C’mon, guys...some philosophers DO offer tools that we can use in our
everyday practice, if we read them with that in mind. Philosophies, like
theories, are simply tools to think with.
The point, for who have found Foucault useful, hasn’t been to “praise” him –
it’s been to look at what he said about power, and then consider that in
light of both past lives (which we study through dirt, documents, etc.) and
contemporary ones (which we study when we deal with publics and
archaeology).
Likewise, the point of looking at things from a phenomenological perspective
can be as simple as thinking about what it means to be in a particular
space – such as a particular landscape. Surely this is part of the field
experience, even if we don’t put it that way.
What philosophy does is to give us ways to think about these things. It can
be a useful tool in an archaeological toolkit. No more, no less.
Which, speaking philosophically, comes from pragmatism…but I'll shut up now.
Carol
******************************************
Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc. (CARI)
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Houston
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Rice University
www.publicarchaeology.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "geoff carver" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: scholarly standards
> Well... sort of thought the same of Foucault, really. Especially
> considering how some of the people who used to praise Foucault have now
> jumped on the Heidegger bandwagon.
> Heidegger, of course, is even difficult in German. The English
> translations are supposedly bad...
> I'd just basically be happy if people could document their sites well
> without getting too wrapped up in their phenomenological experience, and
> if they could write clear, objective prose instead of bad poetry.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Not to be trying to revert back to the days of "I only move dirt," but
> doesn't
> it strike you as sad that archaeologists are citing Heidegger and Husserl?
> Now, McTaggart, I can see going to him ....
|
