Anthropology 2022 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) Discuss the role of evolutionary forces in creating human diversity. (20 marks) (b) Write the historical development of field work tradition in anthropology till recent times. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the approaches of Leslie White, Julian Steward and Marshall Sahlins in the light of cultural evolution. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) मानव विविधता के निर्माण में उद्विकासवादी शक्तियों की भूमिका की चर्चा कीजिए । (20) (b) हाल के समय तक नृविज्ञान में क्षेत्रीय कार्य परंपरा के ऐतिहासिक विकास की चर्चा कीजिए । (15) (c) सांस्कृतिक उद्विकास के आलोक में लेजली व्हाइट, जूलियन स्टीवर्ड और मार्शल सहलिंस के दृष्टिकोणों पर चर्चा कीजिए । (15)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' demands a critical, multi-faceted examination with balanced coverage across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → systematic treatment of (a) with mechanisms and outcomes, (b) as chronological narrative from armchair to multi-sited, (c) as comparative theoretical analysis → synthesizing conclusion linking evolution, methodology and theory.

Key points expected

Part (a): Mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow as primary forces; clinal vs. racial variation; lactase persistence, sickle-cell trait, skin pigmentation gradients as exemplars
Part (a): Balancing vs. directional selection; founder effect in population isolates; neutral theory vs. adaptationist perspectives
Part (b): Evolution from speculative evolutionism (Tylor, Morgan) to intensive fieldwork (Boas, Malinowski); post-war national traditions (British social anthropology, American cultural anthropology); decolonization critiques; contemporary multi-sited, digital and collaborative ethnography
Part (c): White's energy-capture universalism and technological determinism; Steward's cultural ecology and multilineal evolution with culture core concept; Sahlins' synthesis in 'Evolution and Culture' distinguishing specific vs. general evolution
Part (c): Critical comparison of their stances on progress, environment-technology nexus, and whether evolution is unilinear or multilineal

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	For (a), accurately distinguishes four evolutionary forces with correct mechanistic explanations (e.g., heterozygote advantage for sickle-cell); for (b), correctly dates Malinowski's Trobriands (1915-1918) and identifies postmodern turn; for (c), precisely defines White's E=TP, Steward's culture core, and Sahlins' specific/general evolution distinction without conflating theorists	Identifies forces and theorists correctly but misrepresents mechanisms (e.g., confusing drift with selection) or muddles chronology; conflates Steward's multilineal with White's universal evolution	Fundamental errors: lists Lamarckian mechanisms, misattributes Malinowski to 19th century, or treats all three theorists as identical cultural evolutionists
Theoretical framing	20%	10	For (a), engages with neutral theory vs. selectionist debate and Lewontin's apportionment of diversity; for (b), theorizes the reflexive and collaborative turns (Clifford, Marcus); for (c), situates all three within post-war materialist reaction to Boasian particularism and anticipates contemporary evolutionary archaeology	Describes theories descriptively without situating them in intellectual history; mentions but does not develop theoretical tensions	Atheoretical listing of facts; no awareness that White-Steward-Sahlins debate shaped 20th-century anthropology's materialist turn
Ethnographic / Indian examples	20%	10	For (a): Indian genetic isolates (Andamanese, Jarawa, Onge for founder effects; high-altitude adaptations in Ladakh/Bhutia populations); for (b): Srinivas's 'Remembered Village' as reflexive turn; Ghurye, Elwin, Verrier Elwin's colonial-era fieldwork; contemporary digital ethnography in Indian contexts; for (c): applies Steward's cultural ecology to Indian irrigation civilizations or White's energy thesis to Indus Valley	Generic examples (sickle-cell in Africa) or superficial mention of Indian anthropologists without specific works; no application of theory to Indian cases	No Indian examples; or irrelevant examples (e.g., using Australian Aboriginal data for part b's fieldwork history without connecting to Indian tradition)
Comparative analysis	20%	10	For (a), compares relative importance of forces in small vs. large populations; for (b), contrasts British functionalist (Radcliffe-Brown) vs. American cultural (Boas) fieldwork traditions; for (c), systematic comparison table or structured narrative showing White's universalism vs. Steward's particularism and Sahlins' mediation, with explicit attention to their disagreements on progress and determinism	Treats parts separately with minimal cross-referencing; mentions differences without systematic comparison	No comparative element; three disconnected mini-essays; fails to see that (a)-(c) collectively address evolution at biological, methodological and theoretical levels
Conclusion & applied angle	20%	10	Synthesizes: how biological evolution (a) necessitated particular field methods (b) which produced theoretical frameworks (c); connects to contemporary relevance—genomic anthropology's return to biological evolution, collaborative/participatory methods addressing power asymmetries, and neo-evolutionary approaches in archaeology; policy implication: understanding human diversity combats racism, ethical fieldwork informs development anthropology	Summarizes three parts separately without integration; generic statement about anthropology's importance	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; misses opportunity to show how 20th-century theoretical debates inform 21st-century biosocial anthropology

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 →