1
ANT 611
History of Anthropological Theory, Part I
Fall 2013
Fridays, 9:30 am – 12:15 pm
Ruth Benedict
Billy Prince and Julian Steward
Mary Douglas
Cora Du Bois
Claude Levi-Strauss
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 mid1980s to the present.
1
2
This is a heavy reading course, that exposes you to a large amount of scholarly literature.
Reading averages between 150 to 250 pages per week. Each week I have assigned two sets of
readings. The “context” readings place the week’s theoretical tradition into intellectual,
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 major contribution 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 readings thoroughly, we begin 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
2
3
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'
3
4
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 them as soon as possible. The books are often lengthy, and it will not do to wait until the
last minute.
4
5
“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 will engage 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.
5
6
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, 1877 Ancient Society,
selections
Presentation: McLennan, John. 1865. Primitive Marriage
Sept 13: Fieldwork in 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
6
7
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:


Texts:






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
______. 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
7
8
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”





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”
Texts:
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
8
9
Part 4: Structuralist and 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
9
10
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.]
10
11
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
11