36 exam-style questions on Key concept: materiality — topic 1.5 of Engaging with anthropology: key concepts and anthropological thinking in the IB Social and Cultural Anthropology syllabus — with answers and explanations. Samples below; the full set is free with an account.
Malinowski, who worked in the Trobriand Islands between 1915 and 1918, recorded that the better-known shell necklaces and armshells each carried the names of the men who had held them before, that a holder's standing rose with the reputation of the piece he had received, and that he was expected to hand it on again within a year or two. Considered as objects, these valuables show that
Answer: their worth lay in the named history of previous holders that each piece carried
The value of a kula valuable is inseparable from its biography: who has held it, and what those men were worth. A commodity is the opposite case, because its price does not depend on the identity of anyone who owned it before.
Mauss argued in 1925, drawing on published accounts of Melanesian, Polynesian and Northwest Coast exchange, that gifts carry three linked obligations: to give, to receive and to repay. Which statement follows from that argument?
Answer: A gift that cannot be repaid leaves the receiver in a subordinate position
Because repayment is obligatory, an unrepayable gift converts generosity into hierarchy, which is why Mauss treats gift exchange as political rather than sentimental. The idea of the pure, return-free gift is the misconception his essay was written against.
Mintz traced how sugar moved from a rare medicine and display item on wealthy British tables in the seventeenth century to a cheap daily staple in working-class diets by the nineteenth, supplied by Caribbean plantation labour. His study uses sugar to show that
Answer: the meanings of a substance shift with the system that produces and supplies it
Mintz links consumption at one end of a system to production at the other, so the 'meaning' of sugar is not fixed by the substance or by taste alone. This is the argument to reach for when a question pairs materiality with production and consumption.
Nash worked with Bolivian tin miners in the 1970s who left coca leaves, alcohol and cigarettes before a horned figure they called the Tio, seated in the tunnels, while attending Catholic mass at the surface. Miners told her that the mineral belonged to the Tio and that accidents followed neglect of him. Her account treats these offerings as
Answer: a way of stating and handling the relations of a workplace that took their labour and their lives
The offerings are an idiom in which ownership of the mineral, the danger of the work and the miners' claim on what they extract are all articulated. Reading them as ignorance of geology mistakes what the practice is about: the miners knew the physical hazards and also knew who was profiting.
Miller spent a year accompanying households on one North London street as they shopped. He found that most purchases were made for other members of the household, that thrift was pursued even where money was not short, and that shoppers explained their choices by what particular relatives liked. His conclusion is that
Answer: everyday shopping is largely provisioning, and expresses and maintains relationships
Miller's argument reverses the usual picture of consumption as individual self-expression: the supermarket trip is work done on behalf of others, and thrift is one of the ways devotion is demonstrated. Status display exists but was not what most of the observed shopping was doing.
Bohannan reported from Tiv country in central Nigeria in the 1950s that exchanges fell into separate ranges: foodstuffs were exchanged against foodstuffs, while brass rods, cattle and cloth circulated among themselves and figured in marriage transfers. Moving an item up from the lower range was a notable achievement, and colonial currency, which bought in all ranges, made such moves ordinary. The material is used to show that
Answer: what may be exchanged for what is socially restricted, and general-purpose money dissolves the restriction
The spheres were not a failure to calculate: keeping ranges apart is what made an upward conversion an achievement. A currency that crosses every boundary removes the achievement along with the boundary.
That was 6 of 36 Key concept: materiality questions.
Practise all 36 freeExplainAO2 · 4–10 marks
Give reasons or causes: say what happens AND why, linking each step with 'because' or 'so that'.
DistinguishAO2 · 4–10 marks
Make the difference clear for BOTH terms — a definition of one of them is only half an answer.
DefineAO1 · 1–4 marks
Give the precise meaning — one sentence, the key terms in it, no example needed unless asked.
All of Engaging with anthropology: key concepts and anthropological thinking →
36 Key concept: materiality questions — free with an account. Spaced repetition, streaks and full exam simulations included.
Practise them freeThis platform is independently developed and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization. “International Baccalaureate” and “IB” are registered trademarks of the IBO.