Anthropology 2022 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Write short notes

Q1

Write notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Debate between formalist and substantivist approaches (10 marks) (b) Mesolithic rock art in Indian subcontinent (10 marks) (c) Radcliffe-Brown's ideas on status, role and institution (10 marks) (d) Pedigree analysis in genetic counselling (10 marks) (e) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित पर लगभग 150 शब्दों (प्रत्येक) में टिप्पणियाँ लिखिए : (a) औपचारिकतावादी और मूलवादी दृष्टिकोणों के बीच वाद-विवाद (10) (b) भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप में मध्यपाषाण शैल कला (10) (c) सामाजिक प्रस्थिति, भूमिका और संस्था पर रेडक्लिफ-ब्राउन के विचार (10) (d) आनुवंशिक परामर्श में वंशवृक्ष विश्लेषण (10) (e) सहभागी ग्रामीण मूल्यांकन (पी.आर.ए.) और सहभागी अधिगम एवं कार्य (पी.एल.ए.) (10)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Write short notes

This question asks you to write short notes. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'write short notes' demands concise, information-dense responses of ~150 words per sub-part. Allocate approximately 3 minutes per part (15 minutes total), ensuring each note has a brief definitional opening, 2-3 substantive points, and a concluding link. Structure: (a) contrast formalist (economic rationality) vs substantivist (Polanyi, embedded economy); (b) highlight Bhimbetka, Adamgarh, Patne with themes; (c) define status-role-institution nexus with structural-functionalist lens; (d) explain pedigree symbols, inheritance patterns, risk calculation; (e) contrast PRA (rapid, extractive) with PLA (long-term, empowering). No single conclusion needed; each part must stand independently.

Key points expected

  • (a) Formalist-substantivist debate: Formalists (Herskovits, Firth) apply neoclassical economics universally; Substantivists (Polanyi, Dalton) argue economy is embedded in society; mention 'great transformation' and market vs reciprocity-redistribution
  • (b) Mesolithic rock art: Bhimbetka (hunting scenes, handprints), Adamgarh (faunal themes), Patne (geometric patterns); mention V.S. Wakankar, themes of food procurement, ritual, no domestication evidence
  • (c) Radcliffe-Brown: Status as structural position, role as dynamic performance, institution as standardized role cluster; contrast with Malinowski's functionalism; mention 'social structure' as network of relations
  • (d) Pedigree analysis: Standard symbols (square=male, circle=female, shaded=affected), autosomal/X-linked/Y-linked/mitochondrial inheritance patterns, risk calculation for genetic counselling, mention Indian genetic counselling contexts (thalassemia, sickle cell)
  • (e) PRA vs PLA: PRA (Chambers, 1980s) rapid rural appraisal tools—mapping, transect walks, seasonal calendars; PLA as evolved participatory learning with action-refaction cycles; contrast in time frame, power dynamics, sustainability

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions across all five parts: correctly identifies Polanyi as substantivist founder, distinguishes Mesolithic from Upper Paleolithic/Neolithic, accurately defines Radcliffe-Brown's structural-functional triad, correctly interprets pedigree symbols and inheritance modes, and distinguishes PRA's rapidity from PLA's iterative actionGenerally correct definitions with minor errors—e.g., conflates formalist-substantivist with idealist-materialist, vague on Mesolithic chronology, mixes Radcliffe-Brown with Malinowski, basic pedigree symbol knowledge without inheritance application, treats PRA-PLA as synonymousFundamental conceptual errors—e.g., reverses formalist-substantivist positions, calls Mesolithic art 'Neolithic', describes Radcliffe-Brown as evolutionist, confuses pedigree symbols, or describes PRA as 'participatory research appraisal'
Theoretical framing20%10Explicit theoretical anchoring: for (a) cites Polanyi's 'substantive economy' and formalist critique of universalism; for (c) locates Radcliffe-Brown within structural-functionalism vs Malinowski's biopsychological functionalism; for (e) references Chambers' 'reversing learning' and Freirean influence on PLAImplicit theoretical awareness without explicit naming—mentions 'economic anthropology debate' or 'British school' without precision, describes Radcliffe-Brown's ideas descriptively without theoretical label, notes PRA is 'participatory' without theoretical lineageAtheoretical description—lists facts without any theoretical framework, or misattributes theories (e.g., calling Polanyi a formalist, attributing status-role to Parsons without noting Radcliffe-Brown's priority)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich, specific Indian material: for (b) names Bhimbetka (Madhya Pradesh), Adamgarh, Patne with specific motifs; for (d) mentions thalassemia/sickle cell counselling in Indian tribal contexts; for (e) cites Indian PRA applications (e.g., JFM, watershed development); uses examples to illustrate, not just decorateGeneric or partially correct examples—mentions 'rock shelters in MP' without naming Bhimbetka, vague 'genetic diseases' without Indian specificity, 'rural India' without concrete PRA/PLA applicationNo Indian examples, or factually wrong ones—e.g., Harappan art for Mesolithic, Western pedigree cases without Indian relevance, or entirely missing the ethnographic dimension
Comparative analysis20%10Effective comparison where demanded: for (a) systematically contrasts formalist vs substantivist assumptions, methods, and conclusions; for (e) explicitly compares PRA and PLA on dimensions of time, participation depth, power relations, and action orientation; comparisons are analytical, not merely descriptiveDescriptive juxtaposition without analytical comparison—lists formalist and substantivist views side by side, or describes PRA and PLA separately without systematic contrast; comparison is implicit rather than explicitNo comparison attempted where required—treats (a) as two separate definitions without debate structure, or describes only PRA without mentioning PLA in (e); or false comparison (e.g., comparing Radcliffe-Brown to Pedigree analysis)
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Each 150-word note achieves closure: for (a) notes contemporary synthesis (new economic anthropology); for (b) links Mesolithic art to understanding cognitive evolution and symbolic behavior; for (c) notes influence on modern network analysis; for (d) emphasizes preventive genetics and ethical counselling; for (e) notes shift toward community-driven development in contemporary IndiaWeak or generic conclusions—repeats main points without forward link, or provides abrupt ending; applied angle is mentioned but not developed (e.g., 'important for today' without specificity)No conclusion in any part—answers simply stop after description, or provide irrelevant conclusions (e.g., unrelated policy recommendations); missing the applied dimension entirely where relevant (especially d and e)

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Anthropology 2022 Paper I