Site Home > Symmetrical Archaeology > Conversation Five: reconfiguri...
Key Pages
Home |See What's gathered under 'the social' and Deprivation through dialectices as discussion pieces regarding the problematic infrastructure of modernist thought.
Timothy Webmoor: I am talking about evaluation at that point, so the emphasis is different but complementary. I think this is something critical to flush-out with a 'non-symmetrical' crowd, as the common complaint is the 'description only' of an ANT-Latour tracing of all the elements involved in 'society' or gathered in an event. I know Latour's response is 'good description Is explanation'; but this is where there must be some room in the future for evaluation of archaeological claims - symmetrical or not. Otherwise, how do we evaluate what anyone would say re: an event. We fill-out the descriptions, trace all the associations, and complexify what was once limited to 2 or 3 key factors (environment, ideology, etc.). This certainly confounds any clean binaries of whatever sort, and gives an ~anthropological 'thick description', but can there be evaluation or are we just manifesting what was once not considered relevant (under a Modernist constitution)? I sense this issue will be important for a wider appeal after an initial exposure to the net-working of associations of humans-things-media-instruments. I think it was Michael and Chris Tilley's lack of adequate attention to this issue (their 'network of resistances') which brought their most severe criticism. Thinking about this a bit more.
Chris Witmore: The 'description only' critique is a common and unfortunate one. Ian H is guity of it and it is based upon a misunderstanding of how the T and P divide is undercut by the ANT approach. T& P are bended together in studies which mix empirical materials with the thinking in interesting ways (as in Three Rooms or the Multiple Fields piece or in Pandora's Hope or in Genesis). The 'description only' critique is always levied by those with bifurcated understandings of what empircial evidence is and how it relates to theory, etc. Of course, there are many who think they are deploying ANT and fail at the blending. It is a difficult and tricky task which takes a great deal of time, energy and work.
Of course there needs o be evaulation. What consitiutes good practice? Well this is a constant question which always comes down to a variety of factors. In ANT this is still up in the air!
Timothy Webmoor: yes, the Latour response 'attempting ANT but fail' is reiterated in his Assembling the Social. The onerous is however on ANT practitioners and the accounts to provide explanation. Thick description is good. And I very much like and agree with what he has said in Assembling. But I still think we can push Latour's 'social theory' further for archaeology.
I think these type of critical discussions about symmetry principles are key. They force us to anticipate general criticism and delve deeper into our justifications for symmetry. What do you think about placing this discussion up under 'Musing under Modernism' on the wiki. Get new material up relevant to people who are viewing the site. Hopefully forestall their common concerns by undercutting with self-critique. Shows we've thought the issues through. As an example, many will take from the 'good practice' justification the notion that we're espousing a 'methodaltry' akin to New Archaeology; ie. follow good practice in fields of excavation, survey, lab, writeup, etc. and you will be guaranteed reliable results - no need for epistemological concerns as their integrated into the procedures. (Of course the new archs split off theory-from practice, observer-from things, etc.) But we could flush out the distinction in a careful manner. Enable people to move past the common concerns to get to the interesting issues.