{"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.
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.