In order to get the entire 5 points however, you must not only engage the text directly (with citations), but also explain in your own words what the question is asking.
OPTION 2: If you prefer, you can select TWO of the essays bellow to answer. In which case, each component will be work 2.5 points. I highly suggest this for those of you who feel like the length requirement of 5-7 pages would be overly challenging if you confined yourself to one essay. I also suggest this option for those of you who feel like your responses will be rambling or ?just filling space? if you select only one option. For those of you select this option, while the length and depth of your individual responses will be much reduced?you are still required to engage the text directly and respond in your own words for each component of each question.
1.) The criteria by which we identify something as being a ?subjective opinion? versus that deemed to be an ?objective facts? is matter of incredible importance throughout the history of Anthropology. We?ve look at many authors who attempt to situate the idea of ?truth? within historical and contextual context. Tim O?Brien argues in The Things They Carried, ?I want you to know why story-truth is truer than happening-truth? (171).
A. Thinking about the chapter we read for class, what do you think O?Brien means by ?story-truth? and how might this concept be meaningful for cultural anthropologists? B. Give 2 examples of what O?Brien sees as distinguishing a ?true? war story from a ?false? one. Why do you think he does this? Do you find his arguments persuasive? Frustrating? C. What do you think O?Brien is trying to suggest about the relationship between history and story-telling? Why might this be an important concept (or critique) for cultural anthropologists? Feel free to draw on other author?s we?ve read this semester to argue your point.
2. The problems of ?comparative culture? approach in anthropology are discussed (both explicitly and implicitly) in several of the texts we have read thus far. Consider the following passage from du Bois: ?When the matter of race became a question of comparative culture, I was in revolt. I began to see that cultural equipment attributed to a people depended largely on who estimated it; and conviction came later in a rush as I realized what in my education had been suppressed concerning Asiatic and African culture.? (99)
A.) Considering the broader arguments Du Bois makes in this chapter, discuss what he means when he says ?race became a question of comparative culture? and what you think this shift meant. B.) What is it about this shift (from studying ?race? to ?culture?) do you think du Bois finds to be problematic? (Hint: Think about the context du Bois is writing in and why many people might applaud such a change) C.) What is du Bois suggesting when he writes ?that cultural equipment attributed to a people depended largely on who estimated it?? Why might this idea be important to a cultural anthropologist? What is it saying about who and how history is narrated?
3.) In his autobiography, du Bois argues that in the United States, ?We have not only not studied race and race mixture in America, but we have tried almost by legal process to stop such a story?
A.) How is the study of a people and their racial history different from studying that same group?s heredity or biology? Why do you think that this distinction?between a scientific study of history versus biology?is so important to du Bois? (Suggestion: think about what he later says about the ?true essence of kinship?). B.) What is the central explanation that du Bois offers for this ?fear? and reluctance?in particular on the part of elite white American and European scholars?to scientifically study the history of race and racial intermixture? In other words, why is society invested in the ?recognition and preservation of so-called racial distinctions? according to du Bois? C.) Given what du Bois later says about the difficulties of caste segregation and the highly subjective (and often distorted or silenced) treatment of culture by U.S. scholars, why do you think that du Bois is so interested in the ?concept of race? and attempting to study it? Do you think that for du Bois it matters who studies race and culture? Why or why not?justify your response.
4.) In the Mismeasurement of Man, Stephen Gould argues, ?Metals have ceded to genes?But the basic argument has not changed: that social and economic roles accurately reflect the innate construction of people. One aspect of the intellectual strategy has altered, however. Socrates knew that he was telling a lie.? (52)
A.) What is the story/myth that Socrates tells about the organization of society? Why do you think he finds the story and myth told by Socrates to be useful for thinking about contemporary science? B.) What does Gould mean when he says ?metals have ceded to genes?? What is the significance of this assessment by Gould? C.) Why is Gould troubled by arguments that assert, ?social and economic roles accurately reflect the innate construction of people?? What kind of arguments (or ?doctrine?) does Gould say this reflects? Why is it important to Gould that we combat this way of thinking?
5.) Gould argues, ?I believe that science must be understood as a social phenomenon, a gutsy, human enterprise, not the work of robots programmed to collect pure information.?
A.) How does this understanding of science differ from what Gould calls ?biological determinists?? (Hint: what are ?the twin myths of objectivity? according to Gould? ) B.) Why might the distinction between science as a ?social phenomenon? virus science as an ?objective phenomenon? be an important distinction for anthropologists? C.) In chapter 2 Gould makes the argument that ?all leading scientists followed social conventions? (66). What is the significance of this statement? Why do you think Gould trying to demonstrate about the nature of social scientific thinking and research? After laying out the argument provided by Gould offer your own assessment?do you find Gould?s interventions on scientific practice to be persuasive? Harmful? Why do you think these arguments might be important for cultural anthropology in particular?
