Postcolonial archaeology takes over the World (Archaeology)

I really dislike postcolonial theory and postcolonial archaeology, so I was not thrilled to see that the current issue of World Archaeology is devoted to this topic. Issue editor Peter van Dommelen (2011) contributes an introduction to the papers. Now perhaps postcolonial perspectives contribute something to understanding the current and recent context of archaeological research in some parts of the world; I say “perhaps” because I am not convinced one way or the other. But postcolonial theory, in my humble opinion, contributes nothing to our understanding of past societies through archaeological evidence.

I have three main objections to postcolonial theory.

(1) Postcolonial theory is anti-scientific. It is an example of what sociologist/philosopher of social science Lars Mjøset calls “constructivist” theory (Mjøset 2001), or theory with a “social-philosophical attitude” (Mjøset 2009). It does not try to explain the past, but rather to interpret the past through a political lens. In contrast, scientific approaches within the social sciences investigate causal mechanisms and empirical generalizations in order to build a body of empirical and theoretical knowledge about society; see Hedström (2005), or other sources that I cite on middle-range theory in Smith (2011).

(2) Postcolonial theory is anti-materialist. The primary focus is on representation and discourse (Van Dommelen 2011:2), a theoretical approach that Benita Parry (2004) calls “textual idealism” (see also Robinette 2006). In the words of Ilan Kapoor (2002:661), “Postcolonialism’s emphasis on cultural and representational issues leads it to ignore important material concerns (.e.g., poverty, health, etc.).” Yet these material concerns should be among the primary targets of archaeological investigation, in my view.

(3) Postcolonial scholars distort the history of scholarship in order to bolster their arguments. For example, postcolonialists are particularly concerned to attack the “essentialism” of prior scholarship. In Chris Gosden’s (2001:242) words, “At the core of postcolonial theory is an attack on any view of essentialism in culture.” Yet many anthropologists object to the characterization of prior work as essentialist. Jonathan Friedman (2002:32), for example, notes that, “Sahlins suggests that the essentialism targeted by post-colonial anthropologists is their own contemporary construction” (he cites Sahlins 1999). See also Lewis (1998), or Friedman (2009).

But these arguments are not going to convince postmodernists, postcolonialists, poststructuralists, or other post scholars to abandon their endeavor. I just get fed up with these approaches, whose view of the nature of history and society, and the nature and purpose of scholarship, are radically different from my own. Some colleagues insist these are fringe views, not worth worrying about. But then why does World Archaeology devote a whole issue to “postcolonial archaeologies”? If you are not familiar with postcolonial archaeology, don’t take my word for it; read the original works (e.g., Gosden 2001; Leone 2009; Meskell 2002; Van Dommelen 2006, 2011; Webster and Cooper 1996), and see what you think.

References:

Friedman, Jonathan

2002    From Roots to Routes: Tropes for Trippers. Anthropological Theory 2:21-36.

2009    Occidentalism and the Categories of Hegemonic Rule. Theory Culture Society 26:85-102.

Gosden, Chris

2001    Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 241-261. Polity Press, Oxford.

Hedström, Peter

2005    Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kapoor, Ilan

2002    Capitalism, Culture, Agency: Dependency Versus Postcolonial Theory. Third World Quarterly 23:647-664.

Leone, Mark P.

2009    Making Historical Archaeology Postcolonial. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 159-168. Springer, New York.

Lewis, Herbert S.

1998    The Misrepresentation of Anthropology and its Consequences. American Anthropologist 100:716-731.

Meskell, Lynn

2002    The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301.

Mjøset, Lars

2001    Theory: Conceptions in the Social Sciences. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, pp. 15641-15647. Elsevier, New York.

2009    The Contextualist Approach to Social Science Methodology. In The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods, edited by David Byrne and Charles C. Ragin, pp. 39-68. Sage, London.

Parry, Benita

2004    Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique. Routledge, New York.

Robinette, Nick

2006    Review of Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique, by Parry. Cultural Critique 62:207-209.

Sahlins, Marshall

1999    Two or Three Things That I Know About Culture. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5:399-421.

Smith, Michael E.

2011    Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18:(in press).

Van Dommelen, Peter

2006    Colonial Matters: Material Culture and Postcolonial Theory in Colonial Situations. In Handbook of Material Culture, edited by Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Kuechler-Fogden, Michael Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer, pp. 104-124. Sage, London.

2011    Postcolonial Archaeologies Between Discourse and Practice. World Archaeology 43(1):1-6.

Webster, Jane and N. Cooper (editors)

1996    Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives. School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, Leicester.