 1, chapter 1.8 (‘Social Anthropology: A Natural Science
of Society?’)
•
Lienhardt, G. 1966. Social Anthropology. Chapter 5 (‘Kinship and Affinity’).
•
Metcalf, P. 2005. Anthropology: The Basics. Chapters 3 and 4.
•
Thompson, D. [1917]1994. On Growth and Form.
•
Wardle, H. and P. Gay y Blasco. 2011. ‘Ethnography and an Ethnography in the Human
Conversation’ Anthropologica 53(1):117-129.
N.B. All readings marked * are available electronically through the online catalogue.
Lecture themes: (1) funtionalism, holism, synchronicism; (2) kinship as an articulating structure; (3)
The‘doctrine’ of structural functionalism – society as an ‘organism’; (4) empiricism and rationalism relativismand universalism.
ETHNOGRAPHIC FILM – THE NUER
7
TOPIC 2: THE PROBLEM WITH ‘TIME’: PROCESS, CHANGE AND TRANSFORMATION
While anthropology came to be defined by its fieldwork-based, holistic, synchronic emphases during
1930-1955, criticisms of the functionalist approach appear quite early; from, amongst others,
Gregory Bateson whose early affiliations were to Rivers and Haddon in Cambridge. Anthropologists
such as Gluckman and Barth began to build situational and individualistic diversity into their
accounts that challenged the ‘social organic’ view of Radcliffe-Brown. Firth’s work on ‘social
organisation’ also critiques the rigidity of social structure as explanation. Edmund Leach’s Political
Systems of Highland Burma is a key moment in this revision of structural functionalist orthodoxy,
marking the opening up, from the 1960s onwards, of a more intellectualist, less empirically focused
movement – structuralism.
Time, change and history in anthropology
•
Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma.
•
Firth, R. 1955. ‘Some Principles of Social Organization’. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 85(1/2):1-18. *
•
Evans-Pritchard, E. 1950. ‘Social Anthropology: Past and Present’ Man, L(198):118-124. *
•
Fortes, M. [1957]1983. Oedipus and Job in West African Religion.
•
Goody, J. (ed). 1971. The Developmental Cycle of Domestic Groups. (Introduction by
Meyer Fortes).
•
Sahlins, M. 1963. ‘Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief’. Comparative Studies in Society
and History, 5:285-303. *
Additional Readings
•
Achebe, C. 1958. Things Fall Apart.
•
Bateson, G. 1936. Naven.
•
Burridge, K. 1960. Mambu.
•
Fortune, R. 1935. Manus Religion.
•
Gay y Blasco, P. and Wardle, H. 2006. How to read Ethnography. Chapter 8 (‘Big
Conversations’)
•
Gellner, E. 1958. ‘Time and Social Theory’. Mind, 67:182-202. * (or The Concept of Kinship,
chapter 6)
•
Gluckman, M. [1940]1958. Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand.
•
Lipset, D. 1982. Gregory Bateson: Legacy of A Scientist.
•
Nadel, S.F. 1942. A Black Byzantium.
•
_______1951. The Foundations of Social Anthropology. (ch. VI, ‘Institutions’).
•
Schapera, I. 1962. ‘Should Anthropologists be Historians? Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 92(2):143-56. *
•
Wardle, H. 1999. ‘Gregory Bateson’s Lost World’. Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences, 35(4):379-389.
N.B. All readings marked * are available electronically through the online catalogue.
Lecture themes: (1) the problem of the time factor; (2) radical change; (3) cyclical and processual
change; (4) enduring legacies
ETHNOGRAPHIC FILM
Lecture and discussion by Meyer Fortes, chaired by Jack Goody
8
TOPIC 3: HUMAN UNIVERSALS RECONSIDERED – STRUCTURALISM AND THE INTELLECTUALIST
TURN
The period in the development of social anthropology from the late 50s onwards is closely associated
with a renewed interest in human universals. In this climate, the Structuralisme protagonised by
Claude Levi-Strauss (as distinct from British Structural Functionalism) gained ascendency.
Structuralism became an intellectualist movement focused on how the human mind supplies the
bases of socio-cultural commonality and difference. Levi-Strauss’ work was championed (sometimes
equivocally) by Edmund Leach in British circles. The work of Mary Douglas, Gregory Bateson, Victor
Turner and Robin Horton take similarly universalizing stances but with different emphases. In the
United States, work on universals of colour perception, inter alia, correspond to the expanded scope
for a scientific anthropology in this period. These lectures will focus on two debatably ‘universal’
properties of human thought and sociality – reciprocity (exchange/The Gift) and colour
categorization. This part of the discussion requires us to review the different pathways anthropology
had taken up to now in its three main strongholds – Britain, France and the United States.
On the idea of ‘structure’ and structuralism
Levi-Straussian structuralism describes a move toward a significantly more abstract idea of culture.
Levi-Strauss argued that culture is essentially a cognitive phenomenon. Rather than the British
emphasis on fieldwork in small-scale societies and the empirical study and modelling of social
practices, the aim of structuralist inquiry is to explore universal tendencies of the human mind to
generate culture. Levi-Strauss looked first at kinship structures then at mythology to find clues about
these universal potentials of the human mind.
•
Leach, E. 1976. Culture and Communication.
•
Leach, E. 1972. ‘Anthopological Aspects of Language: Animal Words and Verbal Abuse’ in P.
Miranda (ed.) Levi-Strauss.
•
Leach, E. 1970. Levi-Strauss.
•
Lévi-Strauss. 1963. Structural Anthropology.
•
Lévi-Strauss. 1973. Tristes Tropiques.
•
Metcalf, P. 2005. Anthropology, the Basics. Ch 6.
Gift, reciprocity, exchange:
•
Graeber, D. ‘On the Moral Ground of Economic Relations: A Maussian Approach’. English
version of a paper for special issue of La Revue du Mauss. K. Hart (ed.) (forthcoming).
•
Guyer, J. ‘The True Gift: Thoughts on L’annee Sociologique Edition of 1923/24’. English version
of a paper for La Revue du Mauss K. Hart (ed.) (forthcoming).
•
Levi-Strauss, C. 1949. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Volume I, Ch V.
•
Mauss, M. 1924. The Gift.
•
Sigaud, L. 2002. ‘The Vicissitudes of the Gift’ Social Anthropology 10(3):335-358.
•
Tarde, G. 1899. Social Laws: An Outline of Sociology. Chapter II ('The Opposition of
Phenomena') Available for free at the Open Library
Colour terminology and classification:
•
Berlin, B. and P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms.
•
Conklin, H. 1986. ‘Color Categories’ Journal of Anthropological Research 42(3):441-46.
•
Levinson, S. 2001. ‘Yeli Ndaye and the Theory of Basic Color Terms’ Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 10(1):3-55.
•
Newcomer, P. and J. Faris. 1971. ‘Basic Color Terms (A Review)’ International Journal of
AmericanLinguistics 37(4):270-275.
•
Saunders, B. 2000. ‘Revisiting Basic Color Terms’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
6(1):81-99.
9
WORKSHOP
The words 'structure' and 'structuralism' strike fear into the heart of even the most hardy
anthropology student. This session will act as a recap session. What is a structure? How are social
structures formed? what is function? what is the difference between British Structure and French
Structuralism?
10
SECTION THREE
COLONIALISM AND POSTCOLONIALISM:
POWER AND GOVERNANCE IN CONTEXT
PLEASE NOTE:
Classes will take place on Raisin Monday as usual (29/10/12)
WEEKS 6-7
Dr Stavroula Pipyrou [email protected] 1st Floor, 71 North Street
The birth of anthropology as an academic discipline is often associated with colonial administration
and notions of occupation. This section will draw attention to aspects of the discipline influenced by
colonialism and an introduction to the past and present dynamics between anthropology and
colonialism. The first week will cover concepts such as ‘stateless societies’ and will assess whether
some studies can be viewed as products of colonialism. We will also critically assess the notions of
civil society, Orientalism, and Occidentalism in the context of political anthropology. The second
week will begin by considering a Marxist approach to social anthropology. Post-colonial critiques
provided by Talal Asad and Vassos Argyrou will be critically assessed in conjunction with relevant
ethnographic examples. Finally, we will consider notions of hegemony as proposed by Gramsci,
ideology as postulated by Althusser, and Foucault’s conceptualisation of power.
WEEK 6
LECTURE 1: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM: A PECULIAR RELATIONSHIP?
 Asad, T. (ed.). 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca.
 Dirks, N. 1997. The Policing of Tradition: Colonialism and Anthropology in Southern India. In
Comparative Studies in Society and History 39, pp 182-212.
 Kuper, A. 1996. Anthropology and Anthropologists: the modern British school. London:
Routledge.
 Pels, P. 1997. The Anthropology of Colonialism: culture, history and the emergence of western
governmentality. Annual review of Anthropology, Vol. 26. pp. 163-183.
 Stocking, G. 1991. Colonial situations: Essays on the contextualization of ethnographic
knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
 Taussig, M. 1980. The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press.
 Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
LECTURE 2: CIVIL SOCIETY AND STATELESS SOCIETY
 Almond, G. A. and S. Verba. 1989. The Civic Culture Revisited: political attitudes and democracy in
the nations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
 Bayart, J. 1986. Civil Society in Africa. In Chabal, P. (ed.). Political Domination in Africa:
11













reflections on the limits of power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bryant, C. 1993. Social Self-Organisation, Civility and Sociology: a comment on Kumar’s “Civil
Society”, In British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 3.
Bryant, C. 1995. Civic Nation, Civil Society, Civil Religion. In Hall, J. (ed.). Civil Society: theory,
history, comparison. Oxford: Blackwell.
Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J. (eds.). 1999. Civil Society and the Political Imagination in Africa:
critical perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. 1940. The Nuer: a description of the modes of livelihood and political
institutions of a Nilotic people. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. 1971. The Azande: History and Political Institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. African Political Systems. London: Oxford University
Press.
Gluckman, M. 1955. Custom and Conflict in Africa. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gluckman, M. 1958. Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Gluckman, M. 1965. Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hall, J. (ed.). Civil Society: theory, history, comparison. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hann, C. and Dunn, E. 1996. Civil Society: challenging western models. London: Routledge.
Kumar, K. 1993. Civil Society: an inquiry into the usefulness of a historical term. In The British
Journal of Sociology. Vol. 44, No.3.
Layton, R. 2006. Order and Anarchy: civil society, disorder and war. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
LECTURE 3: ORIENTALISM AND OCCIDENTALISM
 Breckenridge, C. and van der Veer, P. 1993. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
 Carrier, J. 1992. Occidentalism: the world turned upside-down. American Ethnologist, Vol. 19. No.
2. pp. 195-212.
 Fox, R. 2002. ‘East of Said’. In Joan Vincent (ed.). The Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in
Ethnography, Theory, and Critique. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Herzfeld, M. 1997. Cultural Intimacy: social poetics in the nation-state. London: Routledge.
 Richardson, M. 1990. Enough Said: reflections on Orientalism. In Anthropology Today, Vol. 6. No.
4. pp. 16-19.
 Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York Vintage books.
 Said,E. 1989. Representing the colonised: anthropology’s interlocuters, In Critical Inquiry, Vol. 15,
No. 2,
 Thomas, N. 1991. Anthropology and Orientalism. In Anthropology Today, Vol. 7. No. 2. pp. 4-7.
Friday Film: TBC
WEEK 7
LECTURE 4: MARXIST PERSPECTIVES OF THE WORLD
 Althusser, L. 1972. Politics and History: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. London: NLB
 Bloch, M. 1975. Property and the end of affinity. In Bloch, M. (ed.). 1975. Marxist Analyses and
Social Anthropology. London: Malaby Press.
 Bloch, M. 1983. Marxism and Anthropology: The History of a Relationship. Oxford: Oxford
12











University Press.
Edholm, F. and Harris, O. and Young, K. 1977. Conceptualising Women. In Critique of
Anthropology, Vol.3. No. 9 and 10. pp. 101-130.
Godelier, M. 1977. Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Godelier, M. 1978. The Concept of the ‘Asiatic Mode of Production’ and Marxist Models of Social
Evolution. In Seddon, D. (ed.). 1978. Relations of Production: Marxist Approaches to Economic
Anthropology. London: Frank Cass.
Kahn, J. S. and J. R. Llobera. (eds.). 1981 Towards a New Marxism or a New Anthropology? In
Kahn, J. S. and J. R. Llobera. (eds.). 1981. The Anthropology of Pre-Capitalist Societies. London:
Macmillan Education.
Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Meillassoux, C. 1978. The Economy in Agricultural self-sustaining societies. In Seddon, D. (ed.).
Relations of Production: Marxist Approaches to Economic Anthropology. London: Routledge.
Meillassoux, C. 1979. Historical Modalities of the over-exploitation of labour. In Critique of
Anthropology, Vol.4. No. 13 and 14, pp. 7-16.
Rey, P. P. 1979. Class contradiction in lineage societies. In Critique of Anthropology, Vol.4. No. 13
and 14. pp. 41-60.
Terray, E. 1972. Marxism and ‘Primitive’ Societies. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Terray, E. 1975. Class and Class Consciousness in an Abron Kingdom of Gyaman. In Bloch, M.
(ed.). 1975. Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology. London: Malaby Press.
Terray, E. 1979. On Exploitation: elements of an autocritique. In Critique of Anthropology Vol.4.
No. 13 and 14. pp. 29-39.
LECTURE 5: POST-COLONIAL CRITIQUES: ASAD AND ARGYROU
 Argyrou, V. 2002. Anthropology and the Will to Meaning: a postcolonial critique. London: Pluto
Press.
 Asad, T. (ed.). 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca.
 Chakrabarty, D. 2000. Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Gandhi, L. 1998. Postcolonial Theory: A critical Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
LECTURE 6: GOVERNMENTALITY, HEGEMONY, IDEOLOGY AND POWER






Barker, P. 1998. Michel Foucault: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Boggs, C. 1976. Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.
Elliot, G. 1994. Althusser: a critical reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. Harmondsworth : Penguin.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings. London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
 Foucault, M. 1991. ‘On Governmentality’. In Burchell, G., C. Gordon and P. Miller. (eds.). The
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Foucault, M. 2000. Power. (James D. Faubion (ed.)). New York: New Press.
 Gordon, C. 1991. Governmental Rationality: an introduction. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and P.
Miller. (eds.). 1991. The Foucault Effect: studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of
13




Chicago Press.
Glendhill, J. 2000. Power and its Disguises: anthropological perspectives on politics. London: Pluto
Press.
Gramsci, A. 1977. Selections from Political Writings 1910-1920. London: Lawrence and Wishart
Kertzer, D. 1988. Ritual, Politics and Power. London: Yale University Press.
Ransome, P. 1992. Antonio Gramsci: a new introduction. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Friday Debate Topic: The ‘New’ Colonised – Italian and Other encounters with colonialism
14
SECTION FOUR
ANTHROPOLOGY’S REFLEXIVE TURN
WEEKS 8 & 9
Dr Adam Reed [email protected] Room 56, United College
This section explores more recent developments in anthropology and ethnographic writing. It
begins by examining the contribution of feminist anthropology to the discipline. Then the course
examines what is known as the ‘reflexive turn’, the increasing attention paid since the 1980s to the
mediating role of text, which includes a new awareness of the responsibilities of anthropologists as
text-producers. These debates centre round issues of representation. How does language structure
description? Which voices and what aspects of the fieldwork experience are typically left out of
ethnography? Attention focuses here as much on the culture of anthropology as on the societies
anthropologists describe. One of the important outcomes of this disciplinary reflection is a whole
range of new styles of ethnographic writing, all of which aim to better capture the nature of social
and cultural realities.
LECTURE 1: FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY: LOST VOICES
In the 1970s feminist anthropology began to consider why it was that women were marginalized in
most ethnographic accounts. Much of these early debates centred round issues of power and
control over female labour. In response, some anthropologists consciously strove to provide space
for female subjects’ voices and biographies in their ethnographies; we explore some examples.
 Ardener, Edwin. 1972. ‘Belief and the problem of women’, in The Interpretation of Ritual. La
Fontaine [ed]. Tavistock (photocopy on short loan).
 Rosaldo, M & Lamphere, L. 1974. [eds]. Women, Culture and Society. Stanford University Press
[especially introduction (book on short loan)].
 Ortner, S & Whitehead, H [eds]. 1981. Sexual Meanings: the cultural construction of gender and
sexuality. Cambridge University Press (book on short loan).
 Shostak, Marjorie. 1981. Nisa: the life and words of a !Kung woman. Allen Lane [especially
Introduction & chp 4 (book on short loan)]
LECTURE 2: FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY: NATURE & CULTURE
Here we examine the move within feminist anthropology away from straightforward recovering of
the position of women in cultures and towards broader critique of anthropological knowledge
practice. In particular, attention falls on a series of dualities or oppositions: Nature/Culture,
Individual/Society, through which categories such as ‘male’ and ‘female’ are typically understood
and constrained. Cultures and societies are revealed to not necessarily share these dominant
gendered assumptions.
15
 Strathern, Marilyn. 1980. ‘No Nature, No Culture: the Hagen Case’. In C. MacCormack & M.
Strathern (eds.). Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge University Press (book on short loan &
Readers Pack).
 Moore, Henrietta. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Polity [especially chps 1 & 2 (book on short
loan & Readers Pack)].
 Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. Gender of the Gift. California University Press [especially chapters 3 &
4) (book on short loan).
 Moore, Henrietta: 1986. Space, Text and Gender : an anthropological study of the Marakwet of
Kenya. Cambridge University Press [especially chps 1, 4 & 9 (book on short loan)].
 Gillison, Gillian. 1980. ‘Images of Nature in Gimi Thought’. In C. MacCormack & M. Strathern
(eds.). Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge University Press (book on short loan).
LECTURE 3: FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY: THIRD SEX & BEYOND
Here we discuss the development of performance theories of gender and in particular the rise of
challenges to the male/female positioning of sexuality in anthropological studies. Ideas such as
‘third sex’ are explored in conjunction with illustrative ethnographic accounts. After the emergence
of women as fully developed ethnographic subjects, we now get studies of gay, lesbian and
transsexual subjectivities.
 Herdt, Gilbert. 1993. Third sex, third gender: beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history.
Zone books [especially Introduction & chps 5 & 10 (book on short loan & Readers Pack)].
 Kulick, Don. 1998. Travesti : sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes.
University of Chicago Press [especially Introduction & chps 2 & 5 (book on short loan)].
 Boellstorff, Tom. 2005. The Gay Archipelago : Sexuality and Nation in Indonesia. Princeton
University Press [especially chapter chps 1, 4 & 8 (book on short loan)].
 Green Sarah. 1997. Urban amazons : lesbian feminism and beyond in the gender, sexuality, and
identity battles of London [especially Introduction & chps 1 & 6 (book on short loan)].
 Sullivan, Nikki. 2003. A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. Edinburgh University Press
[especially chps 1, 3 & 5 (book on short loan)].
 Laqueur, Thomas. 2003. Solitary Sex. Zone Books [especially chps 1 & 6 (book on short loan)].
LECTURE 4: DIALOGIC ANTHROPOLOGY
We examine the emergence of quasi-journal style ethnographies, which may include rich memoirs
of fieldwork and long quoted dialogues between anthropologist and favoured informant. These are
produced to critique the authority of scientific description and fieldwork practice, to question the
basis on which anthropologists claim to know the peoples they work with. Anthropology is
presented as suffering a crisis of confidence.
 Rabinow, Paul. 1977. Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkley: University of California Press
[especially chp 4: ‘Entering’ & Conclusion (book on short loan & Readers Pack)]
 Crapanzano, Vincent. 1980. Tuhami, portrait of a Moroccan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
[especially Introduction & Part One (book on short loan)].
 Dwyer, Kevin. 1982. Moroccan dialogues : anthropology in question. Waveland Press [especially
chps 1, 12 & 13 (book on short loan)]
16
 Geertz, Clifford. 1988. Works and Lives: the Anthropologist as Author. Cambridge, Polity [chp 4:
(photocopy & book on short loan)]
LECTURE 5: WRITING CULTURE
In this lecture, we look at the culmination of all these critiques: the ‘writing culture’ debates of the
late 1980s. Anthropologists turned to examine their own practices as text-producers and the
mediatory role of language in acts of ethnographic description. This included examining the textual
strategies by
which anthropologists in the past persuaded readers of their authority to describe other cultures
and the identification of conventional stories or allegories in anthropological texts. The discipline
appeared to suffer a crisis of representation.
 Marcus. George & Clifford, James 1986 (eds) Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of
Ethnography. University of California Press [especially Clifford ‘Introduction: partial truths’ & ‘On
ethnographic allegory’ (book on short loan & Readers Pack))
 Marcus, G & Fisher, M. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: an Experimental Moment in the
Human Sciences. University of Chicago Press [especially chp 1: ‘A crisis of representation in the
human sciences’ (book on short loan)].
 Geertz, Clifford. 1988. Works and Lives: the Anthropologist as Author. Cambridge, Polity [chp 1:
‘Being There’ (book on short loan & Readers Pack].
 Behar, Ruth & Gordon, Deborah. 1995. (eds). Women Writing Culture. University of California
Press [especially Introduction (book on short loan)].
LECTURE 6: NEW ETHNOGRAPHY 1: AMBIGUITY
While the reflexive turn highlighted the limits of the anthropological project, it also provided an
impetus to new modes of ethnographic writing. Using the insights of the ‘writing culture’ debates,
anthropologists devised new textual strategies for better capturing cultural realities. In this lecture,
we focus on attempts to depict the fluid, dynamic and ambiguous qualities of cultures and societies.
 Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture. Twentieth Century ethnography, literature
and art. Harvard University Press [Introduction & chps: 1 & 4 (book on short loan)].
 Stewart, Kathleen. 1996. A Space on the Side of the Road: cultural poetics in an ‘Other’ America.
Princeton University Press [chps: 1 & 3 (book on short loan)].
 Taussig, Michael. 1992. The Nervous System. Routledge [chps: 1 & 3 (book on short loan)].
 Pratt, M. 1992. Imperial Eyes. Routledge [Introduction (book on short loan)].
LECTURE 7: NEW ETHNOGRAPHY 2: INTERSECTIONS
This lecture looks at a different outcome of the reflexive turn. It explores the attempt to critique the
pervasiveness of idioms of dwelling in anthropological description. New ethnographies arise which
seek to depict the fieldwork location as a site of transience or comings and goings as well as a site of
residence. Both the anthropologist and the people he/she works with are recognised to travel as
well as dwell.
 Clifford, James. 1997. Routes: travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Harvard
University Press [chps 1 & 3 (book on short loan & Readers Pack)].
 Tsing, Anna. 1993. In the Realm of the Diamond Queen: marginality in an out-of-the-way place.
Princeton University Press [Opening & chps: 4, 5 & 6 (book on short loan & Readers Pack)].
17
 Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: the remaking of social analysis. Routledge [chp: 1
(book on short loan)].
 Reed, Adam. 2003. Papua New Guinea’s Last Place: experiences of constraint in a postcolonial
prison. Berghahn: Oxford [especially chp: 2 (book on short loan)].
ETHNOGRAPHIC FILM—CANNIBAL TOURS
One of the most important documentaries of recent years, this film gives an eye-opening account of
tourism on the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. It raises important questions about how 'we'
encounter the Other and the uncomfortable link between anthropology and tourism and between
observation and voyeurism.
18
SECTION FIVE
ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD:
AFTER WRITING CULTURE
PLEASE NOTE:
There will be no class on St Andrews Day Graduation (30/11/12)
WEEKS 10-11
Dr Stavroula Pipyrou [email protected] 1st Floor, 71 North Street
WEEK 10
LECTURE 1: ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE MILITARY
In recent times, wars and armed conflicts have affected large parts of the world. There have been
many military interventions on the part of Western organisations and coalitions, and many other
countries are also still suffering the effects of open or silenced warfare between states’ armies and
paramilitary organisations or guerrilla movements. There has been an increased presence of the
military in the daily lives of people, and voices have emerged which suggest that we are undergoing
a global process of militarisation. But, is this or should this be a concern for anthropologists? This
debate has been made famous by ‘Project Camelot’ and more recently the US ‘Human Terrain
Systems’ programme.
 Ben-Ari, E. 2008. War, the military and militarization around the globe. Social Anthropology 16, 1:
90-98.
 Frese, P. and M. Harrell. 2003. Anthropology and the United States Military: coming of age in the
21st century. Palgrave MacMillan: New York.
 Galtung, J. 1967. Scientific Colonialism. In Transition, Number 30, pp: 10-15.
 Gonzalez, R. J. 2007. Phoenix reborn? The rise of the 'Human Terrain System'. In Anthropology
Today 23(6): 21-22
 Gonzalez, R. J. 2009. On ‘tribes’ and ‘bribes’: ‘Iraq tribal study’, al-Anbar’s awakening, and social
science. Focaal 53:105-16.
 Gonzalez, R. J. 2009. Going ‘tribal’: Notes on pacification in the 21 st century. Anthropology Today
25: 15-19.
 McFate, M. 2005. Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: thhe strange story of their curious
relationship. In Military Review.
LECTURE 2: ANTHROPOLOGY, RADICAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
In 2009, the University of East London dismissed Chris Knight from his post as professor of
anthropology over a dispute that originated over his controversial involvement in protests against
the G20. Knight and his colleagues in the Radical Anthropology Group have in recent years raised
concerns about anthropology’s relationship with international capitalism and its associated political
19
structures. We question the role of advocacy in social anthropology – both within colonial and
‘Western’ settings – and relate such protests to the conditions facing anthropologists as they
conduct research in the current economic climate of distress and austerity.





Graeber, D. 2007. Revolution in Reverse. Radical Anthropology Journal 1: 6-16.
Graeber, D. 2004. Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
MacClancy, J. 2002. Exotic No More: Anthropology on the Front Lines. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Vradis, A. and D. Dalakoglou. (eds.). 2011. Revolt and Crisis in Greece: Between a Present yet to
Pass and a Future still to Come. Oakland: AK Press.
For a background on the Chris Knight affair visit http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/
LECTURE 3: ‘ILLEGAL ORGANISATIONS’
Some anthropologists, either deliberately or inadvertently, find themselves conducting research
among people involved in ‘illegal’ activities. This may range from street gangs and drug dealers to
the Italian mafia. Is it appropriate for anthropologists to put themselves at risk by conducting such
research and how far should they take ‘participant observation’? Surely as anthropology is the study
of human diversity, people involved in illegal activities should be able to have their stories told
(their perspectives) as well as those in the position of mainstream socio-political power.
 Blok, A. 1974. The Mafia of a Sicilian Village, 1860-1960: a study of violent peasant
entrepreneurs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
 Bourgois, P. 1989. Crack in Spanish Harlem: Culture and Economy in the Inner City. Anthropology
Today, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 6-11.
 Bourgois, P. 2003. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
 Catanzaro, R. 1988. Men of Respect: a social history of the Sicilian Mafia. New York: The Free
Press.
 Chubb, J. 1996. The Mafia, the Market and the State in Italy and Russia. In Journal of Modern
Italian Studies, Volume 1, Issue 2 Spring 1996 , pp. 273 – 291.
 Pipyrou, S. 2010. Power, Governance and Representation: an anthropological analysis of kinship,
the ’Ndrangheta and dance within the Greek linguistic minority of reggio Calabria, South Italy.
PhD Thesis, Durham University. (Chapter seven, available online and in library).
 Pipyrou, S. 2010. Narrative of a Fine Day: on the cultural appropriation of violence. Anthropology
reviews: dissent and cultural politics (ARDAC). 1 (1). pp. 33-35. (available online).
 Schneider, J. and P. Schneider, 2002. The Mafia and al-Qaeda: Violent and Secretive
Organizations in Comparative and Historical Perspective. In American Anthropologist, New Series,
Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 776-782.
 Schneider, J. and P. Schneider. 2003. Reversible Destiny: Mafia, Antimafia, and the Struggle for
Palermo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Friday Debate Topic: Encountering Peculiar Gifts – Gifts In The 21st Century
WEEK 11
LECTURE 4: GLOBAL ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY
As societies around the world experience the most significant time of economic turmoil for
generations, how do anthropologists approach the study of intertwining global and local cultural
20
systems? Often definitions of the current economic crisis focus on macro-scale accounts of dramatic
bailouts and incomprehensible numbers. Such grand definitions seem to have become complacent
and over-ritualised. How can anthropologists study the effects of such a complex and ambiguous
time of uncertainty on the everyday lives of subjects in a variety of cultural contexts?
 Bowles, P. 2002. Asia’s Post-Crisis Regionalism: bringing the state back in, keeping the (United)
States out. In Review of International Political Economy, Volume 9, Number 2, pp: 230-256.
 Bratsis, P. 2003. Corrupt Compared to What: Greece, capitalist interests, and the specular purity
of the State. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. (available online).
 Goddard, V. 2006. This is history: Nation and experience in times of crisis – Argentina 2001. In
History and Anthropology, Volume 17, Number 3, pp: 267-286.
 Goddard, V. 2010. Two Sides of the Same Coin? World citizenship and local crisis in Argentina. In
Theodossopoulos, D. and E. Kirtsoglou. (eds.). 2010. United in Discontent: local responses to
cosmopolitanism and globalization. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
 Hart, K. and H. Ortiz. 2008. Anthropology in the financial crisis. In Anthropology Today, Volume
24, Number 6, pp: 1-3.
 Knight, D. M. 2011. Crisis and Prosperity: Status, Accountability and Time in Central Greece.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Durham University. (Chapter Nine, available online and in library).
 Knight, D. M. 2012. Cultural Proximity: Time and Social Memory in Central Greece. History and
Anthropology, Vol 23, No. 3, pp: 349-374.
 Müller, B. 2007. Disenchantment with Market Economies: East Germans and Western capitalism.
Oxford: Berghahn.
 Önis, Z. and B. Rubin. 2003. The Turkish Economy in Crisis. London: Routledge.
LECTURE 5: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
This lecture considers local constructions of ‘nature’ in governance processes, and the importance
of historical and institutional contexts for their genesis and functioning. To these challenges can be
added legacies of disempowerment and marginalization, evident in local inhabitants’ images and
concepts of nature.
 Argyrou, V. 2005. The Logic of Environmentalism: Anthropology, Ecology and Postcoloniality.
Oxford: Berghahn Books.
 Bell. S., Hampshire, K. and S. Topalidou. 2007. The Political Culture of Poaching: A case study
from northern Greece. Biodiversity and Conservation, Volume 16, pp. 399-418.
 Carrier, J. G., and P. West. (eds.). 2009. Virtualism, Governance and Practice: Vision and execution
in environmental conservation. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
 Heckler, S. 2009. (ed.). Landscape, Power and Process: Re-evaluating traditional environmental
knowledge. Oxford: Berghahn.
 Theodoospouplos, D. 2003. Troubles with Turtles: Cultural Understandings of the Environment
on a Greek Island. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
 van Assche, K., Bell, S and P. Teampau. 2012. Traumatic Nature of the Swamp: Concepts of
Nature in the Romanian Danube Delta. In Environmental Values, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp: 163-183.
LECTURE 6: TIME AND POLYTEMPORALITY
When discussing culturally significant events within the context of western European history, there
are episodes that may appear temporally distant or detached. However, some of these distant
events may become culturally close at specific historical moments. In this lecture we will challenge
previous conceptions of time as linear in relation to culture and nationalism. We will explore some
21
diverse theories of time and critically assess the notions of polytemporality and cultural proximity.
With specific cultural mediation, some past events are recalled as if they possess a contemporary
quality – they are culturally proximate. As an embodiment of past events, cultural proximity can be
facilitated by collective memory, objects and artefacts, nationalist rhetorics and the education
system.
 Fabian, J. 1983. Time and the Other: how anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia
University Press.
 Knight, D. M. 2012. Cultural Proximity: Time and Social Memory in Central Greece. History and
Anthropology, Vol 23, No. 3, pp: 349-374.
 Ricoeur, P. 1983. Time and Narrative: volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Serres, M. 1995. Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
 Stewart, C. 2012. Dreaming and Historical Consciousness in Island Greece. Harvard: Harvard
University Press.
 Sutton, D. 2001. Remembrance of Repasts: an anthropology of food and memory. Oxford: Berg.
 Sutton, D. 2011. Memory as a Sense: a gustemological approach. Food, Culture, Society, Volume
14, Issue 4, pp: 462-475.
Friday Film: TBC
22
TUTORIALS
TUTORIAL 1
"How did Rivers approach ethnographic data?"
• Rivers, "The primitive conception of death"
TUTORIAL 2
"How did Malinowski approach ethnographic data?"
• Malinowski, "Baloma"
TUTORIAL 3
Norms and structures. This tutorial explores the development of the idea of structure in social
anthropology between the 1930s and 1950s. Read the material by Metcalf, Wilson and Fortes
looking at how social anthropologists built up a normative picture of social behaviour especially
around kinship relationships.
• Metcalf, P. 2005. Anthropology the Basics, chapter 3.
• Wilson, M. 1951. ‘Witch‐beliefs and social structure’. American Journal of Sociology, 56.
• Fortes, M. ‘Primitive Kinship’ in Spradley (ed) Conformity and Conflict.
TUTORIAL 4
Process and development. The tutorial examines the adjustment and adaptation of social
structuralism to the need to analyse contingent processes of social action, on the one hand, and
large scale processes of development, on the other. In what ways did structural functionalism
help/hinder our understanding of the social?
• Firth, R. 1951. Elements of Social Organisation. Ch1: ‘The Meaning of Social Anthropology’.
• Sahlins, M. ‘Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief’. Comparative Studies in Society and History,
TUTORIAL 5
Reciprocity and gift exchange as a human universal. Levi‐Strauss (drawing on Mauss) argues for
reciprocity as the fundamental human universal. What are we to make of the universal capacity to
give and to receive – is exchange best understood cognitively, historically or in terms of social
structure (or all three?)
 Graeber, D. (n.d.) ‘On the Moral Ground of Economic Relations: A Maussian Approach’. English
version of a paper for special issue of La Revue du Mauss. K. Hart (ed.) (forthcoming).
http://openanthcoop.net/press/2010/11/17/on-the-moral-grounds-of-economic-relations/
 Levi‐Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. ChV, ‘The Principle of Reciprocity’.
 Metcalf, P. 2005. Anthropology, the basics. pp. 105‐114.
23
TUTORIAL 6
On the historically close relationship between anthropology and colonialism
In what ways was (or still is?) anthropology the right-hand-man of colonialism? You should review
and compare the arguments by Asad and Chakrabarty in this tutorial and try to familiarise yourself
with some of the key concepts of postcolonial theory. What challenges does the idea of
provincialising Europe present to anthropology? (it might be interesting to compare the idea of
Europe in Wolf and Chakrabarty).
 Asad, T. 2002. From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Anthropology of Western
Hegemony. In Joan Vincent (ed.). The Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in Ethnography,Theory,
and Critique. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Chakrabarty, D. 2000. Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History. In Provincialising Europe:
Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
The 1997 Edition Preface.
TUTORIAL 7
Foucault on Power and Governmentality
The concept of power is central to much contemporary political anthropology. In this tutorial we
shall assess the relevance of Foucault’s work on power and governmentality to contemporary
political uprisings such as the Arab Spring and information networks. Consider domains of
application for Foucault’s theories as presented in the readings.
 Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. London: Sage. pp9-39.
 Foucault, M. 2009. Security, Territory, Population. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and
other writings. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp1-29
 Foucault, M. 1991. ‘Governmentality’. In Burchell, G., C. Gordon and P. Miller. (eds.). The
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp87-104
 Greenhalgh, S. 2012. Weighty subjects: The biopolitics of the U.S. war on fat. American
Ethnologist, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 471-487.
TUTORIAL 8
This tutorial will focus on the contribution of feminist anthropology to the history of the discipline.
In particular, attention will fall on the feminist critique of classic oppositions in anthropological
writing: male and female, culture and nature, society and individual. Do all societies share these
orienting dichotomies? If not, then what problems does this cause for anthropological modes of
knowledge?
 Strathern, Marilyn. 1980. ‘No Nature, No Culture: the Hagen Case’. In C. MacCormack & M.
Strathern (eds.). Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
 Moore, Henrietta. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Polity [especially chps 1 & 2].
24
TUTORIAL 9
This tutorial will examine further the reflexive turn in anthropology in the late 1980s. What were
the consequences of anthropologists becoming aware of the autonomy of language and the
mediating role of text? What consequences did this have for ethnographic writing?
 Clifford, James 1986. ‘On ethnographic allegory’, In Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of
Ethnography Clifford & Marcus [eds]. University of California Press.
 Geertz, Clifford. 1988. ‘Being There: anthropology and the scene of writing’, in Works and Lives:
the Anthropologist as Author. Cambridge, Polity.
TUTORIAL 10
‘Illegal’ organisations
Is it ethical to conduct research among ‘illegal’ organisations such a drug dealers, gangs and
organised criminal syndicates? What should be done with the findings upon completion of the
research, should the authorities be involved and should anthropologists intervene/participate in
‘illegal’ activity? How can the study of illegal organisations assist our understanding of often
conflicting political narratives? Is understanding why people get involved with illegal activities a
good enough reason to condone such research?
 Bourgois, P. 1989. Crack in Spanish Harlem: Culture and Economy in the Inner City. Anthropology
Today, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 6-11.
 Schneider, J. and P, Schneider. 2008. The Anthropology of Crime and Criminalization. Annual
Review of Anthropology, Vol. 37, pp. 351-373
25
ESSAYS
Students must write TWO assessed essays for the module. The first essay question must be chosen
from the list below under Essay 1 (DEADLINE: 23:59 FRIDAY 19TH OCTOBER) The second essay
question must be chosen from the list below under Essay 2 (DEADLINE: 23:59 FRIDAY 16TH
NOVEMBER
Essays should be submitted via MMS: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/mms/
The word limit for each essay is between 1500-2000 words. Please make full use of ethnographic
examples.
ESSAY 1
1. Why was the shift from psychological to sociological explanation important in the
development of social anthropology?
2. How did the fact that anthropological fieldwork was invented by natural scientists affect
the future of the discipline?
3. Write a review of one of the following books, contextualizing it in terms of debates about
functionalism, structural functionalism and structuralism.
a/ Audrey Richards, Hunger and Work; b/ Raymond Firth, We the Tikopia; c/ Edward
Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer; d/ Edmund Leach, Political Systems of Highland Burma; e/
Meyer Fortes, Oedipus and Job; f/ Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.
4. How and why did time re-enter the analyses of social anthropologists after 1950? (discuss
using readings from the second week of lectures in this section)
5. Discuss the proposition that the trend in social anthropology between 1930 and 1960 was
from ethnographic fact-finding to abstract theory-building.
ESSAY 2
6. Critically contextualise the perceived mutual embrace between anthropology and
colonialism.
7. Through relevant ethnographic examples, discuss Foucault’s accounts of power and
governmentality. Assess why his work is so popular in contemporary political
anthropology.
8. How has feminist anthropology changed the terms of ethnographic description?
9. What was at stake in the Writing Culture debates?
10. EITHER: What distinctive ethical issues are raised by anthropological cooperation with the
military? Do these overlap ethical considerations in other types of anthropological
research? OR
What cultural and historical factors contributed to the severity of the Greek economic
crisis? Why must the Greek crisis be considered within both global and local contexts?
26
HINTS ON WRITING ESSAYS AND
EXAM ANSWERS
SA2001 is assessed as follows:
Two assessed essays, each 1500 to 2000 words in length, to be submitted by FRIDAY 19TH OCTOBER
and FRIDAY 16TH NOVEMBER. Each essay is worth 20% of the final mark.
One two‐hour long examination. The exam is worth 60% of the final mark.
Please note the following key points:
Essays should be typed and submitted via MMS (https://www.st‐andrews.ac.uk/mms/)
Essays should be properly referenced, especially direct quotations from books and articles, and a
bibliography should be attached. The bibliography should only contain items that have been specifically
referred to in the text. We strongly recommend that you follow the system explained in the last section
of this handbook. Consult your lecturer/tutor/supervisor if in doubt.
PLAGIARISM
Intentional plagiarism, i.e. the deliberate submission of someone else's work as though it were one's
own, is dishonest. But plagiarism may occur unintentionally through poor work practices, as students
may for example submit work that contains the words or ideas of others without realising that they
need proper acknowledgement. The University’s Academic Misconduct policy refers to actions rather
than intent, and a piece of work that contains plagiarised material will be subject to a penalty
irrespective of whether or not there was an intention to plagiarise. It is consequently very important
for you to understand how to avoid producing work that contains plagiarised material.
Note that copying and pasting material from a web site or book into a piece of written work without
due acknowledgement is likely to be regarded as plagiarism, even if it is just one sentence that is
copied.
While students are certainly expected to read the work of others, their written work should be in their
own words, and the sources of information they are using should be acknowledged in a footnote,
specific reference list, or bibliography depending on the subject's requirements. Merely changing a word
here and there through a copied paragraph is not enough either, and nor is taking the structure of
another person's article and rephrasing the argument (known as paraphrasing). If you wish to include
material from one of your sources word‐for‐word, then it should be included within quotation marks
and have its source clearly stated. You will lose marks if you copy out passages from books or articles
and pass them off as your own, words (i.e. brief passages, are permitted provided they are put in
inverted commas and the author and page reference is added). You will also lose marks if you copy
another student's essay. Flagrant offences will lead to zero marks for the assessment.
Plagiarism can also occur if students copy material from one or more other students. We point out that
allowing someone to copy your work is also an offence under this University’s policy, so both the copier
and the original author may face proceedings.
27
Likewise, re‐using your own work when it has already been submitted, in Social Anthropology or
another discipline, in this University or elsewhere, and passing it as new work for either the same or
another module, is also considered an unacceptable practice in the Department of Social Anthropology
and is usually referred to as ‘self‐plagiarism’. This applies to fragments of a piece of work as much as to
whole pieces of work. Whilst making connections across modules is unavoidable and in some cases may
even be encouraged, you should not try to pass ‘old’ work as ‘new’. If you think it is necessary to refer
to a previous piece of work that you have submitted, you should acknowledge this and reference it. If
you are ever in doubt as to what is allowed, please ask the teaching staff associated with the assignment.
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
The University defines academic misconduct as including, among other things, the presentation of
material as one’s own when it is not one’s own; the presentation of material whose origin is
academically inappropriate; and inappropriate behaviour in an examination or class test. It includes any
work that is submitted for informal feedback and evaluation.
The University will use all available means to detect academic misconduct including the use of Turnitin
plagiarism detection software. Academic misconduct is completely unacceptable in this University and
will be treated severely. Repeated offences will lead to expulsion from the University. The University
Code is published at:
http://foi.st‐andrews.ac.uk/PublicationScheme/servlet/core.generator.gblobserv?id=1030
Please check the following link for additional information:
www.standrews.ac.uk/staff/policy/tlac/academicmisconduct/avoidingallegations/#d.en.52465
ESSAY WRITING
1. Writing an essay or report is an exercise in the handling of ideas. It is not the mere transcription of
long and irrelevant passages from textbooks. To gain a pass mark, an essay or report must show
evidence of hard thinking (ideally, original thinking) on the student's part.
2. When a lecturer sets you an essay or report he or she is explicitly or implicitly asking you a question.
Above all else your aim should be to discern what that question is and to answer it. You should give it a
cursory answer in the first paragraph (introduction), thus sketching your plan of attack. Then in the body
of the essay or report you should give it a detailed answer, disposing in turn of all the points that it has
raised. And at the end (conclusion) you should give it another answer, i.e. a summary of your detailed
answer. Note If the question has more than one part you should dedicate equal attention to each one.
3. An essay or report must be based on a sound knowledge of the subject it deals with. This means that
you must read. If you are tempted to answer any question off the top of your head, or entirely from
your own personal experience or general knowledge, you are asking for trouble.
4. Make brief notes as you read, and record the page references. Don't waste time by copying out long
quotations. Go for the ideas and arrange these on paper. Some people find that arranging ideas in
diagrams and tables makes them easier to remember and use than verbal passages. You will find it
easier to do this if you keep certain questions in mind: What is the author driving at? What is the
argument? Does it apply only to a particular society, or are generalised propositions being made? How
well do the examples used fit the argument? Where are the weaknesses? Also think about the wider
implications of an argument. Copy the actual words only if they say something much more aptly than
you could say yourself. It is a good plan to write notes on the content of your reading in blue and your
own comments on them in red. There is another aspect of your reading which should go hand in hand
with the assessment of any one item: you should compare what you have read in different books and
articles. Test what one author proposed against evidence from other societies: what do the different
approaches lend to one another? In this way you should begin to see the value (and the problems) of
28
comparison and learn that writers disagree and write contradictory things, and that all printed matter is
not indisputable just because it lies between hard covers. Note that as well as showing evidence of
reading of set texts, good answers link the essay topic back to material given in lectures or tutorials. You
can also gain marks by including additional reading, providing it is clear from your essay that you have
actually read it!
5. Don't then sit down and write the essay or report. Plan it first. Give it a beginning, a middle, and an
ending. Much of the information you will have collected will have to be rejected because it isn't relevant.
Don't be tempted to include anything that hasn't a direct bearing on the problem expressed in the title
of the essay or report. Note that in the introductory paragraph it is a good idea to make it absolutely
clear to the reader exactly what you understand by certain crucial concepts you will be discussing in the
essay ‐these concepts will probably be those which appear in the essay title. Define these concepts if
you think there may be any ambiguity about them. Note also that when you give examples to illustrate a
point be careful not to lose track of the argument. Examples are intended to illustrate a general (usually
more abstract) point; they are not a substitute for making this point.
6. When you finally start on the essay or report, please remember these points:
(a) Leave wide margins and a space at the end for comments. Any work that is illegible, obviously too
long or too short, or lacking margins and a space at the end will be returned for re‐writing. Essays should
be typed, preferably on one side of the paper and double‐spaced.
(b) Append a bibliography giving details of the material you have read and cited in the essay. Arrange it
alphabetically by author and by dates of publication. Look at the Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute as an example of the style of presenting a bibliography.
N.B. In the body of the essay or report, whenever you have occasion to support a statement by
reference to a book or article, give in brackets the name of the author and date. To acknowledge a
quotation or a particular observation, the exact page number should be added. For example, 'Shortly
after the publication of The Andaman Islanders, Radcliffe‐Brown drew attention to the importance of
the mother's brother (Radcliffe‐Brown 1924). What kindled his interest in the South African material
was the pseudo‐historical interpretation of Henri Junod (Radcliffe‐Brown 1952: 15) ...........' If you are
not sure how to do this, look in the journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute or some monograph in
the library to get an idea of how this is done. Alternatively, footnote your references. Note that if you
simply copy a writer's words into your essay without acknowledgement you will lose marks, and could
even receive a zero mark.
7. Footnotes should be placed either at the foot of each page, or all together at the end. If on each page,
they should be numbered consecutively from the beginning of each chapter, e.g. 1‐22. If placed all
together at the end, they should be numbered consecutively throughout the whole research project, e.g.
1‐103, in which case do not start renumbering for each chapter.
8. Footnote references in the text should be clearly designated by means of superior figures, placed
after punctuation, e.g. ................the exhibition. 10
9. Underlining (or italics) should include titles of books and periodical publications, and technical terms
or phrases not in the language of the essay, (e.g. urigubu, gimwali).
10. Italicize: ibid., idem., op.cit., loc.cit., and passim.
11. Single inverted commas should be placed at the beginning and end of quotations, with double
inverted commas for quotes‐within‐quotes.
12. If quotations are longer than six typed lines they should be indented, in which case inverted commas
are not needed.
29
13. PLEASE TRY TO AVOID GENDER‐SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. Don't write he/him when you could be
referring to a woman! You can avoid this problem by using plurals (they/them).
Referencing:
Correct referencing is a critical aspect of all essays. It is the primary skill that you are expected to learn
and it also guards you against the dangers of plagiarism. Make sure that when you are reading texts that
you note down accurately the source of information by recording the name of the author, the book title,
page number and so forth. This will enable you to reference correctly when it comes to writing your
essay. Adequate referencing requires you to indicate in the appropriate places in body of your essay the
source of any information you may use. Such references vary in kind, but a general guide to the correct
format would be: A general reference: … as Turnbull’s (1983) work demonstrates …
… the romanticisation of Pygmies has been commonplace in anthropology (e.g. Turnbull 1983) …
Note: In this example, the author is referring to Turnbull’s work in a general way. If the author was
referring to specific ideas or details made by Turnbull, then the page number needs to be specified. A
paraphrase: … Turnbull describes how the Ituri Forest had remained relatively untouched by colonialism
(Turnbull 198 3: 24) …
Note: This is more specific than a general reference as it refers to a particular point or passage by an
author. It is your summary of a point made by someone else (in this case Turnbull). When paraphrasing,
you must always include the page number in your reference. A quotation: … under these circumstances,
“the Mbuti could always escape to the forest” (Turnbull 1983: 85).
Note: All quotes from anyone else’s work must be acknowledged and be placed within speech marks.
The page number or numbers must be referenced. If you need to alter any of the words within the
quote to clarify your meaning, the words changed or added should be placed in square brackets [thus]
to indicate that they are not those of the original author.
Bibliography:
All tests referenced within the body of your essay must be included within the bibliography. Entries in
the bibliography should be organised in alphabetical order and should contain full publication details.
Consult an anthropological journal, such as the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (JRAI), to
see how the correct format should appear. This is available both electronically and in hard copy. The
standard format of bibliographic referencing is as follows:
Book:
Turnbull, C.M. 1983. The Mbuti Pygmies: Change and Adaptation. New York, Holt Reinhart and Wilson.
Edited Collection:
Leacock, E. & R. Lee (eds) 1982. Politics and History in Band Societies. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Chapter in edited collection:
Woodburn. J.C. (1980). Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past. In Soviet and
western anthropology (ed.) E. Gellner. London: Duckworth.
Journal article:
Ballard, C. 2006. Strange alliance: Pygmies in the colonial imaginary. World Archaeology,38, 1, 133 151.
Web pages:
It is unadvisable to use web sites unless directed to them by a lecturer. There is a great deal of rubbish
30
on the Internet. However, if you do, it is important that you provide full details of the web‐page address
as well as the date on which the page was accessed.
Miller, J.J. 2000, Accessed 22/09/2006. The Fierce People: The wages of anthropological incorrectness.
Article available electronically at: http://www.nationalreview.com/20nov00/miller112000.shtml.
If you are not sure how to do this, look in the journal JRAI or some monograph in the library to get an
idea of how this is done. Alternatively, footnote your references. Note that if you simply copy a writer's
words into your essay without acknowledgement you run the risk of plagiarism and will lose marks,
and may even receive a zero mark.
8. Please also note the following:
(a) Spellings, grammar, writing style. Failure to attend to these creates a poor impression. Note,
especially: society, argument, bureaucracy.
(b) Foreign words: Underline (or italicize) these, unless they have passed into regular English.
(c) PLEASE TRY TO AVOID GENDER‐SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. Don't write he/him when you could be referring
to a woman! You can avoid this problem by using plurals (they/them).
31