MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

Definition of Social Reproduction: Social reproduction refers to the mechanisms and processes through which societies sustain, perpetuate, and transmit their cultural knowledge, social structures, power relations, and material practices across generations, ensuring social continuity. Application to the Text: In the provided text, social reproduction is manifested in two primary ways. First, physical reproduction is shown through the maintenance and cleaning of the irrigation canals, which is essential for the material survival of the community. Second, cultural reproduction is shown through the elders teaching young adults traditional songs, ancestral stories, and the cooperative labor practice of faena, thereby ensuring that communal values and beliefs are transmitted to the next generation.

Marking Scheme: [1-2 marks] The candidate provides a clear and accurate definition of the anthropological concept of social reproduction. Award 1 mark for a basic definition (e.g., passing down culture). Award 2 marks for a detailed definition mentioning the transmission of social structures and continuity. [3-4 marks] The candidate applies the concept to the text. Award 3 marks for a basic application (e.g., linking it to elders teaching stories). Award 4 marks for a detailed application showing how both physical infrastructure and cultural practices (faena) are reproduced.

Definition of Social Reproduction: Social reproduction refers to the mechanisms and processes through which societies sustain, perpetuate, and transmit their cultural knowledge, social structures, power relations, and material practices across generations, ensuring social continuity. Application to the Text: In the provided text, social reproduction is manifested in two primary ways. First, physical reproduction is shown through the maintenance and cleaning of the irrigation canals, which is essential for the material survival of the community. Second, cultural reproduction is shown through the elders teaching young adults traditional songs, ancestral stories, and the cooperative labor practice of faena, thereby ensuring that communal values and beliefs are transmitted to the next generation.

Marking Scheme: [1-2 marks] The candidate provides a clear and accurate definition of the anthropological concept of social reproduction. Award 1 mark for a basic definition (e.g., passing down culture). Award 2 marks for a detailed definition mentioning the transmission of social structures and continuity. [3-4 marks] The candidate applies the concept to the text. Award 3 marks for a basic application (e.g., linking it to elders teaching stories). Award 4 marks for a detailed application showing how both physical infrastructure and cultural practices (faena) are reproduced.

### Option 1: Identity
- **Conceptual Definition:** Identity refers to how individuals and groups define themselves, and how they are defined by others. It is relational, involving ideas of difference and sameness, belonging, and boundary-making.
- **Application to the Passage:**
- The regulars construct a collective 'maker' identity. This identity is built on shared values of self-reliance, sustainability, and open-source collaboration.
- This identity is relational; it is established by distinguishing themselves from 'commercial tech-hubs' and consumers of 'mass-produced goods' (creating boundaries of 'us' versus 'them').
- Their hands-on practice serves as a medium through which this shared identity is enacted, maintained, and made visible within the community.

### Option 2: Materiality
- **Conceptual Definition:** Materiality refers to the ways in which physical objects, materials, and built environments shape, mediate, and embody human social relations, values, and cultural practices.
- **Application to the Passage:**
- The physical objects and substances (3D printers, laser cutters, filament, recycled plastics, and wood) are not just passive tools, but are central to the social and political life of the makerspace.
- The physical act of shaping raw, recycled, or digital materials is how the makers physically embody and express their political resistance against mass consumerism.
- The materiality of the open-source tools and space fosters a specific set of social relations (collaboration, sharing) that would not exist without these physical and digital infrastructures.

**Markscheme out of 6 marks:**

- **5–6 marks:**
- The chosen concept is defined clearly and accurately in anthropological terms.
- The student demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the concept.
- The explanation is well-supported by detailed, analytical references to the passage, demonstrating how the concept provides deeper insight into the makerspace dynamics.

- **3–4 marks:**
- The concept is defined with some accuracy (or the definition is mostly implicit).
- The student attempts to apply the concept to the passage, but the connection is somewhat descriptive or lacks analytical depth.

- **1–2 marks:**
- The concept is poorly defined, misunderstood, or merely mentioned.
- The response is highly descriptive of the passage with little to no conceptual application.

To achieve high marks (9-10 marks), a candidate must: 1. Introduce both texts: Clearly identify the provided passage (focusing on its presentation of ritual reciprocity) and a chosen ethnographic study (e.g., Bronislaw Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific exploring the Kula ring, or Marcel Mauss's concepts applied in Annette Weiner's work in the Trobriand Islands). 2. Comparative Analysis: Compare how ritual reciprocity operates as a mechanism for social cohesion in both societies. Discuss similarities (e.g., establishing alliances, moral obligations to give, receive, and return, and building prestige) and differences (e.g., the scale of the exchange network, the items exchanged, gender roles in exchange, or the presence of structural inequalities). 3. Theoretical Framework: Ground the comparative analysis in relevant anthropological theories of exchange (e.g., functionalism, structural functionalism, or alliance theory) and key concepts (e.g., generalized, balanced, or negative reciprocity, social solidarity, and symbolic capital). 4. Structure and Argument: Present a well-structured, coherent essay with balanced attention paid to both the passage and the chosen ethnographic study.

9 to 10 marks: The response demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of both the provided passage and the chosen ethnographic study. The comparison is highly effective, balanced, and structurally coherent. Relevant anthropological concepts and theories are applied accurately and with sophistication. 7 to 8 marks: The response demonstrates good knowledge and understanding of both texts. The comparison is clear and balanced, although one text may be discussed in slightly more detail than the other. Anthropological concepts are used effectively to support the analysis. 5 to 6 marks: The response shows basic knowledge and understanding of both texts. The comparison is attempted but may be uneven (e.g., heavily focused on one text with only brief mentions of the other) or lacks conceptual and theoretical depth. 3 to 4 marks: The response shows limited knowledge and understanding of the texts. The comparison is weak, superficial, or mostly descriptive with minimal analytical focus. 1 to 2 marks: The response is largely irrelevant, showing minimal understanding of the texts and no comparative structure. 0 marks: The work does not reach any of the standards described above.

### Analytical Framework and Argument

To address this question, students must explicitly choose either **identity** or **power** and systematically link it to the big anthropological question: **'Why does difference matter?'**

#### Option A: Power and 'Why does difference matter?'
* **Conceptual Framework**: Power can be understood as the capacity to influence or control resources, people, and systems. Difference matters because it is often the basis upon which hierarchies, inequalities, and social stratifications are constructed and maintained.
* **Ethnographic Illustration**: Students might use Philippe Bourgois's *In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio*.
* **Application**: In East Harlem, 'difference' (conceptualized through race, class, and language) is weaponized by the dominant mainstream economy to exclude Puerto Rican street dealers from legal employment. Difference matters here because it legitimizes structural violence and systemic marginalization, forcing individuals into the underground economy to seek respect and survival.

#### Option B: Identity and 'Why does difference matter?'
* **Conceptual Framework**: Identity refers to how individuals and groups define themselves and are defined by others. Difference matters because identity is fundamentally relational—it relies on contrasting 'us' versus 'them' to establish boundaries and belonging.
* **Ethnographic Illustration**: Students might use Lila Abu-Lughod’s *Veiled Sentiments* or Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s work on ethnicity.
* **Application**: Among the Awlad 'Ali Bedouin, differences in gender and lineage dictate social honor (*hasham*) and autonomy. Difference matters because it shapes how individuals negotiate moral identity, express emotions, and claim belonging within the community's rigid kinship hierarchy.

### Suggested Essay Structure
1. **Introduction**: Define the chosen key concept (e.g., power or identity) and state how it directly addresses the question of why difference matters. Introduce the chosen ethnographic illustration.
2. **Conceptual Exploration**: Analyze the relationship between the concept and the big question in theoretical terms.
3. **Ethnographic Analysis**: Present detailed ethnographic evidence, showing how difference is lived, negotiated, or contested in a specific context.
4. **Critical Discussion/Evaluation**: Compare or critique how different actors perceive 'difference' and highlight the wider implications for anthropology.
5. **Conclusion**: Synthesize the main arguments, reaffirming the anthropological value of studying difference through the selected conceptual lens.

### Markbands (10 Marks)

* **9–10 marks**: The response demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the chosen key concept (identity or power) and clearly links it to the big anthropological question. A highly relevant ethnographic illustration is integrated seamlessly into a sophisticated, analytical argument. The essay shows critical reflection on why difference matters.
* **7–8 marks**: The response demonstrates good knowledge and understanding of the key concept and connects it well to the big question. A relevant ethnographic illustration is presented clearly and used to support the argument. The discussion is analytical and well-structured, though it may lack the depth of the top band.
* **5–6 marks**: The response shows moderate knowledge of the key concept and the big question. An ethnographic illustration is included, but it is described rather than fully integrated into the analysis. The link between the concept, the ethnography, and the big question is present but inconsistent.
* **3–4 marks**: The response shows limited understanding of the key concept and/or the big question. The ethnographic illustration is vague, superficial, or tangential. The argument is weak and mostly descriptive.
* **1–2 marks**: The response is largely irrelevant, showing minimal understanding of the prompt. No ethnographic illustration is provided, or the one provided is entirely misapplied.
* **0 marks**: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.

To answer this question successfully, students must: 1. Identify and analyze ethical issues presented in either Stimulus A or Stimulus B (such as questions of representation, voice, or the impact of the anthropologist's presence). 2. Connect these issues to broader anthropological debates regarding positionality, power, and ethics (e.g., using concepts like reflexivity, collaborative ethnography, or cultural imperialism). 3. Bring in their own ethnographic knowledge (for instance, contrasting this with ethnographies by Philippe Bourgois, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, or Lila Abu-Lughod) to illustrate how anthropologists navigate these ethical dilemmas in practice. 4. Discuss the ongoing responsibility of the anthropologist during fieldwork, writing, and post-publication phases, evaluating how research can be conducted in an ethical, collaborative, and respectful manner.

Marks are awarded according to the following 10-mark rubric: [9 to 10 marks]: The response shows a sophisticated understanding of ethical issues in anthropology. It integrates either Stimulus A or B and own ethnographic knowledge seamlessly. Arguments are critical, reflexive, and highly nuanced. [7 to 8 marks]: The response demonstrates a clear understanding of ethical issues. It makes effective use of either the stimulus or own knowledge, with good analytical focus on power dynamics. [5 to 6 marks]: The response shows a basic understanding of ethical issues but may rely heavily on description rather than critical discussion. Connection to the stimulus or own knowledge is present but lacks depth. [3 to 4 marks]: The response offers a limited or superficial discussion of ethics with minimal connection to anthropological concepts. [1 to 2 marks]: The response is highly descriptive, incorrect, or irrelevant. [0 marks]: No creditworthy response.

To construct a high-scoring essay, students should structure their response as follows:

1. **Introduction**:
- Clearly define the chosen key concept (either **materiality** or **symbolism**).
- Define the real-world issue: **forced displacement due to environmental degradation** (e.g., rising sea levels, desertification, extreme weather events).
- State the chosen area of inquiry (e.g., *Movement, time and space* or *Belonging*) and introduce the central ethnographic case study (e.g., ethnographies of Pacific Islanders facing sea-level rise like Tuvalu or Kiribati, or displaced indigenous groups due to deforestation/climate shifts).
- State a clear thesis: for example, that focusing on *materiality* reveals how the physical loss of land and infrastructure dismantles social relations and cultural continuity, or that *symbolism* illustrates how environmental displacement is experienced as a cosmic or ontological disruption rather than just a physical move.

2. **Conceptual Framework**:
- If **materiality** is chosen: Discuss how material environments, landscapes, and objects are not merely backdrops to human life but are active participants in constructing social identities, memories, and agency (drawing on theorists like Daniel Miller or Tim Ingold).
- If **symbolism** is chosen: Discuss how landscapes and physical environments are imbued with symbolic meaning, ancestral presence, and cosmology (drawing on theorists like Clifford Geertz or Victor Turner).

3. **Ethnographic Analysis**:
- Utilize specific ethnographic details to ground the argument. For instance, using Heather Lazrus's work on Tuvalu, or Susie Crate's research on the Viliui Sakha in Siberia.
- Show how the selected concept directly helps illuminate the lived experience of displacement. For example, explain how the physical melting of permafrost (materiality) alters the very path of seasonal migration and cattle herding, which in turn fractures community kinship structures. Alternatively, discuss how the submergence of ancestral burial grounds under water (symbolism) represents a catastrophic break in genealogical connection and spiritual belonging.

4. **Critical Discussion and Synthesis**:
- Compare the anthropological perspective with non-anthropological viewpoints (e.g., purely economic or policy-driven models that treat displaced persons merely as statistical 'climate refugees' or demographic units).
- Discuss the ethical and political dimensions: how does focusing on materiality or symbolism empower or marginalize displaced voices in international climate negotiations?

5. **Conclusion**:
- Synthesize the main points, restating how the chosen concept deepens our understanding of the profound cultural crises underlying physical displacement.

### Markbands for Paper 2 Section A (15 Marks)

**[13–15 Marks]**
- **Knowledge and Understanding**: Demonstrates outstanding, detailed, and nuanced knowledge and understanding of both the chosen area of inquiry and the real-world issue of environmental displacement.
- **Application and Analysis**: The selected concept (materiality or symbolism) is seamlessly and powerfully integrated to analyze the real-world issue. The essay shows highly sophisticated critical thinking.
- **Use of Ethnography**: Ethnographic material is highly relevant, rich in detail, and exceptionally well-integrated to support the argument.
- **Evaluation**: Offers an excellent, well-structured evaluation, potentially considering theoretical limitations, ethical issues, or alternative interpretations.

**[10–12 Marks]**
- **Knowledge and Understanding**: Demonstrates good, detailed knowledge and understanding of the area of inquiry and the real-world issue of environmental displacement.
- **Application and Analysis**: The chosen concept is applied effectively and consistently to analyze the issue, though some analytical paths could be further developed.
- **Use of Ethnography**: Uses relevant and clear ethnographic material to support the main points.
- **Evaluation**: Includes explicit evaluation or critical reflection, though it may not be fully sustained throughout.

**[7–9 Marks]**
- **Knowledge and Understanding**: Demonstrates clear understanding of the area of inquiry and the real-world issue, but descriptions may occasionally overshadow critical analysis.
- **Application and Analysis**: The chosen concept is applied to the real-world issue, but the connection is sometimes superficial or lacks depth.
- **Use of Ethnography**: Relevant ethnographic material is presented, but its application is more descriptive than analytical.
- **Evaluation**: Limited or superficial evaluation.

**[4–6 Marks]**
- **Knowledge and Understanding**: Shows basic knowledge of the area of inquiry or the real-world issue, with significant gaps or misunderstandings.
- **Application and Analysis**: Minimal or highly descriptive application of the chosen concept.
- **Use of Ethnography**: Ethnographic references are vague, highly generalized, or lack direct relevance to the question.

**[1–3 Marks]**
- **Knowledge and Understanding**: Minimal understanding of the task. The essay is highly disorganized and lacks clear reference to anthropological concepts, areas of inquiry, or relevant ethnographic material.

**[0 Marks]**
- The work does not reach any of the standards described above.

An outstanding response will:
1. Clearly identify and compare at least two ethnographic works related to the Area of Inquiry 'Movement, time and space' (for example, studies on transnational migration, border crossings, daily urban commutes, or nomadic communities).
2. Analyze how different forms of infrastructure (which can be physical, like roads, walls, and checkpoints; legal, like visa regimes; or social, like migrant smuggling networks and mutual aid groups) facilitate or restrict human movement.
3. Engage with relevant anthropological theories and concepts such as biopower, friction, space/place, structural violence, and agency.
4. Structure a balanced comparative argument showing both similarities and differences between the chosen contexts, highlighting how mobility is never uniform but highly stratified.

The essay is assessed using the IB 15-mark rubric:

- **13–15 marks**: The response shows excellent knowledge and understanding of two ethnographic works, with highly relevant comparative analysis. Anthropological concepts are used sophisticatedly and integrated seamlessly. The comparative argument is well-structured, balanced, and demonstrates critical reflexive thinking about the relationship between mobility and infrastructure.
- **10–12 marks**: The response shows good knowledge and understanding of two ethnographic works, with consistent comparative analysis. Anthropological concepts are used appropriately to support the argument. The comparative structure is clear, though it may favor one ethnography slightly.
- **7–9 marks**: The response shows basic knowledge of the ethnographies, but the comparison is descriptive or lacks depth. Concepts are defined but not deeply integrated into the discussion of infrastructure and mobility.
- **4–6 marks**: The response is largely descriptive with limited comparison or understanding of the chosen area of inquiry.
- **1–3 marks**: Minimal understanding; fragmentary or superficial references to ethnography.
- **0 marks**: Work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.

An outstanding response will:
1. Compare and contrast how individual health crises or chronic suffering are linked to broader social, political, or economic structures in at least two ethnographic works.
2. Address concepts such as structural violence, social suffering, biopolitics, medicalization, or the 'social body' versus the 'individual body' (e.g., Scheper-Hughes and Lock's three bodies).
3. Explore how communities mobilize around health issues (biological citizenship, activism) or how state/institutional structures classify and manage sick populations.
4. Maintain a clear, balanced comparative structure throughout the essay, highlighting how context shapes these transformations.

The essay is assessed using the IB 15-mark rubric:

- **13–15 marks**: The response shows excellent knowledge and understanding of two ethnographic works in health, illness and healing, with highly relevant comparative analysis. Anthropological concepts (e.g., structural violence, social suffering, biological citizenship) are used sophisticatedly. The comparative argument is well-structured and balanced, offering deep critical insights into how individual pain becomes a collective or political concern.
- **10–12 marks**: The response shows good knowledge and understanding of two ethnographic works, with consistent comparative analysis. Concepts are used appropriately. The comparison is clear and structured.
- **7–9 marks**: The response shows basic knowledge of the ethnographies, but the comparison is descriptive, or the link between individual suffering and collective/political structures is weak.
- **4–6 marks**: The response is largely descriptive with limited comparison or conceptual depth.
- **1–3 marks**: Minimal understanding; fragmentary or superficial references.
- **0 marks**: Work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.