Anthropology 4990 (CRN: 14465)
Contemporary Issues in Cultural Anthropology
W 6:30-9:00/Main 201
Spring 2013
Instructor Dr. Bonnie Glass-Coffin,
Office Old Main #245E
Office hours MWF 9:30-10:20 and W 17:00-18:00
e-mail bonnie.glasscoffin@usu.edu
Required Texts:
Behar, Ruth
1996 The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart. Boston: Beacon Press.
ISBN 978-0-8070-4631-9
Borofsky, Robert
2005 Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It. Berkeley:
University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24404-4
Brown: Michael F.
2003 Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01633-5
Nordstrom, Carolyn
2004 Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profittering in the Twenty-First
Century. Berkeley: U.C. Press, ISBN 0-520-24241-6
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt
2005 Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ISBN 0-691-12065-X
Course rationale and assessment guidelines:
This course focuses on Contemporary Issues in Anthropology in the 21st century. It also focuses
on the theoretical and methodological strategies that have emerged from the “paradigm wars” in
which anthropology found itself in the late 20th century. It is designed to be a “capstone” course
in cultural anthropology, and it presumes that you have significant understanding of the scope,
method, and evolution of the discipline. The specific competencies covered in the course are
outlined in detail on the “assessment” section of the Utah State University anthropology web-site
(www.usu.edu/anthro/assessment.html).
The last decades of the 20th century were ones of tremendous growing-pains for our
discipline. As scholars, we continued to debate the merits of “scientific/humanistic” paradigms
as appropriate (or not) for informing anthropological theory and method. We became
increasingly contentious in our arguments and often deaf to the merits of “the other side.” We
wrestled with our “colonial legacy” and became increasingly self-reflective about the problems
inherent when largely Euro-American trained scholars reflect on and write about the life-ways of
largely native “Others.” In an increasingly global and an increasingly urban world, we became
1
aware that anthropology’s historical focus on rural, tribal, isolated, and non-Western peoples was
both specious and fictitious. What has emerged from these moments of self-reflection and latecentury angst is a growing sense of our responsibilities as scholars to engage with the subjects,
the topics, and the consequences of our scholarship. What has also emerged is the recognition
that, through it all, the stories that we tell, because of the unique positions we find ourselves in as
we do our work, matter.
Over the course of the semester we will read accounts that require your critical analyses
of a number of themes. To begin, we will consider the ethics and consequences of doing
fieldwork among the Yanomami and the consequences of their ethnographic portrayal as “The
Fierce People” by looking closely at the “Darkness in El Dorado” controversy that erupted a few
years ago. Later in the course, we will consider the strategies we use to document cultural
variability within global structures, how ethnography can be used to illuminate the realities of
violence in a post-national world, and the ways that fieldwork affects our lives as fieldworkers;
all while considering the ways in which anthropological method and theory can be applied to
make sense of and to be useful in the world. Because it is a capstone course, the class has been
designed to both contribute to and assess your competence in anthropological knowledge as well
as scholarly skills and habits. These include, a) the ability to think critically and analytically, b)
the ability to effectively communicate (both orally and in writing), and c) the ability to compare,
contrast, understand, synthesize and apply anthropological methods and theory. Although the
course will require much of your time and your critical/creative energies, successful completion
of the course should bring you satisfaction and confidence in both your skills as a scholar and in
your knowledge of anthropological method and theory.
To be successful in this course, you must not only attend class all the time, but you must
also be thoroughly prepared, actively involved, and arrange your schedule so you have enough
time to thoroughly digest each assigned reading. Assignments will include periodic oral
presentations and critiques of our readings as well as primary responsibility for leading class
discussion. Additionally, students will complete weekly written reading summaries to assess
currency in reading and descriptive knowledge of text content. The final paper will assess both
critical thinking skills and ability to effectively communicate the process/product of this criticalthinking by asking students to synthesize and apply course concepts to the analysis of a
contemporary issue in anthropology of your choice.
Course requirements:
Weekly reading summaries
One-two pages in length (single-spaced). Papers must discuss what the reading is about, why the
reading is significant, position the reading in terms of general themes/concepts we are discussing
in class, and critique the reading. These papers are due AT THE BEGINNING of class. (You
may want to keep a copy for yourself to refer to during class discussion). Up to 10 points
possible for each paper for 12 weeks. Grades are assigned based on a) descriptive, b) analytical,
c) presentation competency (Up to 120 points possible).
In-class discussion: Students receive up to 10 points per class for active participation in class
discussion. Missed in-class discussion points can not be made up. In-class discussion grades are
awarded based on a) initiative: student participates actively in discussion without undo
2
prompting by professor or student presenters, b) preparation: discussion points raised show
evidence that student has completed, digested, and synthesized assigned reading materials, c)
relevance: student participation in discussion is relevant to key themes that are the topic of the
day and student participation advances, rather than detracting from consideration of these, d)
insight: student raises points that advance the arguments, linking them to wider issues in the
discipline and/or presenting insightful comments beyond what is discussed in the readings. (Two
lowest scores will be dropped to allow necessary absences). Up to 130 points possible.
Assignment #1: (Due Jan 16 or 23)
Students are assigned to groups with major responsibility for presentation of one chapter in the
Brown book to the rest of the class. Chapters 1-4 are presented Jan 16 and 5-8 are presented on
Jan 23. Each presentation is no more than 15 minutes in length. The presentation must a)
describe the material in the chapter so that students who have not read the chapter can discern
what the key points are as well as why they are significant to the practice of contemporary
anthropology, b) present at least one case-study that illustrates the main theme(s) of the chapter,
c) show evidence that external sources have been consulted to add to the materials presented in
the chapter. Lecture notes, presentation outline, or a written summary of the presentation must
accompany oral presentation. It is the group’s responsibility to distribute copies of these to all
who are in attendance. As in assignment one, there must be evidence that all members of group
have contributed to the effort. Oral presentation is worth up to 25 points. Written
summary/lecture notes worth up to 25 points.
Assignment #2 due Feb. 20 The Yanomami controversy: Taking – Sides/ Debating the Issues.
How does the Yanomami controversy illuminate the following issues, raised by Borofsky: How
can anthropology move beyond colonial practices that inform the history of our discipline? What
today constitutes a fair and just relationship among the parties concerned? What responsibilities
do anthropologists have for obtaining permission and consent from the subjects of our research
and how far into the future do the sometimes unforeseen consequences of research require renegotiation of “informed consent? How should “just compensation” for subjects of research be
determined?
To discuss these issues, students are divided into groups. As a group, students are tasked
with becoming intimately familiar with the perspective of one of the six participants (Albert,
Hames, Hill, Martins, Peters, Turner) of the AAA Task Force that debated the issues raised by
Tierney in his book. Students present the major opinions of their assigned participant during
week 3 class meeting. (Each group is responsible for sections of the Borofsky text that pertain to
positions of their assigned task-force participant and summarize the key points, with evidence
from the text, as part of their presentation). After all six groups have presented, the merits and
weaknesses of each participant’s position is debated by the class as a whole, and the Yanomami
case is used to suggest a “Statement of Research Ethics” that addresses the general questions
listed above. There is a written and an oral component to this assignment. Components for
successful completion of this assignment are as follows:


EACH student from the group must participate in oral presentation.
Each group must address each of the following topics as part of the presentation (these
are found in the Appendix.
3



o According to their assigned “participant,” how should anthropologists ethically
deal with unequal power relationships that are typical of research?
o According to their assigned “participant,” how should the discipline ensure
professional integrity of field researchers?
o What measures should be used to establish credibility of anthropological
reporting/action and how do ideological politics sometimes impact anthropology’s
“search for scientific truth?”
o What are Tierney’s charges against Chagnon and Neel, are these credible, and
what action ought to be taken now to deal with Yanomami concerns about stored
blood?
Each group must turn in a written “Statement of Anthropological Ethics” that reflects
their consensus about the issues addressed in Borofsky’s book (note: this “statement”
does NOT have to reflect the position of their assigned round-table “participant.”
Oral presentations are limited 10 minutes each and are worth up to 25 points.
Written “statements of ethics” should be no more than 3 pages in length. One statement
per group is required Statements must be copied and distributed to every student in
the class and turned in at the beginning of the class period on Feb 20th. Ethics
statements are worth up to 25 points.
Assignment 3: Due Mar. 6
All students write a 3-4 pg. book-review of the Tsing text, which a) summarizes the content of
the text, b) analyzes key themes in terms of corresponding theoretical and methodological issues
relevant to the practice of cultural anthropology in the 21st century, c) appraises the value of this
text as a teaching tool for a course such as this one. Essays are graded in terms of a) descriptive,
b) analytical, c) presentation competency. Students are selected at random to present portions of
their essays during in-class discussion. Up to 20 points possible.
Assignment 4: Due Mar. 27
Students are assigned one chapter of the Behar book for presentation during class. Unlike
Assignment #2, students do not present as a group, but rather individually. More than one student
will be assigned to each chapter so that multiple students orally reflect upon each other’s
presentations and analytically position the readings in terms of broader issues for the benefit of
the class as a whole. Presentation of each chapter is no more than 20 minutes in length
(including all discussion). The presentation must a) describe the material in the chapter so that
students who have not read the chapter can discern what the key points are as well as why they
are significant to the practice of contemporary anthropology, b) involve all students in a
consideration of how the Behar readings illustrate the theoretical and methodological issues
raised by the Hale readings. Oral presentation is worth up to 10 points possible.
Assignment 5: Due April 10.
All students write a 3-4 pg. book-review of the Nordstrom text, which a) summarizes the content
of the text, b) analyzes key themes in terms of corresponding theoretical and methodological
issues relevant to the practice of cultural anthropology in the 21st century, c) appraises the value
of this text as a teaching tool for a course such as this one. Essays are graded in terms of a)
descriptive, b) analytical, c) presentation competency. Students are selected at random to present
portions of their essays during in-class discussion. Up to 20 points possible.
4
Final Project: Due 5pm,Apr 29th..
Details to be discussed in class. Up to 100 points possible
Total points possible:
In-class discussion:
Weekly reaction papers
Assignments 1-5
Final Project:
130
120
150
100
500
Late/Make-up Assignment Policy:
In-class discussion points cannot be made up but two lowest scores will be dropped. Makeup of all other assignments is at instructor discretion and must generally be arranged for by
students requiring accommodations prior to the due-date scheduled. Late assignments may be
accepted, at instructor discretion, but frequently result in a point penalty.
ADA and FERPA:
IN COOPERATION WITH THE DISABILITY RESOURCE CENTER, reasonable
accommodation will be provided for students with disabilities. Please meet with the instructor
during the first week of class to make arrangements. Alternative format print materials, large
print, audio, diskette or Braille, will be available through the Disability Resource Center.
The Family Education Right to Privacy Act prohibits grades, graded-essays, or any other form
of graded assignment from being released by phone or from being placed in a public setting (e.g.
outside the classroom, etc.) except with explicit written permission from the student in question.
Course Outline:
Week #1 (Jan 9) Contemporary anthropology and ETHICS
Reading assignment: none
Introduction to the course. Film: “Anthropology on Trial” and discussion
Week #2 (Jan 16) Who “owns” native culture: culture as process or product?
Reading assignment: Hale (on reserve, pp. 213-236 all students and Brown (preface and
introduction all students) Brown, Chs. 1-4 (Selected students)
Assignment 1: Presentations, Chs 1-4. Discussion in response to presentations (all students)
Week #3 (Jan 23) No Class
Week #4 (Jan 30) Who “owns” native culture 2: activism and authorship
Reading assignment: Hale (on reserve, pp. 88-111 all students) Brown, Chs. 5-8 (Selected
students)
Assignment 1: Presentations, Ch. 5-8. Discussion of Hale reading in response to presentations
(all students)
Week #5 (Feb 6) Beyond “scientific objectivity:” the case for an engaged anthropology
Reading assignment: Borofksy: 3-52 (All Students)
5
Film: “The Feast” Discussion of readings, selection of teams for week 4 debate
Week #6 (Feb 13) Ethics, colonial legacies, and representations of “the Other”
Reading assignment: Borofsky 53-106 (All Students)
Film: “Into the Heart” Discussion of readings (Selections from Borofksy, pp. 109-313)
Week #7 (Feb 20) The implications of our research: towards a new definition of ethics
Reading assignment: Borofksy, (Team-specific sections of relevance), pp. 109-313)
Discussion of readings. Assignment 2: Team-based presentation and debate of the issues
Week #8 (Feb 27) The spaces between: challenging essentialist notions of space and place
Reading assignment: Tsing, pp. 1-154 (All students)
Discussion of readings.
Week #9 (Mar 6) The roles of context and connection in theory and method
Reading assignment: Tsing, pp. 155-end
Discussion of readings and video TBA
March 11-15, SPRING BREAK
Week #10 (Mar 20) Participant observation or observing participants: redefining our roles?
Reading assignment: Behar, 1-33, all students Discussion of readings: anthropology, scholarship,
and the stories of our lives.
Week #11 (Mar 27) The politics of knowledge production: from individual to collective
stories
Reading assignment: Hale, (on reserve, pp. 237-264 all students) Behar, selected chapters
Student presentations of Behar chapters, discussion of Hale in response to Behar.
Week #12 (Apr 3) Power, dependency, and violence: more challenges to activist
anthropology
Nordstrom, pp. 1-137, (All students)
Discussion of readings
Week #13 (Apr 10) New blueprints for ethnography: anthropological activism and human
rights
Reading assignment: Nordstrom pp. 138-end,
Film: “Returning Dreams”
Discussion of readings
Week #14 (Apr 17) Asset Based Community Development and Economic Justice
Reading assignment: TBA
Film: “Helping Ourselves!”
Discussion of readings
Week #15 (Apr 24)
6
Reading assignment: none
Course wrap up, consultations re: final project and discussion of next steps...
FINAL PAPER DUE: TUESDAY, Apr 30 ,5 p.m.
7