Download Anthropology 500, History of Anthropological

Anthropology 500, History of Anthropological Thought. (term 1)
Sept. – Dec. 2004. Wednesday 2:00-5:00pm.
Instructor:
Dr. Charles Menzies
Office:
Rm 141 AnSo Building
E-mail:
[email protected]
Phone:
822-2240
Web page:
http://www.charlesmenzies.ca
Course Overview:
The history of any social institution, body of thought, or culture can be thought of in two particular
ways: (1) as the progression of specific internal events –i.e. the history of anthropology as the genealogy of
specific thinkers/ethnographers and their students, and (2) as embedded within wider social processes, i.e
imperialism, nation building, civil rights movement, etc.. In this course we will explore development of
anthropological theory from both vantage points.
Course Aims and Objectives:
The aims of this course are to enable students to:
1. develop your understanding of anthropology in terms of the people, schools, and theoretical
models that have been instrumental in shaping the canonical texts.
2. locate the historical development of anthropology as a discipline within the context of wider
historical processes, such late 19th century colonial expansion and industrial development,
nation building in the Americas, post-world war II decolonisation, and late 20th century socioeconomic transformations.
3. evaluate the mechanisms by which marginal voices have been excluded from the mainstream
of the discipline.
Recommended background text – term 1.
•
Thomas C. Patterson. 2001. A Social History of Anthropology in the United States. New
York: Berg Publishing.
Evaluation Profile (term 1)
Assignment
Marks
Participation in class
20 marks
Reflective mini-essays (5)
10 marks
In-class presentations (2)
20 marks
Term paper (due Nov. 13, 2013)
50 marks
Total
100 marks
Note: final grade is average of term 1 & term 2.
Important things to know
There are several things that you will find important to know before you begin the course. Some of these
items are of the order of ‘rules of engagement,’ others are preferences, and some simply good ideas for you
to consider.
Laptops, cell phones, and any other form of electronic recording or communication device will not be
permitted in our class for any purpose without explicit and prior approval from your instructor.
There are good reasons for some people with documented learning profiles to use laptops to take notes
rather than using pen and paper. However, for most people the art and craft of writing notes by hand still
remains a critical practice to engage in. As potential and aspiring anthropologists you will find yourself in
locations in which the only way to take notes is by paper and pen. Please consider this to be a practicing
ground for those circumstances. There are no good reasons (under normal circumstances) to use a cell
phone in class.
Critique vs comprehension. As practitioners of the liberal arts we have done a great job over the course of
several decades teaching ourselves (and our students) the art and thrust of trenchant critique. What we
have ignored is the capacity to fully and completely comprehend that which we are critiquing. In this
course our first task is comprehension. From there we will try to place our selves in the shoes of the writer
whose work we are reading. Only after we have fully mastered their work will we move forward to the
possibility of critique. Be mindful that effective critique fundamentally relies upon comprehension.
Collaborative learning. There is a lot of reading to accomplish in this course. To master the materials and
to be able to function at your best level you will need to develop some collaborative learning techniques.
At CUNY, where I did my own doctoral work, there existed a well-established tradition of collaborative
learning. Students would form work groups of 3 to 5 participants and share the responsibilities for reading
the material and preparing short summary annotations on each reading. Every week, outside of our class,
our informal reading groups would meet and we would discuss the week’s topic and assigned pieces.
Assignment Guide
Assignment and Grading Policy
Late Policy: circumstances beyond one’s control may at times make it difficult for a student to hand a
particular assignment in on time. In such cases, a student should speak with the instructor in advance of
the deadline to discuss a modest extension. Assignments handed in late without prior approval or after the
date of a pre-arranged extension will be docked 1 mark per day late. If a student is facing personal or
health issues that are affecting their ability in one or more courses they should speak with my and the
Department Graduate Advisor ASAP.
Academic Honesty: This is a zero tolerance zone for academic dishonesty. As senior undergraduate
students it is expected that you understand fully your responsibility to engage in ethical behaviour. If you
have any doubts please review the university policies regarding academic misconduct as published at
http://tinyurl.com/35k6sr2. The Faculty of Arts has an excellent outline of plagiarism and how to avoid
it: http://tinyurl.com/3am9sh2
Participation (20 marks)
Overview: Participation is an important aspect of the learning environment for this course. Students are
expected to be prepared to participate fully in classroom activities including, but not restricted to, small
group discussions, problem solving-sessions, and overall good citizenship as an engaged respectful
collegue.
Evaluation Criteria: the chart below outlines the evaluation criteria that are being used in this course to
determine participation grades. In assigning these grades peer and self-assessment will be used in
conjunction with the instructor’s assessment.
2
Mark
20
Category
Outstanding
16
Very Good
12
Adequate
10
Minimal
1
Poor
Criteria
Continually encouraging and supportive of others, very active leadership and
interpersonal skills. Volunteers, facilitates the learning of others. 100% punctual
attendance and on-time assignment completion. Excellent attitude and effort.
Demonstrates leadership and active support with colleagues. Near 100% punctual
attendance. Assignments completed on-time. Positive attitude and high level of effort.
Works well with others, willing to contribute toward class discussion. Only 2 sessions
non-punctual/non-attendance. Completed assignments on-time. Satisfactory effort and
attitude.
Little contribution and support given during class processes. More than 2-3 sessions of
non- punctual/non-attendance. An assignment not completed on time. Motivation and
initiative low. Minimal effort.
Zero contribution and support given during class processes. Poor punctual and
attendance record. Assignments not completed on-time. Attitude, participation and
effort do not meet acceptable standard.
Reflective Mini-Essays (10 marks)
Each semester, you are expected to submit in class at least five reaction papers about the readings of weeks
of your choosing (except the readings of the week when you are presenting).
Objectives for reflective mini-essays are:
1. to reflect on the material presented in readings and discussions.
2. to demonstrate comprehension of materials
3. develop critical insight
4. to engage in a process of self-evaluation
Instructions for reflective mini-essays: Write a short essay (500-750 words – like a blog entry) in which
you reflect upon and critically appraise what you have learned - no longer than one page, double-spaced.
Use the following questions as a reflective guideline: What have I learned this week? What were the key
concepts presented? How are these concepts linked to ethnographic data (or not, as the case maybe)?
Does this new information make sense to me? And, How might I apply this knowledge in a novel/different
situation? The point is not to “summarize” the readings but to draft reflexive, engaged notes on themes,
ideas, and/or problems you encountered in the texts. Five reflective mini-essays are required.
Evaluation criteria for reflective mini-essays:
A range -all reflective mini-essays completed on time. Each item clearly demonstrate critical selfreflection and contain an element of originality, indicating a high quality of thought.
B range -one or two mini-essays missing or late. They are of a consistently good quality, though
lacking the originality of an ‘A’ reflection.
C range -three mini-essays missing or late. Inadequate and/or inappropriate use of source material
without proper citation. Adequately meet the requirements.
D range –four reflective mini-essays missing or late. Largely off topic. Inadequate and/or
inappropriate use of source material without proper citation.
F range -all reflective mini-essays missing or late. Does not meet the minimum requirements.
Inadequate and/or inappropriate use of source material without proper citation.
Individual presentations
Two per semester: 10% per presentation (20% total). Presentations should be brief, 10 minutes long max.
You are not expected to summarize the readings but, rather: a) to draw a general contrast/comparison
between the various themes emerging from that week and b) briefly reflect on the main ideas you draw
from this particular set of readings, and c) pose questions for discussion in class.
3
Essay (50 marks)
You will develop you research paper topics in consultation with the instructor. The primary objective is to
explore an aspect of the course in greater detail then can be covered directly in class.
For those interested in improving their writing a good reference text is Howard Becker’s Writing for Social
Sciences. This is an informative and engaging text that should be considered an essential book in every
student’s library.
Formatting instructions. Please use a standard font (such as Times New Roman) with a minimum font size
of 12. Use standard margins (for example, top/bottom = 1”, left/right =1.25”). Papers are to be double
spaced and no longer than 15 pages (~4,500 words). The length limit is a fixed cap; it is not a target.
The goal is to write an effective research paper that conforms to the structural formatting constraints. Extra
words do not equal extra quality.
4
Readings and Seminar Topics
Week 1: Introductions
• Thomas C. Patterson. 2001. A Social History of Anthropology in the United States. New York:
Berg Publishing.
Week 2: Anthropology and Colonialism
• Asad, Talal 1973 Introduction. In Talal Asad, ed. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Pp. 919. London: Ithaca Press.
• Hymes, Dell 1969 Introduction. The Use of Anthropology: Critical, Political, Personal. In Dell
Hymes, ed. Reinventing Anthropology. Pp. 3-79. New York: Pantheon Books.
• James, Wendy 1973 The Anthropologist as Reluctant Imperialist. In Talal Asad, ed. Anthropology
and the Colonial Encounter. Pp. 41-69. London: Ithaca Press.
• Gough, Kathleen. 1968. “New Proposals for Anthropologists.” Current Anthropology 9(5):403-7.
(also called: “Anthropology and Imperialism, published in Monthly Review)
• Remy, Ansele. 1976. “Anthropology: For Whom and What?” The Black Scholar, Vol. 7, No. 7,
Black Social Science (April 1976), pp. 12-16.
• Menzies, Charles R. 2001. “Reflections on research with, for, and among Indigenous peoples.”
Canadian Journal of Native Education. Vol. 25(1):19-36.
Week 3: Creating the ‘Field’ & the ‘Methods’ of Anthropology: Cushing, Barbeau and Malinowski.
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton (edited by Jesse Green). 1979. Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank
Hamilton Cushing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. “My adventures in Zuni,” Pp. 46-134.
• Duff, Wilson (1964) "Contributions of Marius Barbeau to West Coast Ethnology." Anthropologica
(new series), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 63-96.
• Nurse, Andrew. 2006. “Marius Barbeau and the Methodology of Salvage Ethnography in
Canada, 1911-51.” In Julia Harrison and Regna Darnell (Eds) Historicizing Canadian
Anthropology. Vancouver: UBC Press. Pp. 52-64.
• Halpin, Marjorie 1978 "William Beynon, ethnographer" in American Indian Intellectuals: 1976
Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul): 141-156.
• Malinowski, Bronislaw 1964 (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge &
Keegan Paul. Introduction: The Subject, Method and Scope of this Inquiry. (pp. 1-25) and Chapter
III: The Essentials of the Kula (pp. 82-104).
• Kuper, Adam 1983 Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School. Second
edition. Chapter 1: Malinowski (pp. 1-35).
• Stocking Jr., George 1983 The Ethnographer’s Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology from
Tylor to Malinowski. In Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork, George
Stocking Jr. ed. Pp. 70-120. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Week 4: Creating the ‘Discipline’ I: Franz Boas & Americanist Anthropology
• Boas, Franz. 1896. “The Limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology.” In Race,
Language, and Culture.” New York: Free Press. 1940. Pp. 270-280.
• Boas, Franz. 1895. “The Growth of Indian Mythologies.” In Race, Language, and Culture.” New
York: Free Press. 1940. Pp. 425-445.
• Boas, Franz. 1896. The Growth of the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl.” In Race, Language, and
Culture. New York: Free Press. 1940. Pp. 379-383.
• Boas, Franz. 1902. “Some Problems in North American Archaeology.” American Journal
•
•
of Archaeology, Vol. 6, No. 1:1-6.
Boas, Franz. 1916. Eugenics. The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 3, No. 5:471-478.
Lesser, Alexander 2004(1981). “Franz Boas.” In Sydel Silverman (Ed). Totems and Teachers:
Key Figures in the History of Anthropology 2nd Edition. Toronto: Altimira Press. Pp.1-23.
5
Week 5: Creating the ‘Discipline’ II: The British School (Structure & Function)
• Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald 1952 Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York:
The Free Press. Chapter 9: On the Concept of Function in Social Science (pp. 178-187) and
Chapter 10: On Social Structure (pp. 188-204).
• Evans-Pritchard The Nuer.
• Leach, Edmund 1964 (1954) Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social
Structure. London: The Athlone Press. Introduction (pp. 1-17) and Chapter 6: Gumlao and Gumsa
(pp. 197-212).
• Max Gluckman. 1958. Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
• Max Gluckman. Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa. London: Cohen and West. “Rituals of
Rebellion in South East Africa.” Pp. 110-136.
• Kuper, Adam. 1983. Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Chapter 6: Leach and Gluckman. Pp. 142-166.
Week 6: Creating the ‘Discipline’ III: The French Ethnographic Tradition
• Artaud, A. The Theater and Its Double. Trans. M.C. Richards. New York: Grove
• Press, 1985.
• Clifford, James. Predicament of Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. Chapters 2,
4, & 5.
• Lévi-Strauss, C. Tristes Tropiques. Trams. J. and D. Weightman. New York: Atheneum, 1984.
• Derrida, Jacques. Structure, Sign, and Play. In Writing and Difference. Trans. A. Bass. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1978.
• Derrida, J. Of Grammatology. Trans. G. Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
[1967. Part Two, Chapter One, Violence and the Letter.
Week 7: Structure, Order, and Exchange
• Durkheim, Emile. 1895(1982) The Rules of Sociological Method. Edited and with an Introduction
by Steven Lukes. Toronto: The Free Press. (selections).
• Durkheim, Emile. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. (selections).
• Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Suicide. (selections).
• Marks, Stephen R. 1974. “Durkheim's Theory of Anomie.” American Journal of Sociology , Vol.
80, No. 2, pp. 329-363
• Mauss, Marcel 1990 (1923) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies.
London: Routledge.
Week 8: Is there a Canadian Anthropology?
• Harrison, Julia and Regna Darnell. 2006. “Historicizing Traditions in Canadian Anthropology.”
In Harrison & Darnell (Eds). Historicizing Canadian Anthropology. Vancouver: UBC Press. Pp.
3-18
• Howes, David. 1990. What is Good for Anthropology in Canada? Nexus. Vol. 7 (supplement):3348.
• Howes, David. 2006. “Constituting Canadian Anthropology.” In Harrison & Darnell (Eds).
Historicizing Canadian Anthropology. Vancouver: UBC Press. Pp. 200-11.
• Dunk, Thomas. 2000. “National Culture, Political Economy and Socio-Cultural Anthropology in
English Canada.” Anthropologica , Vol. 42(2):131-145
• Graburn, Nelson H.H.. 2006. “Canadian Anthropology and the Cold War.” In Harrison & Darnell
(Eds). Historicizing Canadian Anthropology. Vancouver: UBC Press. Pp. 242-52.
• Whittaker, Elvi and Michael M. Ames. 2006. “Anthropology and Sociology at the University of
British Columbia from 1947 to the 1980s. In Harrison & Darnell (Eds). Historicizing Canadian
Anthropology. Vancouver: UBC Press. Pp. 157-72.
6
Week 9: Anthropology and Marx’s Legacy (I): Labour, Production, and Estrangement
• Marx, Karl. 1954 Capital Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers. (selections).
• Marx, Karl 1973 (1857-58) Grundrisse. New York: Penguin. Introduction. 1. Production,
Consumption, Distribution, Exchange (Circulation) (pp. 83-111).
• Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1848. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
(selection).
• Roseberry, William 1997 Marx and Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 25-46.
• O'Laughlin, Bridget. 1975. Marxist Approaches in Anthropology Annual Review of
Anthropology, Vol. 4:341-370.
Week 10: Anthropology and Marx’s Legacy (II): Power and Ideology
• Marx, Karl and Fredrik Engels 1969 (1846) The German Ideology. Chapter 1: Feuerbach. In Marx
and Frederick Engels. Selected Works in three volumes (vol I). Moscow: Progress Publishers. Pp.
16-80.
• Marx, Karl and Fredrik Engels 1992 (1848) The Communist Manifesto. In Marx and Frederick
Engels. Selected Works in three volumes (vol I). Moscow: Progress Publishers. Pp. 108-137.
• Williams, Raymond 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ideology
(pp. 55-71), Base and Superstructure (pp. 75-82), Determination (pp. 83-89).
• Roseberry, William 1989. Anthropologies and Histories: Essays in Culture, History and Political
Economy. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press. Chapter 2: Marxism and
Culture (Pp. 30-54).
• Wolf, Eric. 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkeley: University
of California Press. Introduction & Contested Concepts. Pp.1-67.
Week 11: Interpretive Anthropology: Geertz.
• Geertz, Clifford 1983 Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Chapter 3: “From The Native’s
Point of View”: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding (pp. 55-70).
• Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Chapter 1: Thick
Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture (pp. 1-30), and Chapter 15: Notes on the
Balinese Cockfight (pp. 412-453)..
• Marcus, George and Michael Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental
Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “Ethnography and
Interpretive Anthropology” Pp. 17-44.
• Roseberry, William 1989. Anthropologies and Histories: Essays in Culture, History and Political
Economy. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press. Chapter 1: Balinese Cockfights
and the Seduction of Anthropology (pp. 17-29).
Week 11: Engaging with Gender: Second Wave Feminism & Anthropology
• Leacock, Eleanor. 1972 Introduction. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by
Frederick Engels. Pp. 7-67. New York: International.
• Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.” In
Rayna Reiter (Ed) Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press. Pp.
157-210.
• Sacks (Brodkin), Karen. 1974. “Engels Revisited: Women, the Organization of Production, and
Private Property. In Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (Eds), Women, Culture,
and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pp. 207-222.
• Ortner, Sherry. 1974. “Is Female to Male as nature is to Culture?” In Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo
and Louise Lamphere (Eds), Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pp. 67-88.
• Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko and Jane Fishborne Collier. 1987. “Toward a Unified Analysis of
Gender and Kinship.” In Collier & Yanagisako (Eds). Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a
Unified Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pp. 14-50.
• Moore, Henrietta. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. London: Polity Press. “Gender and
Status” and Kinship, Labour and Household: understanding women’s work.” Pp. 12- 72.
7
Week 13: Engaging with History: Political Economies
• Wolf, Eric 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: California University Press.
Preface, Chapter 1: Introduction (pp. 1-23), Chapter 3: Modes of Production (pp. 73-100), and
Chapter 11: The Movement of Commodities (pp. 310-353).
• Mintz, Sidney 1985 Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York:
Penguin. Introduction (Pp. xv-xxx).
• Mintz, Sidney 1974 Caribbean Transformations. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins
University Press. Chapter 11: Caribbean Nationhood: An Anthropological Perspective (Pp. 302328).
• Taussig, Michael 1989 History as Commodity: In Some Recent American (Anthropological)
Literature. Critique of Anthropology 9 (1): 7-23.
• Mintz, Sidney and Eric Wolf 1989 Reply to Michael Taussig. Critique of Anthropology 9 (1): 25
8