An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the May 2025 HL (TZ2) IB Diploma Programme Social and Cultural Anthropology paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from IB.
Paper 1 Section A
Read the passage and answer questions 1 and 2. Choose either question 3 or 4. Answer question 5.
Read the following passage and answer the question:
*In a small high-altitude village in the Andes, the weaving of traditional llichllas (shawls) is not merely a survival skill but a repository of memory. The hand-spun sheep wool, dyed with local plants and cochineal, carries the scent of the high paramos. For the weavers, the weight and texture of the cloth on their shoulders are experienced as a direct physical connection to their ancestors. When young women migrate to the cities, they often pack these heavy woollen shawls, refusing to replace them with cheaper, lighter synthetic alternatives, asserting that the factory-made acrylics 'have no soul' and cannot carry the warmth of home.*
Define the anthropological concept of **materiality** and explain how it is manifested in the passage.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
To achieve full marks (4 marks), the response must be structured in two parts:
1. **Conceptual Definition (2 marks):** - The student must define **materiality** as an anthropological concept. Materiality is the study of how the physical properties of objects, materials, and environments are intertwined with human social relations, cultural meanings, and experiences. It emphasizes that objects are not passive but active in shaping social life, identities, and emotional states. - Key elements of a strong definition include the recognition of a reciprocal relationship between humans and the physical/material world, or how physical attributes (like texture, weight, or durability) carry cultural value and memory.
2. **Application to the Passage (2 marks):** - The student must apply this definition directly to the provided ethnographic context. - They should identify specific physical properties of the *llichllas* mentioned in the text: the hand-spun sheep wool, the weight, the texture, and the scent of local plants and cochineal. - They should explain how these material properties function socially and culturally: the physical weight and texture on the shoulders are experienced as a direct bodily connection to ancestors and home. This is contrasted with the material properties of 'factory-made acrylics', which are rejected because they lack these sensory, historical, and spiritual connections ('have no soul').
PastPaper.markingScheme
**[1–2 marks]: Conceptual Definition** - **1 mark:** A basic or partial definition of materiality that mentions objects or physical things but lacks anthropological depth regarding how they shape human social relations or cultural meaning. - **2 marks:** A clear, accurate, and conceptually robust definition of materiality that highlights the reciprocal relationship between humans and the physical world, emphasizing how material properties carry cultural, symbolic, or social significance.
**[3–4 marks]: Application to the Passage** - **3 marks:** The concept is applied to the passage, but the connection between the physical properties of the shawls and their cultural meaning is only superficially explained. - **4 marks:** A sophisticated application that explicitly links the physical qualities described in the text (weight, texture, scent of hand-spun wool vs. synthetic acrylics) to the social and cultural processes of memory-keeping, ancestral connection, and identity preservation for migrating women.
**Read the following passage and answer the question below:**
*In the high-altitude Andean community of San Pedro, the annual clearing of irrigation canals, known as the faena, is a crucial social and ritual event. Each May, before the dry season begins, all households must send at least one representative to participate in the collective labor of clearing silt and repairing stone walls along the canals. This labor is highly physical, but it is accompanied by the sharing of chicha (maize beer), coca leaves, and communal meals provided by elected festival sponsors (mayordomos). During the faena, participants make offerings (pagos) to the Apus (mountain spirits) and Pachamama (Earth Mother) at the canal headwaters, thanking them for the water and requesting future abundance. Cooperation is mandatory; those who do not participate are fined or face social exclusion. The shared sweat, ritual offerings, and physical interaction with the irrigation infrastructure do more than secure water; they continuously recreate a sense of collective belonging and define who is recognized as a full member of the community.*
With reference to the passage above, analyze how the concept of **identity** OR **materiality** can be used to understand the practice of the *faena*.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
### Option 1: Concept of Identity
* **Definition:** Identity refers to the ways in which individuals and groups are distinguished in their social relations with other individuals and groups. It can be individual or collective, is dynamic, and is constructed through social practices. * **Application to the passage:** * **Performance of Belonging:** Membership in the community of San Pedro is not merely passive or genealogical; it must be performed and earned through physical contribution in the *faena*. The passage notes that collective labor 'continuously recreate[s] a sense of collective belonging.' * **Inclusion vs. Exclusion:** Identity boundaries are maintained through social sanctions. Those who do not participate face fines or 'social exclusion,' indicating that identity as an active, recognized community member is contingent on fulfilling reciprocal communal duties. * **Relational Identity:** The sharing of food, *chicha*, and coca leaves during work breaks reinforces horizontal ties of equality and solidarity among community members, while the role of the *mayordomos* (sponsors) highlights how social status and identity hierarchies are negotiated.
### Option 2: Concept of Materiality
* **Definition:** Materiality refers to the qualities and significance of physical entities (objects, infrastructure, landscapes, and substances) and the way they are entangled in human social relations, experiences, and meaning-making. * **Application to the passage:** * **Infrastructure as Social Fabric:** The irrigation canals and stone walls are not just neutral technical objects; they are material representations of community cohesion and historical continuity. The maintenance of this physical infrastructure is simultaneously the maintenance of social structure. * **Sacred Material Landscapes:** The *Apus* (mountains) and *Pachamama* (Earth) represent a material landscape that is understood as alive and sentient. The physical offerings (*pagos*) of material goods (coca, *chicha*) at the canal headwaters act as physical exchanges that sustain relationships between the human community and the landscape. * **Bodily Materiality:** The physical labor ('shared sweat', 'highly physical' clearing of silt) highlights how social relations are embodied and lived through physical interaction with the earth and water, showing that cultural meanings are grounded in material processes.
PastPaper.markingScheme
### Mark Bands
* **5–6 marks**: * The response demonstrates a highly developed and accurate understanding of the chosen key concept (*identity* or *materiality*). * The concept is applied effectively and insightfully to analyze the ethnographic details of the *faena* in the passage. * Appropriate anthropological terminology is integrated naturally throughout the analysis. * There is a clear, structured argument linking the concept to the passage's evidence.
* **3–4 marks**: * The response demonstrates a basic understanding of the chosen key concept, though some nuances may be missing. * The concept is applied to the passage, but the connection may be somewhat descriptive rather than deeply analytical. * Anthropological terminology is used, but perhaps with minor inaccuracies or in a superficial manner.
* **1–2 marks**: * The response shows a limited or common-sense understanding of the chosen concept. * The connection to the passage is weak, highly superficial, or mostly summarizes the text without conceptual analysis.
* **0 marks**: * The response does not reach the standard described by the descriptors above or does not address the question.
PastPaper.question 3 · Comparative and Theoretical Essay
10 PastPaper.marks
Compare the ethnographic context of collective ritual and community cohesion presented in the passage with one other ethnographic study you have analyzed. In your response, you must make detailed reference to either the concept of *belonging* or *power*.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
A successful comparative essay should:
1. Introduce a well-chosen comparative ethnographic case study (e.g., Victor Turner's work on Ndembu rituals, Clifford Geertz's analysis of the Balinese cockfight, or any contemporary ethnography dealing with ritual, performance, or group cohesion). 2. Clearly define and apply either the concept of 'belonging' (exploring how shared identity, exclusion/inclusion, and solidarity are forged through ritual) or 'power' (exploring how ritual legitimizes, challenges, or negotiates authority and social hierarchies). 3. Structure a balanced comparison that highlights both similarities and differences between the ritual contexts of the passage and the chosen ethnographic study. 4. Support the argument with specific, rich ethnographic details from both the passage and the comparative case. 5. Reach a reasoned anthropological conclusion based on the comparative analysis.
PastPaper.markingScheme
The essay is assessed using the official 10-mark rubrics for Paper 1, Question 5:
- **9–10 marks**: The response shows an excellent ability to compare and contrast. The discussion of similarities and differences is highly balanced and analytical. The chosen key concept (belonging or power) is integrated seamlessly and defined with sophisticated anthropological understanding. The comparative case study is highly relevant, detailed, and accurate. - **7–8 marks**: The response is clearly comparative, identifying both similarities and differences, though one aspect may be slightly more developed than the other. The key concept is applied accurately to both the passage and the comparative case study. Appropriate anthropological terminology is used. - **5–6 marks**: The response offers a comparative structure, but may rely more on description than critical comparison. The chosen concept is utilized but its application to one of the cases may be weak or superficial. - **3–4 marks**: The response attempts comparison but is highly descriptive or unbalanced. There may be a lack of clarity in the comparative case study chosen, or the key concept is merely mentioned without proper analytical application. - **1–2 marks**: The response is superficial, showing little to no comparative framework. It may describe the passage or a case study in isolation without drawing connections. - **0 marks**: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.
PastPaper.question 4 · Big Anthropological Question Discussion
10 PastPaper.marks
Read the following passage and answer the question.
**Extract: Reclaiming the Soil: Solidarity and Mutual Aid in Athens' Community Gardens (2022)**
In the wake of prolonged economic austerity, neighborhood associations in Athens reclaimed abandoned public plots to establish cooperative community gardens. Here, participants engage in what they call *syn-kinonía* (common movement/communion). Produce is never sold; instead, it is distributed during weekly communal meals or given directly to families in need. Sofia, a long-time gardener, explains: "We are not just growing tomatoes; we are growing trust. The state abandoned us, so we had to build our own family. When we work the soil together, we share our anxieties, our meals, and our lives. This garden is our house, and everyone who digs here is my sibling."
Through these daily practices of cooperative labor and non-market exchange, participants actively resist alienation, forging deep moral obligations and alternative networks of belonging that challenge traditional capitalist relations.
**Question:**
Discuss how the big anthropological question **'How do we construct relations with others?'** is illuminated by the passage and one or two other ethnographic examples you have studied.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
### Analytical Overview
This question asks students to explore how social relations, mutual obligations, and alternative networks of belonging are constructed, using the provided text on Athenian community gardens alongside external ethnographic material.
### Key Points of Analysis for the Passage: * **Reciprocity and Alternative Economies:** The practice of *syn-kinonía* represents generalized reciprocity. By removing market logic (produce is never sold), the participants construct relations based on mutual aid and shared vulnerability rather than transactional self-interest. * **Fictive Kinship and Shared Labor:** Sofia's assertion that "everyone who digs here is my sibling" illustrates how collective labor (*working the soil together*) transforms strangers into symbolic kin. Relations are physically and socially cultivated through shared space ("our house") and shared affect ("our anxieties"). * **Resistance and Agency:** The construction of relations is also a political act of resistance against state neglect and capitalist alienation. Social relations become a survival mechanism and a site of counter-hegemony.
### Connection to External Ethnographic Examples: Students should connect the passage's themes to one or two external ethnographic studies. * **Example 1: Carol Stack's *All Our Kin***. Stack's study of African American families in "The Flats" demonstrates how marginalized urban populations construct highly adaptive, flexible networks of fictive kinship and resource-sharing (swapping) to survive systemic poverty and state neglect. This mirrors how Athenian gardeners construct "family" and distribute produce to cope with economic austerity. * **Example 2: Marcel Mauss's *The Gift* or Bronislaw Malinowski's Kula Ring**. Students can use classic theories of reciprocity to show how non-market exchange is not merely economic, but a total social fact that binds individuals in moral, spiritual, and social webs of obligations, contrasting with impersonal market transactions.
### Synthesis & Evaluation: An excellent response will synthesize these elements to argue that relations with others are not natural or predetermined, but are actively constructed, negotiated, and maintained through everyday practices, material exchanges, and shared symbolic spaces, especially in response to structural crises.
PastPaper.markingScheme
### Markbands
* **9–10 Marks**: * The response demonstrates an excellent understanding of the big anthropological question ("How do we construct relations with others?"). * Anthropological concepts (e.g., reciprocity, sociality, fictive kinship, moral economy, structural violence) are applied sophisticatedly and accurately. * Highly effective comparative analysis is drawn between the passage and one or two relevant external ethnographic examples (e.g., Stack, Mauss, or similar studies on mutual aid/alternative economies). * The argument is highly structured, coherent, and offers critical evaluation of how structural constraints (economic crises, state abandonment) prompt creative agency in constructing social relations.
* **7–8 Marks**: * The response demonstrates a good understanding of the big anthropological question. * Relevant anthropological concepts are applied correctly. * A clear connection is established between the passage and one or two external ethnographic examples, though the analysis of one may be slightly more detailed than the other. * The argument is clear and coherent, showing some critical reflection on how relationships are constructed through practices of exchange or shared labor.
* **5–6 Marks**: * The response shows a basic understanding of the big anthropological question. * There is an attempt to use anthropological concepts, but they may be applied superficially or descriptively. * The response connects the passage to external material, but the discussion is largely descriptive, focusing on plot/ethnographic details rather than analytical comparison.
* **3–4 Marks**: * The response shows limited understanding of the big anthropological question. * The connection to either the passage or external ethnographic examples is weak, missing, or highly generalized. * Minimal use of anthropological terminology.
* **1–2 Marks**: * The response is fragmentary, showing little to no understanding of the question or the passage. No external ethnographic material is present.
Paper 1 Section B
Answer question 6 with reference to either stimulus A or stimulus B and your own knowledge.
With reference to either Stimulus A or Stimulus B and your own knowledge, discuss the ethical issues associated with the representation of marginalized groups in anthropological research.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
To write a successful response to this question, students must focus on several core areas. First, they must explicitly refer to either Stimulus A or Stimulus B, drawing out specific details that highlight vulnerability, power dynamics, or marginalization. For example, if the chosen stimulus describes a marginalized community facing socio-economic hardship or cultural erasure, the student must connect this to the ethical responsibility of the researcher to protect identities, avoid sensationalism, or ensure that the community's voice is not distorted. Second, students must identify key ethical issues, such as informed consent (the difficulty of obtaining ongoing, truly informed consent in highly unequal power structures), do no harm (the risk that publishing details about marginalized groups might lead to state retaliation or social stigmatization), and the politics of representation (the danger of 'othering' or essentializing communities, and the ethical imperative of reflexivity). Third, students must bring in external ethnographic examples, such as Philippe Bourgois's 'In Search of Respect' (addressing the risk of reinforcing racialized stereotypes versus exposing structural violence) or Nancy Scheper-Hughes's work on 'militant' anthropology (arguing for active ethical commitment and advocacy). Finally, a high-scoring essay will critically evaluate these issues, recognizing that protecting anonymity might conflict with a group's desire for public recognition, or that advocacy might compromise the perceived academic neutrality of the research.
PastPaper.markingScheme
Marks are awarded based on the following assessment criteria: [9 to 10 marks]: The response offers a sophisticated, balanced, and critical discussion of ethical issues, integrating the chosen stimulus and own knowledge seamlessly. There is a nuanced understanding of the complexities and dilemmas inherent in anthropological research and representation, using appropriate anthropological terminology throughout. [7 to 8 marks]: The response provides a well-structured and balanced discussion of ethical issues, drawing effectively on both the stimulus and own knowledge. There is a clear appreciation of the ethical dilemmas and responsibilities of the anthropologist. [5 to 6 marks]: The response discusses ethical issues with clear reference to either the stimulus or own knowledge. The discussion shows an understanding of the complexities of anthropological ethics, although it may be unbalanced between the stimulus and own knowledge. [3 to 4 marks]: The response identifies ethical issues and makes some connection to either the stimulus or own knowledge. There is some limited discussion of the implications of these ethical issues. [1 to 2 marks]: The response identifies some ethical issues, but these are not clearly related to the stimulus or own knowledge. The discussion is superficial or highly descriptive. [0 marks]: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.
Paper 2 Section A
Answer one question with reference to ethnographic material from one area of inquiry.
Discuss how anthropological perspectives on structural violence help us to understand a contemporary real-world conflict, with reference to ethnographic material from one area of inquiry.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
An excellent response should be structured as follows:
1. **Introduction**: - Define the central concept of 'structural violence' (referencing theorists like Johan Galtung or Paul Farmer as systemic, institutionalized social structures that prevent individuals from achieving their full potential or cause them harm). - Identify the chosen area of inquiry (e.g., Conflict) and the specific real-world conflict/ethnographic context to be discussed. - Present a clear thesis statement arguing how structural violence shifts our understanding of conflict from episodic events to long-term systemic issues.
2. **Conceptual Framework**: - Elaborate on how anthropologists distinguish between direct physical violence, symbolic violence, and structural violence. - Explain how structural violence often manifests as systemic discrimination, unequal access to resources, or state-sanctioned marginalization.
3. **Integration of Ethnographic Material**: - Use specific ethnographic evidence. For instance, using Jason De León's *The Land of Open Graves*, discussing how the US border enforcement policy of 'Prevention Through Deterrence' uses the extreme desert geography as a tool of structural violence, transforming political policy into physical suffering and death. - Alternatively, use Philippe Bourgois’ *Righteous Dopefiend* to analyze how institutional policies, homelessness, and structural inequalities perpetuate everyday physical and social suffering among heroin injectors in San Francisco. - Another viable option is to discuss resource extraction conflicts, referencing ethnographies on corporate-state alliances displacing indigenous populations and how this constitutes structural violence.
4. **Critical Analysis**: - Analyze the agency of individuals within these systems. How do marginalized populations resist, navigate, or reproduce structural violence? - Discuss the limitations of traditional state-centric definitions of conflict, demonstrating how anthropology expands our understanding to encompass the 'invisible' violence embedded in everyday bureaucracy and global economics.
5. **Conclusion**: - Summarize the main arguments, reinforcing how anthropological perspectives on structural violence reveal the root social and political causes of contemporary conflicts.
PastPaper.markingScheme
The essay is assessed using the IB Diploma Programme Social and Cultural Anthropology Paper 2 markbands (15 marks maximum):
- **13–15 Marks**: The response demonstrates a highly sophisticated, comprehensive, and critical understanding of structural violence and its application to a real-world conflict. The chosen ethnographic material is rich, highly relevant, and integrated seamlessly to support a nuanced and well-structured argument. Comparative or analytical insights are exceptionally well-developed. - **10–12 Marks**: The response shows a detailed and clear understanding of structural violence and the chosen real-world conflict. Relevant ethnographic material is integrated well and analyzed effectively, with a coherent and structured argument. - **7–9 Marks**: The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the concept and real-world conflict, but the analysis may be inconsistent or somewhat unbalanced. Ethnographic material is utilized but may be presented descriptively rather than analytically in some sections. - **4–6 Marks**: The essay shows basic knowledge of the concept of structural violence, but the connection to the real-world conflict or the chosen area of inquiry is weak. Ethnographic material is limited, superficial, or poorly integrated. - **1–3 Marks**: The response shows minimal understanding of the task, the concept of structural violence, or the area of inquiry. Ethnographic material is absent or irrelevant.
Paper 2 Section B
Answer two questions from three remaining areas of inquiry. Each question must be from a different area.
2 PastPaper.question · 30 PastPaper.marks
PastPaper.question 1 · essay
15 PastPaper.marks
With reference to ethnographic material from the Area of Inquiry 'Belonging', discuss how collective identities are constructed and maintained through the creation and policing of social boundaries.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
In addressing this question, essays should demonstrate a deep engagement with the Area of Inquiry 'Belonging'. Outstanding responses will define 'belonging' and 'social boundaries' using relevant anthropological frameworks (such as Fredrik Barth's boundary approach, Benedict Anderson's imagined communities, or Anthony Cohen's symbolic construction of community). Students must draw upon specific ethnographic material to illustrate how boundaries are established, contested, or reinforced. For example, they might discuss how nationalisms, ethnic identities, or religious groups rely on exclusionary practices, ritual performances, or linguistic codes to delineate the 'in-group' from the 'out-group'. The essay should analyze the tension between inclusion and exclusion, showing how belonging is an active process of negotiation rather than a static state. Strong essays will also evaluate how global factors like migration, digital technologies, or state policies challenge or reconstruct traditional boundaries of belonging.
PastPaper.markingScheme
Marks are awarded according to the IB Diploma Programme Social and Cultural Anthropology Paper 2 markbands (15 marks total). [13 to 15 marks]: The response shows excellent knowledge and understanding of ethnographic material and concepts of belonging. The discussion of social boundaries is highly sophisticated and conceptually dense. The essay is extremely well-structured, offering a critical evaluation of how collective identities are maintained and policed, supported by precise ethnographic details. [10 to 12 marks]: The response shows very good knowledge and understanding of ethnographic material. There is a clear and consistent analysis of how boundaries shape collective identity, with appropriate use of anthropological concepts and good ethnographic evidence. [7 to 9 marks]: The response shows good knowledge of ethnographic material, but the analysis of boundaries and identity may be more descriptive than evaluative. Some key concepts are applied correctly. [4 to 6 marks]: The essay is primarily descriptive, with limited or superficial connections to the concepts of belonging or social boundaries. The ethnographic material is poorly integrated. [1 to 3 marks]: The response shows minimal knowledge of ethnographic material or anthropological concepts related to belonging. The essay lacks structure and focus. [0 marks]: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.
PastPaper.question 2 · essay
15 PastPaper.marks
With reference to ethnographic material from the Area of Inquiry 'Conflict', evaluate the extent to which everyday resistance can successfully challenge dominant structures of power and structural violence.
PastPaper.showAnswersPastPaper.hideAnswers
PastPaper.workedSolution
Essays answering this question should focus on the Area of Inquiry 'Conflict' and critically explore the dynamic between structural violence and individual or collective agency. Students should define key concepts such as structural violence (drawing on Paul Farmer, Johan Galtung, or Philippe Bourgois) and everyday resistance (drawing on James C. Scott). The response must use specific ethnographic examples to demonstrate how marginalized or oppressed populations engage in subtle, non-confrontational acts of resistance (e.g., foot-dragging, pilfering, gossip, linguistic subversion, or symbolic non-compliance) to survive and contest structural inequality. Outstanding essays will evaluate the limits of such resistance, debating whether these everyday tactics truly dismantle oppressive power structures or merely mitigate their immediate harms while leaving the broader system intact. The essay should offer a balanced, comparative, or deeply analytical discussion of power, agency, and structural constraints.
PastPaper.markingScheme
Marks are awarded according to the IB Diploma Programme Social and Cultural Anthropology Paper 2 markbands (15 marks total). [13 to 15 marks]: The response demonstrates exceptional knowledge and critical understanding of structural violence, power, and everyday resistance. The evaluation of the extent to which resistance is successful is highly nuanced, showing excellent analytical skill. The ethnographic material is used purposefully and integrated seamlessly. [10 to 12 marks]: The response shows very good knowledge and understanding of the concepts of conflict, structural violence, and agency. The essay is well-structured and provides a clear, balanced evaluation of everyday resistance with relevant ethnographic support. [7 to 9 marks]: The response shows good knowledge of the ethnographic material but may focus more on describing acts of conflict or resistance rather than critically evaluating their efficacy against structural violence. [4 to 6 marks]: The response is mostly descriptive, with limited understanding of structural violence or resistance. The ethnographic connection is weak or disorganized. [1 to 3 marks]: The response shows minimal understanding of the prompt and fails to connect ethnographic material to the core concepts of conflict or power. [0 marks]: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.