2024 IB DP Social and Cultural Anthropology Practice Paper with Answers

Definition of Social Reproduction (2 marks): Social reproduction is the process through which social structures, cultural patterns, and economic inequalities are maintained and transmitted across generations. It highlights how societies preserve stability and continuity in their hierarchical systems (such as class, gender, or race) over time. Application in Anthropology (2 marks): Anthropologists apply this concept to ethnographically demonstrate that institutions which appear meritocratic or neutral (such as schools, state bureaucracies, or kinship systems) actually reproduce structural disadvantages. For example, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu, anthropologists analyze how the transmission of cultural capital (linguistic styles, tastes, and social networks) within elite families ensures that their children succeed in educational systems designed to reward those specific traits, thereby reproducing class inequality.

1 mark: For a basic or partial definition of social reproduction (e.g., 'how society continues over time'). 2 marks: For a complete and nuanced definition of social reproduction that explicitly links it to the transmission of social structures, inequalities, or power relations across generations. 3 marks: For a complete definition and a basic description of how anthropologists apply this concept to social inequalities (e.g., 'anthropologists show how schools keep poor people poor'). 4 marks: For a complete definition and a detailed, sophisticated description of how anthropologists apply the concept to analyze inequalities, using a clear analytical framework or example (such as Bourdieu's cultural capital, gendered labor transmission, or institutional discrimination).

Definition of Social Reproduction (2 marks): Social reproduction is the process through which social structures, cultural patterns, and economic inequalities are maintained and transmitted across generations. It highlights how societies preserve stability and continuity in their hierarchical systems (such as class, gender, or race) over time. Application in Anthropology (2 marks): Anthropologists apply this concept to ethnographically demonstrate that institutions which appear meritocratic or neutral (such as schools, state bureaucracies, or kinship systems) actually reproduce structural disadvantages. For example, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu, anthropologists analyze how the transmission of cultural capital (linguistic styles, tastes, and social networks) within elite families ensures that their children succeed in educational systems designed to reward those specific traits, thereby reproducing class inequality.

1 mark: For a basic or partial definition of social reproduction (e.g., 'how society continues over time'). 2 marks: For a complete and nuanced definition of social reproduction that explicitly links it to the transmission of social structures, inequalities, or power relations across generations. 3 marks: For a complete definition and a basic description of how anthropologists apply this concept to social inequalities (e.g., 'anthropologists show how schools keep poor people poor'). 4 marks: For a complete definition and a detailed, sophisticated description of how anthropologists apply the concept to analyze inequalities, using a clear analytical framework or example (such as Bourdieu's cultural capital, gendered labor transmission, or institutional discrimination).

### Analytical Response focusing on **Belonging**:

1. **Belonging as Conditional and Performative:**
In San Juan, belonging is not an innate right of birth but a conditional status that must be periodically performed and validated through the *mayordomía* (cargo system). Sponsoring expensive religious festivals functions as a material manifestation of one’s loyalty and commitment to the collective. Belonging is transactional; individuals trade economic capital (sometimes resulting in migration or land loss) for social capital, prestige, and recognized membership.

2. **Mechanisms of Exclusion and Boundary Maintenance:**
The excerpt highlights how belonging is defined in opposition to exclusion. Those who do not or cannot participate in the cargo system are labeled "outsiders" (*vecinos*) and face structural exclusions, such as the denial of communal water rights. This demonstrates how the boundaries of the community are maintained through punitive economic and social measures, drawing a sharp line between the "in-group" and "out-group."

3. **Generational Contestation and Redefining Belonging:**
Belonging is shown to be a site of active negotiation and contestation rather than a static tradition. The younger, university-educated villagers represent a counter-hegemonic force challenging the established terms of belonging. By proposing *tequio* (communal labor) as an alternative to financial ruin, they seek to decouple community membership from capitalist/monetary wealth. This contestation illustrates that what it means to "belong" is constantly being renegotiated in response to external influences (such as education and changing economic realities).

**Mark Bands:**

* **5–6 marks:** The response demonstrates a conceptual and detailed understanding of "belonging" or "identity." The candidate successfully analyses the ethnographic details (e.g., cargo system, marginalization, *tequio*) and connects them directly to the chosen concept. Anthropological terminology (e.g., social capital, boundary maintenance, exclusion, hegemony) is used effectively. The argument is logical and well-structured.
* **3–4 marks:** The response demonstrates an understanding of the concept of belonging or identity and applies it to the text. However, the analysis may be more descriptive than analytical, focusing heavily on summarizing the passage rather than unpacking how the concept is negotiated. Anthropological terminology is present but may be limited.
* **1–2 marks:** The response shows a limited understanding of the concept. It is mostly descriptive, simply repeating elements of the passage with little to no analytical connection to belonging or identity.
* **0 marks:** The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.

A successful response will systematically compare the provided passage with a chosen ethnographic study (for example, Liisa Malkki's work on Hutu refugees, or any ethnography detailing localized/transnational belonging).

1. Introduction:
- Define key concepts: belonging, community, deterritorialization, or transnationalism.
- Outline the thesis: While both the passage and the chosen ethnography demonstrate that community is actively constructed through shared practices, they differ fundamentally in how mobility, power dynamics, and social obligations shape the boundaries of belonging.

2. Points of Comparison (Similarities):
- Role of Shared Space: In the passage, co-working spaces act as material hubs that facilitate a sense of shared identity among nomads. Similarly, in the chosen ethnography (e.g., Malkki's study of Mishamo camp), physical spaces are essential for cultivating collective memory and solidarity.
- Shared Imagined Values: Both communities rely on shared narratives to foster solidarity. The nomads rely on ideas of 'freedom' and 'mindfulness,' whereas the comparative group might rely on shared historical trauma, ethnic ties, or local religious practices to maintain group cohesion.

3. Points of Contrast (Differences):
- Choice vs. Necessity (Mobility): The digital nomads in Ubud experience high mobility as a privilege and a voluntary lifestyle choice, constructing a flexible, 'liquid' form of belonging. In contrast, many traditional or displaced communities (e.g., refugees, indigenous groups) experience belonging as rooted in historical struggle, ancestral land, or strict social obligations (like the Balinese banjar) that are not easily opt-in/opt-out.
- External Relations and Power: The passage highlights a transactional and superficial engagement between the nomads and the local Balinese. In the compared ethnography, the relationship between the in-group and the out-group may be marked by assimilation, active resistance, or deep structural inequality, rather than passive coexistence.

4. Synthesis and Anthropological Conceptualization:
- Discuss how both cases reflect modern challenges to traditional definitions of community. Apply concepts such as Ferdinand Tönnies' 'Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft', Victor Turner's 'communitas', or Benedict Anderson's 'imagined communities' to evaluate how globalization disconnects belonging from fixed geographical localities.

Marks are awarded according to the following 10-mark assessment criteria:

- [9-10 marks]: The response shows excellent knowledge and understanding of both the passage and the chosen ethnographic study. The comparative analysis is highly systematic, identifying sophisticated similarities and differences. Anthropological concepts are integrated seamlessly and critically to construct a balanced argument.
- [7-8 marks]: The response shows very good knowledge and understanding of both studies. The comparison is clear and well-structured with relevant points of similarity and contrast. Appropriate anthropological concepts are used to support the analysis.
- [5-6 marks]: The response shows good knowledge and understanding of both studies, but may be unbalanced (e.g., focusing too much on the passage or the chosen ethnography). The comparative analysis is present but tends to describe the cases parallelly rather than synthesizing them.
- [3-4 marks]: The response is primarily descriptive, offering limited comparison. Knowledge of either the passage or the chosen study is superficial.
- [1-2 marks]: The response shows minimal understanding and fails to engage with the comparative task or the chosen ethnographic study.

A high-scoring essay will successfully address the question 'How do we live together?' by connecting it to ethnographic evidence, a key concept, and an anthropological theory.

1. **Introduction**: Clearly defines the chosen key concept (e.g., *relations* or *power*) and links it to the anthropological question. Outlines the chosen ethnographic context (e.g., study of gift exchange, community structures, or post-conflict reconciliation).

2. **Analysis and Ethnography**: Explains how social structures, kinship, or exchange systems facilitate or complicate coexistence. For example, using Marcel Mauss's theory of reciprocity, a student can discuss how the obligation to give, receive, and reciprocate creates social ties that allow people to live together. Alternatively, using Bourdieu's practice theory, the student can discuss how shared habitus and social capital reinforce social cohesion.

3. **Critical Discussion**: Explores the tensions, inequalities, or power differentials that challenge social harmony. The student should show that 'living together' is not passive but is actively negotiated, disputed, and reshaped through everyday practices.

4. **Conclusion**: Summarizes the main insights, demonstrating how the integration of theory, concepts, and ethnography provides a nuanced understanding of social coexistence.

Marks are awarded according to the following 10-mark assessment criteria:

**9–10 Marks**: Excellent understanding of the anthropological question. The response shows a highly sophisticated integration of ethnographic material, key concepts, and theory. The argument is analytical, coherent, and critically reflective.

**7–8 Marks**: Good understanding of the anthropological question. Ethnographic material is well-used to support points, and at least one concept and theory are clearly applied, though some connections may lack full depth.

**5–6 Marks**: Satisfactory understanding. There is a descriptive use of ethnography, but the application of concepts or theories is superficial, inconsistent, or lacks clear integration.

**3–4 Marks**: Basic understanding. The essay is mainly descriptive, with limited, highly generalized, or inaccurate application of concepts, theories, or ethnographic details.

**1–2 Marks**: Extremely limited response showing little to no understanding of the anthropological question, concepts, or theories.

**0 Marks**: The work does not reach any of the standards described above.

An outstanding essay should be structured as follows:

1. **Introduction**:
- Define 'development' from an anthropological perspective (e.g., contrasting the discourse of 'improvement' with its political realities).
- Introduce the key thesis: development initiatives are rarely neutral; they often depoliticize structural issues, concentrate power in the hands of elites, and induce marginalization, which inevitably triggers various forms of resistance.
- Introduce the chosen ethnographic material (e.g., Tania Li's *The Will to Improve* in Sulawesi, Indonesia, or James Ferguson's *The Anti-Politics Machine* in Lesotho).

2. **Conceptual Framework**:
- Employ key anthropological concepts such as *power*, *agency*, *inequality*, *governmentality* (Foucault), and *hegemony* (Gramsci).
- Distinguish between different forms of resistance (e.g., James C. Scott's 'weapons of the weak' versus overt political mobilization).

3. **Ethnographic Analysis**:
- **Case Study 1: Tania Li's *The Will to Improve* (Sulawesi, Indonesia)**. Analyze how government and NGO-led agricultural development schemes aimed to 'improve' Lauje highlanders but instead privatized communal lands, creating landlessness, economic stratification, and gendered disparities in labor.
- **Analysis of Inequality**: Show how the categorization of 'expert' vs. 'indigenous' knowledge disenfranchised local populations, creating a new class of landless agrarian laborers.
- **Analysis of Resistance**: Detail how local populations resisted through everyday non-compliance, boundary disputes, and reclaiming ancestral forest spaces, demonstrating agency against state-led enclosure.
- **Case Study 2 (Alternative/Supplementary): James Ferguson's *The Anti-Politics Machine* (Lesotho)**. Discuss how the Thaba-Tseka development project framed local pastoralists as 'traditional' and 'unproductive' to justify bureaucratic expansion, which ultimately failed to alleviate poverty but successfully extended state control, triggering local apathy and covert resistance.

4. **Critical Evaluation and Synthesis**:
- Evaluate how development projects operate as 'anti-politics machines' by turning political problems of land distribution into technical problems solved by experts.
- Discuss how resistance demonstrates that local actors are not passive recipients of development but active agents who negotiate, reinterpret, or subvert external interventions.

5. **Conclusion**:
- Summarize main findings, reiterating that development and inequality are deeply linked through the exercise of power, and that resistance remains a crucial mechanism for local communities to reclaim agency and voice.

The question is assessed using the IB Diploma Programme Social and Cultural Anthropology Paper 2 assessment criteria (total 15 marks):

**Criterion A: Knowledge and Understanding (4 marks)**
- **3–4 marks**: The response demonstrates detailed, relevant, and accurate ethnographic knowledge of development initiatives and their outcomes. Key terms (e.g., inequality, development, agency, resistance) are clearly defined and consistently used in context.
- **1–2 marks**: The response shows some knowledge of ethnographic material, but it is superficial, descriptive, or occasionally inaccurate. Key terms are mentioned but not fully integrated or understood.

**Criterion B: Application and Analysis (5 marks)**
- **4–5 marks**: The response uses highly appropriate anthropological concepts and theories (e.g., governmentality, structural violence, hegemony) to analyze how development constructs inequalities and sparks resistance. The analysis is sophisticated, critical, and well-sustained.
- **2–3 marks**: There is an attempt to apply concepts, but the analysis remains descriptive of the ethnographic cases rather than analytical. The connection between development and inequality/resistance is stated but not deeply explored.
- **0–1 mark**: Little to no conceptual framework; the essay is highly anecdotal.

**Criterion C: Synthesis and Evaluation (4 marks)**
- **3–4 marks**: The essay successfully synthesizes different perspectives (e.g., top-down vs. bottom-up development, external experts vs. local actors). It explicitly evaluates the political nature of development discourses and the complexities of local agency/resistance.
- **1–2 marks**: The essay shows limited synthesis; alternative views or critical evaluations are present but weak or undeveloped.

**Criterion D: Communication (2 marks)**
- **2 marks**: The essay is well-structured, logical, and arguments flow coherently with appropriate academic register.
- **1 mark**: The essay has a basic structure but lacks coherence or clear transition between paragraphs.

A successful response must: 1. Introduce the concept of development from an anthropological perspective, contrasting top-down, state-led or NGO-led development with local lived realities. 2. Clearly identify at least two ethnographies where development initiatives (such as resource extraction, state infrastructure, ecological conservation, or microfinance) are introduced. 3. Analyze the specific strategies through which local populations resist, negotiate, or hybridize these initiatives (e.g., utilizing 'weapons of the weak', asserting indigenous rights, or reframing development through alternative modernities). 4. Apply key anthropological concepts such as agency, power, inequality, globalization, and resistance. 5. Conclude with a comparative synthesis highlighting that local communities are active agents who actively interpret and reshape external interventions rather than passive recipients of global processes.

Marks are awarded based on the following bands: [13-15 marks]: The essay demonstrates excellent anthropological knowledge and critical analysis. It compares at least two relevant ethnographies in depth, consistently showing how local communities contest or reshape development. Concepts are used accurately and dynamically. [10-12 marks]: The essay shows good knowledge and clear analysis of the topic. Both ethnographies are used effectively with clear comparisons, though one might be stronger than the other. Key concepts are well integrated. [7-9 marks]: The response is mostly descriptive but makes a clear effort to address the prompt. Two ethnographies are presented, but comparison may be weak or unbalanced. [4-6 marks]: The essay shows limited knowledge of development and only superficial use of ethnographic material. [1-3 marks]: Minimal understanding of the question with little or no relevant ethnography. [0 marks]: Response does not reach any of the standards described above.