Logo UAB

Seminar on Critical Theory and Anthropological Thought

Code: 101257 ECTS Credits: 6
2024/2025
Degree Type Year
2500256 Social and Cultural Anthropology OT 3
2500256 Social and Cultural Anthropology OT 4

Contact

Name:
Jose Antonio Mansilla Lopez
Email:
jose.mansilla@uab.cat

Teaching groups languages

You can view this information at the end of this document.


Prerequisites

It is advisable to have studied "History of Anthropology". It is not recommended for third-year students.


Objectives and Contextualisation

This seminar constitutes a space for innovative epistemological and theoretical discussions that allow, along with the subjects of specialized thematic areas, to deepen the critique of anthropological knowledge and provide a first specialization. The main objectives are: The discussion of texts that allow critical reflection on the epistemological, political and ethical controversies that arose in Anthropology after World War II. The issues involved are criticisms of the supremacy of the method, epistemological debates on relativisms and universality, political criticism of the social responsibility of anthropology, and the consequences of the interpretative turn on the legitimacy of anthropology to represent others cultures and the emphasis on reflexivity.


Competences

    Social and Cultural Anthropology
  • Act with ethical responsibility and respect for fundamental rights and duties, diversity and democratic values.
  • Assessing epistemological and methodological problems attached to the dialectics between particularism and comparison.
  • Assessing in theoretical, methodological and ethical terms the anthropology investigations aimed to basic objectives or oriented to intervention.
  • Carry out effective written work or oral presentations adapted to the appropriate register in different languages.
  • Demonstrate skills for working autonomously or in teams to achieve the planned objectives including in multicultural and interdisciplinary contexts.
  • Introduce changes in the methods and processes of the field of knowledge to provide innovative responses to the needs and demands of society.
  • Students must be capable of applying their knowledge to their work or vocation in a professional way and they should have building arguments and problem resolution skills within their area of study.
  • Students must be capable of collecting and interpreting relevant data (usually within their area of study) in order to make statements that reflect social, scientific or ethical relevant issues.
  • Students must be capable of communicating information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialised and non-specialised audiences.
  • Use digital tools and critically interpret specific documentary sources.

Learning Outcomes

  1. Applying the current ethical codes to the ethnographic fieldwork.
  2. Assess the reliability of sources, select important data and cross-check information.
  3. Carrying out oral presentations using appropriate academic vocabulary and style.
  4. Critically analyse the principles, values and procedures that govern the exercise of the profession.
  5. Critically considering and trying to avoid ethnocentric projections in theory building.
  6. Effectively expressing themselves and applying the argumentative and textual processes of formal and scientific texts.
  7. Effectively working in teams and respecting different opinions.
  8. Explain the explicit or implicit code of practice of one's own area of knowledge.
  9. Identify main and secondary ideas and express them with linguistic correctness.
  10. Identify situations that require improvement or change.
  11. Identifying the transcultural variability of economic, kinship, political, symbolic and cognitive, educational and gender systems as well as their corresponding anthropological theory.
  12. Plan work effectively, individually or in groups, in order to fulfil the planned objectives.
  13. Providing a context for a research related to the state of its concerning anthropological theory .
  14. Recognising the ethical implications of the ethnological relationships established during the fieldwork internship.
  15. Recognising the ethical implications of the investigations aimed at basic objectives.
  16. Relating elements and factors involved in the development of scientific processes.
  17. Summarising acquired knowledge about the origin and transformations experienced in the several fields of anthropology.
  18. Summarizing the characteristics of a written text in accordance to its communicative purposes.
  19. Using suitable terminology when drawing up an academic text.
  20. Weigh up the impact of any long- or short-term difficulty, harm or discrimination that could be caused to certain persons or groups by the actions or projects.

Content

1. Introduction: history, epistemology, ethics

2. Anthropology in crisis: knowledge and power - the lost innocence

3. National traditions

4. The problem of anthropological explanation

5. The interpretative turn and other culturalisms

6. Postmodern anthropology

7. And in spite of everything ... new and old proposals


Activities and Methodology

Title Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Type: Directed      
Master classes 30 1.2 1, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19
Seminars (presentation of texts and discussion) 20 0.8 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Type: Supervised      
Tutorials 18 0.72 6, 11, 16, 17
Type: Autonomous      
Preparation and presentation of essays 30 1.2 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Study and personal work 50 2 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18

Teaching methodology:

Master classes with the support of the new information and communication technologies (NTIC).

Visualization and discussion of audio-visual material.

Guidelines for reflection and critical discussion on issues related to history, epistemology and ethics

Guidelines for reflection and critical discussion in questions related to history, epistemology and the ethics of anthropological work.

Preparation of essays and text comments on bibliographic and audiovisual material.

Training Activities:

Theoretical classes

Oral presentations and discussion of group readings. Comprehensive reading and discussion of texts.

Individual study and team discussion.

Preparation of individual and group work.

Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.


Assessment

Continous Assessment Activities

Title Weighting Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Essay 1 40% 0 0 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Essay 2 40% 0 0 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Participation in the seminar and oral presentation 20% 2 0.08 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19

This subject does not incorporate single assessment.

Essay 1: 40%

Essay 2: 40%

Participation module (20%)

Attendance and participation in the discussions-lecture seminar : 5%.

Oral presentation in a reading discussion session: 5%

Delivery of a commentary on the oral presentation: 10%

*At the beginning of the course, the instructions for the exercises will be given.

*On carrying out each evaluation activity, lecturers will inform students (on Moodle) of the procedures to be followed for reviewing all grades awarded, and the date on which such a review will take place.

*The Participation module is NOT reevaluable!

*The student will receive the qualification of No Evaluable provided that has not delivered more than 30% of the activities of evaluation.

* The student will only have the right to re-examination in the situationto deliver at least one of the two proposed essays for the course.

Plagiarism

In the event of a student committing any irregularity that may lead to a significant variation in the grade awarded to an assessment activity, the student will be given a zero for this activity,regardless of any disciplinary process that may take place. In the event of several irregularities in assessment activities of the same subject, the student will be given a zero as the final grade for this subject.


Bibliography

1. Introduction: history, epistemology, ethics

  • Bauman, Zygmunt. 2005 [1991]. Modernidad y ambivalencia, Barcelona, Anthropos.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 2008 [1984]. Homo academicus. Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI.
  • Foucault, Michele. 1971. Las palabras y las cosas, México, Siglo XXI.
  • Hallowell, A.Irvin . 1962. “The history of anthropology as an anthropological problem”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1, pp. 24-38.
  • Harris, Marvin. 2003 [1968]. El desarrollo de la teoría antropológica, Madrid, Siglo XXI.
  • Harris, Marvon. 2007 [1989]. Teorías sobre la cultura en la era posmoderna, Barcelona, Crítica.
  • Menéndez, Eduardo L. 2002. La parte negada de la cultura. Relativismo, diferencias y racismo, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra.
  • Stolcke, Verena. 1993. “De padres, filiaciones y malas memorias. Qué historias de qué antropologías?”, J. Bestard i Camps (coord.), Después de Malinowski, Asociación Canaria de Antropología, Sta. Cruz de Tenerife, pp. 147-198.

2. Anthropology in crisis: knowledge and power - the lost innocence      

  • Bancel, Nicolas; Blanchard, Pascal; Boëtsch, Gilles; Déroo, Eric; Lemaire, Sandrine (dir.). 2002. Zoos humains. Au temps des exhibitions humaines, Paris, La Découverte.
  • Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo. 1973. “Conservative Thought in Applied Anthropology: A Critique”, T. Weaver (ed.), To See Ourselves. Anthropology and Modern Social Issues, Glenview, Scott, Foresman and Company, pp. 126-130.
  • Farish, Matthew. 2005. “Archiving Areas: The Ethnogeographic Board and the Second World War”, Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, vol. 95, nº 3, pp. 663–679.
  • González, Roberto I. 2004. Anthropologists in the Public Sphere.Speaking Out on War, Peace, and American Power, Austin, University of Texas Press.
  • Price, David. 2004. Threatening Anthropology. McCarthysm and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists, Durham, London, Duke University Press.
  • Price, David. 2008. Anthropological Intelligence. The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, Durham, London, Duke University Press.

3. National traditions

USA

  • Berreman, Gerald D. 1968. “Is anthropology alive? Social responsibility in social anthropology”, “Social Responsibilities Symposium”, Current Anthropology , vol. 5, nº 5.
  • Chomsky,Noam. 1997. “The cold war and the university”, A. Schiffrin (ed.), The cold war and the university. Toward an intellectual history of the postwar years, New York, The New Press.
  • Gough, Kathleen. 1968. “New porposals for anthropologists”, “Social Responsibilities Symposium”, Current Anthropology, vol. 9, nº5.
  • Hymes, Dell. (ed.). 1972. Reinventing Anthropology, New York, Pantheon Books.
  • Sahlins, Marshal. 1966. “The destruction of conscience in Viet Nam”, Dissent, enero-febrero.
  • “Social Responsibilities Symposium”, Current Anthropologist.
  • Weaver et.al. (eds). 1973. To see Ourselves. Anthropology and Modern Social Issues, Illinois, Glenview.
  • Wolf, Eric. 1971. “Antropología en pos de guerra”, América Indígena, vol. 31, nº2, pp. 429-449.

Great Britain

  • Asad, Talal. 1973.“Introduction”,T. Asad (ed.), Anthropology & the Colonial Encounter, Londres, Ithaca.
  • Asad, Talal. 1991. “Afterword: From the history of colonial anthropology to the anthropology of Western hegemony”, G.W. Stocking,Jr., Colonial Situations. Essays on the Conceptualization of Ethnographic Knowledge, University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Douglas, Mery. 1967. “If the Dogon...”, Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines, vol. 7, nº 4, pp. 659-670.
  • Feuchtwang, Stephan. 1973. “The colonial formation of British social anthropology”, T. Asad (ed.), op.cit.
  • Forster, Peter. 1973. “Empiricism and imperialism: A review of the New Left critique of social anthropology”, T. Asad (ed.), op.cit.
  • Kuper, Adam. 1973. Antropología y antropólogos. La escuela británica. 1922-1972, Barcelona, Anagrama.
  • Maddock, Kenneth. 1998. “Los dudosos placeres del compromiso” (trad.), Anthropology Today, vol. 14, nº 5.
  • Richards, Audrey I.. 1967. “African systems of thought: an Anglo-French dialogue”, Man, vol. 2, nº 2, pp. 286-297.

France

  • Badou, Gerard. 2000. “Sur les traces de la Vénus Hottentote”, Gradhiva, 27, pp. 83-87.
  • Ciarcia, Gaetano. 1998. “Ethnologues et ‘Dogon’. La fabrication d’un patrimoine ethnographique”, Gradhiva 24.
  • Copans, Jean. 1975. Anthropologie et Impérialisme, Paris, François Maspero.
  • Jamin, Jean. 1996. “Introduction”, Michel Leiris. Miroir de l'Afrique, Paris, Quarto Gallimard.
  • Jamin, Jean. 1988. “L'histoire de l'ethnologie est-elle une histoire comme les autres?”, Revue de Synthese nos. 3-4, julio-diciembre.
  • Lacoste-Dujardin, Camille. 1986. “Opération “Oiseau Bleu”. Géostratégie et ethnopolitique en montagne Kabyle, 1956”, Revue desMondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée, vol. 41, nº1, pp. 167-193.
  • Leclerq, G. 1973. Antropología y colonialismo, Madrid, Alberto Corazón Editor.
  • Leiris, Michel. 1995 [1950]. L'etnòleg davant el colonialisme, Icaria, Barcelona.
  • Tillion, Germaine. 2000. Il était une fois l’ethnographie, Paris, Editions du Seuil.
  • Tillion, Germaine. 2007. Combats de guerre et de paix, Paris, Editions du Seuil.

4. The problem of anthropological explanation

  • Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others", Ethics Forum: September 11 and Ethnographic Responsibility, American Anthropologist, 104 (3), pp. 783-790.
  • Dupertius, C. ; Gottraux, P. 1990. “Pour un universalisme critique. Essai sur les droits de l'homme et la diversité des cultures”, Equinox, no.4.
  • Frade, C. (comp.). 2002. Globalització i diversitat cultural, Barcelona: UOC.
  • Geertz, Clifford. 1996. Los usos de la diversidad, Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Gellner, Ernest. 1982. “Relativism and universals”, M. Hallis, S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Oxford/Cambridge, Blackwell, pp. 181-200.
  • Sperber, Dan. 1982. “Apparently irrational beliefs”, M. Hollis, S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Oxford/Cambridge, Blackwell.
  • Tambiah, Stanley J. 1990. “Rationality, relativism, the translation and commensurability of cultures”, Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Todorov, Tzvetan. 1988. “Le projet universaliste”, Anthropologieet Sociétés, vol. 12, nº 1.
  • Todorov, Tzvetan. 2003 [1989]. “Lévi-Strauss: L'horizon relativiste”, Nosotros y los otros, Madrid, Siglo XX, pp. 83-112.

5. The interpretative turn and other culturalisms

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1989. “Descripción densa: hacia una teoría interpretativa de la cultura”, La interpretación de las culturas, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Geertz, Clifford. 1989. El antropólogo como autor, Barcelona, Paidos.
  • Kapferer, Bruce. 1988. “The anthropologist as Hero. Three exponents of post-modernist anthropology”, Critique of Anthropology, vol. 8, nº 2.
  • Keesing, Roger. 1987. “Anthropology as interpretative quest”, Current Anthroplogy, vol. 28, nº2.
  • Sperber, Dan. 1985. “Interpretative ethnography and theoretical anthropology”, On Anthropological Knowledge, Cambridge.

6. Postmodern anthropology

  • Appignanesi, R; Garrat, C. 1997. Postmodernismo para principiantes, Buenos Aires, Era Naciente, SRL.
  • Clifford, James. 1991. “Introducción. Verdades parciales”, J. Clifford, G.E. Marcus (eds), Retóricas de la antropología, Madrid, Júcar.
  • Clifford, James. 1995 [1988]. Dilemas de la cultura. Antropología, literatura y arte en la perspectiva posmoderna, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Gellner, Ernest. 1994. Postmodernismo, razón y religión, Barcelona, Paidós.
  • Jameson, T.1996. Teoría de la postmodernidad, Madrid, Editorial Trotta.
  • Marcus, Goeoge E.; Cushman, D.E. 1991. “Las etnografías como textos”, C. Reynoso, El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna por C. Geertz,J. Clifford y otros, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Marcus, GeorgeE. 1992. “Past, present and emergent identities: Requirements for ethnographies of late twentieth-century modernity worldwide”, S. Lash, J. Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity, Oxford, Blackwell.
  • Rabinow, P. 1992. Reflexiones sobre un trabajo de campo en Marruecos, Madrid, Júcar.
  • Reynoso, C. 1991. “Presentación”, El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna por C. Geertz, J. Clifford y otros, Barcelona, Gedisa.
  • Sangren, P.S. 1988. “Rethoric and the authority of ethnography: Post modernism and the social reproduction of texts”, Current Anthropology, vol. 29, nº 3, pp. 405-435.
  • Strathern, Marilyn 1991. “Fuera de contexto: Las ficciones persuasivas de la antropología”, C. Reynoso, El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna por C. Geertz, J. Clifford y otros, Barcelona, Gedisa.

7. And in spite of everything ... new and old proposals

  • Angosto Ferrández, Luis Fernando. 2013. "Antropología, humanismo y responsabilidades cívicas: una conversación con Thomas Hylland Eriksen", AIBR. Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, 8 (2), pp. 161 - 182.
  • Axel, B.K. 2002. From the Margins. Historical Anthropology and Its Futures, Durham, Duke University Press.
  • Bourgois, Philippe. 1990. “Enfrentándonos a la ética antropológica. Lecciones etnográficas de Centro-América” (trad.) (“Confronting anthropological ethics: Ethnographic lessons from Central America”, Journal of Peace Research, vol 27, nº1, pp. 43-54).
  • Comaroff, John, Comaroff, Jean. 2011. Etnicidad S.A., Madrid, Katz Editores.
  • Descola, Philippe. 2005. Par-delà nature et culture. Paris:Gallimard.
  • Estalella, Adolfo (coord.). 2022. Etica de la investigación para las ciencias sociales, Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  • González, Roberto J. 2007. “Towards mercenary anthropology? The new US Army counterinsurgency manualFM 3-24 and the military-anthropologycomplex”, Anthropology today, vol. 23, nº 3, June.
  • Graeber, David. 2011. Fragmentos de antropología anarquista, Virus Editorial, pp. 19-45, 104-116.
  • Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies, vol. 14, nº 3, pp. 575-599.
  • Kahn, Joel. 2001. “Anthropology and Modernity”, Current Anthropology, vol. 42, nº 5, pp. 651-664.
  • Makaran, Gaya; Gaussens, Pierre (coords). 2020. Piel blanca, máscaras negras. Crítica de la razón decolonial, Mexico, Bajo Tierra AC.
  • Messer, Ellen. 1993. “Anthropology and human Rights”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, pp. 221-224.
  • Morin, Edgar. 1998. “La unidualidad del hombre”, Gazeta de antropología, nº 13, pp. 5-9.
  • Restrepo, Eduardo; Arturo Escobar. 2004. "Antropologías en el mundo", Jangwa Pana, 3, pp. 110-131.
  • Ribeiro, G.L.; Escobar, A. (eds.). 2006. World Anthropologies. Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power, Oxford, New York, Berg.
  • Sahlins, Marshal. 1999. “What is Anthropological Enlightment? Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, pp. 1-23.
  • Stolcke, Verena. 1999. “La nueva retórica de la exclusión en Europa” Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales 159, UNESCO, Marzo 1999.
  • Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1996. “Dixi cosmológicai perspectivisme amerindi [“Os pronomes cosmológicos e o perspectivismo ameríndio”, MANA, 2 (2), pp. 115-144].
  • Wolf, Eric R. 2001. Pathways of Power. Building an Anthropology of the Modern World, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Software

There are no specific computer programs


Language list

Name Group Language Semester Turn
(SEM) Seminars 1 Catalan second semester morning-mixed
(TE) Theory 1 Catalan second semester morning-mixed