Guide in PDF format

Critical Theory and Anthropological Thought

Code: 107239
Credits: 6

2026/2027

Degree programme	Type	Course
Social and Cultural Anthropology	OB	3

Contact lecturer

Name :: José Mansilla Lopez
Email :: jose.mansilla@uab.cat

Teaching staff

: Jose Sanchez Garcia

Group languages

You can consult this information at the end of the document.

Prerequisites

None

Objectives

This course constitutes a space for innovative epistemological and theoretical discussions that allow, along with the subjects of specialized thematic areas, to deepen the critique of anthropological knowledge and provide a first specialization. The main objectives are: The discussion of texts that allow critical reflection on the epistemological, political and ethical controversies that arose in Anthropology after World War II. The issues involved are criticisms of the supremacy of the method, epistemological debates on relativisms and universality, political criticism of the social responsibility of anthropology, and the consequences of the interpretative turn on the legitimacy of anthropology to represent others cultures and the emphasis on reflexivity.

Learning outcomes

CM11 (Apply anthropological theories to the understanding and interpretation of social and cultural phenomena.) Apply anthropological theories to the understanding and interpretation of social and cultural phenomena.
CM12 (Adequately integrate the theories associated with the history of anthropology.) Adequately integrate the theories associated with the history of anthropology.
KM10 (Recognise the history of anthropological theory, the genesis and evolution of its basic and foundational concepts of epistemology.) Recognise the history of anthropological theory, the genesis and evolution of its basic and foundational concepts of epistemology.
KM11 (Identify historically and critically the principles, values, epistemological and methodological debates that govern ethnography.) Identify historically and critically the principles, values, epistemological and methodological debates that govern ethnography.
SM14 (Critically interpret the basic bibliography that has shaped the history of anthropology.) Critically interpret the basic bibliography that has shaped the history of anthropology.
SM16 (Make a theoretical analysis of ethnographic examples of cultural diversity.) Make a theoretical analysis of ethnographic examples of cultural diversity.
SM17 (Generate ideas with a specific anthropological and theoretical vocabulary.) Generate ideas with a specific anthropological and theoretical vocabulary.

1. Introduction: history, epistemology, ethics

2. Anthropology in crisis: knowledge and power - the lost innocence

3. National traditions

4. The problem of anthropological explanation

5. The interpretative turn and other culturalisms

6. Postmodern anthropology

7. And in spite of everything ... new and old proposals

Learning activities and methodology

Title	Hours	ECTS	Learning outcomes
Studing and personal work	50	2	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17
Participation in discussions	20	0.8	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17
Master classes	30	1.2	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17
Individual and group tutorials	20	0.8	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17
Works	30	1.2	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17

Teaching methodology:

Master classes with the support of the new information and communication technologies (NTIC).

Visualization and discussion of audio-visual material.

Guidelines for reflection and critical discussion on issues related to history, epistemology and ethics

Guidelines for reflection and critical discussion in questions related to history, epistemology and the ethics of anthropological work.

Training Activities:

Theoretical classes

Oral presentations and discussion of group readings. Comprehensive reading and discussion of texts.

Individual study and team discussion.

Preparation of individual and group work.

Annotation: within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.

Assessment

Continuous assessment activities

Title	Weight	Learning outcomes
Oral presentation	60	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17
Attendance	10	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17
Participation in discussions	30	CM11, CM12, KM10, KM11, SM14, SM16, SM17

CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT

The assessment of the subject is a continuous and progressive process that is developed based on the following activities:

Oral group presentations (60%). Throughout the course, 3 oral group presentations will be made. Each presentation will have a weight of 20%. Critical understanding of the contents and bibliography, the ability to analyze and argue, the appropriate use of anthropological concepts and the clarity of the presentation will be evaluated.
Participation in debates and discussion of readings (30%). Active and well-founded participation in the debates and activities carried out in the classroom will be evaluated, taking into account the preparation of the materials, the ability to argue and the link of the interventions with the bibliography and concepts of the subject.
Attendance (10%). Attendance at the face-to-face sessions will represent 10% of the final grade. It is necessary to attend more than 80% of the sessions for this grade to be taken into consideration.

At the beginning of the course, students will be informed of the calendar and criteria for the assessment activities. At the time of each activity, the teaching staff will inform, through the Virtual Campus, of the procedure and date for reviewing the grades.

NOT EVALUABLE

The student will receive the grade of “Not assessable” provided that they have carried out or submitted activities that represent 30% or less of the final grade.

RECOVERY

Suspended students who meet the criteria for being assessable may participate in recovery. Participation in debates and attendance are not retrievable, but presentations are. Those with a grade of 4 or more will not need to be retrievable, as they will be averaged with the rest of the presentations. However, for oral presentations to be averaged with participation and attendance, that part must be approved. Oral presentations will be recoverable through another presentation.

IRREGULARITIES

In the event of an irregularity that may lead to a significant variation in the grade of an assessment act, it will be graded 0 and will not be recoverable, regardless of the disciplinary process that may be initiated. In the event of several irregularities in the same subject, the final grade will be 0.

USE OF AI

In this subject, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies is not allowed in any of its phases. Any work that includes fragments generated with AI will be considered a lack of academic honesty and will result in the activity being evaluated with a 0 and not being recoverable, or greater sanctions in serious cases.

SINGLE EVALUATION

This subject does not provide for the possibility of carrying out a single evaluation.

Bibliography

1. Introduction: history, epistemology, ethics

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2005 [1991]. Modernidad y ambivalencia, Barcelona, Anthropos.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2008 [1984]. Homo academicus. Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI.
Foucault, Michele. 1971. Las palabras y las cosas, México, Siglo XXI.
Hallowell, A.Irvin . 1962. “The history of anthropology as an anthropological problem”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1, pp. 24-38.
Harris, Marvin. 2003 [1968]. El desarrollo de la teoría antropológica, Madrid, Siglo XXI.
Harris, Marvon. 2007 [1989]. Teorías sobre la cultura en la era posmoderna, Barcelona, Crítica.
Menéndez, Eduardo L. 2002. La parte negada de la cultura. Relativismo, diferencias y racismo, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra.
Stolcke, Verena. 1993. “De padres, filiaciones y malas memorias. Qué historias de qué antropologías?”, J. Bestard i Camps (coord.), Después de Malinowski, Asociación Canaria de Antropología, Sta. Cruz de Tenerife, pp. 147-198.

2. Anthropology in crisis: knowledge and power - the lost innocence

Bancel, Nicolas; Blanchard, Pascal; Boëtsch, Gilles; Déroo, Eric; Lemaire, Sandrine (dir.). 2002. Zoos humains. Au temps des exhibitions humaines, Paris, La Découverte.
Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo. 1973. “Conservative Thought in Applied Anthropology: A Critique”, T. Weaver (ed.), To See Ourselves. Anthropology and Modern Social Issues, Glenview, Scott, Foresman and Company, pp. 126-130.
Farish, Matthew. 2005. “Archiving Areas: The Ethnogeographic Board and the Second World War”, Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, vol. 95, nº 3, pp. 663–679.
González, Roberto I. 2004. Anthropologists in the Public Sphere.Speaking Out on War, Peace, and American Power, Austin, University of Texas Press.
Price, David. 2004. Threatening Anthropology. McCarthysm and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists, Durham, London, Duke University Press.
Price, David. 2008. Anthropological Intelligence. The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, Durham, London, Duke University Press.

3. National traditions

USA

Berreman, Gerald D. 1968. “Is anthropology alive? Social responsibility in social anthropology”, “Social Responsibilities Symposium”, Current Anthropology , vol. 5, nº 5.
Chomsky,Noam. 1997. “The cold war and the university”, A. Schiffrin (ed.), The cold war and the university. Toward an intellectual history of the postwar years, New York, The New Press.
Gough, Kathleen. 1968. “New porposals for anthropologists”, “Social Responsibilities Symposium”, Current Anthropology, vol. 9, nº5.
Hymes, Dell. (ed.). 1972. Reinventing Anthropology, New York, Pantheon Books.
Sahlins, Marshal. 1966. “The destruction of conscience in Viet Nam”, Dissent, enero-febrero.
“Social Responsibilities Symposium”, Current Anthropologist.
Weaver et.al. (eds). 1973. To see Ourselves. Anthropology and Modern Social Issues, Illinois, Glenview.
Wolf, Eric. 1971. “Antropología en pos de guerra”, América Indígena, vol. 31, nº2, pp. 429-449.

Great Britain

Asad, Talal. 1973.“Introduction”,T. Asad (ed.), Anthropology & the Colonial Encounter, Londres, Ithaca.
Asad, Talal. 1991. “Afterword: From the history of colonial anthropology to the anthropology of Western hegemony”, G.W. Stocking,Jr., Colonial Situations. Essays on the Conceptualization of Ethnographic Knowledge, University of Wisconsin Press.
Douglas, Mery. 1967. “If the Dogon...”, Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines, vol. 7, nº 4, pp. 659-670.
Feuchtwang, Stephan. 1973. “The colonial formation of British social anthropology”, T. Asad (ed.), op.cit.
Forster, Peter. 1973. “Empiricism and imperialism: A review of the New Left critique of social anthropology”, T. Asad (ed.), op.cit.
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Antropología y antropólogos. La escuela británica. 1922-1972, Barcelona, Anagrama.
Maddock, Kenneth. 1998. “Los dudosos placeres del compromiso” (trad.), Anthropology Today, vol. 14, nº 5.
Richards, Audrey I.. 1967. “African systems of thought: an Anglo-French dialogue”, Man, vol. 2, nº 2, pp. 286-297.

France

Badou, Gerard. 2000. “Sur les traces de la Vénus Hottentote”, Gradhiva, 27, pp. 83-87.
Ciarcia, Gaetano. 1998. “Ethnologues et ‘Dogon’. La fabrication d’un patrimoine ethnographique”, Gradhiva 24.
Copans, Jean. 1975. Anthropologie et Impérialisme, Paris, François Maspero.
Jamin, Jean. 1996. “Introduction”, Michel Leiris. Miroir de l'Afrique, Paris, Quarto Gallimard.
Jamin, Jean. 1988. “L'histoire de l'ethnologie est-elle une histoire comme les autres?”, Revue de Synthese nos. 3-4, julio-diciembre.
Lacoste-Dujardin, Camille. 1986. “Opération “Oiseau Bleu”. Géostratégie et ethnopolitique en montagne Kabyle, 1956”, Revue desMondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée, vol. 41, nº1, pp. 167-193.
Leclerq, G. 1973. Antropología y colonialismo, Madrid, Alberto Corazón Editor.
Leiris, Michel. 1995 [1950]. L'etnòleg davant el colonialisme, Icaria, Barcelona.
Tillion, Germaine. 2000. Il était une fois l’ethnographie, Paris, Editions du Seuil.
Tillion, Germaine. 2007. Combats de guerre et de paix, Paris, Editions du Seuil.

4. The problem of anthropological explanation

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others", Ethics Forum: September 11 and Ethnographic Responsibility, American Anthropologist, 104 (3), pp. 783-790.
Dupertius, C. ; Gottraux, P. 1990. “Pour un universalisme critique. Essai sur les droits de l'homme et la diversité des cultures”, Equinox, no.4.
Frade, C. (comp.). 2002. Globalització i diversitat cultural, Barcelona: UOC.
Geertz, Clifford. 1996. Los usos de la diversidad, Barcelona, Paidós.
Gellner, Ernest. 1982. “Relativism and universals”, M. Hallis, S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Oxford/Cambridge, Blackwell, pp. 181-200.
Sperber, Dan. 1982. “Apparently irrational beliefs”, M. Hollis, S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Oxford/Cambridge, Blackwell.
Tambiah, Stanley J. 1990. “Rationality, relativism, the translation and commensurability of cultures”, Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1988. “Le projet universaliste”, Anthropologieet Sociétés, vol. 12, nº 1.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 2003 [1989]. “Lévi-Strauss: L'horizon relativiste”, Nosotros y los otros, Madrid, Siglo XX, pp. 83-112.

5. The interpretative turn and other culturalisms

Geertz, Clifford. 1989. “Descripción densa: hacia una teoría interpretativa de la cultura”, La interpretación de las culturas, Barcelona, Gedisa.
Geertz, Clifford. 1989. El antropólogo como autor, Barcelona, Paidos.
Kapferer, Bruce. 1988. “The anthropologist as Hero. Three exponents of post-modernist anthropology”, Critique of Anthropology, vol. 8, nº 2.
Keesing, Roger. 1987. “Anthropology as interpretative quest”, Current Anthroplogy, vol. 28, nº2.
Sperber, Dan. 1985. “Interpretative ethnography and theoretical anthropology”, On Anthropological Knowledge, Cambridge.

6. Postmodern anthropology

Appignanesi, R; Garrat, C. 1997. Postmodernismo para principiantes, Buenos Aires, Era Naciente, SRL.
Clifford, James. 1991. “Introducción. Verdades parciales”, J. Clifford, G.E. Marcus (eds), Retóricas de la antropología, Madrid, Júcar.
Clifford, James. 1995 [1988]. Dilemas de la cultura. Antropología, literatura y arte en la perspectiva posmoderna, Barcelona, Gedisa.
Gellner, Ernest. 1994. Postmodernismo, razón y religión, Barcelona, Paidós.
Jameson, T.1996. Teoría de la postmodernidad, Madrid, Editorial Trotta.
Marcus, Goeoge E.; Cushman, D.E. 1991. “Las etnografías como textos”, C. Reynoso, El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna por C. Geertz,J. Clifford y otros, Barcelona, Gedisa.
Marcus, GeorgeE. 1992. “Past, present and emergent identities: Requirements for ethnographies of late twentieth-century modernity worldwide”, S. Lash, J. Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity, Oxford, Blackwell.
Rabinow, P. 1992. Reflexiones sobre un trabajo de campo en Marruecos, Madrid, Júcar.
Reynoso, C. 1991. “Presentación”, El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna por C. Geertz, J. Clifford y otros, Barcelona, Gedisa.
Sangren, P.S. 1988. “Rethoric and the authority of ethnography: Post modernism and the social reproduction of texts”, Current Anthropology, vol. 29, nº 3, pp. 405-435.
Strathern, Marilyn 1991. “Fuera de contexto: Las ficciones persuasivas de la antropología”, C. Reynoso, El surgimiento de la antropología postmoderna por C. Geertz, J. Clifford y otros, Barcelona, Gedisa.

7. And in spite of everything ... new and old proposals

Angosto Ferrández, Luis Fernando. 2013. "Antropología, humanismo y responsabilidades cívicas: una conversación con Thomas Hylland Eriksen", AIBR. Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, 8 (2), pp. 161 - 182.
Axel, B.K. 2002. From the Margins. Historical Anthropology and Its Futures, Durham, Duke University Press.
Bourgois, Philippe. 1990. “Enfrentándonos a la ética antropológica. Lecciones etnográficas de Centro-América” (trad.) (“Confronting anthropological ethics: Ethnographic lessons from Central America”, Journal of Peace Research, vol 27, nº1, pp. 43-54).
Comaroff, John, Comaroff, Jean. 2011. Etnicidad S.A., Madrid, Katz Editores.
Descola, Philippe. 2005. Par-delà nature et culture. Paris:Gallimard.
Estalella, Adolfo (coord.). 2022. Etica de la investigación para las ciencias sociales, Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
González, Roberto J. 2007. “Towards mercenary anthropology? The new US Army counterinsurgency manualFM 3-24 and the military-anthropologycomplex”, Anthropology today, vol. 23, nº 3, June.
Graeber, David. 2011. Fragmentos de antropología anarquista, Virus Editorial, pp. 19-45, 104-116.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies, vol. 14, nº 3, pp. 575-599.
Kahn, Joel. 2001. “Anthropology and Modernity”, Current Anthropology, vol. 42, nº 5, pp. 651-664.
Makaran, Gaya; Gaussens, Pierre (coords). 2020. Piel blanca, máscaras negras. Crítica de la razón decolonial, Mexico, Bajo Tierra AC.
Messer, Ellen. 1993. “Anthropology and human Rights”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, pp. 221-224.
Morin, Edgar. 1998. “La unidualidad del hombre”, Gazeta de antropología, nº 13, pp. 5-9.
Restrepo, Eduardo; Arturo Escobar. 2004. "Antropologías en el mundo", Jangwa Pana, 3, pp. 110-131.
Ribeiro, G.L.; Escobar, A. (eds.). 2006. World Anthropologies. Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power, Oxford, New York, Berg.
Sahlins, Marshal. 1999. “What is Anthropological Enlightment? Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, pp. 1-23.
Stolcke, Verena. 1999. “La nueva retórica de la exclusión en Europa” Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales 159, UNESCO, Marzo 1999.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1996. “Dixi cosmológicai perspectivisme amerindi [“Os pronomes cosmológicos e o perspectivismo ameríndio”, MANA, 2 (2), pp. 115-144].
Wolf, Eric R. 2001. Pathways of Power. Building an Anthropology of the Modern World, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Software