Anthropology 2025 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q3

(a) How anthropologists assess the nutritional status of a community? Discuss the significance of intersectionality of ecology, culture, and social inequality in the study of nutritional anthropology. (20 marks) (b) Critically examine the drawbacks in assuming culture as an 'integrated-closed' system in understanding of contemporary society. (15 marks) (c) Differentiate between pedigree and genealogical analyses. Discuss the history and application of these methods in anthropological studies. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) मानवशास्त्री किसी समुदाय की पोषण स्थिति का मूल्यांकन कैसे करते हैं ? पोषण मानव विज्ञान के अध्ययन में पारिस्थितिकी, संस्कृति तथा सामाजिक असमानता की प्रतिछेदनीयता के महत्व की विवेचना कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) समकालीन समाज को समझने में संस्कृति को एक 'एकीकृत-बंद' प्रणाली के रूप में मानने की कमियों की समालोचनात्मक जांच कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) पेडिग्री तथा जीनियालाजी विश्लेषणों के बीच अंतर स्पष्ट कीजिए। इनके इतिहास तथा मानवशास्त्रीय अध्ययनों में इनकी उपयोगिता की विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 comprehensive, analytical treatment with balanced argumentation. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → systematic treatment of each sub-part with clear demarcations → synthesizing conclusion that links nutritional anthropology, culture theory, and kinship methods to contemporary anthropological practice.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Anthropometric, biochemical, clinical, and dietary assessment methods for nutritional status; intersectionality of ecology (seasonal food availability, agro-ecosystems), culture (food taboos, commensality, gendered food distribution), and social inequality (caste, class, gender-based deprivation) in shaping nutritional outcomes
  • Part (a): Specific Indian examples such as protein-calorie malnutrition studies, ICDS data, or tribal nutrition surveys (e.g., Dangis, Birhors) demonstrating ecological-cultural-social intersections
  • Part (b): Critical examination of the 'integrated-closed' system model (Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski's functionalism); drawbacks including inability to explain culture change, hybridity, globalization flows, and internal contradictions; alternative frameworks (Barth's transactionalism, Bourdieu's practice theory, Appadurai's -scapes)
  • Part (b): Contemporary Indian illustrations: diasporic cultural formations, urban slum hybrid identities, or digital cultural flows that defy closed-system assumptions
  • Part (c): Clear differentiation: pedigree analysis (medical-genetic focus, individual proband, inheritance patterns, Mendelian tracking) versus genealogical analysis (anthropological kinship focus, relational networks, marriage alliances, descent systems); historical development from Morgan to Rivers to contemporary genetic anthropology
  • Part (c): Applications: pedigree in disease genetics (sickle cell, thalassemia studies in Indian populations); genealogical method in village studies (Srinivas's Rampura), kinship terminologies, and forensic anthropology; convergence in anthropological genetics

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions across all sub-parts: for (a) distinguishes direct vs. indirect nutritional assessment and correctly deploys 'intersectionality'; for (b) accurately characterizes the integrated-closed system assumption and its specific theoretical provenance; for (c) rigorously differentiates pedigree (individual-centered, genetic) from genealogical (network-centered, social) analysis without conflationGenerally correct definitions with minor imprecision; may conflate pedigree/genealogical methods or under-specify the theoretical origins of closed-system models; intersectionality mentioned but not operationalizedSignificant conceptual errors: treats pedigree and genealogical analysis as synonymous, misidentifies closed-system theorists, or confuses nutritional assessment methods (e.g., equating anthropometry with dietary survey)
Theoretical framing20%10Sophisticated theoretical architecture: for (a) integrates political ecology (Netting) and feminist political economy; for (b) moves systematically from classical functionalism through processual and postmodern critiques (Clifford, Marcus on multi-sited ethnography); for (c) traces epistemological shifts from evolutionism to structural-functionalism to contemporary biosocial approachesRecognizes major theoretical positions but presents them descriptively rather than critically; limited engagement with how theoretical shifts enabled methodological innovations in kinship studiesAtheoretical or misattributed frameworks; presents theories as disconnected labels without explanatory power; anachronistic application of contemporary theory to historical methods
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich, specific Indian material: for (a) cites landmark studies (NIN Hyderabad surveys, ICAR tribal nutrition projects, or Patnaik's work on famine); for (b) deploys compelling cases (NRI cultural negotiations, Bollywood's globalized hybridity, or caste mobility disrupting 'closed' village studies); for (c) references specific pedigree projects (AIIMS genetic surveys) and classic genealogical studies (Epstein's Wangala, Mayer's Ramkheri)Generic Indian references without specificity; mentions 'tribal malnutrition' or 'Indian villages' without naming communities or studies; examples illustrative rather than analytically integratedAbsent or inappropriate examples; uses non-Indian cases where Indian data is abundant; fabricated or clearly misremembered study attributions
Comparative analysis20%10Systematic comparative moves: for (a) contrasts ecological determinism with cultural-materialist approaches; for (b) explicitly weighs closed-system against open-system/processual models on criteria of explanatory power for change and conflict; for (c) compares methodological affordances—pedigree's precision in genetic prediction versus genealogical method's capture of social reproduction—showing when each is epistemologically appropriateSome comparative gestures but underdeveloped; contrasts without clear evaluative criteria; comparison limited to listing differences rather than analyzing trade-offsNo comparative dimension; treats each sub-part in isolation without cross-referencing; confuses comparison with mere juxtaposition of unrelated facts
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizing conclusion that articulates how nutritional anthropology's intersectional approach, culture theory's move beyond closed systems, and refined kinship methodologies collectively advance contemporary anthropological practice; specific policy implications (ICDS redesign, genetic counseling programs, culturally sensitive health interventions); forward-looking assessment of convergent biosocial anthropologySummary conclusion restating main points without synthesis; generic policy recommendations; no explicit connection between the three sub-parts' thematic concernsAbsent or abrupt conclusion; no applied dimension; conclusion introduces new unsubstantiated claims; fails to demonstrate how answering these three questions together advances understanding

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 2025 Paper I