IB Diploma Programme Social and Cultural Anthropology HL (first assessment 2019; 2017 guide). This topic equips the HL EXTENSION (the fourth area of inquiry from any group, and the theory demand): at HL only, students demonstrate understanding and use of anthropological THEORIES to evaluate ethnographic materials and formulate arguments, and answer the paper 1 ethics question from one of two stimuli. This handout teaches the theory kit, the evaluation move and the ethics question. All worked examples are original classroom vignettes, not ethnographic publications.

Must-know for hl extension: theory:

At HL, anthropological theory 人类学理论 is used, not recited: functionalism 功能主义 (social practices explained by the work they do for the group: the greeting ritually re-ties the school each morning), structuralism 结构主义 (surface variety from deep organizing patterns: greeting forms as an underlying who-defersto-whom grammar), cultural materialism 文化唯物主义 (ideas traced to material conditions: the barter's favour prices scarcity), interpretive anthropology 解释人类学 (culture as a text to be read: what the greeting MEANS to its users), and practice theory 实践理论 (structure and action making each other: students both obey and bend the queue's rule).

Worked vignette. The greeting ritual evaluated by three theories: functionalism (cohesion re-made daily), interpretive (the shorthand greeting as insider text), practice theory (the form bent by age and familiarity: structure reproduced through use).

The HL evaluation move: take ONE material, read it through TWO theories, and judge which reading the material better supports and why: a reading that cannot be evidenced from the material is a recital, not a use. The fourth area 第四领域 (any group) gives the breadth this demands: the corridor project's material re-read through cultural materialism once the tuck-shop's scarcity is in view.

Worked vignette, continued. Judging: the greeting material better supports interpretive and practice readings than the functionalist one (the ritual's cohesion claim cannot be evidenced from greetings alone; the bending of form can), and the essay says so.

Paper 1 HL adds one question on anthropological ethics 人类学伦理 from one of two stimuli: the answer names the principle at stake (consent, anonymity, harm, reciprocity: the group studied should gain something), weighs the dilemma (knowledge against dignity), and argues a position with a case: the corridor camera rejected, the hand-drawn map accepted, the reasoning shown.

Worked vignette, concluded. The stimulus of a researcher filming a crowded ritual: consent impossible person-by-person, so the filming must be justified to the community as a whole, individuals anonymised in publication, and the film's gain (the community's own record) weighed against embarrassment: a argued verdict, not a slogan.

• Five theories, each a use not a recital (theories).

• One material, two readings, a judgement argued (evaluation).

• The fourth area from any group adding breadth (fourth area).

• The ethics question answered with principle, dilemma, case (ethics question).

• The worked greeting evaluation and camera verdict understood (worked). Boundary notes: the examiner must see the discipline: concepts named, ethnographic evidence grounded, the observer positioned. All worked examples are original classroom vignettes, not ethnographic publications.