Personal, Political, Pedagogic: Challenging the Binary Bind in Archaeological Teaching, Learning and Fieldwork

Abstract

In this paper, we consider how we can undercut the various binaries of gender and sexuality in archaeological practice and particularly in our teaching. We argue that taking an assemblage theory approach enables us to look at the multiplicity of identities of those practicing archaeology as different and intersecting assemblages that bring one another into being through their connections at different scales. In particular, we examine how this approach can be applied to archaeological pedagogy and how this in turn enables us to move away from modern binary distinctions about sex and gender identities from the ‘bottom up’, fostering an approach in our students that will then go on to be developed in professional practice.

Nem todas são Betty ou Anna

“…Quando restringimos a pesquisa especificamente à SAB regional Norte 3 , verificamos 91 mulheres e 59 homens, confirmando o padrão nacional de que há mais arqueólogas mulheres nos quadros da sociedade 4 . Similarmente, pesquisas amplas sobre o perfil demográfico da arqueologia no exterior têm demonstrado que o número de pesquisadoras mulheres é igual ou superior ao de homens (COBB & CROUCHER, 2016).…”

“…Diversos estudos revelaram, então, que as desigualdades e os preconceitos estruturais em nossa sociedade se reproduzem também dentro da arqueologia. Identidades raciais e étnicas, de gênero, classe, etc., passaram a compor o corpo de interpretações na teoria e na prática arqueológica, além de serem fundamentais para se discutir as estruturas de poder e a visibilidade de mulheres e de outros grupos minoritários dentro da academia e de postos de trabalho (CONKEY, 2003;NELSON, 2006;BATTLE-BAPTISTE, 2011;COBB & CROUCHER, 2016).…”

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

“…Problematizing the androcentric narratives of man the toolmaker (Bird 1993;Gero 1991;Owen 2005: 37-39;Sassaman 1998), man the hunter (Doucette 2001;Brumbach2006a, b, 2009), and man the farmer (Robin 2002(Robin , 2006Watson and Kennedy 1991), various studies of the division of labor have demonstrated that task division does not inevitably align with sex or gender, potentially exhibiting complementary, non-dichotomous, fluid, or intersectional arrangements (Brumfiel and Robin 2008;Cobb 2005;Crass 2001: 109;Geller2008: 122-124, 2009aGero and Scattolin 2002;Hendon 2002;Hollimon 2000;Brumbach 2006a, b, 2009;Joyce 1992;Levy 2006;Preston-Werner 2008;Rotman 2006;Stockett 2005). Rather than hierarchizing contexts of action and domains of inquiry according to value-laden assumptions about gender, researchers are placing greater emphasis on how such spheres intersect in multidimensional and multiscalar ways (Cobb and Croucher 2016;Ferrer 2016;Spencer-Wood 2013).…”

“…What is at issue, then, is not only the constitution of sex and gender, nor the number of sex, gender, or sexuality categories. Also at stake is the circumscription of the ontologies of personhood and our means to recognize what kinds of bodies and identities come into existence, in the past and the present (Cobb and Croucher 2016;Matić 2016;Moral 2016).…”

“…Some have pointed to intersectional and relational approaches to reframe questions of identity and difference (e.g., Arnold 2016;Blackmore 2011;Marshall and Alberti 2014;Matić 2016;Moral 2016;Spencer-Wood 2011;Sterling 2015). Challenges to the hierarchies of contemporary disciplinary practice, knowledge production, and pedagogy (e.g., Cobb and Croucher 2016;Conkey 2005;Dowson 2009a, b;Franklin 2001;Sterling 2015) can aid in both encouraging diversity in the professional profile of archaeologists and fostering approaches that engage with gendered persons in their situated experiences and complexity, long advocated for by researchers with feminist commitments.…”