ADVANCED ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

ANT7008

Photograph: Singing the selombang Songs, Malaysia ( Marina Roseman, 2011)

Autumn Semester
2015-2016

MEETING TIMES: TUESDAYS 2 4 PM

PERFORMANCE ROOM (G06, 13 University Square)

SCHOOL OF HISTORY & ANTHROPOLOGY

Queens University Belfast

AAP 2015-16
Convenor: Dr Ioannis Tsioulakis (i.tsioulakis@qub.ac.uk), Room 302, 13 University Square
Consultation Hours: Mondays 2-3pm & Tuesdays 12-1pm (please email beforehand)

Content

The module focuses on a core set of influential analytical perspectives studied through readings that
demonstrate both continuities and shifts. Topics covered include: anthropological and local perspectives;
philosophical approaches in anthropology; new insights from studies of the self and narrative; visual
anthropology and ethnographic knowledge as part of the debate of ways of seeing; perspectives on
environmentalism, materiality, affectivity, memory and subjectivity; cosmopolitanism as a political and moral
condition.

Key objectives

to offer you more advanced understandings of anthropological perspectives

to prepare you for the specialist areas available at MA level

Skills

The course is designed to develop both subject-specific and transferable skills. These include:
Advanced skills in understanding, evaluating and expressing anthropological arguments, especially
concerning the relationship between theory and ethnography;
Enhanced skills in group work (through seminars), in note taking, in presentation and in written
argument;
Library research skills;
Critical reading;
Advanced writing and oral presentation skills.

Teaching methods

There will be one 2-hour seminar per week for twelve weeks. Discussion will be student-led and informed by
intensive reading (and some video viewing) guided by questions distributed in advance. Presentations must be
prepared in writing or powerpoint and should last between 10 and 15 minutes. You may distribute copies of
your presentations but this is not obligatory. Preparatory reading is essential for this module. You must read
essential items even if you are not presenting on the topic. Additional readings are provided for your interest
and to help you in developing your essay topic. Make sure at each reading that you carry insights from one
seminar to the next so that discussion and understandings become cumulative. Where appropriate or helpful I
will sum up at the beginning of the seminar on the discussion of the previous week and point out the
connections.

Reading

Required readings will be found on the module webpage. In addition, the following books are useful:
Grimshaw, A. 2001 The ethnographers eye: ways of seeing in modern anthropology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Josephides, L. 2008 Melanesian Odysseys: Negotiating the Self, Narrative and
Modernity. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.
Milton, K. 2002 Loving nature: towards an ecology of emotion. London: Routledge.
Werbner, P. (ed.) 2008 Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Berg.

AAP 2015-16

Method of assessment
Essay (100%): 3000 words, due on Monday, 11 January, by 12 noon.
One 3,000 word essay will determine the total mark. You will develop a suitable essay topic in consultation
with the module convenor. By the time of seminar 8 you must have a topic, an abstract, some ideas in note
form, and a schematic bibliography. This means you should be discussing topics with the module convenor at
least a week beforehand.
The most important criteria in marking the essay will be a thoroughly critical attitude, meticulous scholarship,
serious engagement sustained by careful and extensive reading, and a balanced and reflexive outlook. Your
essay should be word-processed, spell-checked, paginated, double spaced and with a word count.
References should comprise only of works directly cited in your essay.
Notes on essay submission, writing tips, and the correct form of referencing are appended to this outline.

Overview of Seminars
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12

29 Sep 2015
6 Oct 2015
13 Oct 2015
20 Oct 2015
27 Oct 2015
3 Nov 2015
----------------17 Nov 2015
24 Nov 2015
1 Dec 2015
8 Dec 2015
15 Dec 2015

First contact: Anthropology and knowing others

Anthropological perspectives and local knowledge
Universal human nature or moral relativism?
Visual knowledge and ethnographic knowledge
Narrative and self-construction
Materiality, affectivity, memory and subjectivity
-------------- Reading Week ------------------------(Why) do we love nature?
The new cosmopolitanisms I
The new cosmopolitanisms II
Thinking philosophically in anthropology: recent trends
Summing up on new directions in anthropology; presentations of essays

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 1
First contact: Anthropology and knowing others

Module details
Introductions: student research interests
Discussion of assessment
Assign tasks

Video 1: First contact

Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson, New Guinea Highlands, 1983; 55 minutes
You can access the video online here: https://vimeo.com/51548963
Reading to accompany video
Josephides, L. and M. Schiltz. 1991 Through Kewa Country. In E. L. Schieffelin and R. Crittenden (eds) Like
People You See in a Dream: First Contact in Six Papuan Societies. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Questions to consider
The questions below require you to think through your own ideas following the video viewing, drawing on past
reading and the article above, which you must read in advance.
1. What did the film teach you about the New Guinean people with whom contact was made? How did local
people respond to, and attempt to understand the outsiders?
2. Did the film teach you much about knowing other cultures? (How) does it impart information that a book
could not impart? From watching this film, what can you say about the usefulness of ethnographic film in
introducing the general public to people and cultures they are unfamiliar with? How would you remake First
contact?
3. To what extent must anthropologists adopt a different perspective on their material when presenting it to
different audiences? (This question touches on the relevance of disciplinarity and expertise in knowledge
exchanges.)

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 2
Anthropological perspectives and local knowledge
Questions to consider
1. What do we mean when we talk about anthropological perspectives? Give a critical presentation of
Levi-Strausss perspective. What constitutes a perspective and on what bases might perspectives
vary?
2. Discuss question 1 above by giving a critical presentation of Geertzs perspective. How do the
perspectives of Levi-Strauss and Geertz differ? How do anthropologists understand their subjects? Is
anthropological truth no more than an accurate recording of the ethnographers observations and
informants statements?
3. Can it be argued that there is no homogeneous insiders knowledge to be achieved, because there is
no such thing as objective, uninvolved knowledge? Discuss with particular reference to Jenkins.
Essential reading
Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books. [Chapters 1 & 15]
Jenkins, T. 1994 Fieldwork and the perception of everyday life. MAN 29(2): 433-456.
Lvi-Strauss, C. 1966 The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. [Chapter 1, The science of the
concrete, pp. 1-33]
Additional reading
Carrithers, M.1992 Why humans have cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Chapter 4, The anatomy of
sociality (pp. 55-75) and chapter 6, The bull and the saint (pp. 92-116)]
Hastrup, K. 1995 Prologue: The itinerary and the ethnographic present. In K. Hastrup, A Passage to
Anthropology: Between Experience and Theory. London: Routledge.
Hastrup, K. 1993 The native voice and the anthropological vision. Social Anthropology 12: 173-86.
Josephides, L. 2008 Virtual returns: Fieldwork Recollected in Tranquillity. In T. Lau, C. High and L. Chua (eds)
How Do We Know? Evidence, Ethnography, and the Making of Anthropological Knowledge. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 179-200.
Kirsch, S. 2006 Reverse Anthropology: Indigenous Analysis of Social and Environmental Relations in New
Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
MacClancy, J. 2002 Introduction: Taking people seriously. In Jeremy MacClancy (ed.), Exotic no more:
Anthropology on the front line. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1974 From Mauss to Claude Levi-Strauss. In Phenomenology, Language & Sociology.
London: Heinemann, pp. 111-122.
Metcalf, P. 1998 The book in the coffin: on the ambivalence of informants. Cultural Anthropology 13(3): 326343.
Metcalf, P. 2001 They lie, we lie. London: Routledge. (Engages critiques of ethnography through an analysis
of the contradictions of fieldwork in connection with a forceful informant, a formidable old lady who for
twenty years tried to control what the ethnographer learned in the field. The article above is a shortcut.)
Moore, H. 1996 The changing nature of anthropological knowledge: an introduction. In Henrietta L. Moore
(ed.) The future of anthropological knowledge, London: Routledge, pp. 1-15.

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 3
Universal human nature or moral relativism?
Questions to consider
1. Evaluate Kresses and Crandalls approaches to knowledge and universality. How can anthropologists
take the views of their informants more seriously as philosophical and theoretical perspectives on the
world? Is anthropological knowledge different from local knowledge?
2. Summarise and juxtapose ideas from Kresse and Crandall in so far as they argue for (or against) a
notion of common humanity or a morality that crosses cultures. Is this different from the older notion
of human nature?
3. Consider the ethnographic case study from Humphrey. In what way does it advocate an
understanding of a different kind of morality?
Essential reading
Crandall, D. P. 2004 Knowing Human Moral Knowledge to be True: an Essay on Intellectual Conviction. J.
Roy. Anthrop. Inst. 10(2): 307-326.
Humphrey, C. 1977 Exemplars and Rules: Aspects of the Discourse of Moralities in Mongolia. In S. Howell
(ed.) The Ethnography of Moralities. London: Routledge, pp. 25-47.
Kresse, K. 2007 Practising an Anthropology of Philosophy: General Reflections and the Swahili Context. In
Harris, M (ed.), Ways of Knowing: New Approaches in the Anthropology of Experience and Learning.
New York & Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 42-63.
Additional reading
Bloch, M. 2005 Essays on Cultural Transmission. LSE Monographs on Social Anthropology. Oxford: Berg,
chapter 10, Where Did Anthropology Go?
Bloch, M. 2012 Anthropology and the Cognitive Challenge (New Departures in Anthropology). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Howell, S. 1997 (ed.) The Ethnography of Moralities. London: Routledge. Introduction, pp. 1-22.
Josephides, L. 2005 Being there: The magic of presence or the metaphysics of morality. In P. Caplan (ed.)
The Ethics of Anthropology. London: Routledge, pp. 55-76
Nussbaum, M. 2000 Non-relative Virtues: an Aristotelian Approach. In C.W. Gowans (ed.), Moral
disagreements. London: Routledge, pp. 168-179.
Rorty, R. 1993 Human rights, rationality and sentimentality. In S. Shute and S. Hurley (eds), On Human
Rights. New York: Basic Books.
Wagner, R. 1975 The Invention of Culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Chapter 6, The
Invention of Anthropology, pp. 133-159.

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 4
Visual knowledge and ethnographic knowledge
Video 2: Les matres fous (Dir : Jean Rouch, 1956, 35 minutes)
The video is available online; please view ahead of seminar
Questions to consider
1. What are the main arguments in The ethnographers eye? Show progression of argument, tied to the
development of anthropological thought.
2. Using examples from ethnographies you have read, would you argue that anthropology suffers from
iconophobia? Do ethnographies neglect visual aspects of the cultures they study and thus misrepresent
them? Give examples.
3. Can visualist writing render the camera unnecessary, or does film add an ethnographic truth that must
always elude the word? Do the ways of seeing of an ethnographic film-maker differ from those of a
conventional ethnographer?
Pay particular attention to Grimshaws discussion of four films: Les Matres Fous, To Live With Herds,
Wedding Camels, and Memories and Dreams. Les Matres Fous comes with a health warning, so prior reading
on this film is essential (see Rouchs own writing on his film). While reading The Ethnographers Eye, try to
generate your own questions to pose to these four films.
Essential reading
Grimshaw, A. 2001 The ethnographers eye: ways of seeing in modern anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Henley, P. 2006 Spirit possession, power, and the absent presence of Islam: reviewing Les matres fous.
Journal of the Royal Anthrop. Institute 12(4): 731-761.
Additional recommended viewing of ethnographic films, chosen from among those discussed by Grimshaw
and discussed in light of her manifesto:
Memories and Dreams (95 minutes)
To Live With Herds (65 minutes)
The Wedding Camels (108 minutes)
Additional reading
Banks, M. 2002 Visual methods in social research. New York City: Sage.
Collier, J. 1986 Visual Anthropology: Photography as a research method (revised and expanded) University of
New Mexico Press.
Edwards, E. 2001 Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums. Berg. [she has many other
publications on the topic]
Loizos, P. 1993 Innovation in Ethnographic Film: From Innocence to Self-consciousness, 1955-85.
Manchester University Press.
Morton, C. and Elizabeth E. 2009 Photography, Anthropology and History. London: Ashgate.
Pinney, C. 2011 Anthropology and Photography (Exposures) London: Reaktion Books.
Sontag, S. 1978 On Photography London: Allen Lane (Penguin Books)
Suhr, S and R. Willersley 2013 Transcultural Montage Oxford: Berghahn.
7

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 5
Narrative and self-construction
Questions to consider
Anthropologists have treated the self as an individual with a life-project, as a relational person, and as created
in narrative. The seminar will examine the processes of self-formation and self-differentiation through several
case studies and theoretical analyses.
1. Consider the approach to the self, given in Josephides (chapter 2). In her analysis of how the self is
constructed, drawing on Taylor and Ricoeur, Josephides concludes that the reflection by which we
know our own self involves self-externalization rather than self-introspection, and therefore that the
process of knowing others is not essentially different from the process of knowing ones self. Give a
critical summary of the argument leading to this claim.
2. What role does narrative play in the construction of the self? (Josephides chapters 3 and 5, Jackson).
You do not need to read all the long narratives in each chapter of Josephides, but read the theoretical
discussion and at least one narrative.
3. Give an account of Rapports discussion of the individual with a life project. Is his approach
irreconcilable with the approach considered in question 1?
Essential reading
Josephides, L. 2008 Melanesian Odysseys: Negotiating the Self, Narrative and Modernity. New York and
Oxford: Berghahn. [Chapter 2, Self Strategies, pp. 20-49; chapter 3, Narrating the Self I, pp. 53-80; chapter
5, Narrating the Self III, pp. 112-148.]
Rapport, N. 2003 I am dynamite: An Alternative Anthropology of Power. London: Routledge. [Chapter 1,
Preliminary Statements, pp. 3-21 (self as individual with life-project); chapter 2 (optional), The Life of
Power: an Existential Framework, pp. 22-90.]
Additional reading
Carrithers, M, S. Collins and S. Lukes 1985 The Category of the Person. [Chapters by M. Mauss (A Category
of the Human Mind: the Notion of Person; the Notion of Self, pp. 1-25) and C. Taylor (The Person, pp.
257-281).]
Carrithers, M. 1992 Why humans have cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Chapter 6, The bull and the
saint (pp. 92-116)]
Cohen, A.P. 1994 Self Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London: Routledge. [Chapter
2, The Creative Self, pp. 23-53.]
Jackson, M. 2002 The Politics of Storytelling: Violence, Transgression, and Intersubjectivity. Oxford and NY:
Berghahn.
Wagner, R. 1975 The Invention of Culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. [Chapter 4, The
Invention of Self, pp. 71-102.]

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 6
Materiality, affectivity, memory and subjectivity
Questions to consider
1. Critically evaluate Navaro-Yashins argument. In particular:

Consider how the effect that objects have on the mood of persons is to be understood as a
projection of the actors subjectivity onto the object, or as a quality that the object itself
possesses as a result of its provenance or mode of acquisition?

How does Navaro-Yashins argument sit with the sort of humanism advanced in works which
were read in earlier seminars?

2. Outline Latours notion of the factish. To what extent does it deal with the problems encountered in
considering the relations between people and things?
3. What is the relationship between individual and collective memory? How can individuals be said to
acquire collective memory, especially of past events? (Cappelletto).
Essential reading
Cappelletto, F. 2003 Long-term Memory of Extreme Events: From Autobiography to History. JRAI (N.S.) 9(2):
241-260.
Latour, B. 2010 On the modern cult of the factish gods. Durham and London: Duke University Press, [chapter
1.]
Navaro-Yashin, Y. 2009 Affective spaces, melancholic objects: ruination and the production of anthropological
knowledge. JRAI (N.S.) 15(1): 1-18.
Additional reading
Cappelletto, F. 2005 Memory and World War 2: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg. [On trauma and
collective memory]
Malkki, L. 1995 The uses of history in the refugee camp: Living the present in historical terms. In L. Malkki,
Purity and exile: Violence, memory, and national cosmology among the Hutu refugees in Tanzania.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Serematakis, N. 1994 (ed.) The senses still: Memory and perception as material culture in modernity. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
NO CLASS ON WEEK 7 (READING WEEK)

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 8
(Why) do we love nature?
Some issues to consider
1

The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not just the same world with different
labels attached (Sapir 1961). What are the implications of this view for the understanding of humanenvironment relations? Discuss with reference to Milton 1996 chapter 4 (provides ethnographic case
studies).

Is environmentalism as a way of knowing the world different from other ways of knowing and acting on
the world? Discuss with reference to Ingold and Latour.

Why do we love nature? (This question does the opposite of the previous ones, by searching for a
basic similarity in at least one aspect of human responses to nature.) Consider with special reference
to Milton 2002. Begin with an overview of her argument. How does she build it up?

Essential reading
Milton, K. 2002 Loving nature: towards an ecology of emotion. London: Routledge.
Milton, K. 1996 Environmentalism and cultural theory: exploring the role of anthropology in environmental
discourse. London: Routledge. [Chapter 4]
Ingold, T. 1996 Hunting and gathering as ways of perceiving the environment. In R. Ellen and K. Fukui (eds)
Redefining nature: ecology, culture and domestication. London: Berg.
Latour, B. 2011 Waiting for Gaia: composing the common world through arts and politics. A lecture at the
French Institute, London, November 2011, for the launching of SPEAP (the Sciences Po program in arts &
politics)
Additional reading
Milton, K. 1997 Ecologies: anthropology, culture and the environment. International Social Science Journal
(Anthropology - Issues and Perspectives: II. Sounding out new possibilities.) 154: 477-495.
Milton, K. 1993 Introduction: Environmentalism and anthropology. In Kay Milton (ed.) Environmentalism: the
view from anthropology. London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. 2000 The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London: Routledge.

10

AAP 2015-16

WEEKS 9 & 10
The new cosmopolitanisms
These seminars examine cosmopolitanism as a concept and as a political reality. Starting from the Cynics and
the Stoics of the ancient world and the cosmopolis of the early modern European period which was seen as
integrating the order of nature and the order of society, the investigation moves to the concept of foreignness
and the meaning of refusing integration (Kristeva). While examining the historical emergence of an ideology
connecting the self with global society, the readings also ground the discussion in theories of what makes us
human as a prerequisite for cosmopolitanism. Theoretical and ethnographic readings are combined, with some
case studies focusing on the concepts of morality and empathy while others describe actually existing
cosmopolitanism. The special contribution of anthropology to cosmopolitan studies is sought in its studies of
local, rooted and grassroots cosmopolitanisms, xenophobia and xenophilia, empathy and morality, and finally
in the anthropologists position as cosmopolitans themselves. At this stage you will be expected to select some
of your own reading, and chase it up, in addition to the starred items contained in the pack.
Questions to consider
1

Compare Nussbaums and Kristevas historical accounts of cosmopolitanism. Do they agree that the
political stance of the cosmopolitan addresses what is fundamentally human?

How does Hall use the concept and political category of the stranger? Compare with Kristevas use of
the term.

Does cosmopolitanism refer to global democracy and world citizenship? Or does it challenge
conventional notions of belonging, identity and citizenship in a more radical way? (optional question, to
inform reading)

Evaluate the new terms used in the ethnographic study of cosmopolitanism: local, rooted and
grassroots cosmopolitanisms, xenophobia and xenophilia (Abu-Rabia, Werbner if read, Sichone). Do
they enrich our understanding of the concept in important ways?

Does Wardle succeed in making a good case for Jamaicans as always already cosmopolitans?

Is the anthropologist by necessity a cosmopolitan? How is a yes or no answer informed by the

readings and debate in this seminar?

Readings
Theoretical (most readings belong in both categories)
Appiah, K.A. 2006 Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. London: Allen Lane. Imaginary
Strangers, pp. 87-99 (how we understand each other as humans); Cosmopolitan Contamination, 101-113.
*Hall, A. 2014 Cosmopolitan Morality in the British Immigration and Asylum System. In L. Josephides and A.
Hall (eds), We the Cosmopolitans: moral and existential conditions of being human. Oxford: Berghahn.
Josephides, L. 2003 The rights of being human in a global world. In Richard Wilson and Jon Mitchell (eds),
Human rights in global perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 229-250.
Josephides, L. 2014 We the Cosmopolitans: Introduction. In We the Cosmopolitans: moral and existential
conditions of being human. Oxford: Berghahn.
*Kristeva, J. 1993 Nations without Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Chapter 1, What of
Tomorrows Nation?, pp. 1-48.

11

AAP 2015-16
*Latour, B. Whose cosmos, which politics? Comments on the peace terms of Ulrich Beck. Symposium: Talking
Peace with Gods, Part 1.
*Nussbaum, M. 1997 Kant and cosmopolitanism. In Perpetual peace: Essays on Kants cosmopolitan ideal.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 25-57.
*Werbner, P. 2008 (ed.) Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism Oxford, New York: Berg. Introduction,
pp. 1-29.
Case studies
*Abu-Rabia, A. 2008 A Native Palestinian Anthropologist in Palestinian-Israeli Cosmopolitanism. In Werbner
pp. 159-171.
*Sichone, O.B. 2008 Xenophobia and Xenophilia in South Africa: African Migrants in Cape Town. In Werbner
pp. 309-324.
*Wardle, H. 2000 An Ethnography of Cosmopolitanism in Kingston, Jamaica. Queenstown, Ontario: The Edwin
Mellen Press. [Introduction: Kant, Consensus and Cosmopolitanism, pp. 1-19; Epilogue, Living World
Society, pp. 196-200.]
Werbner, R. 2008 Responding to Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Patriots, Ethnics and the Public Good in
Botswana. In Werbner, P. (ed.) Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism. Oxford, New York: Berg, pp.
173-196.
Additional reading
Appiah, K.A. 1992 In my Fathers House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appiah, K.A. 1998 Cosmopolitan Patriots. In Cheah, P. and B. Robbins (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and
Feeling Beyond the Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 91-114.
Beck, Ulrich 2006 Cosmopolitan vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, Ulrich 2002 The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology in the second age of modernity. In Steven
Vertovec and Robin Cohen (eds) Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice. Oxford
University Press, pp. 61-85.
Derrida, J. 2001 On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge. [Essay on Cosmopolitanism, pp.
3-24.]
Fine, R. and R. Cohen 2002 Four Cosmopolitan Moments. In Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (eds)
Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice. Oxford University Press, pp. 137-162.
Hall, S. 2002 Political belonging in a world of multiple identities. In Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (eds)
Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice. Oxford University Press, pp. 25-31.
Kant, I. 1983 Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
[Chapter 1, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent (1784), pp. 29-40; chapter 6, To
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795), pp. 107-143.]
Robbins, B. 1998 Introduction in P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond
the Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1-19.
Vertovec, Steven and Robin Cohen 2002 (eds). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice.
Oxford University Press. [Several chapters, esp. David Held]

12

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 11
Thinking philosophically in anthropology: recent trends
Questions to consider
1. Compare and evaluate the approaches of the following anthropologists to the study of the human:
Crapanzano, Jackson, Rabinow and Rapport. Do they offer a useful toolkit for ethnographic fieldwork?
2. Critically evaluate the benefits of phenomenology as a method in anthropology. (Josephides, Jackson
1996)
Essential reading
Crapanzano, V. 2004 Imaginative Horizons: An Essay in Literary-Philosophical Anthropology. Chicago:
Chicago University Press. Introduction, pp. 1-12.
Jackson, M. 2005 Existential Anthropology. Events, Exigencies and Effects. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
[Preface: The Struggle for Being, pp. ix-xxxii.]
Josephides, L. 2010 Speaking-with and Feeling-with: the Phenomenology of Knowing the Other. In A.S.
Gronseth and D.L. Davis (eds) Mutuality and Empathy: Self and Other in the Ethnographic Encounter.
Sean Kingston Publishing.
Rapport, N. 2003 I am dynamite: An Alternative Anthropology of Power. London: Routledge. [Chapter 1,
Preliminary Statements, pp. 3-21 (self as individual with life-project); chapter 2 (optional), The Life of
Power: an Existential Framework, pp. 22-90.]
Additional reading
Jackson, M. 1996 (ed.) Things as They Are: New Directions in Phenomenological Anthropology. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. [Introduction: Phenomenology, Radical Empiricism, and
Anthropological Critique, pp. 1-50.]
Rabinow, P. 2003 Anthropos Today. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Introduction: Ethos, Logos,
and Pathos, pp. 1-12.
Rabinow, P. 2007 Marking time: on the anthropology of the contemporary. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Sloterdijk, P. 2012 The art of philosophy: wisdom as a practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

13

AAP 2015-16

WEEK 12
Summing up, presentation of essays
1. Presentation and discussion of first draft of essays. While others are presenting, listen for the following
and be prepared to comment on them:

Is the structure of the argument sound?

Is the essay clearly focused and organised?
Is there a beginning, middle and end?
Is there evidence of critical reading?
Does it contain thoughtful ideas?
Is there an appropriate balance between examples and more general discussion?
Are the examples relevant to the argument?
Is there unnecessary repetition or padding?
Is it comprehensible? Or is it unclear, too abstract or full of jargon?
Is it comprehensive or are there gaping holes?

2. No new reading, but each student to come prepared to contribute briefly to a roundtable discussion on
interesting future directions in anthropology, based on readings and discussion in this module. What
might you consider to be one or two of the most promising future directions for anthropology, and
why?

14

AAP 2015-16
REGULATIONS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSED WORK
You must submit an electronic copy of your coursework via this modules Queens Online (QOL) Assignment
function. Essays sent by e-mail, e-mail attachment, or fax will NOT be accepted. A coversheet is also required
for submission of essays online and can be found on both the Schools Sharepoint and your modules QOL
resources. This must constitute the first page of your essay and should not be submitted separately.
Students presenting their work late will have 5 marks deducted for each working day thereafter, up to a
maximum of five working days. An essay will not be accepted beyond five working days after the deadline, and
a mark of zero will be awarded for work not submitted by that date.
Students who feel that mitigating circumstances have prevented the presentation of their assessed
essay on time, but who still submit it within five working days, may seek remission of the penalties for late
submission. Applications for the waiving of penalties must be made within five days of the original deadline,
using the official form (available from the Schools Sharepoint), and must be accompanied by copies of
supporting documentation. Whether remission of penalties is justified will be determined on the basis of
guidelines laid down by Academic Council. Students should note that the waiving of penalties for late submission
will be the exception rather than the rule, and that, if work is presented after the original deadline, there is no
guarantee that their module result will be published at the same time as those of other students. Please consult
the note on 'Acceptable practices below; pay particular attention to the note on plagiarism and make sure you
understand its implications.
PRODUCING ASSESSED WORK
Some hints for presenting competently organised work.
1. Basic preparation
Many problems with essays seem to stem from insufficient basic preparation, such as reading and taking
notes:
a) Read as much as possible. Use contents lists, indexes, introductions and conclusions intelligently when
you are seeking information from a book. Use references at the end of books and articles for further
reading if required, and, of course, use the bibliographical sources in the library for alternative or further
reading.
b) Think about your note-taking technique. Do not write out whole chunks of prose; remember that the works
you read were not written with your essay in mind. Organise your notes. Analyse the differing opinions:
ask, What is X's bias and why is Y ignoring facts which X has brought to prominence? How adequately
supported is every opinion that you read? Think critically and sceptically. Try to distinguish between
evidence, interpretation and assertion when taking notes from reading.
2. Plan your essay
a) Work out beforehand what you mean to say. A flow diagram can be useful. An essay should be a
considered opinion submitted to a tutor for criticism: the essay which you hand in is not the place to work out
your basic ideas. It is useful but not essential to write a first draft.
b)You must be clear on the point/meaning of the question. Always introduce your subject with an explanation
of the problems the essay poses and how you are going to tackle them.
(i) You may need to define certain concepts before you can answer the question. This can help to keep
the essay on the track required by the question.
(ii) If the essay question quotes a statement and asks for your opinion, then you are being asked to argue
a case. It is helpful to the reader if you briefly indicate what your argument will be.
(iii) If the essay is designed to be more general (e.g. Discuss..., Analyse..., Account for...), then define
the terms of the question, and indicate the general scope of your analysis. Such essay titles never
constitute an invitation to write a simple narrative.
15

AAP 2015-16
c) Use your introduction to announce your theme and to provide at the very beginning a brief rsum of your
argument or analysis. To do this means you are forced to get the issues clear in your head instead of leaving
parts of the essay in a fuzzy, undeveloped state and hoping that you will be able to work them out later. It
follows that you should not need to give many, if any, specific facts in your introduction. Similarly, be careful
with quotations in introductions. Quotations may introduce a subject but they can rarely act as an adequate
introduction to your argument.
3. Content and desirable qualities
a) The body of the essay should be a well balanced mixture of analysis and description. You should develop
your themes point by point, unfold your argument progressively, and give precise supporting evidence from
your reading.
b) Some students think that it is a mark of subtlety not to be too explicit and mechanical in answering a
question. It is far better to give a very explicit argument.
c) Do not leave it to the end to make your point; an essay should be an argument or a series of arguments
around a theme, and you should integrate analytical and descriptive material.
d) Do not be afraid to have an opinion. We want to know what you think but your opinion must be supported
by evidence. An essay is an exercise in working out your particular ideas on a subject.
e) Avoid irrelevance. Keep an eye on the question all the time.
f) Refer to relevant evidence, remembering that the only detail required is that which is necessary to back up
your analysis.
g) While lecturers are interested in how much you know, they are also interested in how well you use what you
know to analyse the problem. The range of your knowledge will be apparent from your illustrations and the
aptness of any quotations you use. To put down too much detail only diffuses the impact of your analysis.
h) Avoid repetition. Avoid padding.
i) Essays should be well thought out pieces of work. In your essay you are trying to communicate ideas. You
should try to write smoothly, and choose your words and phrases with care. Read over your work. Is it
expressed economically? Aim at lucidity of thought and clarity of expression.
j) Remember to read through your essay after you have written it to check for errors. In particular, check
spellings (word processors have spell checkers but make sure to set them to UK English) and make tenses
agree. Be especially careful with the spelling of proper names of authors; misspellings may give the
impression that you have merely heard the name in a lecture.
k) Acknowledge your sources in the references section at the end. Remember to distinguish between opinion
and fact, event and viewpoint. If you prefer one writer's opinion, show why you think another's inadequate.
Deal with the positive and negative aspects of a position.
l) Draw your essay together with a balanced conclusion; do not leave your argument with ragged ends. A
conclusion is not the place to add new information or arguments. Again, as with introductions, do not try to
make a quotation do the work of a conclusion for you. You may think that Smith or Durkheim has said the last
word, but they were not writing with your essay in mind.
4. Presentation of the essay
a) It is important that you word-process or type your assessed work. Most students tend to have laptops, but
there are computer facilities for undergraduates in the McClay Library.
b) Please number the pages, and leave wide margins for comments.
c) Please staple pages so that sheets do not become detached.
d) You should include a precise word count on the last page. Required lengths are specified in module
outlines.

16

AAP 2015-16
5. Notes on reading sources
a) It is important to familiarise yourself with the University Library. The Library offers guided tours to help you.
Remember, you can learn to find appropriate sources for yourself including current periodicals.
b) Members of staff will have scanned required readings and put them on QOL. Make sure you access these
readings.
6. Reference List
Essays should follow academic conventions. Most of your essays will be based on other people's research and
ideas. Therefore you should reference the source of the information you use. There are two main approaches to
referencing the footnote system and the Harvard system. Anthropology students should use the Harvard
system. The bibliography, placed at the end of the essay, must list all the sources of information used. It should
contain only those sources actually used anything you have read or come across during the course of
preparing the essay but do not refer to or use in the text should not be cited. The references should be listed
alphabetically according to the authors surnames.
HOW TO DO REFERENCES: THE HARVARD SYSTEM
Below is a list of the ways in which to reference different kinds of material. You should only reference material
that you have cited in the main body of your essay whether you have directly quoted an author or paraphrased
their work. Use a separate page or pages for references and put them at the end of the essay. List references in
alphabetical order according to the authors surname. Remember that attention to detail when doing references
is important it is one of the criteria by which your essays are marked. Below are some examples of how to do
references.
Books:
One author
Josephides, L. 2008 Melanesian Odysseys: negotiating the self, narrative, and modernity. Oxford: Berghahn.
Two authors
Donnan, H. and T. M. Wilson 2006 The Anthropology of Ireland. Oxford: Berg.
Three or more authors
Donnan, H., T. M. Wilson, and G. McFarlane 2006 The Anthropology of Ireland. Oxford: Berg.
2nd edition or 3rd edition
Berreman, G. D. 1972 Hindus of the Himalayas: Ethnography and Change. (2nd edn.) Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Citing a chapter in an edited volume:
Svasek, M. 2007 Moving corpses: emotions and subject-object ambiguity. In H. Wulff (ed.), The Emotions: a
Cultural Reader. Oxford: Berg.
Roseman, M. 2004 Engaging the spirits of modernity. In D. Howes (ed.), Empire of the Senses: the Sensual
Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg.

17

AAP 2015-16
Journal articles
Knight, J. 2006 Monkey mountain as a megazoo: analysing the naturalistic claims of wild monkey parks in
Japan. Society and Animals 14, no. 3: 245-264.
Magowan, F. 2007 Globalisation and indigenous Christianity: translocal emotions in Australian aboriginal
Christian song. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 14, no. 5: 459-483.
Internet
Brown, C. 1998 About the Samaritans: suicide prevention service volunteers. Internet document accessed
01.12.1998 at http://www.samaritans.org.uk/vols.htm
If an author is not cited:
Anonymous. 1998 About the Samaritans: suicide prevention serviced volunteers. Internet document accessed
01.12.1998 at http://www.samaritans.org.uk/vols.htm
Other cases to bear in mind
On some occasions you may find that you have used two books by the same author that have come out in the
same year. In this case label one (a) and the other (b).
Turner, V. W. 1982a From Ritual to Theatre. New York: PAJ Publications.
Turner, V. W. 1982b Image and Pilgrimage. London: Blackwell.
Making references in the text of your essay
It is very important when you quote, paraphrase or describe and analyse an authors ideas that you make
reference to their work in the text. This takes the following form:
Josephides concludes that the process of knowing others is not essentially different from the process of
knowing ones self (2008: 25)
Turner has argued that the concept of performance can be used to understand human conflict (Turner, 1982a:
32)
Turner argues that individuals must become liminal subjects during initiation rites (Turner, 1982b: 65)
It is very important to include the page number so that the reader knows exactly where you got your
information.

**ACCEPTABLE PRACTICES PLEASE READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY**

Assessed essays and dissertations are supposed to be students' own work, but because academic work of its
nature involves reference to and quotation from sources, it is possible for difficulties to arise in the way students
use these. Sometimes mistakes may be made, while occasionally students who are under pressure opt for
illegitimate short-cuts.

18

AAP 2015-16
The following guidelines are issued for the benefit of students, to help to distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable practices.
Work will be found unacceptable which is, in whole or part, reproduced directly (or with only minor rewording)
from:
a) The written work of another student. Problems should not arise here - if a fellow-student's ideas are
sufficiently original to merit inclusion, they should be acknowledged; any unacknowledged use is clearly
unacceptable.
b) Lecture notes. If you wish to use ideas and information provided by lecturers, please cite the lecturer as
your source.
c) Published work, without acknowledgement being given. This is the most serious problem-area: direct
quotation or close paraphrasing should generally be limited to individual sentences or short paragraphs.
Quotations should always be shown as such and when paraphrasing, the source should be acknowledged.
If you have read a useful quotation by X in an article or book by Y then you can acknowledge your source
as e.g. Jane Smith cited by Jones 1985:3.
d) Work, or parts of work, which has been submitted previously in the School (or anywhere else in the
University). Clearly one cannot ask for credit to be given twice for the same work.
(a) to (d) can all constitute Plagiarism. Plagiarism is consciously, or even unconsciously, filching another's
words and passing them off as your own. Do not be tempted by the conscious option, and be aware of the
possibility that you might be inadvertently stealing others words. You may think that we will not notice.
Generally we do! It should be noted that according to the university regulations, plagiarism is a disciplinary
offence (see General Regulations: University Calendar).
Notes on how to avoid plagiarism
As we have said, ideally essays are for working out your own ideas. This is what you should aim for, since it is
the best way of learning to think critically about a topic. But, as we have also said, in developing your own ideas,
it is important to engage the writing and sayings of others, including your teachers and other writers who have
engaged with the topic(s) at hand. Using your reading and lecture notes and quoting from them effectively is a
vital part of writing good quality essays in any scholarly discipline. But transferring reading for your essay into
the body of the essay itself can present problems, which at their worst appear to be plagiarism.
Plagiarism can be roughly defined as the unacknowledged borrowing of someone elses words or ideas. The
penalties for plagiarism can be very severe and in recent years several cases of plagiarism have occurred within
the School of History and Anthropology, with serious consequences for the students involved. Plagiarism from
internet sources has become regrettable feature of all third level education in recent years. The Internet is a
wonderful resource, but please be aware that internet sources are sometimes unreliable, and that if you use
these sources they must always be cited in the same way that you would cite a book or article. The person
marking your essay will know that internet sources are very easy to find, and will have access to software for
detecting any direct copying of it.
All your tutors, and the University in general, strongly disapprove of plagiarism. Plagiarism is plainly identifiable
in essays. To avoid inadvertently plagiarising follow this simple advice:

19

AAP 2015-16
(i) If in doubt, cite the source. At times in writing an essay you may wonder whether the idea or words referred
to are strictly speaking your own or from the source you have read. In all such cases, acknowledge the source.
It shows that you have read widely and carefully, and avoids the danger of plagiarism. If you change a few
words from your source, you must still indicate the source. Even if you put a borrowed idea into your own words,
you must say who thought of it in the first place (As Judith Okely suggests ...).
(ii) Pay attention to the Hints on Writing Essays and Reports above.
(iii) Careful note-taking. Plagiarism often happens inadvertently when a student has read a source, taken notes
on it and then used those notes in writing an essay. Somewhere in this process words or ideas which are
someone elses come to seem to feel like the students own. Be sure when taking notes on sources that you
can identify what are notes are you own thoughts and ideas, and what notes come directly from the source
material.
(iv) Make your own argument(s): Engage with the ideas and arguments of other writers, but do not be dependent
upon them. Use other sources in a way that contributes to the argument(s) you are making, but do not directly
quote too much.. An essay that is solely made up of quotations from other sources, even if all sources are all
cited, is very bad practice.
Please note:
All cases of suspected plagiarism will be taken seriously by the School. Any essay in which plagiarism is
identified or suspected will lead to the student being interviewed about their essay, and may involve further
action being taken by the University. IN SEVERE CASES OF PLAGIARISM A MARK OF ZERO MAY BE
AWARDED AND NO RESIT PERMITTED. If you have any questions about how to avoid plagiarism further to
the advice above, please ask your lecturer or tutor.
If you need help with any aspect of your studies, please contact your personal tutor and/or the Learning and
Development Service.
MARKING CRITERIA FOR PG WRITTEN WORK
The criteria used for evaluating essays are set out below. These are adapted from the University's 'Draft
Conceptual Equivalents Scale' for postgraduate courses. The important thresholds are as follows:
Over 70%
50-69%
Up to 49%

Distinction
Pass
Fail

80-100% (Outstanding Distinction)

Thorough and systematic knowledge and understanding of module content;
Clear grasp of issues involved, with evidence of innovative and original use of learning resources;
Knowledge beyond module content;
Clear evidence of independence of thought and originality.
Methodological rigour;
High critical judgement and confident grasp of complex issues.
70-79% (Clear Distinction)
Methodological rigour;
Originality
Critical judgement
Use of additional learning resources.
20

AAP 2015-16
60-69% (Good Pass)
Very good knowledge and understanding of module content;
Well argued answer;
Some evidence of originality and critical judgement;
Sound methodology;
Critical judgement and some grasp of complex issues.
50-59% (Pass)
Good knowledge and understanding of the module content;
Reasonably well argued;
Largely descriptive or narrative in focus;
Methodological application is not consistent or thorough.
40-49% (Fail)
Lacking methodological application;
Adequately argued;
Basic understanding and knowledge;
Gaps or inaccuracies but not damaging.
0-39% (Fail)
Little relevant material and/or inaccurate answer or incomplete;
Disorganised;
Largely irrelevant material and misunderstanding;
No evidence of methodology;
Minimal or no relevant material.
Minimal or no relevant material.

21