Due Date: Wednesday, March 21 by 1 PM in the box next to my office mailbox. For this exam, no electronic submissions can be accepted. Please plan your schedule accordingly.

The purpose of this exam is to show that you have worked through the readings and used the writing guidelines and my feedback to become better writers. The exam provides a special, final opportunity for those who have been less involved in the class process, either in its discussion aspect or its writing aspect. I have broken these general goals down in the following bullet points so they will be clear. I have placed all these criteria before the questions themselves to encourage you as far as possible not to simply answer the questions, but to do so in such a way that you demonstrate the extent to which you have fulfilled the goals of the course, which are mirrored in this exam.

The goals of this exam are:
To demonstrate you absorption and integration of the course readings and class discussions, which also includes:
To critically review some of the classic theories
To apply content and ideas learned in one unit of the course to other materials in the course
To demonstrate that your knowledge of the readings is sound enough that you know which ones to use in a answering a particular question
To demonstrate that your thinking about the issues raised by the course is more mature than when you entered the course
To demonstrate that you have made progress in writing skills based on the feedback I have given you on other writing assignments. These include but are not limited to

representing a text accurately
comprehending an issue in its wholeness rather than bouncing off the text
writing empathically from within the framework of the point of view you are considering
acknowledging the 800-lb gorillas: If there is some major aspect of an issue that any general reader would expect to be discussed, you discuss it.
"anticipating the other": anticipating what a critical reader would say about your arguments; hence critical thinking about your own argument
fair criticism of the author's point of view: Criticism that considers the whole argument rather than one point of view with which you disagree.

Further writing criteria are:
To demonstrate that you can construct an essay with an argument that is coherent, and with smooth transitions
To demonstrate that you can proofread for coherence, sentence structure, spelling, and other mechanical

I would especially like to draw your attention to the issue of fulfilling the assignment. In some cases students have been asked to rewrite essays because they did not do what the assignment asked. I do like to give good grades but obviously I can't do so if you don't fulfill the assignment. If you simply read the questions and start writing without thinking about fulfilling the goals, you are "bouncing off the text," in this case the "text" being the text of the instructions. The assignments ask you to work on a problem in a particular way because that way offers a challenge and shows me that you have critically encountered the authors. Here of course there will be no opportunity to rewrite, so please read the directions carefully. Hence, another purpose of the exam is:
To demonstrate that you can work with a challenge in the ways you are asked to.

Sources and Citations: You are expected to use any and all materials assigned for the course, including the two books and the ERes material. For the purposes of this assignment the video "Between Two Worlds" will be considered a text. And for the purposes of this assignment you are asked not to use other sources in books, journals or the internet. You must provide citations for ideas which are not your own, even if they are not directly quoted. You must provide citation for information which is not common knowledge. If you are uncertain about the issues and consequence related to Citation and Plagiarism, consult the "Citation and Plagiarism" page on this site.

Thus an additional purpose of the assignment are:
To demonstrate that you can integrate your work with the work of others in a dialogic fashion.
To demonstrate that you can document this interaction through the honest and appropriate use of citation.

ALL OF THE ABOVE BULLET POINTS ARE THE GRADING CRITERIA FOR THE EXAM.

Your choice:

	Question 1 or Question 2
+	Question 3 or Question 4
+	Question 5
=	Total of three questions

If you choose to do an additional question, it will be extra credit. Note that the original syllabus states that the final will have four questions; it is here reduced to three.

If you are writing a discovery paper on a theorist which has been formally proposed, you need only write on any one of the questions.

Each question should be answered with a minimum of 3 typewritten, double-spaced pages but you may write more. You may think of these as a series of micro-essays, although you'll notice that these are longer than micro-essays. Just as with other micro-essays part of the art here is compression and getting to the point. You must follow Style Sheet: Mechanicals (including title page and page numbers), and the writing must be thoroughly proofread. YOU MUST NUMBER AND/OR GIVE A TITLE TO EACH QUESTION SO THAT IT IS APPARENT TO ME WHICH ONE IS BEING ANSWERED.

These questions are broad and there is room for a variety of approaches, but you are expected to show that you have a broad grasp of the issue as it appears in the relevant materials before you go on to address a particular aspect. The bracketed titles provide a general orientation, and are followed by a fuller explanation of the issues I'd like you to consider in your essay. The questions have been constructed to focus on particular areas. Even though the some issues are obviously interrelated, try not to let them completely "bleed" into each other. The items in the fuller explanation are intended to help you get thinking (and not miss those 800-lb gorillas!). You should use them, but you still need to produce a flowing, integrated essay, not a laundry list of answers. You may also draw on other themes and cultural instances than the ones specifically mentioned in the questions, such as the Apna Ghar exhibit we looked at in the library, the issues of language, appropriation, etc.

I realize that these questions are challenging. Please be aware that there are many interesting and creative ways of handling the issues, so I am looking for evidence of the preparation you bring to the questions and integration of ideas, not "bingo--you've got it."

1. [ "Between Two Worlds": paradigm and critique] On the first day of the course we watched a video entitled "Between Two Worlds: The Hmong Shaman in America." (30 minutes, on reserve in the library under VIDEOCAS. 299.5 B565S--you will probably want to watch it again). In some ways the video laid out many of the issues in the course, both theoretical and in terms of actual cultural description. It may be that certain of the issues have greater resonance for you now, not just in terms of "epistemological justice" (fair understanding) of non-mainstream groups but also in terms of approaching and thinking about cultures. On the other hand, you may be in a better position to critique the video as a piece of religious studies or anthropology than you were on the first day of the course. Use the video to discuss these issues in an organized, coherent essay.
OR
2. [Looking at Shamanism] What are the points of contact and the points of departure between Vizenor's approach to shamanic activity, possession and that of Lévi-Strauss, Crossan and the video "Between Two Worlds." (Hint: in Vizenor, aspects of both "Dennis of Wounded Knee" and "The Shaman and Terminal Creeds" may be relevant.) Please make reference to other theorists and/or readings studied earlier in the course. What is Vizenor is ultimately trying to say about the role of shamanism in Native American life in the past and now? What are the implications for an understanding of religion?

3. [Knowledge/Power/Identity] In "Boarding School Remembrance" the material Vizenor presents (as well as the way he presents it) both underscores his stated methodology and subverts it. In terms of the question we asked earlier after reading Deloria and especially Churchill ("Who owns the knowledge?") what does this section reveal about the social problems of constructing a cultural identity and the role of religion in it? How would Gandhi and Vivekananda participate in a conversation about these issues?
OR
4. [Methodology and theorizing from culture] In "Firewater Labels and Methodologies" Vizenor keeps turning over accepted notions not only about tribal peoples and alcohol, but about alcohol and alcoholism in general. What are some of the lessons learned in this section about methodology that would help us in using or evaluating other methodologies we've looked at in this course? Make reference to specific points of the theories. In particular how could we extend a discussion about theorizing about alcohol and alcoholism to theorizing about problemetic elements in other cultures, such as those we saw in India?

AND
5. [Theory-making] We tend to regard theory-making as a process of observation and explanation, on the model of theory-making in the sciences. As we have seen however, theory-making in the social sciences and humanities also involves assumptions about the identity of the theory-maker (not just personally but as a member of a society) and the ones being theorized about. Using examples from classic theorists and later writers, what happens to a person when he or she endeavors to make a theory about culture or religion. In particular, I would like to suggest that Vizenor is categorically different from other theorists in his approach, but I'm not sure this is true. Characterize Vizenor as a theorist in comparison to a classic theorist or theorists in such a way that helps you (and me) understand (a) what is distinctive about Vizenor's approach, and (b) whether or not it really different from the classic theorists, and (c) what might explain these differences. In some ways, the issues here are related to those of Question 4, but in the Firewater question Vizenor is considering methodology more than theory and is evaluating methodologies of others more than developing his own. However, throughout the book Vizenor does directly and indirectly speculate on the social ethics and intellectual soundness of various approaches to theory making. (Thought: Perhaps some of those theories in the sciences are not so context-free as they seem.)