Outline of a theory of breakage

IF 1.1 2区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Bruno Vindrola-Padrós
{"title":"Outline of a theory of breakage","authors":"Bruno Vindrola-Padrós","doi":"10.1177/14634996221139900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much of the debate in archaeological theory throughout the last decades has revolved around challenging problematic humanist principles that have shaped our discipline, particularly the idea that humans are masters over nature. Postprocessualists sought, among other things, to emancipate the human condition from this essentialist claim in part by exposing the historical and cultural situatedness of this humanist principle – an epistemological endeavour. In comparison, posthumanists have animated the material world (albeit in different ways) to decentre human beings in relation to long-forsaken nonhumans – an ontological agenda. While posthumanists accuse postprocessualists of practicing anthropocentrism and the latter accuse the former of occupying an ahumanist and anti-epistemological position, there are powerful commonalities in their critique of late humanist doctrines. The aim of this paper is to introduce a theory that exposes the illusory humanist claim of human control over nature and to recognise other forces with momentum besides human will, while at the same time giving prominence to questions about human knowledge and practice. Therefore, a connection is formed between postprocessualism and posthumanism and, as an ironic result, a theory of breakage is formulated. When we consider human participation with breakage, defined as those continuous and uncontrollable phenomena involving the unbinding of object form, we come to terms with a different form of anthropological understanding termed ‘the social knowledge of breakage’. This constitutes an embodied form of knowledge, which is acquired and expressed practically from a young age about how objects break and how one must respond to these situations. This knowledge is exposed in both mundane and ceremonial practices, in linguistic and non-linguistic forms, shaping social practices in uncertain ways, and can be analysed according to three different strands. In this way, we become aware of the creative ways in which broken materials inadvertently affect our practices.","PeriodicalId":51554,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Theory","volume":"23 1","pages":"255 - 291"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996221139900","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much of the debate in archaeological theory throughout the last decades has revolved around challenging problematic humanist principles that have shaped our discipline, particularly the idea that humans are masters over nature. Postprocessualists sought, among other things, to emancipate the human condition from this essentialist claim in part by exposing the historical and cultural situatedness of this humanist principle – an epistemological endeavour. In comparison, posthumanists have animated the material world (albeit in different ways) to decentre human beings in relation to long-forsaken nonhumans – an ontological agenda. While posthumanists accuse postprocessualists of practicing anthropocentrism and the latter accuse the former of occupying an ahumanist and anti-epistemological position, there are powerful commonalities in their critique of late humanist doctrines. The aim of this paper is to introduce a theory that exposes the illusory humanist claim of human control over nature and to recognise other forces with momentum besides human will, while at the same time giving prominence to questions about human knowledge and practice. Therefore, a connection is formed between postprocessualism and posthumanism and, as an ironic result, a theory of breakage is formulated. When we consider human participation with breakage, defined as those continuous and uncontrollable phenomena involving the unbinding of object form, we come to terms with a different form of anthropological understanding termed ‘the social knowledge of breakage’. This constitutes an embodied form of knowledge, which is acquired and expressed practically from a young age about how objects break and how one must respond to these situations. This knowledge is exposed in both mundane and ceremonial practices, in linguistic and non-linguistic forms, shaping social practices in uncertain ways, and can be analysed according to three different strands. In this way, we become aware of the creative ways in which broken materials inadvertently affect our practices.
破损理论概要
在过去的几十年里,考古学理论中的许多争论都围绕着挑战人本主义原则,这些原则塑造了我们的学科,尤其是人类是自然主人的观点。后过程主义者寻求,除其他事项外,通过揭露这一人文主义原则的历史和文化情境性,部分地将人类状况从这种本质主义主张中解放出来——这是一种认识论的努力。相比之下,后人类主义者已经激活了物质世界(尽管以不同的方式),将人类与长期被遗弃的非人类分开——这是一个本体论的议程。后人文主义者指责后过程主义者实践人类中心主义,后过程主义者指责后人文主义者占据非人文主义和反认识论的立场,但他们对晚期人文主义学说的批判有很强的共性。本文的目的是介绍一种理论,它揭示了人类控制自然的虚幻的人文主义主张,并承认除了人类意志之外的其他有动力的力量,同时突出了关于人类知识和实践的问题。因此,后过程主义和后人文主义之间形成了一种联系,具有讽刺意味的是,一种断裂理论由此形成。当我们考虑人类参与的断裂,定义为那些涉及对象形式的不受约束的连续和不可控现象时,我们就会接受一种不同形式的人类学理解,称为“断裂的社会知识”。这构成了一种具体的知识形式,这种知识从很小的时候就开始获得和表达,关于物体是如何破碎的,以及人们必须如何应对这些情况。这些知识暴露在世俗和仪式实践中,以语言和非语言形式,以不确定的方式塑造社会实践,可以根据三个不同的线索进行分析。通过这种方式,我们意识到破碎的材料不经意间影响我们实践的创造性方式。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Anthropological Theory
Anthropological Theory ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Anthropological Theory is an international peer reviewed journal seeking to strengthen anthropological theorizing in different areas of the world. This is an exciting forum for new insights into theoretical issues in anthropology and more broadly, social theory. Anthropological Theory publishes articles engaging with a variety of theoretical debates in areas including: * marxism * feminism * political philosophy * historical sociology * hermeneutics * critical theory * philosophy of science * biological anthropology * archaeology
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信