Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:36:17.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power and all its guises. Environmental determinism and locating ‘the crux of the matter’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2020

Eloise Govier
Eloise Govier*
Affiliation:
University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales, UK
*
Email: e.govier@uwtsd.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can we theorize the relationship between discourses that antagonize each other? In a recent article, Arponen et al. demonstrate the tension between two different research models, and spotlight the compelling impact these methods have on archaeological interpretation. In response to their observations, this paper theorizes how we can understand the position of the researcher in relation to the events they analyse. Using Michel Foucault’s approach to the ‘discursive formation’ and Karen Barad’s theory of agential realism, in this reaction I argue that focusing on a single and most important point (the crux) is problematic, and theoretically outline how creating conceptual space for polymorphous causality can aid the analysis of a ‘dispersion of events’.

Keywords

Causalityenvironmental determinismagential realismdiscoursediscursive formationrupture
Type
Reaction
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 173 - 176
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

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

Arponen, V., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I., Grimm, S., Groß, D., Hinz, M. and Ribeiro, A., 2019: Environmental determinism and archaeology. Understanding and evaluating determinism in research design, Archaeological dialogues 26 (1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arponen, V.P.J., and Ribeiro, A., 2014: Understanding rituals. A critique of representationalism, Norwegian archaeological review 47, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arponen, V.P.J., and Ribeiro, A., 2018: Philosophy, archaeology and the Enlightenment heritage, History of the human sciences 31 (3), 60–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2007: Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1972: Archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language, trans. from French by Sheridan-Smith, A.M., New York.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1991: Politics and the study of discourse, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality with two lectures and an interview with Michel Foucault, Chicago, 53–72.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., 2018: More than representation, History of the human sciences 31 (3), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver-Smith, A., 1996: Anthropological research on hazards and disasters, Annual review of anthropology 25, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver-Smith, A., 2010: Haiti and the historical construction of disasters, NACLA report on the Americas 43, 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar