Print

Print


Mark Bell writes:  Ah Post-structuralism - part of the problem, not part of 
the solution.

    Exactly which part of a close and critical engagement with 
archaeological data and writing is the 'problem'?  There are certainly many 
problems in British archaeology, amongst which is a reluctance to deal with 
the 'big ideas' which are an important part of the discipline.  I can't see 
how dismissing a particular approach, particularly on the basis of a gross 
misrepresentation of its nature, can be seen as anything other than a 
problem in its own right.

>This is the enfeebling legacy of post-modernism - a paralysis of reason, a 
>refusal to observe any qualitative difference between resonable hypotheses 
>and swirling hogwash."
>
    Utter nonsense.  The liberating legacy of post-structuralism and 
post-processualism has been a willingness to investigate critically the 
presuppositions and assumptions that underlie earlier approaches; 
culture-history, New Archaeology etc.  As for the supposed 'relativistic' 
nature of the approach - this has been roundly demonstrated to be nonsense 
by Mark Pluciennik in an article in Archaeological Dialogues (which I cannot 
lay my hands on at this particular moment in order to give the full 
reference).

Chris Cumberpatch