Anthropology 2023 Paper I 50 marks Critically discuss

Q6

(a) Critically discuss the controversies related to fieldwork of Bronislaw Malinowski and Margaret Mead. 20 (b) Discuss the impact of globalization on the economic systems of indigenous communities. 15 (c) Describe the practical applications of DNA technology in the current scenario. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) ब्रॉनिस्लॉ मैलिनोव्स्की तथा मार्ग्रेट मीड के क्षेत्रीय कार्यों से संबंधित विवादों की समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । 20 (b) देशज समुदायों की आर्थिक व्यवस्थाओं पर वैश्वीकरण के प्रभाव की विवेचना कीजिए । 15 (c) वर्तमान परिदृश्य में डीएनए प्रौद्योगिकी के व्यावहारिक अनुप्रयोगों का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Critically discuss

This question asks you to critically 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 'critically discuss' for part (a) demands balanced evaluation with evidence, while (b) requires 'discuss' and (c) 'describe'. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → three distinct sections with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing lessons for contemporary anthropology. For (a), present controversies then evaluate their epistemological implications; for (b), analyze pre-globalization baseline, transformation mechanisms, and outcomes; for (c), categorize applications by domain (forensic, medical, conservation) with Indian institutional references.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Malinowski's 'Argonauts' versus his Trobriand diary revelations (1967) exposing detached, exploitative stance; Mead's 'Coming of Age in Samoa' challenged by Freeman's (1983) critique on methodological rigor, cultural determinism, and possible informant deception
  • Part (a): Epistemological fallout—crisis of representation, reflexive turn, and postmodern critique of 'objective' ethnography; Malinowski's functionalism versus Mead's cultural determinism as underlying theoretical vulnerabilities
  • Part (b): Pre-globalization economic systems—subsistence, reciprocity, redistribution among Indian indigenous communities (e.g., Birhor, Kadar, Onge); land tenure, forest rights, and non-timber forest produce dependence
  • Part (b): Globalization mechanisms—displacement, market integration, tourism, mining, PESA violations; outcomes: proletarianization, feminization of poverty, resistance movements (e.g., Narmada Bachao Andolan, Dongria Kondh vs. Vedanta)
  • Part (c): Forensic anthropology—DNA profiling in criminal investigation (CFSL, NCRB data), disaster victim identification; medico-legal applications in mass disasters and unidentified bodies
  • Part (c): Medical genetics—prenatal screening, pharmacogenomics, rare disease diagnosis; anthropological genetics—reconstructing population history, migration patterns in Indian subcontinent (e.g., Andamanese, Austro-Asiatic dispersal)
  • Part (c): Wildlife forensics and conservation genetics—species identification from seized materials, population viability analysis; ethical concerns—biopiracy, informed consent, genetic essentialism, AYUSH genomic integration

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely identifies Malinowski's 'participant observation' method versus his actual practice in the diary; accurately distinguishes Mead's cultural determinism from Freeman's biological critique; correctly defines globalization's economic dimensions (market penetration, structural adjustment); accurately describes DNA technologies (STR profiling, SNP analysis, mtDNA sequencing) with correct technical terminologyBasic identification of controversies without nuance; generic description of globalization impacts; superficial listing of DNA applications with technical errors or conflation of methodsConfuses Malinowski with Radcliffe-Brown; misrepresents Freeman's critique as purely personal; conflates globalization with Westernization; fundamental errors in DNA technology description (e.g., confusing DNA with RNA applications)
Theoretical framing20%10Explicitly links Malinowski controversy to reflexive anthropology (Clifford, Marcus) and crisis of representation; connects Mead-Freeman debate to nature-nurture epistemology and feminist anthropology responses; for (b), applies Polanyi, Sahlins, or Scott's moral economy framework; for (c), integrates molecular anthropology with traditional anthropological questions on human variation and raceImplicit theoretical awareness without explicit naming; descriptive rather than analytical application; mentions theories without connecting to empirical contentNo theoretical framework; purely factual narration; inappropriate theoretical application (e.g., applying structural-functionalism to DNA technology)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10For (a), cites specific diary entries or Freeman's Samoa restudy evidence; for (b), uses detailed Indian cases—Dongria Kondh resistance, Jarawa policy changes, PESA implementation gaps in Jharkhand; for (c), references CFSL Hyderabad, NIBMG Kalyani, or specific Indian population genetic studies (e.g., Reich et al. on Indian ancestry); mentions DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation BillGeneric or outdated examples; mentions Indian tribes without specificity; lists DNA applications without Indian institutional contextNo Indian examples; exclusively Western ethnography; factually wrong examples (e.g., placing Malinowski in India, confusing indigenous communities)
Comparative analysis20%10For (a), systematically compares Malinowski and Mead controversies on dimensions: nature of critique (personal ethics vs. scientific validity), timing (posthumous vs. contemporary), disciplinary impact; for (b), compares pre/post globalization or cross-tribal variation; for (c), compares DNA applications across domains or evaluates relative utility; integrates comparisons across all three parts where possibleSome comparative intent but poorly executed; juxtaposition without systematic comparison; limited to one part of the questionNo comparative element; treats each sub-part in isolation without analytical connections; lists rather than compares
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes fieldwork controversies into contemporary methodological ethics (IRBs, collaborative anthropology, digital ethnography); for globalization, proposes policy recommendations (FRA 2006 strengthening, benefit-sharing mechanisms); for DNA, addresses ethical governance and anthropological advocacy; demonstrates awareness of anthropology's public relevance and disciplinary self-correction capacitySummary conclusion without synthesis; generic policy suggestions; no explicit applied anthropology orientationNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive ending; irrelevant digression; no applied or forward-looking element

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 2023 Paper I