Q5(a) · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2025 · Anthropology GS 1 · 10 marks · 2 min read

← Q4 Q5 →

Multispecies, Multi-sited and Critical Ethnography.

Topic: Meaning, Scope and development of Anthropology.. Syllabus: 1.1 Meaning, Scope and development of Anthropology. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2025 and Meaning, Scope and development of Anthropology..

Revision summary

Multi-sited ethnography, associated with George Marcus, follows people, things and conflicts across more than one site. Multispecies ethnography, as in Kirksey, Helmreich and Tsing, treats animals, plants and fungi as part of social life. Critical ethnography describes a scene and also asks how power works, whose voice is heard, and what change is possible. The three answer the limits of one-village, human-only, harmony-seeking fieldwork. A migrant chain, a human–animal conflict, and a caste or gender justice case illustrate the three methods.

Model answer

Introduction

Classical ethnography often sat in one village and wrote about one people. Multi-sited, multispecies and critical ethnography open that frame. They follow connections across places, they take other living beings as part of social life, and they ask whose voice the ethnography serves.

Body

Multi-sited ethnography

George Marcus, in his essay on multi-sited ethnography, argued that many contemporary objects cannot be known from one site. The ethnographer follows people, things, metaphors, plots or conflicts across locations. A Gulf migrant is not only a Kerala household and not only a Dubai camp. A commodity chain, a court case, or a rumour on WhatsApp is the same kind of object.

Arjun Appadurai’s work on global flows sits beside Marcus: the “field” is a network, not a fence. The method still uses participant observation. It simply refuses to treat the village boundary as the edge of society.

Multispecies ethnography

Eben Kirksey, Stefan Helmreich and Anna Tsing asked anthropology to take animals, plants, fungi and microbes as companions in social life, not as a silent background. Tsing’s The Mushroom at the End of the World follows matsutake fungi, pickers and markets. Donna Haraway’s companion-species work and Eduardo Kohn’s How Forests Think push the same point.

A current example is One Health after COVID-19, or human–elephant conflict on a forest fringe, or street dogs and sanitation in an Indian city. Culture is made with other species, not only about them.

Critical ethnography

Critical ethnography, as D. Soyini Madison and earlier Marxist, feminist and postcolonial fieldworkers framed it, does not stop at describing a culture. It asks how power, race, caste, gender and the state produce the scene, and it sides with the possibility of change. Nancy Scheper-Hughes on hunger and Paul Farmer on structural violence are medical-anthropological cousins of this stance.

The ethnographer’s own position is part of the data. The aim is not a pretty whole, but an account that the marginalised could recognise.

Why the three are asked together

One-site holism is too small for migrants, too human-only for ecology, and too polite for injustice. The three methods are a toolkit: follow the connection, include other species, and name power.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  E[Ethnography] --> MS[Multi-sited / Marcus]
  E --> SP[Multispecies / Tsing]
  E --> CR[Critical / power]
  MS --> N[Network not fence]
  SP --> O[Other species]
  CR --> P[Justice and voice]

Conclusion

Multi-sited work follows the object across places. Multispecies work puts other living beings inside the social. Critical ethnography asks who benefits from the story. Together they keep fieldwork, but they drop the fiction of one closed village.

Quick related

Students also ask

  • Evolutionary significance of menopause.

    Next question in the 2025 paper (Q5). View answer →

  • Is multi-sited work just travel journalism?

    No. It still uses long-term observation and interviews. The difference is the object: a chain or conflict, not a single community fence.

  • Which thinkers belong with each method?

    Marcus with multi-sited work; Tsing, Kirksey or Helmreich with multispecies work; Scheper-Hughes or Farmer with a critical stance.

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2024 · Q1(b) · Anthropology GS 1 · 10 marks

    Harappan maritime trade

    View answer →

  2. 2022 · Q3(b) · Anthropology GS 1 · 15 marks

    Enumerate the evidence of animal domestication in Indian microlithic industry

    View answer →

  3. 2021 · Q5(e) · Anthropology GS 1 · 10 marks

    Modes of Subsistence.

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Anthropology GS 1 · 10 marks

Mendelian and non-Mendelian traits.

Mendelian genetics in man-family study, single factor, multifactor, lethal, sub-lethal and polygenic inheritance in man.

Mendelian traits follow one-locus segregation and can be read in a pedigree. ABO, PTC tasting, albinism, haemophilia A and Huntington disease are standard examples. Multiple alleles and sex-linkage extend Mendelism; they do not cancel it. Non-Mendelian traits include polygenic stature and skin colour, linkage, maternal mtDNA and imprinting. Environment plus many genes gives a curve, not a 3:1 ratio. Use family study for Mendelian markers and quantitative genetics for everyday variation. Single-factor, multifactor, lethal and polygenic inheritance is this same distinction.

Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Anthropology GS 1 · 10 marks

Theoretical significance of Purum kinship-system.

Kinship

The Purum are a Kuki-Chin group used by Needham as a test case for alliance theory. The claim was prescriptive marriage to mother’s brother’s daughter, with wife-givers and wife-takers in a cycle. Needham argued against Homans and Schneider: the pattern is structure, not sentiment. The case mattered because it took elementary structures beyond Australia and clarified prescription versus preference. Ackerman and others showed that the tables did not seal the cycle as neatly as the model. The lasting names are Lévi-Strauss, Needham and the model–practice gap.

Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Anthropology GS 1 · 10 marks

Osteodontokeratik culture and its makers.

Paleolithic

Osteodontokeratic means a supposed bone–tooth–horn culture named by Raymond Dart at Makapansgat. The claimed makers were Australopithecus prometheus, now placed in Australopithecus africanus. Dart read clubs, saws and daggers from antelope parts, and inferred hunting and violence. C. K. Brain showed that leopards, hyenas and cave processes explain much of the assemblage. The idea survives as a taphonomy lesson, not as a real industry. Osteodontokeratic is defined by site, claimed maker, and the later critique.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.