History of Anthropological Theory, Part I

ANT 611

History of Anthropological Theory, Part I

Fall 2013

Fridays, 9:30 am – 12:15 pm

Ruth Benedict Mary Douglas Claude Levi-Strauss

Billy Prince and Julian Steward Cora Du Bois Vic Turner

Instructor: John Burdick

209 Maxwell Hall, 443-3822 Office hours: W 3:30-5; F 12:30-1:30 & by appointment

This course is the first of a two-part sequence (the second is ANT 711, offered in spring 2014), that covers major trends in cultural anthropological theory from the late nineteenth century to the present. ANT 611 takes the story to the early 1980s; ANT 711 takes the story from the mid-1980s to the present.

This is a heavy reading course, that exposes you to a large amount of scholarly literature. Reading averagesbetween 150 to 250 pages per week. Each week I have assigned two sets of readings. The “context” readings place the week’s theoretical tradition intointellectual, biographical, and social contexts; the “text” readings are drawn directly from the anthropologists we are focusing on for the week.

Class format

I usually begin with a few contextualizing remarks about the tradition we are considering for the week, after which we have a discussion of that context. We then work together to articulate and evaluate key ideas of the week’s readings. After break, one of you makes a presentation on a work that made a majorcontribution to the week’s theoretical theme. These works will be assigned on the first day of class.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

1)Blackboard discussion Forum (30% of your grade)

To process the readingsthoroughly, webegin discussion of them two days in advance. There are two different kinds of comments; Wednesday Comments and Thursday Comments. At our first meeting, half the class will be designated “A Group” and the other half “B Group.”

Wednesday Comments: Each week either A Group or B Group (as indicated in the syllabus) will be responsible for posting to the Blackboard site (in the “Forum” section) comments on the week’s reading no later than 10 pm Wednesday prior to class. Your comments should be between 400 and 600 words long. The comments should articulate issues or problems you are having with that week’s reading, or any special insight or inspiration it has given you; and articulate one or two questions the readings have raised for you that you would like your classmates to reflect on. Please note:I do not expect you to comment on all of the readings.

Thursday Comments: Each week the group that has not posted Wednesday comments will be responsible for posting comments no later than 10 pm on Thursday prior to class. Thursday comments should also be between 400 and 600 words. Their function is to respond to the Wednesday comments and begin (not end!) discussion on the topics raised. Again, I do not expect you to comment on all of the readings.

For both sets of comments: I expect all of you to read each other’s comments. This is very important. I want you all to come to class on Friday already aware of how your fellow students are reacting to the week’s readings.

Don’t panic! While I expect you to have completed all readings by Friday morning, I do not expect you to have completed all of them by the time you post your comments: I simply expect you to have completed enough to engage in serious commentary. Think of your comments – whether you post them on Wednesday or Thursday in any given week -- as an “in-progress” check in. I note that students from previous years have told me they appreciated this system, for it helped them come to class better prepared, less stressed, more aware of their classmates’ ideas, and thus helped “prime the pump” for Friday discussions. I would also note that reading your responses in advance helps me keep class discussion focused on issues of genuine interest to you.

How I grade reading responses: There are 12 reading responses. Each week’s reading response is valued at 2.5% of your final grade. A response will earn an “A” if it engages the reading seriously, raises interesting questions, and shows me you are pushing yourself. A response will earn a “B” if I feel you are not challenging yourself as far as you can. There are no “Cs” or “Ds”.

Here is an example of a 440-word Thursday response from a prior class:

It is clear from the readings that the unilinear theorists see the stages to civilization as fixed and, although not all societies reach civilization, that is the ultimate destination. But Ayse's point regarding Morgan's categorization and the byproducts that have resulted from his ' civilization' ("Exploitation of indigenous people, colonizing the natives, etc.") makes me curious about the theorist's views on the actual historical events. Although a 'civilization' ultimately went through the various stages, what aspects of those stages are fixed and what are fluid? What has to happen before progression through the stages? Morgan's technological advancements and his seven ideas (subsistence, government, language, etc) are the main variables that change and usher a society through the stages, but are there specific technologies, etc, that must develop to be seen as civilized in the eyes of these theorists? From the ethnocentric, and more specifically the Euro-centric view of the evolutionary theorists, the 'civilized' western world represents what other societies should aspire to. Therefore, since Europe transitioned from savage to civilized, switching out their stone tools for iron, other societies must follow this trajectory to civilization. Unilinear evolution takes a 'Because it did, therefore it must' approach and under this idea I'm led to speculate that they would view those examples given by Ayse as finite and an unavoidable consequence of civilization.

Regarding the issue of survivals brought up by Chris, I must admit that I find the terms 'survivals' and even 'psychic unity' frustrating. The concepts the terms represent are clear but I think the terms themselves detracts from the ideas they are conveying. Although multiple readings, and Chris's response, highlighted what survivals are and how they can be viewed I can't help but think of 'survivals' as a sort of catchall. Essentially, a term and concept developed to explain the unexplained. Since there was no seemingly rational reason for why these things, like religion and superstition, persisted through time, they were therefore concluded to be a product of a more irrational human state left to linger as a part of humanity. Although I don't think this is necessarily the reasoning behind some of the arguments, especially the more developed 'archetypes' explained by Chris, I keep coming back to my oversimplified notion on why survivals were thought to initially exist. These early theorists seem to truly personify people's desire to classify and organize the world, as was going on in the natural sciences (for instance, Linnaean taxonomy), and, in an attempt to leave nothing unclassified, the 'survivals' were developed. I am open to altering my perception of survivals, however, and I'd like to be enlightened on this issue if possible.

2)Class participation (20 %)

This is a graduate seminar, and I expect each of you to dive in, take risks, and get a feel for lively, spirited discussion and debate. Do not hesitate to express views at variance with those of your fellow students and with me. Say what you think! I pay close attention to who is, and who is not, participating.

3)Two (2) presentations on “classics-of-the-week” (20%)

Over the course of the semester each of you will make two (2) in-class presentations, to be randomly assigned in week 1.The first presentation will be by yourself, and will be worth 12% of your final grade; the second presentation will be as part of a two-person team, and will be worth 8% of your final grade. Presentations may not exceed 25 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of discussion. The presentations must communicate a) some basic biographical information about the writer (about 3-4 minutes); b) several interesting ideas in the reading (about 10 minutes); c) how these ideas point to strengths, weaknesses, and/or complications in the theoretical perspective(s) being discussed for the day (about 4-5 minutes), and d) important issues for the class to discuss and think about (about 1-2 min). Presenters are free to use Power Point, handouts, music, dance, poetry, pottery, or other audiovisual aids. For each presentation, I expect to communicate with you early in the week before your presentation, to make sure you are on the right track.

Note 1: Do NOT try to tell us everything the writer says in his or her book. Pick 2-3 key themes or ideas in the work you found particularly thought-provoking and interesting, and discuss them in depth. You will bore us out of our skulls (not to mention run out of time) if you try to give as a blow-by-blow, chapter-by-chapter summary of the whole book. Please don’t try!

Note 2: It shows great courtesy to ask tough, searching questions of the presenters. Posing such questions shows you have listened attentively, that you take the presenter seriously, and that you wish to engage him or her in deep discussion. I will be evaluating the quality of questions you pose, as well as the quality of the presenter’s responses.

Note 3:You are responsible for obtaining copies of the two books you will be presenting. (For the weeks you are not presenting, you are not responsible for obtaining or reading the “classic of the week”.) These may be obtained from the library (on reserve), or through one of innumerable used book retailers on line. It is quite important that you locate your assigned books and begin reading themas soon as possible. The books are often lengthy, and it will not do to wait until the last minute.

“Classics” to be presented

Presentation 1 (Sept 6): McLennan, John. 1865. Primitive Marriage

Presentation 2 (Sept 13): Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1915. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term

Presentation 3 (Sept 20): Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture

Presentation 4 (Sept 27): Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality

Presentation 5 (Oct 4): Long, Norman. 1968. Social Change and the Individual

Presentation 6 (Oct 11): Turner, Victor. 1974. Dramas, Fields and Metaphors

Presentation 7 (Oct 18): Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger

Presentation 8 (Oct 25): Ortner, Sherry. 1978. Sherpas Through Their Rituals

Presentation 9 (Nov 1): Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone Age Economics

Presentation 10 (Nov 8): Wilson, E. O. 1980 [1975]. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

Presentation 11 (Nov 15): Kahn, Joel. 1980. Minangkabau Social Formations

Presentation 12 (Dec 6): Weiner, Annette. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown

3)Three (3) essays (30%)

You will write three 6-page essays based on course readings, presentations, and discussion. Each essay willengage with at least two theoretical traditions.I will distribute questions in advance to help guide you through these papers. The due dates of the papers (sent to me by e-mail):

Paper 1: 11 pm on Sunday, September 29
Paper 2: 11 pm on Sunday, October 27
Paper 3: 11 pm on Sunday, December 8

A word about qualifying exams:

Together, ANT 611 and ANT 711 provide a basis for the theoretical portion of the cultural anthropology doctoral qualifying examinations. In order to succeed on that examination, however, you will need to read well beyond what ANT 611 and 711 have to offer. To prepare for the exam, in addition to theory, you will need to become familiar with ethnographic and topically-focused literatures. You need to set aside six weeks next summer to read theory in more depth, and to deepen you knowledge of ethnographic and topical literatures. It will not be sufficient simply to revisit the syllabi of these two courses.

Part 1: Beginnings

Sept 6 Theories of Social Evolution

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Sept 4

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Sept 5

Contexts

Kuper, Adam. 2005. “Barbarian, savage, primitive,” in The Reinvention of Primitive Society, 20-36
Bernard, Alan, “Changing perspectives on evolution” from History and Theory in Anthropology, 27-40
Patterson, Thomas C., “Anthropology in the Liberal Age,”, 35-44

Texts

Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Eleanor Burke Leacock, 1877Ancient Society, selections

Presentation:McLennan, John. 1865. Primitive Marriage

Sept 13: Fieldworkin the formation of modern anthropology

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Sept 11

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Sept 12

Contexts

Stocking, George. 1965. “From Physics to Ethnology: Franz Boas’ Arctic Expedition as a Problem in the Historiography of the Behavioral Sciences”, 53-64
______. 1983. “The Ethnographer’s Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski”, 16-59

Texts

Boas, Franz. 1887. “A Year Among the Eskimo”, 44-55
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. “Subject, Method and Scope of This Inquiry,” from Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 1-25;
______. 1922. “Canoes and Sailing”, from Argonauts, 104-123;
______. 1922. “The Ceremonial Building of a Waga”, from Argonauts, 124-145

Presentation: Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1967 [1914-1915]. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term

Part 2: The American School, 1900-1950

Sept 20 The Mind of Franz Boas

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Sept 18

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Sept 19

Contexts:

Kuper, Adam. 2005. “The Boasians and the Critique of Evolutionism”, 115-134
Baker, Lee. 1998. “Rethinking Race at the Turn of the Century: W.E.B. Du Bois and Franz Boas”, 99-126

Texts:

______. 1894. “Human faculty as determined by race”, 235-239
______.1896. “The Growth of Indian Mythologies”
______. 1898. “Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern British Columbia”
______. 1912. ‘The Instability of Human Types”
______. 1920. “The Methods of Ethnology”
______.1931. “Race and Progress”

Presentation: Cultural holism and relativism: Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture

Sept 27 Culture and personality;linguistic relativism

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Sept 25

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Sept 26

Contexts:

Moberg, Mark. 2013. “Culture and Psychology”, in Engaging Anthropological Theory, 155-177

Texts:

Du Bois, Cora. 1944. The People of Alor, 1-175

Presentation: Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality

Part 3: British Functionalism and its Critics

Oct 4 British functionalisms, structural and psychological

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Oct 2

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Oct 3

Contexts:

Barnard, Alan,History and Theory, 61-79
Moore, Sally Falk, Anthropology and Africa, 18-28
Kuklik, Henrika, “The Colonial Exchange”

Texts:

Durkheim, Emile. 1912. Elementary Forms of Religious Life, selection
A. R., Radcliffe-Brown, “On the Concept of Function in Social Science”
______, “Religion and Society”
B. Malinowski, “Magic, Science and Religion”, 54-90
M. Wilson, “Witch Beliefs and Social Structure”

Presentation:The Manchester School and the analysis of social change: Norman Long, Social Change and the Individual

October 11: Anti-structure: Victor Turner on liminality, comunitas, and social dramas

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Oct 9

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Oct 10

Contexts:

Babcock, Barbara, “Victor Turner, 1920-1983”

Texts:

Turner, Victor. 1969.The Ritual Process, from p. 94

Presentation:Turner, Victor. 1974. Dramas, Fields and Metaphors

Part 4: Structuralistand interpretive approaches

Oct 18 Structuralist analyses of worldview & cosmology

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Oct 16

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Oct 17

Alan Barnard, History and Theory, 120-137
Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind

Presentation: A British take: Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger

October 25 Geertz and interpretive anthropology

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Oct 23

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Oct 24

Contexts:

Moberg, 279-287

Texts:

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture”
______. 1957. “Ethos, Worldview, and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols”
______. 1959. “Ritual and Social Change: A Javanese Example”
______. 1972. “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”

Presentation:Ortner, Sherry. 1978. Sherpas Through Their Rituals

Part 5: Materialist approaches

Nov 1: Cultural ecology, cultural materialism, economic substantivism

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Oct 30

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Oct 31

Contexts

Moberg, 225-234; 246-264
V. Kerns, “Learning the Land”
M. Hatch, “Julian Steward,” in Theories of Man and Culture, 112-128

Texts

Steward, Julian. 1955.Theory of Social Change, 2 articles
Harris, Marvin. “Pig Lovers and Pig Haters”
Rappaport, Roy. “Ritual regulation of environmental relations among a New Guinea people”

Presentation:Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone Age Economics

Nov 8: The return of evolutionism

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Nov 6

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Nov 7

Context:

Moberg, 234-244

Texts:

Steward, Julian. Chapter on evolution in Theory of Culture Change
Service, Elman. 1962. Primitive Social Organization
Fried, Morton. 1960. “On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State”

Presentation:Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (abridged edition) [note, the original version is nearly 700 pages long; you need to get a copy of the 1980 abridged edition, which is only(!) 300 pages.]

November 15: Adventures in formal Marxist analysis

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Nov 13

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Nov 14

Contexts:

Barnard, A. History and Theory in Anthropology, 87-92

Texts:

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, selection from The German Ideology, in McGee and Warms, 69-81
Claude Meillassoux, Maids, Meal and Money

Presentation:Joel Kahn, Minangkabau Social Formations

Dec 6 Materialism, power, and gender analysis

Group B: Comment by 10 pm Wednesday, Dec 4

Group A: Comment by 10 pm Thursday, Dec 5

Context:

Henrietta Moore, 1989. “Feminism and Anthropology: The Story of a Relationship,” from H. Moore, Feminism and Anthropology

Texts:

Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex”
Whitehead, Harriet and Sherry B Ortner. 1981. “Introduction: Accounting for Sexual Meanings”
Collier, Jane, and Michelle Rosaldo. 1981. “Politics and Gender in Simple Societies”
Ortner, Sherry. 1981. “Gender and Sexuality in Hierarchical Societies”

Presentation: Annette Weiner, Women of Value, Men of Renown