Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T22:46:22.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agency. A response to Sørensen and Ribeiro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Torill Christine Lindstrøm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

agency‘the other’symmetrical archaeologyNew Materialist archaeologyLatourpolitical correctness in academia
Type
Reaction
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2017 , pp. 109 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caesar, Gaius Julius, 2008 (58–51 B.C.): De Bello Gallico, Project Gutenberg.Google Scholar
Gershwin, G., 1934: Porgy and Bess (opera).Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2006: Rethinking the animate, re-animating thought, Ethnos 71, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007: Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues 14 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2014: Is there life amidst the ruins? Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 231–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, New York.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1964: Le cru et le cuit, Paris.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015: Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency. Archaeological dialogues 22 (2), 207–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2008: At the potter's wheel. An argument for material agency, in Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds), Material agency, New York, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, M., 1928. Coming of age in Samoa. A psychological study of primitive youth for western civilization, New York.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016: Against object agency. A counterreaction to Sørensen's ‘Hammers and nails’, Archaeological dialogues 23 (2), 229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, A., 1996: Transgressing the boundaries. Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, Social text 46–47, 217–52, doi:10.2307/466856, JSTOR 466856, accessed 3 April 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2016: Hammers and nails. A response to Lindstrøm and to Olsen and Witmore, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 115–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willerslev, R., 2004: Not animal, not not-animal. Hunting, imitation and empathetic knowledge among the Siberian Yukaghirs, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10 (3), 629–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willerslev, R., 2007: Soul hunters. Hunting, animism and personhood among the Siberian Yukaghirs, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar