tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post4572592812932743522..comments2024-03-18T05:08:29.201-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Postcolonial archaeology takes over the World (Archaeology)Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-56476785117225865472014-08-22T19:13:46.910-07:002014-08-22T19:13:46.910-07:00Victoria - I view archaeology as a social science,...Victoria - I view archaeology as a social science, so it shares some traits with the natural sciences and some traits with the humanities.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-50319167638093757312014-08-22T18:23:16.740-07:002014-08-22T18:23:16.740-07:00There seem to be as many different archaeologies a...There seem to be as many different archaeologies as there are archaeologists. Whatever one thinks one is doing with archaeology, whatever one believes the archaeological record is able to reveal, appears to me to dictate the approach one takes. So if you have a scientific question about how people lived in the past (eg. 'do these bones come from domesticated sheep' ie. did these people farm?') clearly you are going to have to use scientific methods. But if you want to know why that sheep bone was carved into a human image, you are going to have to ask different questions of the archaeological record and potentially use different kinds of methods to unearth the answers (pardon the pun). If you don't believe such answers are possible, then archaeology remains a science. But surely archaeology is different to natural science? Doesn't the fact that the archaeological record was created by those complex creatures, people, necessitate that it is?Victoria Claytonhttp://www.ancientfigurines.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-23414821942294658422012-08-29T13:11:41.870-07:002012-08-29T13:11:41.870-07:00I've just been diving into your blog archives ...I've just been diving into your blog archives and enjoying some of these well-written rant-ish episodes. I have found exactly the same issues with exactly the same material. And unlike your optimistic commenter, haecceities, I don't think this situation will change any time soon. I expect it will get worse, actually. There are strong economic incentives encouraging anthropologists and archaeologists towards obscurantism and nonsense, and lots of people seem to have a problem with <i>genuine</i> scientific approaches, as opposed to approaches that merely adopt a veneer of scientific enterprise.<br /><br />I can't say I agree that there should be any room for "many perspectives", either. Biology doesn't really allow for "many perspectives" about major theoretical points, and I don't think empirical problems in the human sciences are different in principle to those in biology.p9https://www.blogger.com/profile/00424827703117675037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-15149089059727880722011-03-11T14:19:33.572-07:002011-03-11T14:19:33.572-07:00@ anon: Keep in mind, there are more @#$holes in a...@ anon: Keep in mind, there are more @#$holes in academia than nice folks...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-41665780262479200552011-03-11T14:15:12.447-07:002011-03-11T14:15:12.447-07:00I guess it depends on what kind of cultural anthro...I guess it depends on what kind of cultural anthropologists one is talking to. I don't have any postmodernists or poststructuralists in my department, and colleagues would probably think I was nuts if I started talking that way (and I'd have to rehearse heavily). Topics of conversation around here are more along the lines of social networks, inequality, or the evolution of cooperation.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-54282049467237209702011-03-11T13:36:16.118-07:002011-03-11T13:36:16.118-07:00I dont know if this is good or bad, but I have not...I dont know if this is good or bad, but I have noticed that if I talk Post-structural style, I always have rich conversations with cultural anthropologists. If I talk nuts and bolts and catchments and estimates, I am treated like an intellectual gorilla...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-3563424034991384702011-03-07T17:18:06.153-07:002011-03-07T17:18:06.153-07:00I have to say that I am so sick of poststructural ...I have to say that I am so sick of poststructural theory and practice theory. Just utterly tired of it. I am not necessarily sick of the work of the folks who get cited or the broader intellectual genealogy, but I can't take reading the same old "I will now apply practice theory to..." (now cite Ortner, Bourdieu, maybe De Certeu, and Giddens...despite the fact that Giddens never talked about practice...). There was a really interesting looking article in AA on Oaxaca that I had to just put down before I could even get through the abstract as it claimed to understand something via the application of poststructural theory. I consider myself fairly well-read, but it is just getting so incredibly superficial. Not helping to understand the past is less relevant than the damned superficiality of intellectual band-waggoning. Drives me nuts. There is no sense of larger problems or connections in ideas...just consume, consume, consume. The mediocre is becoming the status quo. I like to joke that everytime some writes "I will apply practice" (insert typical citations), that an angel loses its wings. That aside, what does happen is that the collective intellect of academia dies a little...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-90491622394984958652011-03-07T08:05:26.517-07:002011-03-07T08:05:26.517-07:00agreedagreedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-73811336769914043142011-03-06T16:37:07.203-07:002011-03-06T16:37:07.203-07:00@anonymous - This is one reason why I don't li...@anonymous - This is one reason why I don't like social theory. I'm an empirical kind of guy who gets lost among these fine distinctions in theoretical perspectives. Maybe I phrased my comments too broadly. What I tried to critique are archaeological applications of postcolonial theory. I have read the examples in my bibliography, and my critique applies to them. Perhaps there are other kinds of postcolonial archaeology that are free from the defects I list.<br /><br />But I'm not sure exactly what postcolonial theory might contribute to an understanding of, say, ancient imperialism, that the standard materialist social science approaches lack (hence my earlier comment about commoner agency). So maybe there are materialist postcolonial theorists out there, beyond archaeology, and perhaps their work could be adapted to contribute to an archaeological understanding of the past. I'd like to think that I have an open mind about such things, but my gut reaction is, "why bother?"Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-73684581149159444612011-03-06T16:11:56.604-07:002011-03-06T16:11:56.604-07:00I just think you are lumping together way too many...I just think you are lumping together way too many scholars works under the rubric of post-colonial theory. There is strongly materialist, post-colonial theory, which you are totally ignoring. The work of Asad, Nash, Harvey, etc. They are all materialist perspectives of the inequalities of production and consumption. They are also historical and can be considered post-colonial. I understand your critique of post-structural theory, but I do not think all post-colonial theory is guilty of your charges. I myself am a rabid materialist, and increasingly so. In my view, there is no reason why the perspectives that emanate from post-colonial theory cannot be targeted from a scientific perspective. Post-colonial theory does not mean post-modern theory. The latter tends to slash the achilles tendon of archaeology's ability to speak truth to power, thereby reinforcing the power structures postmodern theory seeks to criticize...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-78761574634665995452011-03-06T10:29:05.179-07:002011-03-06T10:29:05.179-07:00@Marcus- I was not familiar with Viveiros de Castr...@Marcus- I was not familiar with Viveiros de Castro, whose work looks very interesting - I will take a look. And I have talked about the WEIRD study previously in this blog - it is quite important.<br /><br />@Anonymous- I have 2 reactions to your comments. First, I agree that many theoretical approaches, including some that I disagree with strongly, do have some useful points to contribute to scholarship, things that would probably benefit my own work. But on the other hand, as a committed scientist and materialist, I just don't see approaches like postcolonialism or poststructurallism advancing our understanding of the past in a significant way. I see them as putting up smokescreens that obscure and inhibit empirical scholarship on past human social dynamics. <br /><br />If you compare a poststructuralist account of commoner agency in the past with a rational choice account, I think the differences are clear. In my opinion the poststructuralist account does not explain empirical patterns and argues by assertion, whereas the rational choice account IS explanatory. But these differences are rooted at the epistemological and ontological levels, so logical argument will not resolve them. Idealist humanities-oriented scholars will reject my views out of hand.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-33158401446675236542011-03-06T09:11:55.853-07:002011-03-06T09:11:55.853-07:00I don't quite understand why some feel there i...I don't quite understand why some feel there is not enough room in archaeology for many perspectives. I do think that saying postcolonial theory does not contribute to understanding past societies is too general. I understand what you mean, but, in the very least, challenging some assumptions of history, change, and development that were born from colonialism does help us understand past societies. Furthermore, there is both good and bad postcolonial theory. There is useful and productive postcolonial theory and there is complete deconstructivist tendencies in others. I prefer the postcolonial theory that stress historical political economy, which helps understand past society in two ways: 1) It offers general analyses of the distribution of wealth and power; and 2) it stresses long term, continually unfolding connections. <br /><br />cAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-5941225819213811522011-03-06T04:25:11.580-07:002011-03-06T04:25:11.580-07:00I don't buy this stuff either. There is some w...I don't buy this stuff either. There is some work on 'other perspectives', though, that warrants further thinking. Especially relevant here is the work of the Brazilian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. A good sample of his thought is to be found in his 'anthropology AND science':<br /><br />http://nansi.abaetenet.net/abaetextos/anthropology-and-science-e-viveiros-de-castro<br /><br />Apparently this Brazilian approach has now also passed on to Mexican anthropologists:<br /><br />http://salul.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/the-reception-of-amerindian-perspectivism-in-mexico/<br /><br />Even if one does not agree with this, it is surely more stimulating to consider than the sophistry in Western academia. I also note the interesting resonance of this with the WEIRD study by Henrich et al. 2010:<br /><br />http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/10/we-agree-its-weird-but-is-it-weird-enough/Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-24442432861266422752011-03-05T20:42:12.989-07:002011-03-05T20:42:12.989-07:00Well, I hope you are right! I have been heartened ...Well, I hope you are right! I have been heartened by work on realism and materialism in sociology, but less so in cultural anthropology.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-7427072845966976802011-03-05T14:39:19.053-07:002011-03-05T14:39:19.053-07:00All constructivist/constructionist approaches are ...All constructivist/constructionist approaches are part of the "linguistic turn" in social science. Their critique of "essentialism" leads ultimately to a "social essentialism" where the "social" constructs something but it is never clear of what is constructed and what the construction material consists of. Fortunately, there is a "new" movement towards realism and materialism in the social sciences. Anything labeled "post" will be passe in a few years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com