tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post8098105978739403887..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: The clarity of our concepts (or the lack thereof)Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-79150934844052619462012-04-27T06:35:18.971-07:002012-04-27T06:35:18.971-07:00Speaking of postmodernism, can somebody explain th...Speaking of postmodernism, can somebody explain this to me. How does one propose such a session and how does this advance archaeological theory? I'm all about celebrating doing archaeology. But.......<br /><br />"The 34th Annual Conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Group is returning to Liverpool for the first time since 1996. TAG 2012 is hosted by the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool and will take place from Monday, 17 December to Wednesday, 19 December. Our theme for TAG 2012 is “live archaeology”, and throughout the conference we shall be having a number of activities celebrating becoming an archaeologist and doing archaeology.<br /><br />The TAG 2012 Committee now welcomes proposals for sessions, individual papers and posters for the conference. If you are interested in proposing a session, paper or poster, please go to our Submission of proposals page for information about guidelines and deadline dates."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-51730453049803744792012-04-24T08:26:03.765-07:002012-04-24T08:26:03.765-07:00I don't find anything objectionable in your co...I don't find anything objectionable in your comments or perspective. I can't say anything about whether we might agree or not about identity - I don't have much of an opinion about the concept, other than the observation that is is used far too often without clear definition and without citing the relevant literature. I don't really know what identity is all about in general terms. In fact I have my doubts about whether it is a high-level concept with any useful content at all, but then I haven't thought much about it and can't offer an informed opinion.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-42843837005801720892012-04-24T06:09:39.708-07:002012-04-24T06:09:39.708-07:00I know the word "relational" is getting ...I know the word "relational" is getting used and abused by folks with the postmodern condition in archaeology, but I certainly do not intend it to mean that. I imagine you have an identity as a man, a professor, an archaeologist, perhaps American, perhaps more. That is a pretty dynamic assortment of identities that you move around in. Why (which is something I am not getting here) deny it? My observations are not postmodern and are not post-processual. They are rooted in basic materialism, albeit one with a historical bent. If identities are built from social relations then they are relational, regardless of the ugly baggage people attach to this word. I'm not talking semiotics, network STS, and I am not talking relational with the "ity" at the end. Saying that identity is dynamic, often changing, based on social relations, and nested does not mean that it is considered "mysterious" and can't be studied comparatively. It is also not a postmodern or postprocessual perspective. I have only read a bit of Tilly, but I never found his work disagreeable. He wrote very favorably of the work of Eric Wolf, one of the best comparative anthropologists. But he is not the only individual with a useful, materialist-informed, perspective on these matters. One thing that Tilly says too is that the extent to which these things stay durable is due to underlying social relations where some people have somethings to gain and others have less to gain. They are historically durable, not analytically durable. This is an interesting discussion, but I just don't think we really disagree (or at least I don't think I do). cmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-11118654957559795242012-04-23T16:42:09.279-07:002012-04-23T16:42:09.279-07:00@anonymous (CM) - Sorry, but "relational"...@anonymous (CM) - Sorry, but "relational" in Tilly's scheme does not imply "dynamic and changing." Relational (for Tilly) means that his basic ontological model of society is built on social relations, as opposed to models built on individuals (methodological individualism), and models based on larger structures.<br /><br />One of Tilly's big contributions, in my view, is showing that "relational" phenomena, such as inequality (or identity, I guess) can be extremely durable and hard to change. Hence his book title, Durable Inequality.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-54314449859071751112012-04-23T10:24:05.487-07:002012-04-23T10:24:05.487-07:00@ Robert. You seem to be willfully misinterpreting...@ Robert. You seem to be willfully misinterpreting what I mean. Saying identities are fluid and changing does not mean that they cannot be studied empirically. People are lumped into groups and lump themselves into groups constantly and constantly change how and why they do so. To ignore that dynamism is to mischaracterize the phenomena one seeks to study. To suggest that such dynamism is beyond the reach of archaeology is to promote an unfortunate pessimism of the ability of archaeology to address complex processes using, well, empirical data. If anything, my comments point to the intrinsic flaws and problems with archaeologies of identity that fail to take into account this complexity and, thus, are not in disagreement with this discussion's overall sentiment. Rather than just coming up with hyper-simplistic proxies of, say, ethnicity and maybe gender, as you seem to suggest, would it not be better to try to figure out if those identities even existed or mattered or maybe how they shifted and overlapped with other identities as a product of social relationships across time? I imagine one could identify with an ethnic group and with a gender and maybe as elite, etc., etc. That is how identity is fluid, changing, and overlapping. So, I suppose I am not entirely correct when I wrote that the concept of identity is fluid. I mean mainly that identities themselves are and, therefore, the concept should not bury such complexity. And, as those Tilly quotes suggest, the ways in which people identify are relational. If identities are relational they are dynamic and changing. Saying identities change does not say that changing identities cannot be studied. Simplifying one's assumptions to create static identities does not mesh at all with the notion of identity as "shared experiences of distinctive social relations and the representations of those social relations." cmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-19222644814333092952012-04-21T21:57:48.202-07:002012-04-21T21:57:48.202-07:00"This allows archaeologists to be postmodernl..."This allows archaeologists to be postmodernly vague and make claims about contingency and negotiation and social construction, but still manage to publish in mainstream journals and get funding from scientific agencies."<br /><br />Agreed, but I keep thinking at some point the funding agencies (especially) will see the emperor has no clothes, and the free ride will be over. But as you say, at least until then, it is frustrating. In my opinion, "contamination" is a great way to put it, though I prefer the adjective "infected."dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-28992496435787932342012-04-21T14:26:55.539-07:002012-04-21T14:26:55.539-07:00@Dogscratcher- I agree with your observation, whi...@Dogscratcher- I agree with your observation, which makes sense when considering the polar views, or ideal-type views, of those two approaches. But somehow, in archaeology, post- ideas have become integrated with a scientific, or quasi-scientific approach to archaeology. This allows archaeologists to be postmodernly vague and make claims about contingency and negotiation and social construction, but still manage to publish in mainstream journals and get funding from scientific agencies. I see it as a contamination of archaeological thought more than a take-over by postmodernist ideas, and it is very frustrating.<br /><br />So, while some more vigorous postmodern archaeologists might relish and vigorously promote the vagueness of, say, identity in archaeology, others would probably think the term ought to have an understandable definition. Yet they don't seem to want to make the effort to achieve that goal. So it is hard to make hard-and-fast contrasts between the approaches. Again, very frustrating to an empirical kind of guy.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-38534782962547383182012-04-21T13:19:31.253-07:002012-04-21T13:19:31.253-07:00Perhaps I am just naive, but it seems to me that o...Perhaps I am just naive, but it seems to me that one of the implicit goals of "science" is to clarify and de-mystify aspects of empirical reality, whereas it seems as if an implicit goal of all the "posts" is instead to obscure and mystify their subject matter. For this reason, I don't think "consilience" between the two cultures is possible even if principle, a la D.S. Wilson, or Mark Collard and Edward Slingerland.dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-35536957842527270082012-04-16T14:44:33.364-07:002012-04-16T14:44:33.364-07:00@Robert the non-Anonymous - I agree completely. Al...@Robert the non-Anonymous - I agree completely. Although if one is taking a humanities-type approach, then complexity and fluidity are positive values (and how about "hybridity," another of these terms). But for a scientific epistemology, you are right on the mark. A suggestion for those post-processualist-leaning archaeologists out there: why don't you take a look at how positivist social scientists talk about identity. Check out the Brubaker/Cooper paper I cite, or the works by Charles Tilly. Or check out people who cite those papers (interesting fact - Brubaker and Cooper is probably cited more times than ALL archaeological works on identity).Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-29491717250522871882012-04-16T09:42:24.699-07:002012-04-16T09:42:24.699-07:00"I don't think identity is necessarily sl..."I don't think identity is necessarily sloppy, but it is a fluid concept. It is hard to pin down, but that would seem to be part of the point." <br /><br />No offense, but this is an example of the type of flawed thinking that is so prevalent in anthropology. If you are trying to pin down some aspect of the world to understand it, you are going to simplify, project it, and distort it. At a cost we are able to see relationships and patterns. Simplifying assumptions are present in all models and concepts, formal or not. <br /><br />To say that things (anything!) is complex and difficult to capture in words, or quantities, or whatever is not saying much.I am not Anonymous. I'm Robert!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-28222154270370644642012-04-13T04:14:24.510-07:002012-04-13T04:14:24.510-07:00No not a thing, but part of a process of interacti...No not a thing, but part of a process of interaction and hence fluid and changing, which seems to be what Tilly is saying in these quotes. Of course it is about attributing but it occurs, I agree, via a system of (perceived) structured relationships. But who is attributing? What attributes? How does one find oneself in such a position? Identities are systemically structural, as you write, qualitatively different, overlapping/nested as well as ideological. Tilly's definitions don't sound too far from most perspectives on identity formation. That said, things can be in such systems of relations and still not be recognized as such by the people doing the identifying. Then there is the problem of how to do this archaeologically. Anyway, thanks for the chance to discuss. cmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-69115215586161460582012-04-12T20:57:08.954-07:002012-04-12T20:57:08.954-07:00@cm- You seem to be talking as if identity is a th...@cm- You seem to be talking as if identity is a thing, a fluid thing, but a thing nevertheless. I prefer Tilly's view of identity as a system of relationships, not as attributes of individuals:<br /><br />“Once we recognize that relevant identities consist not of individual conditions but of relations across boundaries, that multiplicity—admittedly mystifying for any individualistic theory of action and identity—loses its mystery.” (Tilly 1998:99)<br /><br />“Identities in general are shared experiences of distinctive social relations and the representations of those social relations. Workers become workers in relation to employers and other workers…” (Tilly 1998:217)<br /><br />(Charles Tilly, 1998, Durable Inequality, Univ. Cal press)Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-39511797214540081052012-04-11T13:18:47.063-07:002012-04-11T13:18:47.063-07:00I don't think identity is necessarily sloppy, ...I don't think identity is necessarily sloppy, but it is a fluid concept. It is hard to pin down, but that would seem to be part of the point. I always think of the old ideas by Barth on ethnic boundaries: focus on the boundaries and the boundary making as a process of interaction, not the "stuff" that falls in (i.e., don't come up with a trait list). This is useful but also difficult, especially archaeologically. How do you decide what past people thought was a marker of identity? Can we identify identity even if what we are using as a material signature was not significant for past people? What kinds of identity? I like to look at the example of race and the archaeological study of race in historical archaeology. We can study race archaeologically (not ID "races" but study its permutations and insanity) with historical documents to contextualize what we find. I ask my students, can we do this without written records? How do we know what kind of identity? I typically argue, in the case of race, that it is a moot point as race is a historically recent social construct that did not exist prior to historical documents (well, not this insidious concept of "race" that plagues US society today). But, in the absence of historical documents, aren't we just projecting either ourselves or our fads onto the past? Sorry for the rant.<br /><br />cmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-30617662639942099852012-04-11T11:50:58.955-07:002012-04-11T11:50:58.955-07:00I apologize for my previous comment. Really, no il...I apologize for my previous comment. Really, no ill will here. I will check out Gerring . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-61349903668579017112012-04-10T21:04:31.286-07:002012-04-10T21:04:31.286-07:00I am baffled at this comment. Did you think I want...I am baffled at this comment. Did you think I want to "problematize" the concept of identity? I can't stand the concept of "problmatizeation" (and I can't spell it either), and it is certainly not something I want to to do identity. To problematize s concept, I think, is to take something that is generally agreed upon and break it down to show that it is really more complicated than anyone thought. I can't imagine that anyone would consider identity an agreed upon concept. It is a sloppy, multi-meaning concept that needs clarification. I guess my call for conceptual clarification went in the opposite of the intended direction. Forget about identity and read Gerring!Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-59836724000228426782012-04-10T20:20:50.733-07:002012-04-10T20:20:50.733-07:00The "problematize x" taste of this post ...The "problematize x" taste of this post is just as tiresome as any bite of identity in archaeological conceptualization. Context matters. Let's move on. Don't mean to be rude. I do love reading your blog. Just saying . . . Maybe I need a snack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com