FORMAT
This mid-term exam consists of two parts. Be sure to answer each part of the exam.
Please be mindful of the word-number limitations for each question; written material that exceeds those limits will not be considered as part of the grade. Also, there is no need to write up to the maximum word limit; shorter answers are thoroughly acceptable.
There is no need to do any independent research; additional research will not result in a higher score/grade.
There is no need to include a formal bibliography or a works-cited section, providing you are referencing assigned or recommended course readings, or are drawing from lecture material.
be advised that your paper will be analyzed by Turn-It-In, an anti-plagiarism web feature.
SUBSTANTIVE EXAM MATERIAL
There are two parts to the exam (Part One and Part Two). Be sure to answer both parts. Again, there is no need for any research outside of the course readings, and additional research will not improve the scores/grades awarded.
PART ONE: Please answer the following question (2000 word limit).
Use either Levi-Straus/Sahlins, Douglas, Turner, or Geertz [either “Person, Time, and Place in Bali” or “Deep Play: Notes on A Balinese Cockfight” – but not “The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man”], or some combination of these authors/reading assignments, to analyze one of these two ethnographic films: Trance and Dance in Bali (https://www.loc.gov/item/mbrs02425201/) or Trobriand Cricket (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZFNRc9mKk). In presenting an analysis, be sure to match particular claims to evidence taken from the film, showing how the claim is supported by both the evidence and the theoretical model(s) you have chosen.
PART TWO:
Please answer the following question (1,500 word limit). Take one of the two films Trance and Dance in Bali (https://www.loc.gov/item/mbrs02425201/) or Trobriand Cricket (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYZFNRc9mKk), and ask what questions Rosseberry might ask about the film. You do not have to use the same film that you discussed in part one. Be sure to note how Roseberry’s concerns might complicate a symbolic anthropological or structuralist interpretation.