Agency. A response to Sørensen and Ribeiro

Abstract

While agreeing to openness to other world views, the underlying premise of ‘otherness’ in ‘the other’ is questioned. It is argued that individual, intercultural and intra-cultural differences run criss-cross throughout the anthroposphere. The often convoluted language in symmetrical, Latourian and New Materialist directions in archaeology is criticized. One questions what their significant new contributions to archaeological research are. The importance of refined differentiations regarding agency and effects, and the living and the non-living, is maintained. Latour's claim of a universal dichotomization in Western thinking (both academic and common) is interrogated, and empirical proofs demanded. The concepts of ‘dichotomy’ and ‘binary thinking’ are discussed. The assumed political and ethical sequelae and implications of adherence to one or another theoretical position and research methodology are questioned. Ecological awareness can be acquired from various positions. In general, political correctness in academia is criticized.

Agency (again). A response to Lindstrøm and Ribeiro

“…This is most clearly articulated in Gell's distinction between primary and secondary agents, or ‘intentional agents’ and ‘artefactual forms’ (Gell 1998, 21). Ribeiro claims that ‘object agency needs to be perceived as a dynamic “force” immanent to all matter ’ (Ribeiro 2016a, 231, original emphasis), and Lindstrøm follows suit: ‘if everything has [agency] or does it, it follows that it is impossible that something cannot have it or do it’ (Lindstrøm 2017, 113, original emphasis). This is simply a mischaracterization of Gell's notion of agency.…”

“…Quite the contrary, for symmetrical archaeology at least, where everything is different and will, accordingly, have different effects on the world, agency is not uniform, but heterogenic and scalable (see also Bryant 2014, 220–23). So, the conception of agency in ‘symmetrical, Latourian, New Materialist archaeology’ simply cannot be flat, and symmetrical archaeology does not erase or ignore the differences between (or amongst) ‘objects, plants, animals and humans’ as Lindstrøm erroneously argues (Lindstrøm 2017, 113–14). Quite the opposite: ‘Ontologically placing priests, farmers, or shepherds on the same footing as walls, boundary markers, or goats is not a claim for an undifferentiated world.…”

“…. Both philosophy and science have moved on’ (Lindstrøm 2017, 113). I wonder if that is entirely true?…”

“…With at least some experience in the discipline of archaeology, I feel confident to state that many practical and theoretical aspects of the discipline are based on a clear-cut distinction of nature and culture, human and non-human, past and present, and so on. It is indeed curious that both Lindstrøm and Ribeiro claim that there is nothing new about symmetrical archaeology, yet when doing so they both choose only to refer to works outside archaeology and do not consider the potential contribution within the discipline (Lindstrøm 2017, 111, 112, 113; Ribeiro 2016a, 230), which was my declared aim (Sørensen 2016, 120).…”

“…Some of its proponents acknowledge the deep disciplinary pedigree of their work (the introductionary chapter in Olsen et al . 2012 is a case in point), and I cannot recall seeing symmetrical archaeology framed anywhere as ‘revolutionary’ (Lindstrøm 2015, 228; 2017, 111). In fact, it is stated explicitly that the destination is not a new theory, but instead ‘going to the heart of what archaeology is’ and ‘respectfully to return to things’ (Olsen et al .…”