In my zeal to cover as much of the history of anthropological theory from the 19th century to the present, am I overdoing it? In other words, does this class try to cover too much material? Is there a better way to approach the topic? I wonder if it would be better to cover fewer theories and make the links to current theory more explicit. I would love to hear thoughts about this -- I am always open to making changes to courses if what I'm doing is not working.
Well, almost always. It depends on the suggestion. I mean, we're not going to stop studying theory. That's the point of this class.
So tell me, can you think of a better (or different) way to understand anthropological theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Truth be told, I've always valued courses which covered more material (if less in depth) over those which covered less material more in depth. You're good at reducing and organizing concepts into accessible "bites." That's a special skill and one to be capitalized!
ReplyDeleteI had a little more trouble clearly tracing the historical branches of theory from root to bough... but now that we've moved on to the Boasians, it's much more intuitive.