Paper One

Due: Monday Oct 7, midnight, Moodle upload

Length and Format: 3-4 pages, double-spaced, 1 inch margins all around, 12 point fonts. Please spellcheck. They should be well-organized, with a clear argument supported by evidence from readings.

Citation: Note that you are expected to use anthropological citation for all papers in this class, which uses parenthesis directly after a quote or a close paraphrase: Author last name, year of publication, page number (ex. Boas 1932, 253). See the detailed introduction under 211 assignment resources (Course requirements link).

Historicization: Please give date of publication after each first mention of a text; ie., Ancient Society (1877), and give life dates after all first mentions of a deceased theorist's name; i.e., Franz Boas (1858-1942).

Evaluation (see Anth 211 Paper Criteria handout): I will evaluate and respond to papers based on (in order of priority):

  1. Degree to which you respond to the assignment and incorporate ideas and issues from class materials in your discussion;
  2. Extent to which you demonstrate clear understanding of basic terms presented in the course;
  3. the creativity and originality of your ideas
  4. The clarity of your organization and writing

Topic: In these first weeks of the semester you have been introduced to anthropology through a variety of critiques of the discipline's history, main methods and theoretical frameworks. In this brief analysis, apply the critique of/approach to anthropological theory and method in one of the following pieces of Group 1: Firmin, Meyers, Harrison, Moses, Trouillot, Fabian, Simpson, Boas or Sapir, to one or more of the following ethnographers of Group 2: Morgan, Simpson, Malinowski, Hurston, Harrison. Note this is not a compare-and-contrast exercise. Ask instead, what would a Group 1 theorist [Firmin or Harrison or Trouillot or Fabian or Boas or Sapir] say about one or more of the Group 2 ethnographers [Malinowski or Morgan or Simpson, or Hurston or Harrison's ethnography]? Some questions you should consider as you brainstorm would be: 

  • What do Firmin, Meyers, Moses, Harrison, Trouillot, Fabian, Simpson, Boas or Sapir think are the main pitfalls and problems with anthropological method and theory?
  • What do they suggest as an alternative?
  • How might this criticism or the suggested alternatives apply or not to the writings of the ethnographers we have read so far (Morgan, Simpson, Malinowski, Hurston, Harrison)?
    In this, consider:
  • How do theorists or ethnographers view the status of the discipline as a "science"?
  • What are the main goals of anthropological inquiry?
  • How do they define and discover their principle "data"?
  • What are their main analytic "tools" (i.e., concepts, terms)?
  • If they use the term (Morgan doesn't), How do they conceptualize the role of "culture" and the "cultural other"? If not, how do they conceptualize similarities and differences between groups of people and for what reasons/agendas?

An ideal paper would develop an argument or a thesis about how these theories/critiques apply or not to your chosen anthropologist. And your arguments would be well-supported by specific references (paraphrases, direct quotes), properly cited, to the texts.

Sample outline

1) Intro paragraph:

  • Say which theorist and ethnographer(s) you are working with and why, open with a compelling statement about the main critique or stakes of the theorist's arguments.
  • End the paragraph with an explicit thesis statement how this critique/approach applies or not to your chosen anthropologist.

2) Discussion of the theorist you will use to critique:

  • Your theory synopsis of your chosen theorist/critic: One to two paragraphs laying out the main goals and terms or stakes of the theorist's arguments and critique.
  • Use a few brief, direct quotes to support your arguments and define any key terms.

3) Transition statement to the ethnographer you are discussing/critiquing:

  • Reiterate why or how the critique applies are not in an opening statement, then illustrate by explicating the ethnographer's approach or main goals.
  • Illustrate with specific examples and some direct quotes.
  • Bring back the first theorist with explicit references to their critique and terms to show how they apply.

4) Concluding paragraph:

  • State again the stakes of this critique: what are the implications?