MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

To construct a high-scoring response, students should follow a structured essay format: 1. Introduction: Define the area of inquiry ('Belonging') and the key concept ('identity'). Introduce the chosen real-world issue and state the thesis regarding how identity is negotiated, contested, or maintained. 2. Ethnographic Case Study: Introduce a specific, contemporary ethnographic example (e.g., Liisa Malkki's work on Hutu refugees, or more recent ethnographies on digital diasporas or climate-induced displacement). 3. Analysis: Analyze how boundaries of belonging are drawn and redrawn. Discuss how individuals or groups assert agency, perform identity, or resist marginalization in response to the chosen issue. Use relevant anthropological theories (such as social constructivism, structural violence, or translocality). 4. Evaluation and Conclusion: Critically evaluate the complexities of belonging in a globalized world, acknowledging multiple intersecting identities (class, gender, ethnicity) and summarize key insights.

Marks are awarded according to the following assessment criteria: [13-15 marks]: The response shows a sophisticated understanding of 'Belonging' and 'identity'. The ethnographic example is highly appropriate, detailed, and seamlessly integrated into a critical analysis of a contemporary real-world issue. The argument is nuanced, evaluative, and demonstrates excellent anthropological insight. [10-12 marks]: The response demonstrates a clear understanding of the concepts and the chosen area of inquiry. The ethnographic case study is well-detailed and applied analytically to the real-world issue, though some evaluation may be less developed. [7-9 marks]: The response shows a basic understanding of the concepts. An ethnographic example is present but is described rather than fully analyzed. The connection to the contemporary issue is established but lacks depth. [4-6 marks]: The response is primarily descriptive with a superficial grasp of 'Belonging' or 'identity'. The ethnographic example is weak, generalized, or lacks specific detail. [1-3 marks]: The response shows minimal understanding of the prompt, lacks focus, and does not effectively utilize anthropological concepts or ethnography. [0 marks]: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.

An excellent essay will be structured as follows: 1. Introduction: Define belonging and state intervention. Present a clear thesis statement comparing how two specific communities negotiate identity. 2. Ethnographic Case Study 1: Analyze how Group A (e.g., indigenous group, minority population) faces state policies (e.g., assimilation, displacement) and maintains belonging through specific cultural practices, ritual, or language. 3. Ethnographic Case Study 2: Analyze how Group B negotiates state structures, perhaps using different strategies like creative compliance or overt resistance. 4. Comparative Analysis: Compare the mechanisms of negotiation (e.g., top-down vs. bottom-up, assimilation vs. integration). Discuss the limitations of state power and the extent of local agency. 5. Conclusion: Synthesize findings to reflect on the dynamic nature of belonging in politically constrained environments.

Marks are awarded based on the following criteria: [1-3 marks] Simple or descriptive account of two societies with minimal focus on identity/state intervention. [4-6 marks] Active use of relevant anthropological concepts (e.g., agency, identity, hegemony) with descriptive ethnographic examples. [7-9 marks] Good comparative structure identifying similarities and differences in how state intervention is met. [10-12 marks] Comparative and analytical essay showing a clear understanding of the complexity of belonging and state relations. [13-15 marks] Sophisticated, critical comparative analysis with highly integrated ethnographies, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of power dynamics and agency.

An outstanding response will contain: 1. Introduction: Introduce the anthropological debate on formalist vs. substantivist economics, defining key terms like moral economy, reciprocity, and consumption. State the thesis. 2. Ethnographic Case Study 1: Examine a system where exchange is deeply embedded in social relations (e.g., gift exchange, ceremonial exchange, informal kinship economies). Highlight how relationships are prioritized over profit. 3. Ethnographic Case Study 2: Examine a system that appears purely market-driven (e.g., modern consumer capitalism, wage labor) and demonstrate how even here, consumption and exchange are shaped by social class, identity, or moral expectations. 4. Critical Discussion: Analyze the tension between individual utility and collective obligation, evaluating the extent of embedding in both traditional and capitalist contexts. 5. Conclusion: Summarize how economic anthropology challenges standard economic models by centering human relationships and moral values.

Marks are awarded based on the following criteria: [1-3 marks] Superficial description of exchange/consumption in two societies without addressing the moral/social debate. [4-6 marks] Anthropological concepts (e.g., reciprocity, moral economy, commodification) are defined and applied with basic ethnographic references. [7-9 marks] A balanced discussion demonstrating how exchange is shaped by social factors in both cases. [10-12 marks] A clear, critical evaluation of the extent to which economic decisions are socially embedded. [13-15 marks] A sophisticated and highly critical comparative analysis that successfully challenges the assumption of rational choice, supported by detailed, integrated ethnographic evidence.