* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ANTHROPOLOGY 4400E ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHT (HOW
Survey
Document related concepts
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
History of the social sciences wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Frankfurt School wikipedia , lookup
Class conflict wikipedia , lookup
Social class wikipedia , lookup
History of anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Legal anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Ethnoscience wikipedia , lookup
Ethnography wikipedia , lookup
Social anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
ANTHROPOLOGY 4400E ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHT (HOW TO THINK LIKE AN ANTHROPOLOGIST) SEPTEMBER 2012 INSTRUCTOR: OFFICE: OFFICE HOURS: PHONE: E-MAIL: TIME/PLACE T.A.: E-MAIL OFFICE HOURS Regna Darnell Social Science Centre 3329 Monday 1-2:00 (whenever office door is open or by appointment) 519-661-2111 X85087 [email protected] Monday 2:30-5:30, UCC 60 Joshua Smith [email protected] Monday 1:30-2:30 REQUIRED TEXTS: I have ordered the following texts: Edmund Leach, Political Systems of Highland Burma (London School of Economics and Political Science 1954) E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford 1937) Robert Desjarlais, Shelter Blues (Pennsylvania 1997) E. Valentine Daniel, Charred Lullabies (Princeton 1998) Julie Cruikshank, Do Glaciers Listen? (UBC 2005) Harry West, Ethnographic Sorcery (Chicago 2007) Michael Fischer, Anthropological Futures (Duke 2009) Some of these may be available on-line. Further shorter readings may be made available as we proceed. PLAN OF THE COURSE: This is a heavy reading load, particularly in the first semester, both in quantity and in density of argument. These ethnographies are all magnificent books that repay careful and critical reading. You should aim to develop expertise in figuring out what the author is up to rather than trying to recall every detail. To “read” a book is to extract from it what you need to know for your own purposes, including those of this course. Note that the “critical” in critique or critical theory is not necessarily negative, although is it usually addressed to changing the way things are done or thought about, whether in the academy or in the world beyond it. Contemporary theory across the social sciences and humanities can be FUN, especially in its deliberate use of unconventional and nonliteral forms of representation. Anthropologists have had to learn how to read such material as well as to write more lucidly and playfully themselves. We will develop these skills of critical thinking in both reading and writing, during the first semester through class discussion and three short papers (5-8 pages) based on the readings. Each ethnography will be discussed for two class sessions. A paper on one of each pair of ethnographies will be due in class one week after the discussion on the set is completed. You are not expected to read additional materials for these papers, although you may incorporate (with proper citation) anything else that you think is relevant to your argument. The first two readings (Evans-Pritchard and Leach) are ethnographic classics that set out the relationship between ethnography and theory for modern professional anthropology. The second pair deals with the ethnography of violence (Daniel) and marginalization (Desjarlais), allowing us to explore the foundation of our discipline in relation to issues of social justice. The third set (Cruikshank and West) raises issues of cross-cultural differences in what and how we know (epistemology) and the status of superficially incommensurable belief systems as reality (ontology). The reading of these ethnographies will set up the second term work of integrating interdisciplinary theory with anthropological thought by means of the ethnographic enterprise at the core of our discipline. We will take for granted that anthropology itself is always already interdisciplinary. In considering how to write ethnography that interrogates the assumptions and conclusions of other social scientists and humanities scholars, we must also address the history of anthropology (both the strengths and weaknesses of its national traditions, theoretical paradigms, institutional frameworks, scholars and their social networks). All of these ethnographies engage in dialogue with theories and theorists as well as with ethnographic subjects. Anthropology today is not isolated from other scholarly and public discourses. Familiarity with the terms and the players is essential to joining this ongoing conversation. We will be concerned with reading skills, close textual analysis, and coherent argument in developing your own personal critical standpoint. There are few right or wrong answers. The exceptions are racism, sexism, homophobia and any other positions overtly or implicitly disrespectful of individuals or groups. We will attempt to identify the unwanted baggage from prior theories, e.g, of social evolution or environmental determinism, and judgments implicit in what linguistic anthropologist Jane Hill calls “everyday racism.” This openendedness may be frustrating initially, but it is the only way to empower your own critical voice. I will, of course, attempt to persuade you of my own point of view, but you are encouraged to resist. I have been known to change my mind, and I respect a well-honed argument even if I disagree. The works covered in the first semester are ethnographic, i.e., they are descriptions of particular cultures as an anthropologist comes to know them through participation-observation fieldwork (albeit some of that fieldwork is archival). The standpoint and identity of the ethnographer highlight the reflexive intersections of theory and ethnography, description and interpretation or explanation. Experimental ethnographies abound these days, as unconventional forms of writing explore the nature of representation, the situated subjectivity of the ethnographic process, and the storied narratives whereby cultural knowledge is articulated and conveyed to an audience outside the fieldwork site. This particularity of subjects and contexts, the position of a particular case as a necessary component of responsible generalization, is one of the most important things distinguishing anthropologists from colleagues in other disciplines. In the second semester, each student will present a seminar discussion as part of a team dealing with one or more interdisciplinary theorists, with each disciplinary cluster assigned to a team. Students will divide the work so that each student reads a different theorist. Each team will meet with the instructor at least once to discuss how the presentation will hang together. You are expected to become familiar with the oeuvre of your theorist and to consult primary sources as well as critical commentary. After the class presentation, each student will write a 20-25 page paper based on his or her research, to be handed in during or before the last class. Related theorists may be added on consultation with the instructor. The majority of these theorists are not, in the narrow sense, anthropologists. Indeed, many of them could benefit from a more sophisticated cross-cultural perspective. Disciplinary boundaries are breaking down these days, yet anthropologists continue to bring a unique perspective to the human and cultural sciences. The anthropological approach has been profoundly misinterpreted by literary critics, philosophers, educators, and even other social scientists. To counter their critiques, we must clarify for ourselves what it means to think like an anthropologist – and consider what the real-world consequences might be. You will receive a combined mark of 30% for the oral presentation and the written paper. The percentage allotted to each is not set because the timing of presentations affects the relationship between the two parts of the assignment. Weighting, therefore, legitimately varies between one student and another. I will apply this weighting to give benefit of doubt to the student. More polished presentation is expected later in the semester. There may be an advantage to presenting early, leaving time for revision in the written version. The two versions may differ substantially (though they need not). Each panel will prepare a biographical sketch (hopefully with a picture), basic bibliography and glossary of key terms for each theorist they are responsible for (one double-sided page per theorist). These materials are to be presented to the class one week in advance of the presentation. Each student should prepare a file or binder of this material. This material is an essential resource in studying for the final. It addition, it provides an intensive guide to a range of material that you could not possibly read yourself within a single course. A brief portion of each class in the second term will be devoted to discussion of assigned readings (TBA) in Fischer. This text is designed to frame the interdisciplinary theoretical approaches within the changing landscape of information access and capacity to communicate effectively to public as well as disciplinary audiences. Barriers between home and field, “informant” and co-investigator/collaborator, expert and member-of-culture expertise are breaking down rapidly – providing new challenges and opportunities. Class discussion will constitute 10% of your mark. This is not a correspondence course and learning is not a passive process. You are unlikely to do well on any of the assignments if you do not attend class regularly and participate actively. Students are responsible for anything said in class, not factual details but theorists, their works, concepts, and lines of argument. You are expected to learn from your fellow students as well as from the instructor. The final exam will explore issues of critical theory in anthropology and related disciplines (based on reading and discussion of the text (Fischer) plus second term class materials, including your classmates’ presentations). It will include both short answer/identification and essay questions. There will not be trick questions. Students who have attended class regularly, done the readings, and followed the discussions, will be able to identify and compare the theorists, concepts and major works. This course is intended as the culmination of the Honours Anthropology degree at Western. It is not supposed to be easy but I hope it will be fun. It is designed to pull together things you have learned over the years of your education and to increase your confidence in your own control over the substance and significance of anthropology as a discipline. Professional socialization is integral to continuing study beyond the undergraduate level. For those of you who move directly to employment or switch disciplines, this is your chance to try out the role of social science critical scholar. Our society desperately needs an informed intelligentsia, both inside and outside the academy. This is the goal of your education and of my teaching. Its value is not restricted to those who aspire to become academic anthropologists. Those who do, however, will be well-prepared to perform as scholars with theoretical breadth and anthropological sophistication. The emphasis is on socio-cultural anthropology but the issues and methods raised by the ethnographers and theorists we are reading can be applied easily to problems of archaeology and biological anthropology. The emphasis will be placed on qualitative methodologies essential to the experience of doing fieldwork, regardless of the formal methods employed to organize the materials gathered. What literary critic Kenneth Burke called “the representative anecdote” is often the most effective way to understand another culture and to convey that understanding to a broader audience. SCHEDULE OF TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS: 10 September Introduction: Theorizing Ethnography 17 September Evans-Pritchard 24 September Evans-Pritchard 1 October Leach 8 October THANKSGIVING 15 October Leach 22 October Desjarlais FIRST PAPER DUE IN CLASS – 10% 29 October Desjarlais 5 November Daniel 12 November Daniel 19 November Cruikshank SECOND PAPER DUE IN CLASS – 10% STUDENTS CHOOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS 26 November Cruikshank 5 December West (a short book, one week should suffice) 7 January From Theory to Ethnography THIRD PAPER DUE IN CLASS – 10% 14 January Sociological Approaches (Pierre Bourdieu, Louis Althusser, Raymond Williams) 21 January Literary Criticism (Roland Barthes, Paul Ricoeur, Walter Benjamin, Mikhail Bakhtin) 28 January Linguistic Approaches (C.S. Peirce, John Searle, Ludwig Wittgenstein) 4 February Historical Approaches (Hayden White, Frederick Jameson, Marshall Sahlins, Louis Dumont) 11 February Philosophical Approaches: Deconstruction (Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Francois Lyotard) 18 February READING WEEK 25 February Philosophical Approaches: Radical Deconstruction (Gilles Deleuze, Jean Beaudrillard) 4 March The Frankfort School (Hannah Arendt, Antonio Gramsci, Theodore Adorno, Jurgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse) 11 March Activist Approaches (Stuart Hall, Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Paulo Friere, Vine Deloria) 18 March Feminist Approaches (Julia Kristeva, Judith Butler, Donna Haraway, Simone de Beauvoir) 25 March Evolutionary Biology (Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker) 1 April Complexity and Chaos Theories (Isabelle Stengers, Ilya Prigogine, Richard Lewin, James Gleick) 7 April The Anthropological Metanarrative? FINAL PAPER DUE IN CLASS – 30% (one week extension for March 25 and April 1 teams) (paper mark includes team work & oral presentation) FINAL EXAM AS SCHEDULED BY THE UNIVERSITY – 30% NB: 10% class attendance and participation, including team preparation. ADDITIONAL MATTERS: Late papers will be marked down by 2% each day or 10% per week for two weeks. Papers will not be accepted thereafter. All exceptions require documentation of accommodation confirmed by the Dean’s Office. Extended absences (including failure to participate in team preparation and presentation) and late essays or assignments require documentation. Please consult the Policy on Accommodation for Medical Illness: (http://studentservices.uwo.ca/secure/index.cfm). Request for medical or non-medical accommodation should be directed to the appropriate Faculty Dean’s office and not to the instructor. No electronic devices will be permitted during the final exam. Laptop computers may be used in class for purposes of taking class notes or relevant information retrieval only. Cell phones should be turned off. Academic offenses are taken seriously and students are responsible for reading and understanding the definition of scholastic offenses: http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/handbook/appeals/scholastic_discipline_underg rad.pdf) All required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to the commercial plagiarism detection software under license to the University for the detection of plagiarism. All papers submitted for such checking will be included as source documents in the reference database for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of papers subsequently submitted to the system. Use of the service is subject to the licensing agreement, currently between the University of Western Ontario and Turn-it-in.com (http://www.turnitin.com). Student support services and student development services can be found at http://www4.registrar.uwo.ca.