Archaeological -isms and the nature of the world

Introduction to Archaeology: Class 4

Archaeological -isms and the nature of the world

ã Copyright Bruce Owen 2002

Archaeologists, like all anthropologists and other humans, have various different general ways of thinking about the world

something like the "scientific" versus "humanistic" approaches we looked at last time

these are not testable theories in themselves, but rather ways that people look at the world
you can't show that one approach is right or wrong
although you can find that some approaches are more productive than others in terms of generating research projects, hypotheses, and interesting conclusions

these broad approaches establish the concepts that we use to build theories about past and present societies
so these general approaches, as well as the more specific theories that archaeologists develop within them, comprise "high-level" theory
as Thomas says, this high-level theory is not specific to archaeology

they form the underlying assumptions of all anthropology, other social sciences, and maybe even all human thought
although some fields might use slightly different terms to describe them

Thomas rightly focuses on the two most prevailing general approaches

Cultural materialism
Postmodern interpretivism
We could also add others, for example what might be called "cultural evolutionism"

I'll comment on that later...

Cultural materialism (a widespread subset of a general intellectual climate called "modernism")

in this view, the only valid explanations are those that can be tested

explanations that involve people's emotions, beliefs, myths, etc. are considered unsatisfying because they can't be checked

examples of such unsatisfying explanations: "The men paint their boats rather than leaving them plain because they find the colors aesthetically pleasing", or "because they believe colorful boats are more masculine", etc.
different observers could make up different explanations based on such factors, and there would be no way to really determine which (if any) was right

if you are studying live people, you could ask them, but

they might not have thought about it
they might not be able to explain it
they might shade the truth for various reasons
they might say "that is just the way we do it"
they might not have even considered that there was an alternative

instead, valid materialist explanations must be based on material, testable factors

for example: "The men paint their boats because the colors attract fish and they catch more"

this could be empirically tested

requiring testability automatically limits explanations to factors that are directly or indirectly observable - that is, that are material

moreover, these material explanations are more "real" than the ideas that the people themselves might use to explain their actions

the men in the example might really think that they paint their boats because it looks better
but if an outside observer finds that painted boats average a slightly larger catch, even if the men do not recognize it, that would be the "real" explanation for their behavior
the assumption is that their aesthetic preference would have developed unconsciously, maybe over many generations, in response to the better performance of the painted boats
it could be true, but it would not be the root cause
explaining something through a belief, preference, or value is not helpful because it begs the question: "but they could believe or prefer anything; why do they have that particular belief or preference?"

that is, ideas derive from material realities

the root cause of beliefs is material, not mental
as the material circumstances change, they drag the ideology along with them

The general model of society used by cultural materialists:

"infrastructure": the material basis of a society (its environment, resource base, technology)

"infra" means "below"; the infrastructure is thought of as underlaying and partially determining everything else

"structure": the social organization of production, the economic system in which goods are exchanged, government, the kinship system that structures how people interact, etc.

these are seen as developing in response to the infrastructural realities
although they can, in turn, affect the infrastructure

by organizing people for productive tasks
by bringing about technological changes
by improving or using up resources, etc.

"ideology", "superstructure", or "ideological superstructure": religion, political norms, symbols, values, etc.

what people believe

that explains and justifies the social structure

ideology is seen as developing in response to the social structure

although it can, in turn, affect the social structure and the infrastructure

but since this is hard to test, cultural materialists tend to downplay the causal role of ideology

this general view is widely used, but many are embarrassed to call it by its name because its most notable proponent, Marvin Harris, went so far overboard with it

note that Harris was a cultural anthropologist - this viewpoint is relevant far beyond just archaeology

instead, a large percentage of archaeologists who are basically cultural materialists label themselves as "processual archaeologists"

This is essentially the mature form of the "New Archaeology"
Thomas summarizes processual archaeology nicely on page 50:

1. emphasizes evolutionary generalizations, not historical specifics
2. seeks universal laws
3. explains things in explicitly scientific terms (deduction, hypothesis testing, etc.)
4. tries to be objective, not political or judgmental

assumes that there is an objective truth to be found, and that with enough evidence, we can determine what it is
and that conclusions about it should not be colored by political or ethical values, which are separate from understanding the world

5. sees culture as "humans' extrasomatic means of adaptation"

explanations often come down to how the observed phenomena were beneficial to the survival, health, reproduction, etc. of members of the society

6. sees culture as systemic (can be described with box-and-arrow feedback diagrams, concepts like equilibrium, etc.)

usually, societies are imagined to be functioning well and being self-correcting or adjusting to minor changes in the environment - but not always

7. emphasizes the etic viewpoint

cultural materialism is a natural approach for archaeologists, because our data are material

we have evidence of the infrastructure, and some of the structure, so that is naturally what we talk about
ideology is mostly not available to us, so focussing on it seems like storytelling - anyone can say whatever they want about it, and there is no way to pick which story is right

Postmodern interpretivism (or just "postmodernism")

this viewpoint comes to anthropology from literary and political theory
Again, Thomas's explanation (p. 51) is lucid

although postmodernism is intentionally difficult to pin down
since part of its point is that all meaning is ambiguous and changeable

Typical features of postmodern thought:

there is no such thing as objective truth

since every observation is made by a person with unavoidable biases
the very same event or object will be perceived differently by men and women, whites and blacks, old and young, privileged and working-class

it rejects straightforward causal explanations, since the world is never that clear-cut

instead, it produces complex, non-linear discussions of issues

emphasizes a literary, playful quality in academic writing, as an honest acknowledgement that all academic production is essentially a performance

often using intentionally ambiguous wordplay
example: the phrase "(en)gendering debate"

"to engender" = to cause to exist or develop
"to gender" or "to (en)gender" presumably implies something like "to bring the issues of gender into the discussion"

this kind of cleverness is considered irrelevant or inappropriate by materialists, who strive for "objectivity" about "truth" while minimizing the effect of the particular academic performer (even to the point of avoiding "I" and "we" in writing)
postmodernists say that is impossible; materialists are just denying that they are preferring a particular style of performance that is no better than any other (if not worse)

it rejects generalizations and overarching schemes like Marxism, since the particulars of every case overwhelm any general rules

and because general rules imply that people are helpless automatons, rather than creative actors with free will ("agency")
(does it really?)

it rejects the etic (outsider) viewpoint as virtually immoral

since the etic approach sets the outsider up as an authority with more power than the "others" who are observed, but whose emic views are discounted
since most academics come from western privilege and most observed people are less educated, if not poorer, lower status, or oppressed, the etic view perpetuates the disrespect or even oppression of the "others"
so postmodernists give weight to many different viewpoints (especially those of oppressed groups or people), since privileging the academic, etic, scientific viewpoint would be immoral
thus myths, dreams, or anyone's opinion are just as valid as an expert's; the very idea of an "expert" is immoral

it sees not only language, but also material culture and behavior as being "texts"

that is, complex masses of ambiguous meaning
that can be interpreted, discussed, and rearranged; even the author has no standing to say what a text "really means"
a simple example: a postmodernist might "deconstruct" a car as being a statement of the driver's sexuality, but also of his capitulation to corporate advertising, his resistance to laws that the powerful classes in society design to restrain his behavior, etc. All are true at once, self-contradicting, and subjective
there is no claim that any of this could be verified, or that another observer would come to similar conclusions, and that is OK...

Archaeologists who take the postmodern approach call themselves "postprocessual archaeologists"

Thomas's summary of postprocessual archaeology on pp. 54-55:

1. rejects evolutionary generalizations, emphasizes historical particulars
2. rejects the idea of universal laws
3. rejects "science" and the scientific method

seen as inflexible, limited, imposing arbitrary western cultural values while stifling "others'" opinions and values

4. laughs at the idea of objectivity and ethical neutrality

the "observer effect" means that objectivity is impossible

so claims of objectivity are a coverup for trying to privilege the observer's personal biases over others'
it is more honest to openly discuss yourself as the observer, so others can get some idea of what your biases are
and since objectivity is impossible, you might as well let your subjectivity rip

compose poems about your artifacts
include your emotional responses in your site reports, etc.

nothing is morally, ethically, or politically neutral, since people routinely do use archaeological findings for their own ends

economic, political, personal, religious...
so claiming neutrality is, again, a coverup for advancing one's own position or allowing selected others to advance theirs
it is more honest to openly discuss your motivations and to openly pursue your political ends
and since neutrality is impossible, you might as well toss out phoney collegiality and fight as hard as you can for what you want, by any means possible

5. rejects the idea of societies as systems of parts that work together to maintain the society

instead, societies are more like cats fighting in a bag
societies are best understood in terms of individuals and groups striving to advance their own agendas, and resisting others
these dynamics are at least as important as the infrastructure in causing change

6. emphasizes the emic viewpoint

what matters is what people think
artifacts are interesting for what they tell us about that - as symbols, things intended to communicate meaning

Guess what? Both viewpoints have value

postmodernism keeps materialists from putting too much faith in the correctness of their "science"

and from forgetting that people, not cogs in systems, are our focus

modernism or materialism keeps postmodernists (if they listen) from going off into pure fiction and ignoring external reality

remind them that some ideas might actually be wrong, so we should test them against real evidence and focus on the ones that stand up to scrutiny

Cultural evolutionism - a third worldview, just to show that there are others

views the entire realm of human individual and social behavior as understandable by an analogy to Darwinian evolution
ideas are discrete "memes", something like genes, but changeable

individuals can be visualized as resulting from the population of memes in their minds
groups, cultures, etc. can be visualized as resulting from populations of individuals with their populations of memes

to understand society, you have to understand the creation, acquisition, interaction, and abandonment of memes by individual minds

which often involves something like natural selection - only much more variable and complex

this approach is neither materialist

since it sees ideas, or meaning, as primary

nor postmodern

since it proposes that meanings work in a concrete, understandable way, like genetics - it has a scientific orientation

this is very much a minority approach

it has gained only a very small following in anthropology and archaeology, and even less in other fields
it has not been very productive in actually explaining anything

The point of all these -isms, levels of theory, etc. is to understand the intellectual goals and background of archaeology

what the point of doing it is
where the research questions are coming from
what we want to know, and why

So now that we know how we formulate our research questions, next time we will start looking at how we go about answering them, starting with absolute dating.