Outline

Overview

This unit consolidates students' understanding of anthropology as a discipline through: 1) exploring key concepts of anthropological analysis and critique; 2) enhancing knowledge of the ethnographic method and its contemporary challenges; 3) strengthening research skills and experience in formulating a research project.

Unit details and rules

Academic unit	Anthropology
Credit points	6
Prerequisites ?	None
Corequisites ?	None
Prohibitions ?	None
Assumed knowledge ?	None
Available to study abroad and exchange students	Yes

Teaching staff

Coordinator	Roberto Costa, roberto.costa@sydney.edu.au

Type	Description	Weight	Due	Length
Assignment	Take home exam An argumentative essay on a chosen contemporary debate	40%	Mid-semester exam period Due date: 17 Jun 2022 at 23:59	2,500 words
Outcomes assessed:
Presentation	In-class debate – group presentation Students must research, think critically, present their arguments in groups	20%	Multiple weeks	1,200 words
Outcomes assessed:
Assignment	Preliminary research proposal Brief research proposal based on the topics of the first weeks	10%	Week 08 Due date: 22 Apr 2022 at 23:59	600 words
Outcomes assessed:
Assignment	Creative oral portfolio A recorded commentary with multimedia materials and self-assessment	15%	Week 13 Due date: 29 May 2022 at 23:59	1,000 words equiv.
Outcomes assessed:
Online task	Weekly reading journal and seminar participation Each week, students must write a reading outline to prepare for the class	15%	Weekly	500 words equiv.
Outcomes assessed:
= group assignment with individually assessed component ?

Assessment summary

Detailed information for each assessment can be found on Canvas.

Assessment criteria

The University awards common result grades, set out in the Coursework Policy 2014 (Schedule 1).

As a general guide, a High distinction indicates work of an exceptional standard, a Distinction a very high standard, a credit a good standard, and a pass an acceptable standard.

Result name	Mark range	Description
High distinction	85 - 100
Distinction	75 - 84
Credit	65 - 74
Pass	50 - 64
Fail	0 - 49	When you don’t meet the learning outcomes of the unit to a satisfactory standard.

For more information see guide to grades.

Late submission

In accordance with University policy, these penalties apply when written work is submitted after 11:59pm on the due date:

Deduction of 5% of the maximum mark for each calendar day after the due date.
After ten calendar days late, a mark of zero will be awarded.

Academic integrity

The Current Student website provides information on academic integrity and the resources available to all students. The University expects students and staff to act ethically and honestly and will treat all allegations of academic integrity breaches seriously.

We use similarity detection software to detect potential instances of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breach. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breaches, your teacher is required to report your work for further investigation.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and automated writing tools

You may only use generative AI and automated writing tools in assessment tasks if you are permitted to by your unit coordinator. If you do use these tools, you must acknowledge this in your work, either in a footnote or an acknowledgement section. The assessment instructions or unit outline will give guidance of the types of tools that are permitted and how the tools should be used.

Your final submitted work must be your own, original work. You must acknowledge any use of generative AI tools that have been used in the assessment, and any material that forms part of your submission must be appropriately referenced. For guidance on how to acknowledge the use of AI, please refer to the AI in Education Canvas site.

The unapproved use of these tools or unacknowledged use will be considered a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy and penalties may apply.

Studiosity is permitted unless otherwise indicated by the unit coordinator. The use of this service must be acknowledged in your submission as detailed on the Learning Hub’s Canvas page.

Outside assessment tasks, generative AI tools may be used to support your learning. The AI in Education Canvas site contains a number of productive ways that students are using AI to improve their learning.

Learning support

Simple extensions

If you encounter a problem submitting your work on time, you may be able to apply for an extension of five calendar days through a simple extension.  The application process will be different depending on the type of assessment and extensions cannot be granted for some assessment types like exams.

Special consideration

If exceptional circumstances mean you can’t complete an assessment, you need consideration for a longer period of time, or if you have essential commitments which impact your performance in an assessment, you may be eligible for special consideration or special arrangements.

Special consideration applications will not be affected by a simple extension application.

Using AI responsibly

Co-created with students, AI in Education includes lots of helpful examples of how students use generative AI tools to support their learning. It explains how generative AI works, the different tools available and how to use them responsibly and productively.

Weekly schedule

WK	Topic	Learning activity
Week 01	Anthropology, anthropologies, dialogues and present challenges	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 02	The Material Turn 1 – human, non-human and more-than-human agency	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 03	The Material Turn 2 – between humanism, post-humanism and multispecies	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 04	The Material Turn 3 – class debate	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 05	The Ontological Turn 1 – seeing differently and seeing different things	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 06	The Ontological turn 2 – hyper-relativism, ontological realism and pragmatism	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 07	The Ontological turn 3 – class debate	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 08	Focus: Anthropological questions for interdisciplinary debates: phenomenology	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 09	The Temporal Turn 1 – here and now vs there and then	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 10	The Temporal Turn 2 – beyond temporality?	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 11	The Sensory Turn 1 – challenging the imperialism of the sight	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 12	The Sensory Turn 2 – ethnography and the sensorial revolution	Seminar (2 hr)
Week 13	Why will Anthropology be increasingly more important in future scientific debates and 'turns' (despite everything)?	Seminar (2 hr)

Attendance and class requirements

Attendance: This is a seminar class in which the continuity of reading and discussion from week to week is vital. For this reason the minimum acceptable attendance in order to pass the unit is 80%. Absences beyond that level must be accounted for with appropriate documentation.
Lecture recording: Most lectures (in recording-equipped venues) will be recorded and may be made available to students on the LMS. However, you should not rely on lecture recording to substitute your classroom learning experience.
Preparation: Students should commit to spend approximately three hours’ preparation time (reading, studying, homework, essays, etc.) for every hour of scheduled instruction.

Study commitment

Typically, there is a minimum expectation of 1.5-2 hours of student effort per week per credit point for units of study offered over a full semester. For a 6 credit point unit, this equates to roughly 120-150 hours of student effort in total.

Required readings

Required readings are noted with an asterisk

Appadurai, A. (Ed.) (2013). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819582 (Original work published in 1986)

*Appadurai, A. (2015). Mediants, materiality, normativity. Public Culture, 27(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2841832

Baer, H. A., & Singer, M. (2018). The anthropology of climate change: an integrated critical perspective. Milton: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351273121

Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: a necessary unity. New York: Hampton Press. (Original work published in 1979)

Bessire, L. & Bond, D. (2014). Ontological anthropology and the deferral of critique. American Ethnologist, 41(3), 440–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12083

Bošković, A. (2010). Other people’s anthropologies: ethnographic practice on the margins. London: Berghahn Books. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=1323686

Briller, S. & Goldmacher, A. (2020). Designing an anthropology career: professional development exercises. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Comaroff, J. (2010). The end of anthropology, again: on the future of an in/discipline. American Anthropologist, 112(4), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01273.x

D’Angelo, L. & Pijpers, R. J. (2022). The anthropology of resource extraction. London: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018018

Das, V., Jackson, M., Kleinman, A., & Singh, B. (2014). The ground between: anthropologists engage philosophy. Durham: Duke University Press. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/stable/j.ctv11sn2cn

Descola, P., Lloyd, J., & Sahlins, M. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Despret, V. (2013). Responding bodies and partial affinities in human-animal worlds. Theory, Culture & Society 30(7–8), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413496852

Engelke, M. (2018). How to think like an anthropologist. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/stable/j.ctvc77j36

*Fabian, J. & Bunzl, M. (2014) Time and the other: how anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?docID=1634843

Flusser, Vilém (2013). Post-history. Minneapolis: Univocal.

Fuentes, A., & Kohn, E. (2012). Two proposals. Cambridge Anthropology 30(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.3167/ca.2012.300209

Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: an anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Graeber, D. (2015). Radical alterity is just another way of saying “reality”: A reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(2), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau5.2.003

Graeber, D. & Wengrow, D. (2021). The dawn of everything: a new history of humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www-fulcrum-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/concern/monographs/b8515n91s

Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. London: Routledge. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/books/mono/10.4324/9780203873106/simians-cyborgs-women-donna-haraway

*Haraway, D., Ishikawa, N., Gilbert, S. F., Olwig, K., Tsing, A. L., & Bubandt, N. (2016). Anthropologists are talking - about the Anthropocene. Ethnos, 81(3), 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2015.1105838

Henare, A., Holbraad, M., & Wastell, S. (2007). Thinking through things: theorising artefacts ethnographically. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088791

Hodges, M. (2008). Rethinking time’s arrow: Bergson, Deleuze and the anthropology of time. Anthropological Theory, 8(4), 399–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499608096646

* Holbraad, M. & Pedersen, M. A. (2017). The ontological turn: an anthropological exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316218907

Holbraad, M. (2020). The shapes of relations: anthropology as conceptual morphology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(6), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393120917917

Houtman, D., & Meyer, B. (2012). Things: religion and the question of materiality. New York: Fordham University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=3239739

*Howes, D. (2021). Afterword: the sensory revolution comes of age. Cambridge Anthropology, 39(2), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.3167/cja.2021.390209

Howes, D. & Classen, C. (2014). Ways of sensing: understanding the senses in society. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315856032

*Ingold, T. (2011). Worlds of sense and sensing the world: A response to Sarah Pink and David Howes. Social Anthropology, 19(3), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00163.x

Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. Milton: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003196679

Ingold, T. (2013). Anthropology beyond humanity. Suomen Antropologi /Journal of the Finnish Anthropology Society 38(3), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.30676/jfas.v43i1.74075

Ingold, T. & Pálsson, G. (2013). Biosocial becomings: integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139198394

*Ingold, T. (2018). From science to art and back again: the pendulum of an anthropologist. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 43(3-4), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2018.1524234

*Katz, J. & Csordas, T. J. (2003). Phenomenological ethnography in sociology and anthropology. Ethnography, 4(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/146613810343001

*Kipnis, A. (2015). Agency between humanism and posthumanism Latour and his opponents. HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(2), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau5.2.004

Knibbe, K. & Versteeg, P. G. (2008). Assessing phenomenology in anthropology: Lessons from the study of religion and experience. Critique of Anthropology, 28(1), 47–62 https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X07086557

Ladilaw, J. & Heywood P. (2013). One more turn and you’re there. Anthropology of this Century 7 (http://aotcpress.com/articles/turn/).

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?docID=422646

Latour, B. (2017). Anthropology at the time of the Anthropocene: A personal view of what is to be studied. In M. Brightman & J. Lewis (Eds.), The anthropology of sustainability (pp. 35–49). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Latour, B. & Porter, C. (1993). We have never been modern. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

Layton, R. (2003). Art and agency: a reassessment. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9(3), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00158

Le Breton, D. (2017). Sensing the world: An anthropology of the senses. London: Bloomsbury. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/books/mono/10.4324/9781003086628/sensing-world-david-le-breton-carmen-ruschiensky

Lynteris, C. (2020). Human extinction and the pandemic imaginary. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429322051

*Miller, D. (2005). Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/stable/j.ctv11hpnrp

Munn, N. D. (1992). The Cultural Anthropology of Time: A Critical Essay. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21(1), 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.000521

Ortner, S. (2008). Anthropology and social theory: culture, power, and the acting subject. Durham: Duke University Press. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/stable/j.ctv11hppcg

*Palecek, M. (2021). The ontological turn revisited: Theoretical decline. Why cannot ontologists fulfil their promise? Anthropological Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996211050610

Pels, P. (2022). Classification revisited: On time, methodology and position in decolonizing anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 22(1), 78–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996211011749

Pink, S. (2006). The future of visual anthropology: engaging the senses. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003596

*Pink, S, & Howes, D. (2010). The future of sensory anthropology/the anthropology of the senses. Social Anthropology 18(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2010.00119_1.x

*Rabinow, P., Marcus, George E., Faubion, J. D., & Rees, T. (2008). Designs for an anthropology of the contemporary. Durham: Duke University Press.

*Ram, K. & Houston, C. (2015). Phenomenology in anthropology: a sense of perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=2120281

Richardson, K. (2015). An anthropology of robots and AI: annihilation anxiety and machines. London: Routledge. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/books/mono/10.4324/9781315736426/anthropology-robots-ai-kathleen-richardson

Rifkin, M. (2017). Beyond settler time: temporal sovereignty and indigenous self-determination. Durham: Duke University Press. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/stable/j.ctv11smrwm

*Ringel, F. (2016). Beyond temporality: notes on the anthropology of time from a shrinking fieldsite. Anthropological Theory, 16(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499616659971

*Risjord, M. (2020). Anthropology without belief: an anti-representationalist ontological Turn. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(6), 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393120917967

Rodseth, L. (2015). Back to Boas, forth to Latour. Current Anthropology, 56(6), 865–882. https://doi.org/10.1086/683681

*Salazar, J. F. & Pink, S. (2017). Setting the agenda. In J. F. Salazar, S. Pink, A. Irving, & J. Sjöberg (Eds.), Anthropologies and futures: researching emerging and uncertain worlds (pp. 3–22). London: Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474264914.

*Samuels, D. W., Meintjes, L., Ochoa, A. M., & Porcello, T. (2010). Soundscapes: toward a sounded anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-022510-132230

Shankman, P. (2009). The trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an anthropological controversy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01566_29.x

Stoller, P. (1997). Sensuous scholarship. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=3441434

Strathern, M. (2018). Persons and partible persons. In M. Candea (Ed.), Schools and styles of anthropological theory (pp. 236–246). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315388267-16

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2013). The relative native. HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3(3), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau3.3.032

Viveiros de Castro, E. & Skafish, P. (2015). Cannibal metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt17xr4v

This reading list includes the required readings, most of the readings that will be referenced in the lectures and the recommended sources to prepare for the assessments. All readings for this unit can be accessed through the Library’s reading list system Leganto that is available on Canvas.

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes are what students know, understand and are able to do on completion of a unit of study. They are aligned with the University's graduate qualities and are assessed as part of the curriculum.

Outcomes
Graduate qualities

At the completion of this unit, you should be able to:

LO1. relate specific topics in anthropology to several major contemporary debates or theoretical 'turns' within the discipline.
LO2. understand the historical emergence and development of contemporary debates within anthropology about the nature of qualitative social inquiry and contrast competing theoretical paradigms and stances.
LO3. articulate your personal relationship to competing schools of thought within contemporary anthropology and defend your thinking and views both orally and in writing.
LO4. describe different ethical, ontological and epistemic positions within anthropology in terms of their paradigmatic assumptions and evaluate their relative strengths and weaknesses to advance reasoned and original statements.
LO5. conduct independent exploration and evaluation of scholar's arguments through reading and reflection on the unit content as well as dialogue with other peers and in-class debates.
LO6. identify common, interdisciplinary grounds of the main contemporary debates within anthropology.
LO7. compose a preliminary research proposal.
LO8. compose a research essay that summarises and clarifies complex, cutting-edge debates and theories within anthropology.
LO9. utilise and transfer anthropological knowledge to your field of study and career path.

Graduate qualities

The graduate qualities are the qualities and skills that all University of Sydney graduates must demonstrate on successful completion of an award course. As a future Sydney graduate, the set of qualities have been designed to equip you for the contemporary world.

GQ1	Depth of disciplinary expertise Deep disciplinary expertise is the ability to integrate and rigorously apply knowledge, understanding and skills of a recognised discipline defined by scholarly activity, as well as familiarity with evolving practice of the discipline.
GQ2	Critical thinking and problem solving Critical thinking and problem solving are the questioning of ideas, evidence and assumptions in order to propose and evaluate hypotheses or alternative arguments before formulating a conclusion or a solution to an identified problem.
GQ3	Oral and written communication Effective communication, in both oral and written form, is the clear exchange of meaning in a manner that is appropriate to audience and context.
GQ4	Information and digital literacy Information and digital literacy is the ability to locate, interpret, evaluate, manage, adapt, integrate, create and convey information using appropriate resources, tools and strategies.
GQ5	Inventiveness Generating novel ideas and solutions.
GQ6	Cultural competence Cultural Competence is the ability to actively, ethically, respectfully, and successfully engage across and between cultures. In the Australian context, this includes and celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, knowledge systems, and a mature understanding of contemporary issues.
GQ7	Interdisciplinary effectiveness Interdisciplinary effectiveness is the integration and synthesis of multiple viewpoints and practices, working effectively across disciplinary boundaries.
GQ8	Integrated professional, ethical, and personal identity An integrated professional, ethical and personal identity is understanding the interaction between one’s personal and professional selves in an ethical context.
GQ9	Influence Engaging others in a process, idea or vision.

Outcome map

Learning outcomes	Graduate qualities
Learning outcomes

Responding to student feedback

This section outlines changes made to this unit following staff and student reviews.

Several changes to the assignments and the topics for the class have been made on the basis of students' work in the class in 2019, and student feedback.

Additional information

Full information about the class and the topics we cover is found on Canvas.

The anthropology department web site, including information on our teachers and public seminars this semester.

Disclaimer

The University reserves the right to amend units of study or no longer offer certain units, including where there are low enrolment numbers.

To help you understand common terms that we use at the University, we offer an online glossary.

Current students

Overview

Overview

Unit details and rules

Teaching staff

Assessment

Assessment

Assessment summary

Assessment criteria

Late submission

Academic integrity

Learning support

Learning support

Simple extensions

Special consideration

Using AI responsibly

Weekly schedule

Weekly schedule

Attendance and class requirements

Study commitment

Required readings

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes

Graduate qualities

Outcome map

Responding to student feedback

Responding to student feedback

Additional information

Additional information

Disclaimer

On this page

Useful links

ANTH3601: Contemporary Theory and Anthropology

Semester 1, 2022 [Normal day] - Remote

Overview

Overview

Unit details and rules

Teaching staff

Assessment

Assessment

Assessment summary

Assessment criteria

Late submission

Academic integrity

Learning support

Learning support

Simple extensions

Special consideration

Using AI responsibly

Weekly schedule

Weekly schedule

Attendance and class requirements

Study commitment

Required readings

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes

Graduate qualities

Outcome map

Responding to student feedback

Responding to student feedback

Additional information

Additional information

Disclaimer

On this page

Useful links