Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:00:57 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Well ...
... I do think that Jake raised some interesting points concerning
Theory/theory ...
... first of all ... I must agree that many theories that are incorporated
within archaeology do have a 'fad-like' quality about them ... but I would
say that sociocultural anthropology suffers much more from this critique
than does anthropological archaeology. Archaeologists still must deal with
the 'real world' of materiality and method. (I fully admit that this
statement denigrates the nine-tenths of sociocultural anthropology that
also deals with such issues).
Yet ... I feel that the last post seemed a bit confused on what exactly
Theory/theory is ...
... as archaeologists ... hopefully ... we are interested in people --
their thoughts, actions and behaviours. At the most basic level ... we need
an understanding of how a society works or (not to sound too functional)
what a society is. This is really the realm of theory on the most abstract
level ... I guess this would be social theory. We cannot "accept" theory
... but must incorporate different ideas within our thought processes. This
is why theory shouldn't be looked at as a fad ... it is only the use of
theory that can become 'fad-like.' If a researcher "takes" a theory and
tries to "adopt" the programme and put it to work ... this is the death of
theory. Researchers must be cognizant of different theories and look at
each with a critical eye. Theory should not be "accepted" or "adopted" but
perhaps should "inform" scholarship.
I would be the first to admit that archaeological fieldwork has yet to
produce theory on this scale ... but I would also strongly argue that
archaeological fieldwork has definately modified/improved/and called into
question many aspects of social theory. Instead of dogmatic dependence upon
a theory ... we should question and refine our ideas about how we view
human interaction with other humans and the material world. As humanistic
scientists ... we need to draw on a broad range of research concerning
humanity (be it sociological, anthropological, historical, etc.) to develop
coherent and holistic 'theories' about humankind. As archaeologists ... we
work 'one step off.' We have the material remains that were both actively
and passively integral to past human action. In this way ... we are in a
special position ... that many social scientists consider to be a limited
position. Yet ... I think it to be more of a unique position and we need to
emphasize this uniqueness in our studies of the materiality of human
existence.
Following from this discussion ... I must disagree with Jake's assertion that:
> Theory should be produced as the best explanation
> we can think of for the sum of our observations -- that is, it's
> driven by all the individual excavations all of us make.
In essence ... this is not theory .... this is interpretation. These
interpretations or explanations that derive from our observations are
informed by and also inform theory ... as mentioned above and in my last post.
I don't know if it is just an impression that I get or not ... but it seems
that there is an increasing divide between people who feel that they use
theory and those who feel that they just do archaeology. This seems a
strange position ... and it also seems directly tied to those who feel that
archaeology is anthropology and those who feel that archaeology is
archaeology. I think this would be interesting to explore ... especially
keeping in mind that one of our 'founding fathers' in historical
archaeology (Deetz) is both anthropological and theoretical ... although he
might not admit to it. Doesn't it seem funny how 'structuralism' crept into
archaeology (via Deetz and the Georgian mindset) almost a decade before
Hodder led his 'post-processual revolution'?
Kevin.
|
|
|