IGNOU BANC-108 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU BANC-108 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU BANC-108 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Discuss the beginnings of the evolutionary thoughts. Delineate L. H. Morgan’s contribution.

Ans. Evolutionary thought dominated anthropological theory in the nineteenth century, heavily inspired by Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). This theory proposed that societies and cultures, like biological organisms, evolve in a fixed, unilinear sequence from simple to complex forms. The foundation of this perspective was the notion of the ‘psychic unity of mankind’ , which posits that all humans possess the same intellectual capabilities, leading to similar inventions and developments under similar conditions. This theory held that all societies follow the same developmental path, with Western society considered the apex of evolution. Early proponents of this idea included Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte, but its systematic application within an anthropological framework is credited to E.B. Tylor and L.H. Morgan. The theory reflected the colonial attitudes and the impact of the Industrial Revolution of the era, viewing ‘primitive’ societies as living relics of the Western world’s past. L. H. Morgan’s Contribution: Lewis Henry Morgan, an American anthropologist, was one of the most influential proponents of unilinear evolutionism. Based on his intensive fieldwork among the Iroquois people, he presented a detailed framework for cultural evolution in his seminal work, Ancient Society (1877) . Morgan divided the evolution of human society into three main stages, each further subdivided and marked by a specific technological innovation:

• Savagery: Lower, Middle, and Upper. Identified by the invention of fire, the bow and arrow, and pottery.
• Barbarism: Lower, Middle, and Upper. Identified by the domestication of animals, agriculture, and the use of iron tools.
• Civilization: Beginning with the invention of the phonetic alphabet and writing.

Morgan did not focus solely on technology; he also argued that ideas of government, family, and property evolved in tandem with these stages. He proposed a sequence for the evolution of the family, starting from a consanguine family and culminating in the monogamian family. He also identified two types of kinship systems:

classificatory

and

descriptive

, which he linked to different social structures.

Morgan’s work had a profound influence on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but it was later heavily criticized for being ethnocentric, speculative, and for ignoring diffusion and historical particularism. Despite this, his work was the first major attempt to produce a systematic and comparative study of the evolution of human society.

Q2. Deliberate on the schools of diffusionism.

Ans. Diffusionism was a major anthropological theory that emerged in the early twentieth century as a reaction against unilinear evolutionism. In contrast to evolutionists, who believed that cultures independently passed through similar stages, diffusionists argued that most cultural change occurs through the spread, or borrowing, of traits from one society to another. They believed that humans are inherently uninventive and that most innovations occurred in a few select ‘cultural centers’ and then spread worldwide. There were three main schools or branches of diffusionism: 1. The British School of Diffusionism: Also known as the ‘hyper-diffusionist’ or ‘Pan-Egyptian’ school, its key proponents were G. Elliot Smith and W.J. Perry . This school held an extreme view that nearly all major cultural innovations originated in only one place: ancient Egypt . They argued that a ‘heliolithic complex’ of practices such as agriculture, kingship, megalithic structures, and mummification originated in Egypt and spread across the globe via sea routes. This theory was widely criticized for being highly speculative, lacking empirical evidence, and completely negating the possibility of independent invention. 2. The German-Austrian School of Diffusionism: Known as the ‘Kulturkreise’ or ‘Culture-Circle’ school, its main proponents were Fritz Graebner and Wilhelm Schmidt . This school was more systematic than its British counterpart. They proposed the idea that cultural traits diffuse not individually, but as ‘culture circles’ or complexes. They attempted to identify a few original culture circles, such as those of hunters, pastoralists, and farmers, and then trace their diffusionary paths across the world. They developed a methodology for tracing diffusion based on similarities in traits (‘criterion of form’) and their quantity (‘criterion of quantity’). However, this approach was also deemed overly mechanistic and speculative. 3. The American School of Diffusionism: Led by anthropologists like Franz Boas , Clark Wissler , and A.L. Kroeber , the American school took a more cautious and empirical approach to diffusionism. They rejected the grand schemes of the European schools.

• Culture Area: Wissler and Kroeber developed the ‘culture area’ concept, which refers to a geographical region where several societies share similar cultural traits.
• Age-Area Hypothesis: Wissler also proposed that traits found at the center of a culture area are the newest, while those on the periphery are the oldest, as the center is the point of innovation.

Franz Boas emphasized that cultural similarities could be the result of diffusion, independent invention, or convergence, and that each case must be studied in its own context of

Historical Particularism

. This balanced approach established the concept of diffusion as a legitimate and important process in anthropology.

Q3. What is Neo-evolutionism? Discuss Leslie White’s contributions.

Ans. Neo-evolutionism is a theoretical perspective that emerged in anthropology in the mid-twentieth century, reviving evolutionary thought. It arose as a reaction against the anti-evolutionary trend of Franz Boas’s Historical Particularism. Neo-evolutionism differed from 19th-century classical evolutionism in several key ways. It rejected the unilinear model, which held that all societies pass through the same fixed sequence. Instead, it was more empirical, materialistic, and non-valuational. Neo-evolutionists did not try to judge cultures as better or worse, but sought to understand the general principles of cultural change. Its two main strands were Leslie White’s universal evolution, which focused on the evolution of culture as a whole, and Julian Steward’s multilinear evolution, which studied the parallel paths of development of specific cultures in specific environments. Leslie White’s Contributions: Leslie White was an American anthropologist and a leading proponent of neo-evolutionism. He believed that culture should be studied as a phenomenon in its own right, a field he termed ‘Culturology’ . Central to White’s theory was the concept of energy. He viewed culture as a system for harnessing energy. According to him, the degree of cultural development is determined by the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year. He formulated the Basic Law of Cultural Evolution as: “Other factors remaining constant, culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased.” He expressed this law in a formula: C = E × T

• C = the level of development of Culture
• E = Energy harnessed per capita
• T = the technological efficiency of the tools used to harness energy

White divided culture into three subsystems:

1. The Technological Subsystem: This is the base and consists of tools, techniques, and the means of harnessing energy from the environment. It determines the other two systems.
2. The Sociological Subsystem: This includes social, political, and economic organization.
3. The Ideological Subsystem: This comprises beliefs, philosophies, and knowledge.

White also proposed stages of evolution based on technology and energy sources, such as the age of human energy, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the atomic revolution. While White’s work was criticized for technological determinism, his emphasis on energy and technology provided a new and powerful analytical framework for anthropological theory.

Q4. Write short notes on any two of the following: (a) Ruth Benedict (b) Functionalism (c) E.B. Tylor

Ans. (a) Ruth Benedict Ruth Benedict (1887-1948) was a prominent American anthropologist, a student of Franz Boas, and a key figure in the ‘Culture and Personality’ school. Her core idea was that each culture possesses a dominant ‘pattern’ or ‘ethos’ that shapes the behaviour and personalities of its members. She saw cultures not as a mere collection of traits, but as an integrated whole. Her most famous work is Patterns of Culture (1934) . In it, she illustrated her theory by contrasting three different cultures:

• The Zuni people (Pueblo Indians): Whom she termed ‘Apollonian’, valuing moderation, cooperation, and collectivism.
• The Kwakiutl people (Pacific Northwest): Termed ‘Dionysian’, valuing excess, individualism, and competitive behaviour (e.g., the potlatch).
• The Dobu people (Melanesia): Described as ‘Paranoid’, where suspicion, treachery, and ill-will were dominant.

Another of her important works is

The Chrysanthemum and the Sword

(1946), a study of Japanese national character during World War II. Benedict championed cultural relativism, showing how culture shapes personality. However, her work is also criticized for oversimplification and creating stereotypes.

(b) Functionalism

Functionalism was a dominant theoretical perspective in early 20th-century anthropology, especially in Britain. Its core idea is to compare society to a biological organism, where different parts (social institutions like family, religion, economy) work together to maintain the whole (society). The main focus of this theory is on the ‘function’ of any cultural practice or institution—that is, the role it plays in meeting the needs of the society or its members.

It had two major proponents with slightly different approaches:

1. Bronisław Malinowski: His approach is called ‘psychological’ or ‘individual functionalism’. Malinowski argued that cultural institutions exist to meet the basic biological and psychological needs of individuals. He identified three levels of needs: basic (e.g., food, reproduction), derived (e.g., social control), and integrative (e.g., meaning, security).
2. A.R. Radcliffe-Brown: His approach is termed ‘structural-functionalism’. He emphasized that social institutions contribute to the maintenance of the structural continuity and solidarity of society. His focus was on the social structure, not the individual.

Functionalism is criticized for being ahistorical and unable to explain social change and conflict. Nevertheless, it established fieldwork and holistic analysis as central to anthropology.

Q5. Discuss Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functional approach.

Ans. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown was a leading figure in British social anthropology and the primary architect of the ‘structural-functional’ approach. His perspective was a deliberate shift away from the individual-focused functionalism of Bronisław Malinowski and the historical reconstructions of earlier schools. Core Concepts: The cornerstone of Radcliffe-Brown’s theory was the concept of social structure . For him, social structure was not an abstract model but an empirical reality, consisting of the network of actually existing social relationships that link individuals and groups. The goal of social anthropology was to study these structures systematically. The term ‘function’ in his framework referred to the contribution that a particular social practice or institution makes to the maintenance of the entire social structure. The primary ‘need’ of a society is to maintain its structural continuity and social solidarity over time. Institutions like kinship, religion, and law function to preserve this social order. Radcliffe-Brown famously used the organic analogy . He compared society to a biological organism. Just as the organs of a body work together to maintain the life of the organism, the institutions of a society work in concert to maintain the ‘life’ of the social structure. The aim is to maintain a state of ‘eufunction’ (social health) and avoid ‘dysfunction’ (social disruption). He believed social anthropology could be a ‘natural science of society’, discovering universal sociological laws governing social life. Application of the Theory: Radcliffe-Brown applied this approach to various phenomena, most notably kinship systems and what he termed ‘joking and avoidance relationships’.

• Kinship: He analyzed kinship systems not for their historical origins but for their role in organizing social life and maintaining order in small-scale societies. He argued that kinship terminologies are not random but reflect and reinforce the social structure.
• Joking and Avoidance Relationships: He explained these as functional mechanisms for managing potential social conflict. Joking relationships (e.g., between a man and his wife’s sister) allow for a playful, licensed disrespect that diffuses potential tension. Conversely, avoidance relationships (e.g., between a son-in-law and mother-in-law) prevent conflict by formalizing distance. Both serve to stabilize social relations.

Critique and Legacy:

Radcliffe-Brown’s approach has been heavily criticized for being

ahistorical

, as it neglects social change and focuses on a static picture of society. It has also been criticized for overemphasizing harmony and consensus, thereby ignoring conflict, power, and inequality. Despite these criticisms, his focus on social structure as a key analytical concept had a profound and lasting influence on both social anthropology and sociology, providing a powerful framework for a synchronic analysis of societies.

Q6. Write a note on Marxian theory and Social Anthropology.

Ans. Karl Marx’s theories, developed in the 19th century, have had a profound, albeit often delayed, influence on social anthropology. While Marx was not an anthropologist himself, his materialist conception of history and critique of capitalism provided powerful analytical tools for examining society, power, and inequality. Core Marxian Concepts for Anthropology:

• Historical Materialism: The core idea that the economic base of a society—the mode of production —determines its social, political, and ideological superstructure. The mode of production consists of the ‘forces of production’ (technology, labor) and the ‘relations of production’ (class relations).
• Base and Superstructure: The economic ‘base’ shapes the ‘superstructure’ (law, religion, family, etc.), which in turn functions to legitimize and reproduce the base.
• Class Struggle: Society is divided into classes based on their relationship to the means of production. History is driven by the conflict between these classes.
• Ideology: The dominant ideas of an era are those of the ruling class, which create a ‘false consciousness’ among the oppressed, obscuring their exploitation.

Marxist Influence in Anthropology:

Initially, Marxian theory was largely ignored by mainstream Anglo-American anthropology, which was dominated by functionalism’s focus on harmony. However, a revival of interest, often termed

Neo-Marxist anthropology

, began in the 1960s and 1970s, fueled by anti-colonial movements and a growing critique of global capitalism.

Anthropologists began to apply Marxian concepts to non-Western, pre-capitalist societies and to the effects of colonialism.

1. French Structural Marxism: Scholars like Claude Meillassoux and Maurice Godelier analyzed pre-capitalist modes of production, such as the ‘lineage mode of production’, showing how kinship in many societies also functions as the relations of production, organizing labor and controlling access to resources.
2. Political Economy: Anthropologists like Eric Wolf and Sidney Mintz used a Marxian framework to analyze the impact of global capitalism on local societies. Wolf’s landmark book, Europe and the People Without History , demonstrated how seemingly peripheral, ‘primitive’ peoples were in fact integral to the historical development of the capitalist world-system.

Conclusion:

Marxian theory provided anthropology with a critical lens to move beyond static, isolated community studies. It equipped anthropologists to analyze conflict, exploitation, and resistance, and to connect the local ethnographic realities to global political and economic forces. It offered a powerful alternative to the consensus-oriented models of functionalism, fundamentally changing the way anthropologists approach power, history, and social change.

Q7. What is Feminism? Discuss contemporary critical feminism.

Ans. What is Feminism? Feminism is a broad and diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies. At its heart, it is the advocacy for women’s rights on the grounds of the equality of the sexes. It aims to understand, critique, and ultimately transform the social, economic, and political inequalities that women experience. Key concepts central to feminist thought include patriarchy , a system where men hold primary power; the crucial distinction between biological sex and socially constructed gender ; and the idea that “the personal is political,” which links women’s private experiences to broader systems of power. Contemporary Critical Feminism: Contemporary feminism, often associated with the ‘third wave’ and beyond, is not a monolithic theory. It is characterized by its internal critiques, its diversity, and its engagement with other critical theories like post-structuralism and post-colonialism. It moves beyond earlier forms of feminism by questioning universal categories and embracing complexity. Key features include:

1. Intersectionality: This is arguably the most significant contribution of contemporary critical feminism. Coined by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality insists that systems of oppression—such as racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia—are interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation. The experience of a working-class Black woman, for example, is not simply the sum of her race and gender but a unique, interlocking experience of oppression. This concept challenges the notion of a single, universal “woman’s experience.”
2. Post-structuralist Influence: Drawing on thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, contemporary feminists deconstruct fixed categories. Judith Butler’s concept of gender performativity argues that gender is not a stable identity but something we ‘do’ through repeated actions, gestures, and speech. This perspective focuses on how power operates through discourse to construct and regulate identities.
3. Global and Transnational Feminism: This strand critiques the notion of a ‘global sisterhood’ as potentially imperialistic, where Western feminists impose their own agendas on women in the Global South. Instead, it focuses on how globalization, neoliberal policies, and colonial legacies affect women differently across the world and seeks solidarity based on an understanding of these diverse contexts.
4. Critique of Knowledge: It continues the feminist project of exposing the male-centric (androcentric) bias in traditional fields of knowledge, including anthropology. It questions who has the authority to produce knowledge and seeks to create alternative, feminist ways of knowing (epistemologies).

In essence, contemporary critical feminism is a self-reflexive, dynamic field that prioritizes complexity, difference, and a critical analysis of intersecting power structures.

Q8. Write short notes on any two of the following: (a) Team ethnography (b) Symbols and Symbolic behaviour (c) Conflict theories

Ans. (a) Team ethnography Team ethnography is a research method where a group of researchers collaborates on a single ethnographic study, as opposed to the traditional model of a lone ethnographer. This team can be composed of researchers from the same discipline focusing on different aspects of a community, or it can be an interdisciplinary team bringing diverse perspectives (e.g., an anthropologist, an economist, a linguist) to a complex research problem. Advantages of this approach include greater breadth and depth of data collection, as multiple facets of a society can be studied simultaneously. It also enhances reliability through triangulation , where findings from different researchers can be cross-checked to reduce individual bias. A team can cover more ground and collect data more efficiently than a single researcher. However, team ethnography also presents challenges , such as the need for extensive coordination, potential for interpersonal conflicts, and the difficulty of maintaining a consistent methodology and theoretical focus across the team. A classic example of team ethnography is the “Six Cultures Study” led by John and Beatrice Whiting, which involved multiple teams studying child-rearing practices across different societies to generate comparative data. (b) Symbols and Symbolic behaviour A symbol is a foundational concept in anthropology. It is anything—an object, word, action, or event—that stands for something else, where the relationship between the two is arbitrary and culturally defined. For example, a red cross on a white background is a symbol for medical aid, and a national flag is a piece of cloth that symbolizes a nation and its identity. The meaning is not inherent in the object but is assigned to it by a group of people. Symbolic behaviour refers to all human actions that are mediated by symbols. Language is the most complex and important form of symbolic behavior, but it also includes rituals, myths, art, and even simple gestures. Culture itself is often defined as a shared system of symbols and meanings that allows members of a society to communicate and understand one another. The field of Symbolic Anthropology , championed by figures like Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner, focuses specifically on interpreting culture by analyzing its web of symbols. Geertz viewed culture as a ‘text’ to be ‘read,’ while Turner analyzed the powerful role of symbols in rituals. Understanding symbols is therefore crucial to understanding how humans create meaning, organize their social lives, and make sense of their world.

Q9. (a) Discuss the relevance of theory in an anthropological study.

Ans. Theory is not a mere academic accessory in an anthropological study; it is the essential framework that guides the entire research process from beginning to end. Without theory, ethnographic research would be little more than “butterfly collecting”—an aimless accumulation of exotic facts and anecdotes. The relevance of theory lies in its ability to transform description into explanation. First, theory guides the formulation of research questions . A researcher’s theoretical orientation (e.g., functionalist, Marxist, feminist) determines what they consider important to investigate. A functionalist might ask how a ritual contributes to social cohesion, whereas a Marxist might ask how it perpetuates class inequality. Second, theory directs data collection . It helps the anthropologist decide what to look for in the field. A scholar using a political economy approach to study a community will focus on land tenure, labor relations, and state policies, while one using a symbolic approach will focus on myths, rituals, and language. Third, theory provides the analytical framework for interpreting data . Facts do not speak for themselves. Theory provides the concepts (e.g., ‘hegemony’, ‘social structure’, ‘intersectionality’) and the logic to organize observations, identify patterns, and draw meaningful conclusions. It allows the researcher to move from the specific details of ethnography to the broader generalizations of ethnology. In essence, theory is the intellectual toolkit that enables anthropologists to ask significant questions, gather relevant evidence, and make sense of the complex reality of human social life.

Q9. (b) For a project on ‘Displacement’, discuss a theory to be used and explain the reason thereof.

Ans. For a project on ‘Displacement’, the most effective and comprehensive theoretical framework to use would be a Political Economy approach , drawing from Marxian theory and World-Systems theory. Reason for Choice: The reason for choosing this theory is that contemporary displacement is rarely a purely local or isolated event. It is almost always deeply enmeshed in larger political and economic structures and power inequalities. A political economy framework is uniquely suited to analyze these connections.

1. Focus on Root Causes: Unlike a culturalist approach that might focus on the adaptation of the displaced community, a political economy perspective compels the researcher to investigate the structural causes of displacement. This means examining factors like large-scale development projects (dams, mines), land grabs driven by global capital, state policies, ethnic conflicts fueled by resource competition, or climate change induced by industrial nations.
2. Analysis of Power and Inequality: This theory is explicitly concerned with power. It forces the researcher to ask critical questions: Who benefits from the displacement? Who makes the decisions? How do class, race, and nationality determine who is vulnerable to displacement and what resources they have to resist or cope? It uncovers the hidden power dynamics that a more ‘neutral’ approach might miss.
3. Global-Local Linkages: Inspired by scholars like Eric Wolf, this approach excels at connecting the micro-level experience of a displaced community to macro-level global processes. It shows how a decision made by the World Bank or a multinational corporation can directly lead to the loss of land and livelihood for a village community thousands of miles away.

In conclusion, while other theories are useful for specific aspects (e.g., symbolic anthropology for studying identity), a political economy approach provides the most critical and holistic understanding of displacement by foregrounding the power structures that produce it.