Reply to comments

IF 1.4 1区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY Archaeological Dialogues Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.1017/S1380203821000064
Nicolas Zorzin
{"title":"Reply to comments","authors":"Nicolas Zorzin","doi":"10.1017/S1380203821000064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In other words, capitalism is internal to the very structure and practice of archaeology. As part of the internally related dialectical whole, archaeology is capitalism, so working within our disciplinary boundaries means that our work can only perpetuate and reproduce those structures. This is essentially why I find the question whether archaeology is conceivable with the degrowth movement more than a little problematic. If neo-liberalism (growth, capitalism, etc.) no longer existed, neither would archaeology. And this leads me to my final point: that I think Zorzin has missed an opportunity to really contemplate what archaeology may look like in a world without capitalism (which is what degrowth is, after all). Since every aspect of archaeology is implicated in capitalist structures, archaeology would (hopefully) not exist as such in any form that we may recognize – the academy, CRM, NGOs, community organizations, etc. I do not think many of the ideas presented here are successful or satisfying, mainly because the framing is based on reified externally related entities, such as neo-liberalism and archaeology, that freeze complex dynamics and social relations. Rather than thinking about a ‘golden age’, in either the past or the future, that stems from facile either/ or framing, I find it more useful to think about the complexity of dialectical relations that both limit and enable action. Archaeology is capitalism but has always also been against capitalism. Archaeology has always served the nation state and thwarted it at the same time. Instead of seeing the solution in terms of a scheme of temporal stages, embracing the internal dialectical connectedness allows us to see that it is both at the same time. For me, the problem is not simply ‘growth’, but how to think about post-archaeological alternatives where we can participate in creating a different life, one that is not based on the logic of capitalism, one that subverts and transforms inequalities and oppression, striving for social justice and dignity for all humans, and our ability to realize the free conscious life activity that lies at the heart of our species-being.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"28 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203821000064","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological Dialogues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203821000064","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In other words, capitalism is internal to the very structure and practice of archaeology. As part of the internally related dialectical whole, archaeology is capitalism, so working within our disciplinary boundaries means that our work can only perpetuate and reproduce those structures. This is essentially why I find the question whether archaeology is conceivable with the degrowth movement more than a little problematic. If neo-liberalism (growth, capitalism, etc.) no longer existed, neither would archaeology. And this leads me to my final point: that I think Zorzin has missed an opportunity to really contemplate what archaeology may look like in a world without capitalism (which is what degrowth is, after all). Since every aspect of archaeology is implicated in capitalist structures, archaeology would (hopefully) not exist as such in any form that we may recognize – the academy, CRM, NGOs, community organizations, etc. I do not think many of the ideas presented here are successful or satisfying, mainly because the framing is based on reified externally related entities, such as neo-liberalism and archaeology, that freeze complex dynamics and social relations. Rather than thinking about a ‘golden age’, in either the past or the future, that stems from facile either/ or framing, I find it more useful to think about the complexity of dialectical relations that both limit and enable action. Archaeology is capitalism but has always also been against capitalism. Archaeology has always served the nation state and thwarted it at the same time. Instead of seeing the solution in terms of a scheme of temporal stages, embracing the internal dialectical connectedness allows us to see that it is both at the same time. For me, the problem is not simply ‘growth’, but how to think about post-archaeological alternatives where we can participate in creating a different life, one that is not based on the logic of capitalism, one that subverts and transforms inequalities and oppression, striving for social justice and dignity for all humans, and our ability to realize the free conscious life activity that lies at the heart of our species-being.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回复评论
换句话说,资本主义是考古学结构和实践的内在产物。作为内部相关辩证整体的一部分,考古学是资本主义,因此在我们的学科边界内工作意味着我们的工作只能延续和复制这些结构。这就是为什么我发现,随着退化运动,考古学是否可行的问题有点大。如果新自由主义(增长、资本主义等)不复存在,考古学也不复存在。这让我想到了我的最后一点:我认为佐津错过了一个真正思考在一个没有资本主义的世界里考古可能是什么样子的机会(毕竟,这就是衰退)。由于考古学的每一个方面都与资本主义结构有关,考古学(希望)不会以我们可能认可的任何形式存在——学院、CRM、非政府组织、社区组织等。我不认为这里提出的许多想法是成功或令人满意的,主要是因为框架是基于具体化的外部相关实体,如新自由主义和考古学,它们冻结了复杂的动态和社会关系。我发现,与其思考一个源于简单的非此即彼的框架的过去或未来的“黄金时代”,不如思考既限制又促成行动的辩证关系的复杂性。考古学是资本主义,但也一直反对资本主义。考古学一直为民族国家服务,同时也阻碍了民族国家的发展。与其从时间阶段的角度来看待解决方案,不如拥抱内在的辩证联系,让我们看到两者同时存在。对我来说,问题不仅仅是“增长”,而是如何思考后考古时代的替代方案,在那里我们可以参与创造一种不同的生活,一种不基于资本主义逻辑的生活,颠覆和改变不平等和压迫,为全人类争取社会正义和尊严,以及我们实现自由意识生命活动的能力,这是我们物种存在的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Archaeology is undergoing rapid changes in terms of its conceptual framework and its place in contemporary society. In this challenging intellectual climate, Archaeological Dialogues has become one of the leading journals for debating innovative issues in archaeology. Firmly rooted in European archaeology, it now serves the international academic community for discussing the theories and practices of archaeology today. True to its name, debate takes a central place in Archaeological Dialogues.
期刊最新文献
How far does culture go? A study on creative object biographies. Can creative arts be a medium for understanding object–human interaction? Narratives of inequality. Towards an archaeology of structural violence in Late Iron Age Scandinavia Finding the fun: Towards a playful archaeology Archaeologists just wanna have fun
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1