Annotated Bibliography: An Example Of An Annotated Bi

Annotated Bibliographybelow Is An Example Of An Annotated Bibliographi

Annotated Bibliography below is an example of an annotated bibliographic citation based on the Jobson article that I discussed in class on Tuesday. Bibliographies are always listed alphabetically by the author’s last name. Note the citation formatting. Every punctuation mark is important as are the indentations, italics, and spacing. As you can see, I do not include in the annotation all of the bullet points that I highlighted in class.

For example, I included the author’s credentials and social location because it is significant that his radical position is coming from someone at one of the top anthropology departments at a very prestigious US university. As a black anthropologist (and I did not include this but I might have - also as a “junior faculty”—ie he does not have tenure) he is challenging an earlier generation of predominantly white, professionally powerful, male anthropologists. The scholarship that he is citing includes a new generation of anthropologists, including some BIPOC who are contesting the traditions of the discipline. Since this is an example and not for a research project, I did not include the relevance of the text for research.

You should include those aspects of the text that are significant to your interests. Your goal is to capture key themes as concisely as possible. Some guides suggest a 3-paragraph format: summary, evaluation, reflection. I wove these 3 aspects together throughout the annotation. Whatever makes sense to you is fine with me.

Although I said words, this is not written in stone. Some sources suggest lengthier annotations. I generally recommend that you be as succinct as possible – generally not longer than a page (My example is 215 words).

Jobson, Ryan Cecil. 2020. “The Case for Letting Anthropology Burn: Sociocultural Anthropology in 2019.” American Anthropologist 122 (2): 259-71. This provocative review published in one of the major anthropology journals in the US by a Black anthropologist at the prestigious University of Chicago is sure to provoke, anger and inspire difficult but long overdue discussions in the discipline. Jobson’s call to reimagine traditional (and I would add predominantly white and male) anthropological questions, assumptions, theories, and methods is a welcome and necessary plea at a moment of cascading calamities for the planet but also for the discipline of anthropology itself. The author argues that in order to survive, anthropology must reject the tradition of liberal humanism and instead embrace a radically new, relevant, and engaged anthropology that is capable of confronting the present “ecological catastrophe and authoritarian retrenchment.” What would it mean, Jobson asks, for anthropologists to dialogue and work collaboratively across boundaries to produce different kinds of knowledge that explore complex and contested spaces and places?

He cites key ethnographic research published in 2019 that grappled imaginatively with the twin crises of climate change and authoritarian governance. Arguing against technological and state “fixes” and in favor of an anthropology that confronts its origins “in the wake of the plantation,” Jobson suggests that “letting anthropology burn” could lead us to a radical, necessary, abolitionist anthropology that embraces a “new humanism as its political horizon.”

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The article by Ryan Cecil Jobson, “The Case for Letting Anthropology Burn,” published in the American Anthropologist in 2019, stands as a provocative and necessary call for transformative change within the field of anthropology. Drawing from the perspective of a Black scholar based at the University of Chicago, Jobson advocates for a radical reevaluation of anthropological questions, methods, and assumptions that have historically been rooted in Western liberal humanism and white supremacy. His critique emphasizes the urgent need for anthropology to confront the ecological and political crises of our time through a decolonized, participatory, and abolitionist approach.

Jobson’s credentials as a scholar committed to social justice and decolonial methodologies lend credibility and urgency to his argument. As a junior faculty member navigating academic hierarchies, his critique also underscores the importance of diversity and representation within disciplinary discourses. He challenges the discipline to shed its traditional focus on “culture” as an uncritical, often romanticized concept, and instead adopt a more engaged stance that is critically aware of power, history, and colonial legacies.

One of the most compelling aspects of Jobson’s argument is his call to “let anthropology burn,” which metaphorically suggests abandoning the outdated paradigms that continue to dominate the field. He advocates for a radical, abolitionist anthropology that seeks to dismantle structures of oppression and reimagine knowledge production collaboratively across boundaries of race, class, and nation. His emphasis on the twin crises of climate change and authoritarianism highlights the urgency of this shift, urging anthropologists to produce research that is not only critical but also action-oriented and rooted in resistance.

Furthermore, Jobson emphasizes that the discipline must confront its colonial origins—“in the wake of the plantation”—and reject technological fixes that serve regimes of domination. Instead, he envisions an anthropology that centers marginalized voices, reparative justice, and the decolonization of methods and epistemologies. His critique aligns with decolonial scholarship advocating for a radical overhaul of academic practice to serve social and environmental justice.

In reflecting on this call for transformation, it becomes clear that embracing a “burning” anthropology entails a profound politicization of the discipline. It requires scholars to engage with activism and advocacy, challenging traditional notions of objectivity and neutrality. Jobson’s article prompts us to consider how anthropology can evolve into a tool for radical social change rather than perpetuating colonial narratives, and underscores the discipline’s potential as a site for revolutionary, justice-oriented scholarship.

References

• Jobson, Ryan Cecil. 2020. “The Case for Letting Anthropology Burn: Sociocultural Anthropology in 2019.” American Anthropologist 122 (2): 259-71.
• Bourgois, Philippe. 2016. Righteous Dopefiend. University of California Press.
• Corntassel, Jeff. 2012. “Re-envisioning Resilience: Indigenous Pathways to decolonization and Sustainable Self-Determination.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 86-98.
• Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
• Escobar, Arturo. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Practical Knowledge. Duke University Press.
• Norgaard, Kari Marie. 2011. Living in the Future’s Condition: Gender, Race, and Climate Change Politics. Geoforum, 44: 58–67.
• LaDuke, Winona. 2005. Recovering the Sacred: The Power of Naming and Claiming. South End Press.
• Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2020. The Climate of History in a Planetary Age. University of Chicago Press.
• Haraway, Donna. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
• Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Routledge.