Anthropology 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
Course Instructor:
Contact email:
Class location:
Class time:
Office location:
Office hours:
Stephen Campbell
stephen.campbell@utoronto.ca
KTH-107
Wednesdays, 2:30pm – 5:30pm
CNH 428
Wednesdays, 12:30pm – 2:30pm
COURSE DESCRIPTION
How does power shape our everyday practices, relations and meaning? What is the relationship
between the social relations in which we are embedded and the ways that we come to see the world?
What possibilities exist for individuals and groups to contest the social relations that shape their
lives? Addressing questions such as these from an anthropological perspective, this course engages
with theories of power, agency, and resistance in historical and contemporary cultural contexts.
Drawing on visual materials and ethnographic forms of writing, it looks at a range of related issues,
including nationalism, neoliberalism, democracy, and various contemporary forms of organizing.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
1. Familiarising students with key concepts in political anthropology, such as agency, structural
violence, ideology, hegemony, and resistance.
2. Engaging students with a range of case studies on which to draw for critical thinking about
anthropological approaches to power and its effects. Course readings and lecture examples will be
drawn from a diversity of global contexts.
3. Providing students with the capacity to hone core critical skills that are not only key to the
anthropological discipline but to a good university education—and ultimately the practice of
critical-constructive democratic citizenship—more generally:
• positional thinking, i.e. that in order to understand other people, other societies, and other
ways of life we must be able to imagine and understand points of view that come from being in
positions different than our own.
• self-reflection and comparison, i.e. that learning about ways of life, practices, and societies
different from our own forces us to ask questions about why we do things the way we do.
• critical reasoning and critical analysis. Through engagement with different anthropological
texts, students will learn to identify their authors’ arguments, analyze the strategies they
mobilize to make these arguments persuasive (or not), and discuss the merits and stakes of
qualitative research
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
1 of 6
IMPORTANT DATES
28 October Mid-term quiz
13 November Last day to drop course without failure by default
18 November Essay abstract and bibliography due
11 December Final essay due
GRADING
The grades for this class will be based upon evaluations of a range of student work. These assessments
aim to give students a chance to think through course concepts, apply these concepts to particular
case studies, and critically analyse the merits of different theoretical frameworks.
Four short response papers (400 – 450 words each)
10% each (40%)
Students will be required to write four short response papers based on the readings for four different
weeks, beginning in week 2. These response papers are to be submitted on paper at the start of the
relevant class. The response papers will be evaluated on the following three criteria: 1) originality or
thoughtfulness, 2) preciseness of articulation, and 3) comprehension of the text(s). The purpose of
this assignment is to give students an opportunity to develop their analytical ability and
understanding of course material in preparation for the final essay.
Participation
10%
Students will be required to participate in in-class discussion of course material, including the weekly
readings. For this reason, students are requested to complete the weekly readings in advance of the
pertinent lecture.
Mid-term quiz
10%
The mid-term quiz will cover key theoretical terms and theorists discussed in the course thus far.
Weekly in-class writing exercises (10 weeks)
.5% each (5%)
Students will be asked to write for five minutes during each week’s class on that week’s subject
matter. Students will be provided in-class with a question related to the assigned readings. Students
are therefore requested to have a pen and paper with them at each lecture. These in-class writing
exercises are graded as pass/fail based on whether the student demonstrates knowledge of the
assigned texts for that week.
Essay abstract (250 – 300 words) and bibliography
(5%)
Students are to submit an essay abstract of 200 – 300 words outlining their chose topic, the analytical
framework they plan to apply or engage with, and their chosen case study. The abstract is to be
followed by an initial bibliography of at least 7 sources.
Final essay (7 pages)
(30%)
This assignment allows students to carry out a critical engagement with select theoretical concepts
from the course. Students should select a topic from one of the course weeks and critically apply it to
a case study of their choosing. Essays must make a clear argument as to the student’s position on the
subject matter. Further details on the essay will be provided in class.
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
2 of 6
CLASS SCHEDULE AND READINGS
Most readings are available online publicly or as e-journals via the McMaster University library
system. Other readings will be made available to students during the course. Students therefore do
not need to purchase any additional texts for this course.
WEEK 1 / SEPTEMBER 9 (INTRODUCTION: STRUCTURE AND AGENCY)
• [supplemental] Ortner, Sherry. 2006. “Power and Projects: Reflections on Agency,” In Anthropology
and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Durham: Duke University Press. Pp.129-154.
• [supplemental] Callinicos, Alex. 2009. “Subjects and Agents,” In Making History: Agency, Structure, and
Change in Social Theory. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. Pp.1-16.
WEEK 2 / SEPTEMBER 16 (HISTORICISED ETHNOGRAPHY)
• Wolf, Eric. 1982. “Introduction,” In Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of
California Press. Pp. 4-7.
• Roseberry, William. 1989. “Introduction,” In Anthropologies and Histories: Essays in Culture, History,
and Political Economy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Pp. 1-16.
• Bryant, Rebecca. 2014. “History’s remainders: On time and objects after conflict in Cyprus,”
American Ethnologist 14(4): 681-697.
• [supplemental] Foucault, Michel. 1984. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” In The Foucault Reader, Paul
Rabinow, ed. New York: Pantheon Books, Pp. 76-100.
WEEK 3 / SEPTEMBER 23 (STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE)
• Farmer, Paul. 1996. “On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below,” Daedalus 125(1):
261-283.
• Benson, Peter. 2008. “El Campo: Faciality and Structural Violence in Farm Labor Camps,” Cultural
Anthropology 23(4): 586-629.
• [supplemental] Galtung, Johan. 1990. “Cultural Violence,” Journal of Peace Research 27(3):291-305.
WEEK 4 / SEPTEMBER 30 (IDEOLOGY)
• Luermann, Sonja. 2011. “The Modernity of Manual Reproduction: Soviet Propaganda and the
Creative Life of Ideology,” Cultural Anthropology 26(3):363-388.
• Ortner, Sherry. 1989. “Cultural politics: Religious activism and ideological transformation among
20th century sherpas,” Dialectical Anthropology 14(3):197-211.
• [supplemental] Althusser, Louis. 1970. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” In “Lenin and
Philosophy” and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
WEEK 5 / OCTOBER 7 (HEGEMONY)
• Crehan, Kate. 2002. “Gramsci Now,” In Gramsci, Culture and Anthropology. Berkeley: University of
California Press. Pp.165-210.
• Morgen, Sandra and Lisa Gonzales. 2008. “The Neoliberal American Dream as Daydream: Counterhegemonic Perspectives on Welfare Restructuring in the United States,” Critique of Anthropology
28(2): 219-236.
• [supplemental] Roseberry, William. 1994. “Hegemony and the Language of Contention,” In Everyday
Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico. Gilbert Joseph and
Daniel Nugent, eds. Durham: Duke University Press. Pp.355-366.
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
3 of 6
BREAK / OCTOBER 14 (NO CLASS)
WEEK 6 / OCTOBER 21 (RESISTANCE)
• Scott, James. 1986. “Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance in South‐East Asia,” Journal of Peasant
Studies 13(2): 5-35.
• Ortner, Sherry. 2006. “Resistance and the Problem of Ethnographic Refusal,” In Anthropology and
Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Durham: Duke University Press. Pp.42-62.
• [supplemental] Guha, Ranajit. 1983. “Introduction,” In Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 1-17.
WEEK 7 / OCTOBER 28 (CRITIQUES OF AGENCY) (MID-TERM QUIZ)
• Asad, Talal. 1993. “Introduction,” In Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in
Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Pp. 1-24.
• Mitchell, Timothy. 1990. “Everyday Metaphors of Power,” Theory and Society 19(5): 545-577.
WEEK 8 / NOVEMBER 4 (NATIONALISM)
• Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions,” In The Invented Tradition, Eric
Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1-14.
• Chatterjee, Partha. 2010 (1991). “Whose Imagined Community?” In Empire and Nation: Selected
Essays. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 23-36.
WEEK 9 / NOVEMBER 11 (NEOLIBERALISM)
• Nouvet, Elysée. 2014. “Some Carry On, Some Stay in Bed: (In)convenient Affects and Agency in
Neoliberal Nicaragua,” Cultural Anthropology 29(1): 80-102.
• Kingfisher, Catherine and Jeff Maskovsky. 2008. “Introduction: The Limits of Neoliberalism,”
Critique of Anthropology 28(2):115-126.
• [supplemental] Harvey, David. 2005. “Freedom’s Just Another Word,” In A Brief History of
Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 5-38.
WEEK 10 / NOVEMBER 18 (DEMOCRACY) (ESSAY ABSTRACTS DUE)
• Björkman, Lisa. 2014. “‘You can’t buy a vote’: Meanings of money in a Mumbai election
Published,” American Ethnologist 41(4): 617-634.
• Razsa, Maple and Andrej Kurnik. 2012. “The Occupy Movement in Žižek’s hometown: Direct
democracy and a politics of becoming,” American Ethnologist 39(2): 238-258.
• [supplemental] Walker, Andrew. 2008. “The rural constitution and the everyday politics of elections
in Northern Thailand,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1): 84-105
WEEK 11 / NOVEMBER 25 (GOVERNMENTALITY)
• Foucault, Michel. 1991. “Governmentality,” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
Burchell, Gordon and Miller, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 87-104.
• Matza, Tomas. 2012. “‘Good individualism’? Psychology, ethics, and neoliberalism in postsocialist
Russia,” American Ethnologist 39(4): 804-818.
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
4 of 6
WEEK 12 / DECEMBER 2 (CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF ORGANIZING)
• Chaterjee, Partha. 2004. “Politics of the Governed,” In The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on
Popular Politics in Most of the World. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 53-80.
• Bonilla, Yarimar and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. “#Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and
the racial politics of social media in the United States,” American Ethnologist 42(1): 4-17.
• [supplemental] Campbell, Stephen. 2013. “Solidarity formations under flexibilisation: Workplace
struggles of precarious migrants in Thailand,” Global Labour Journal 4(2): 134-151.
WEEK 13 / DECEMBER 11 (CONCLUSION) (ESSAYS DUE)
• No readings for this week.
POLICIES
The instructor and university reserve the right to modify elements of the course during the term.
The university may change the dates and deadlines for any or all courses in extreme circumstances.
If either type of modification becomes necessary, reasonable notice and communication with the
students will be given with explanation and the opportunity to comment on changes. It is the
responsibility of the student to check his/her McMaster email and course websites weekly during
the term and to note any changes.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
Academic dishonesty consists of misrepresentation by deception or by other fraudulent means and
can result in serious consequences, e.g., the grade of zero on an assignment, loss of credit with a
notation on the transcript (notation reads: “Grade of F assigned for academic dishonesty”), and/or
suspension or expulsion from the university.
It is your responsibility to understand what constitutes academic dishonesty. For information on the
various kinds of academic dishonesty please refer to the Academic Integrity Policy, Appendix 3,
http://www.mcmaster.ca/policy/Students-AcademicStudies/AcademicIntegrity.pdf
The following illustrates only three forms of academic dishonesty:
1.
Plagiarism, e.g., the submission of work that is not one’s own for which other credit has been
obtained. (Insert specific course information, e.g., style guide)
2.
Improper collaboration in group work. (Insert specific course information)
3.
Copying or using unauthorized aids in tests and examinations.
(If applicable) In this course we will be using a software package designed to reveal plagiarism.
Students will be required to submit their work electronically and in hard copy so that it can be
checked for academic dishonesty.
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES E-MAIL COMMUNICATION POLICY
Effective September 1, 2010, it is the policy of the Faculty of Social Sciences that all e-mail
communication sent from students to instructors (including TAs), and from students to staff, must
originate from the student’s own McMaster University e-mail account. This policy protects
confidentiality and confirms the identity of the student. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
5 of 6
that communication is sent to the university from a McMaster account. If an instructor becomes
aware that a communication has come from an alternate address, the instructor may not reply at his
or her discretion.
Email Forwarding in MUGSI:
http://www.mcmaster.ca/uts/support/email/emailforward.html
*Forwarding will take effect 24-hours after students complete the process at the above link
(Approved at the Faculty of Social Sciences meeting on Tues. May 25, 2010)
SUBMISSIONS
Student assignments (response papers, abstract and final essay) should be submitted in hard copy
during class time. Graded response papers and abstracts will likewise be returned to students in-class.
Students are advised to retain copies of any assignments that they submit.
ABSENCES
In the event of an absence for medical or other reasons, students should review and follow the
Academic Regulation in the Undergraduate Calendar “Requests for Relief for Missed Academic Term
Work”. Please note these regulations have changed beginning Spring/Summer 2015.
LATE WORK
Extensions for course assignments will only be granted under conditions of medical, family, or other
extraordinary circumstances. All other late assignments will be penalized at a rate of 2.5% per day.
Late assignments will not be accepted after 7 days beyond the original deadline without appropriate
documentation from the Office of the Associate Dean of Social Sciences.
What is culture? (a point of reference)
“Once we locate the reality of society in historically changing, imperfectly bounded, multiple and
branching social alignments... the concept of a fixed, unitary, and bounded culture must give way to a
sense of the fluidity and permeability of cultural sets. In the rough-and-tumble of social interaction,
groups are known to exploit the ambiguities of inherited [cultural] forms, to impart new evaluations
or valences to them, to borrow forms more expressive of their interests, or to create wholly new
forms to answer to changed circumstances. Furthermore, if we think of such interaction not as
causative in its own terms but as responsive to larger economic and political forces, the explanation of
cultural forms must take account of that larger context, that wider field of force. ‘A culture’ is thus
better seen as a series of processes that construct, reconstruct, and dismantle cultural materials, in
response to identifiable determinants” (Eric Wolf, Europe and the People without History, 1982, p.387).
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
6 of 6
Anthropology 3PH3: Response Papers
Number due:
Length:
Due dates:
Value:
Four
400 – 450 words
One response per week on four different weeks of a student’s choice,
beginning in week 2.
10% each x 4 responses = 40% of total course grade
ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION
Students are to write a critical response to the assigned readings for a given week (excluding the
readings listed as “supplemental”). These reading responses aim to give students a chance to think
through the theoretical frameworks and core concepts from a given set of readings and to
critically analyse the merits of different theoretical frameworks, in preparation for the final essay.
ASSIGNMENT FORMAT AND CONTENT
The reading responses should begin with a brief (1 – 2 paragraph) summary of the argument,
theoretical framework, and core concepts presented in the assigned text(s). The word limit for
these responses is quite short, so try to be concise. This summary should be followed by a critical
engagement with the argument(s) presented in one or more of the assigned text(s). This critical
engagement might include (but is not restricted to) one or more of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pointing to where you agree with the argument(s) in the text(s). (Why do you agree? What is
most convincing about the writer’s argument(s)? What do you find insightful? Why do you
think this text is relevant?)
Pointing to where you disagree with the arguments in the text(s). (Is there something the
writer has not taken into account? Is the writer’s reasoning flawed? Is the writer basing his or
her arguments and analysis on problematic assumptions?)
Highlighting important differences or similarities between the arguments and analyses of the
various assigned readings for that week (this only works for weeks with multiple assigned
texts).
Highlighting important differences or similarities between the assigned readings for that week
and other assigned readings you have already read for this course.
Suggesting how the argument(s) presented in the text(s) could be usefully applied to a
different context or case study. (You can draw on cases you are personally familiar with, or
cases you have studied in other courses.)
Pointing out if and how the argument(s) in the assigned readings diverge from common
narratives we hear/read in mainstream media.
ASSIGNMENT GRADING
The reading response papers will be evaluated on the following three criteria:
1) Comprehension of the text(s) [reading/understanding]
• Has the student clearly summarised the arguments and analysis presented in the texts?
• Has the student identified and explained the core concepts used in the text?
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
1 of 2
2) Preciseness of articulation [writing]
• Has the student effectively conveyed in his or her own words the arguments from the
assigned text(s)?
• Has the student effectively conveyed his or her own arguments and analysis?
3) Originality or thoughtfulness [analysis]
• Has the student provided a critical engagement with the assigned text(s)?
• Has the student provided a coherent analysis?
• Is the student’s analysis and critical engagement with the text(s) original?
• Has the student creatively drawn on other relevant cases or readings from other weeks or
from outside the course?
Letter Grade
Grade Point
%
Grade guideline
90100
Exceptional work of the highest quality that fully meets the assignment
requirements. Where it is a written, such work will at a level that could be
submitted for publication (with minor modifications) in a newsletter or minor
non-refereed journal. Where the work is not written it will be of a comparable
level of excellence to such publishable work.
A+
12
A
11
85-89 Exceptional work that fully meets assignment requirements. Such work will
contain characteristics such as high levels of creativity, originality of thought,
sophisticated levels of interpretation and argument, highly developed critiques,
an outstanding ability to connect ideas and issues, and/or other characteristics
relevant to the assignment.
A-
11
80-84 Exceptional work that fully meets the assignment requirements. Such work will
contain characteristics such as creativity, originality of thought, sophisticated
levels of interpretation and argument, well developed critiques a good ability to
connect ideas and issues, and/or other characteristics relevant to the assignment.
B+
10
77-79 Very good work that fully meets all the assignment requirements and contains
some characteristics such as creativity, originality of thought, good levels of
interpretation and argument, well developed critiques a good ability to connect
ideas and issues, and/or other characteristics relevant to the assignment.
B
09
73-76 Very good work that meets all the assignment requirements.
B-
08
70-72 Good work that meets all the assignment requirements.
C+
07
67-69 Satisfactory work that meets the assignment requirements.
C
06
63-66 Satisfactory work that largely meets the assignment requirements
C-
05
60-62 Less satisfactory work but it largely meets the assignment requirements.
D+
04
57-59 Weak work which meets assignment requirements.
D
03
53-56 Weak work which marginally meets assignment requirements.
D-
02
50-52 Weak work which marginally meets assignment requirements and is barely
adequate for a pass.
Fail
01
0-49 Very weak work which does not meet the standards for a pass.
ANT 3PH3: Dissent, Power and History
2 of 2