Anthropology 2023 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q8

(a) Critically examine Arjun Appadurai's conceptualization of global cultural economy. 20 (b) Describe the causes of structural abnormalities of chromosomes with suitable examples. 15 (c) Critically discuss A.L. Kroeber's contribution to kinship studies. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) अर्जुन अप्पादुरै द्वारा प्रतिपादित वैश्विक सांस्कृतिक अर्थव्यवस्था की अवधारणा का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (b) गुणसूत्रों की संरचनात्मक विकृतियों के कारकों का उपयुक्त उदाहरणों सहित विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । 15 (c) नातेदारी अध्ययनों में ए.एल. क्रोबर के योगदान की समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । 15

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

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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 examine' for part (a) demands balanced analysis with strengths and limitations; 'describe' for (b) requires systematic explanation with examples; 'critically discuss' for (c) needs evaluative treatment of Kroeber's work. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → three distinct sections with clear sub-headings → synthesizing conclusion linking globalization, genetics, and kinship theory.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Appadurai's five 'scapes' (ethnoscape, mediascape, technoscape, financescape, ideoscape) with their disjunctive flows; critique of homogenization vs. heterogenization; criticism regarding Eurocentrism and lack of attention to power asymmetries
  • Part (b): Structural chromosomal abnormalities—deletion (Cri-du-chat syndrome), duplication (Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease), inversion, translocation (Philadelphia chromosome in CML); causes: radiation, chemicals, viral infections, maternal age
  • Part (c): Kroeber's kinship contributions—classificatory vs. descriptive systems, kinship terminology analysis, concept of 'kinds' of relatives, critique of Morgan's evolutionary scheme; limitations including neglect of functional aspects and social practice
  • Critical engagement across parts: for (a) Indian examples like Bollywood's global mediascape or IT sector's technoscape; for (b) Indian genetic studies on chromosomal disorders; for (c) comparison with Radcliffe-Brown or Rivers
  • Synthesis: how Appadurai's flows affect kinship structures (ethnoscape-marriage patterns) and genetic screening (technoscape-biotechnology)
  • Evaluation of theoretical significance: Appadurai's post-Marxist cultural studies approach vs. Kroeber's historical particularism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately defines all five scapes with their interrelationships; correctly classifies structural abnormalities (deletion, duplication, inversion, translocation) with precise genetic mechanisms; accurately presents Kroeber's terminological analysis and his distinction between classificatory/descriptive systems without conflating with MorganLists scapes but confuses their boundaries; mentions abnormalities but mixes structural with numerical types; describes Kroeber's work but conflates with Morgan's evolutionary framework or misattributes kinship conceptsMisidentifies scapes as actual places; confuses structural with numerical chromosomal abnormalities; attributes kinship concepts to wrong theorist or describes only Morgan's work under Kroeber's name
Theoretical framing20%10Situates Appadurai within postmodern globalization theory contrasting with Wallerstein's world-systems; frames chromosomal abnormalities within cytogenetics and molecular anthropology; positions Kroeber within American historical particularism against British functionalism, citing his critique of evolutionismMentions globalization without theoretical anchoring; describes abnormalities without cytogenetic framework; notes Kroeber as kinship scholar without situating in Boasian traditionNo theoretical context for any part; treats all three as isolated factual descriptions without disciplinary positioning
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10For (a): Indian IT professionals as ethnoscape, Bollywood's global mediascape, or Kerala diaspora's financescape; for (b): Indian prevalence data on Down syndrome (though numerical, shows awareness) or specific Indian studies on chromosomal disorders; for (c): Kroeber's actual ethnographic work on California tribes or comparison with Indian kinship studies by Irawati KarveGeneric globalization examples without Indian specificity; Western medical examples for chromosomal abnormalities; no Indian ethnography for KroeberNo examples for (a) or purely Western examples; no examples for (b); completely ignores ethnographic basis of Kroeber's work
Comparative analysis20%10For (a): contrasts Appadurai with Hannerz's 'transnational connections' or Robertson's 'glocalization'; for (b): distinguishes structural from numerical abnormalities with comparative table; for (c): compares Kroeber with Radcliffe-Brown (functionalism), Rivers (genealogical method), or Lowie (Crow/Omaha systems), evaluating relative strengthsBrief mention of other theorists without systematic comparison; lists abnormalities without comparative classification; mentions other kinship scholars without analytical contrastNo comparison across any part; treats each topic in isolation without reference to alternative approaches or scholars
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes how Appadurai's technoscape enables genetic screening for chromosomal abnormalities, and how ethnoscape transformations affect kinship systems globally; critically evaluates whether Kroeber's static typologies suffice for fluid globalized kinship; suggests policy implications for genetic counseling in India or kinship law reformsSeparate brief conclusions for each part without integration; no applied dimension; purely descriptive endingNo conclusion or abrupt ending; missing part (c) entirely; no critical evaluation or applied relevance

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