|
|
ANTH 401.001 Anthropological theory |
|
|
instructor: Samuel Collins MW, 3:30-4:45 pm Li-005 |
office hours: Mondays and Wednesdays, 1:30-3:00 pm Room Li-318A Phone: x3199 (e-mail) scollins@towson.edu homepage: pages.towson.edu/scollins |
|
course
description
Anthropologists
ordinarily think of their field as revolving around a body of more-or-less
autochthonous ideas: functionalism, structural-functionalism, situational
analysis, social drama, etc. But these
are “just-so” stories, testament less to the integrity of anthropology’s
intellectual patrimony than to the ideology of its genealogical method. In fact, anthropological theory, as Hoon Song
(2005) has said in a different context, suffers from an “excess of
representation,” that is, an over-determination of theory at once both eclectic
and neurotic. Understanding this means more than just acknowledging
anthropology’s apical ancestors: Darwin, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Freud. Together with those, there are occasionally
articulated philosophic contexts (phenomenology, methodological individualism,
empiricism, positivism, linguistic pragmatism, hermeneutics) as well as almost
entirely sublimated theoretical cladistics: temporality (Newtonian, possibly
messianic), teleology (Spencerian), subjectivity (Sartre, Levinas),
intentionality (Searle, Austin), ontogeny (Piaget), drama (Aristotelian,
Brechtian). But it’s even more complicated
than this. For one thing, theory in anthropology
is dynamic, developing in the interstices of the anthropological encounter—a
process of continuous revelation. Within
the (colonial) spaces of Melanesian, African and North American encounters,
anthropologists have generated theoretical understandings of kinship, exchange,
magic, religion, ritual, labor, gender, family and aesthetics that are as
illustrative of the self (the imperial contexts of the 19th and 20th
centuries) as they are of the other.
Finally, shadowing the neo-liberalism in which anthropologists are
simultaneously critical and complicit, anthropologists regularly appropriate
theoretical fashions from other disciplines in a perpetual search for novelty:
art and literature (modernism, postmodernity), intellectual history (Foucault),
the philosophy of science (Deleuze, Serres), cultural studies (Stuart Hall,
Paul Gilroy), postcolonial theory (Bhaba, Gaonkar), political economy (Charles
Taylor, Giorgio Agamben, Antonio Negri).
What
to make of this theoretical “mangle” (Pickering)? It’s not so much that anthropological theory
is a set of Russian nested dolls
(матрёшка) than a set of dolls
run through a tree shredder, dumped in the ocean, collected along the sea shore
and re-assembled according to tables of random numbers. In any other discipline, this would be cause
for alarm, but it is in this “mid-range” that anthropology thrives, theory as a
continuous boundary object.
And
rather than apprehend this theory through just-so genealogies that make up
histories of anthropology, in this course we will instead put anthropology in
the role of analysand in a kind of negative psychoanalysis where we deny the
false closure implied in “ego”. That is,
rather than arrive at definitive conclusion vis-a-vis anthropology’s theory we
will strive to enjoin this messy dialogue and add our own critical voices this
polyvocality of theory.
In
order to do this, students will need to maintain a high level of engagement:
reading, critical discussion, critical reviews, debate. Given its strident eclecticism, no one can be
the unequivocal “expert”—each of us, therefore, will have something to
contribute.
Upon
successful completion of this course, engaged students should be able to:
- Explain
anthropological theory with reference to historical, social, political and
cultural contexts.
- Debate
current issues in ethnographic theory and practice.
- Introduce
major theorists outside of anthropology who have influenced the course of
anthropological theory;
- Communicate
insights clearly and effectively in both written papers and oral reports.
Required
Reading:
Besteman,
Catherine (2008). Transforming Cape
Town. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Cattelino,
Jessica R. (2008). High Stakes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Juris,
Jeffrey S. (2008). Networking
Futures. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Kelly,
Patty (2008). Lydia’s Open Door. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kelty,
Christopher (2008). Two Bits. Durham, NC: Duke University Press/
Rofel,
Lisa (2007). Desiring China. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Recommended
Reading:
Collins,
Samuel (2008). All Tomorrow’s
Cultures. New York: Berghahn Books.
Graded
Assignments
Book
Reviews (Due on assigned days) Students will each
complete 4 short book reviews selected from the six required texts this
semester. Students must do at least 1
book review every month of the course (starting in February) on the readings during
that week, but may not do more than 1 report on a single, given text. Each book
review assignment will have 2 components: 1) a 2-3 page, written review
following standard anthropological formats (see example on Blackboard) to be
handed in at the beginning of class and posted on our Blackboard site; 2) an in-class,
participatory component in which students lead discussion and participate
actively in debate. 75 pts.
Book
Review Essay (due May 18th). Utilizing at
least 2 required texts from class and at least 3, additional readings, students
will write a 10-15 page review essay comparing them in the context of
anthropological theory. Examples of the
review essay are posted on Blackboard site.
A style sheet for the review essay will be distributed after Spring
Break. 75 pts.
Final
Examination (May 18th, 3-5 pm) Students
will demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of course readings and ideas
through a comprehensive, short answer examination. 50 pts.
Explanation
of Grading:
A+
186+
A-
180-185
B+
174-179
B
166-173
B-
160-165
C+
154-159
C
140-153
D+
134-139
D
120-133
F
<120
class
schedule:
|
|
Text |
Topics |
Historical
Contexts |
|
Week
1 (1/26-1/28) |
High
Stakes, Intro., Chapter 1 |
Introduction
to Course/ Themes |
|
|
Week
2 (2/2-2/4) February
3: Change of schedule period ends. |
High
Stakes, Chapter 2-4 |
US
anthropology Evolutionism Culture Capitalism |
Cultural
Evolutionism v. Diffusionism |
|
Week
3 (2/9-2/11) |
High
Stakes, Chapters 5-Conclusion/ Lydia’s
Open Door, Introduction-Chapter 2 |
Modernization
and Modernity Critique
of development Post-colonial
critique |
Culture
and Integration Culture
change Culture
of Poverty |
|
Week
4 (2/16-2/18) |
Lydia’s
Open Door, Chapters 3-6 |
Power Desire
and sexuality Gender |
Historical
particularism v. Nomothetic
Generalization Culture
and personality |
|
Week
5 (2/23-2/25) |
Lydia’s
Open Door, Chapters 7-Epilogue/ Transforming Cape Town, Intro.-Chp.1 |
Ideology
and Hegemony Governmentality Technologies
of the subject |
Essentialism/
Social Constructionism |
|
Week
6 (3/2-3/4) |
Transforming
Cape Town, Chps. 2-5 |
Race
and ethnicity Imagined
community |
Functionalism Structural-functionalism |
|
Week
7 (3/9-3/11) |
Transforming Cape Town, Chps. 6-9 |
Cosmopolitanism Habitus Moral
Economies |
Manchester
school |
|
Week
8 (3/16-3/18) Spring
Break |
|
|
|
|
Week
9 (3/23-3/25) |
Desiring
China, chps. 1-3 |
Frankfurt
school Culture
industry Commodity
fetishism Alienation |
National
culture Cultural
Studies |
|
Week
10 (3/30-4/1) |
Desiring
China, chaps. 4-6 |
Society
of the Spectacle Neoliberalism |
Cybernetics/
schismogenesis |
|
Week
11 (4/6-4/8) April
6: Last day to withdraw. |
Desiring
China, coda/ Networking Futures, Intro-Chp. 2 |
Orientalism Ethnography Post-structural
critique |
Critique
of “underclass” theories |
|
Week
12 (4/13-4/15) |
Networking
Futures, Chps. 3-7 |
Multi-sited
ethnography Network
society Assemblage Resistance |
Anthropology
and ethics Activist
anthropologies |
|
Week
13 (4/20-4/22) |
Networking
Futures, Conclusion/ Two Bits, Intro.-Chapter 2 |
Public
sphere Anthropology
of Science Distributed
Cognition |
Magic
and Science |
|
Week
14 (4/27-4/29) |
Two
Bits, Chps. 3-7 |
Moral
economies Anthropological
interventions |
Social
constructions of science |
|
Week
15 (5/4-5/6) |
Two
Bits, Chps. 8-Conclusion |
Utopia Cultural
Critique |
|
|
Week
16 (5/11) |
|
Review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
notes
1. Although exams and graded work will remain as stated above, I may have to change different
readings or films on the syllabus throughout the semester. I will, in any case, try to give you
ample warning of any syllabus changes.
2. Cheating and Plagiarism policy: Our department has the following policy on academic dishonesty:
The faculty of the Department of Sociology, Anthropology
& Criminal Justice take a strong stand against Academic Dishonesty of
all forms. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated in any class.
It includes, but is not limited to, any form of cheating or unapproved help on
an exam or academic exercise, copying someone else’s written work without
citation, presenting fabricated information as legitimate, any unauthorized
collaboration among students, or assisting someone to cheat in any way.
All students have the ethical responsibility for doing their own work. A
student who is uncertain about whether or not something constitutes academic
dishonesty in a particular class has the obligation to see their instructor for
clarification. Consistent with university policy, the minimum penalty for
academic dishonesty in any form is determined by the individual faculty member
in each class, and may consist of “a reduced grade (including “F” or zero) for
the assignment; a reduced grade (including “F”) for the entire course,” or
other options as stipulated in Appendix F of the Undergraduate Catalog.
Students who are charged with academic dishonesty must remain enrolled in the
course and cannot withdraw. Instructors who make the determination that
academic dishonesty has occurred will notify the student in writing of the
finding, the penalty, and the process for appeal. The same written notice
will be forwarded to the Office of Judicial Affairs on campus, the Dean of the
In addition, Students are expected to familiarize themselves with the University’s policy:
http://wwwnew.towson.edu/provost/resources/studentacademic.asp
At a minimum, students who plagiarize in this class will receive an “F” for the assignment.
3. Students who have, or suspect that they may have, a disability
should seek services through
Disability Support Services. Students
must be registered with DSS and receive written authorization to obtain
disability-related accommodations. If
you need accommodation due to a disability, please visit DSS for guidance. The office is located at 7720 York Road, AD
232, Ph: 4-2638 or 3475.
4. Students may not repeat this
course more than once (make a third attempt at this course) without the prior
approval of the Academic Standards Committee.
Please call 4-4351 or visit ES 235 for more information.
5. Late assignments: Late assignments will be accepted at ½ credit (1-2 days late) or ¼ credit (3-4 days late). After 4 days, late assignments will no longer be accepted.
6. Make-up Work: Under extraordinary circumstances, documented by physicians, police, etc., students may be allowed to make-up missed work.
7. Students who are disruptive may be dismissed from class.
explanation of grading
explanation of grading
Consistent with University policy, the following grades will be assigned according to the designated criteria:
A: A superior performance surpassing assigned work in unique and novel ways and
integrating diverse ideas from a wide range of sources in addition to those discussed in class.
A-
B+
B: Excellent work surpassing the expectations of the assignment and demonstrating initiative
and a willingness to move beyond the basic requirements of the assigned work.
B-
C+
C: Satisfactory work meeting all basic requirements of the assignment.
D+
D: Work in some way less than satisfactory. Although conforming to basic requirements in
some way, the completed work is nevertheless not a coherent response to the
assignment.
F: A profoundly unsatisfactory performance which doesn't meet
the intent of the assignment at any level.