反对对象代理2。继续与Sørensen的讨论

IF 1.4 1区历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeological Dialogues Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI:10.1017/S1380203819000011

Artur Ribeiro

{"title":"反对对象代理2。继续与Sørensen的讨论","authors":"Artur Ribeiro","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper expands upon some of the arguments and issues surrounding object agency that have been discussed in this journal (Lindstrøm 2015; 2017; Ribeiro 2016a; 2016b; Sørensen 2016; 2018). More specifically, it challenges Sørensen’s support of object agency in his latest discussion on the topic (2018). The paper is divided into three parts: first, it questions the relevance of replacing the conventional usage of ‘agency’, generally attached to sociological studies and reserved to describe human action, with one supported by the New Materialists; second, it identifies a series of contradictions in how agency is defined according to the New Materialisms, namely how it can be very labile and scalable yet simultaneously universal and applicable across all cultures and time periods; and lastly, it questions the quality of the philosophical ideas supporting the New Materialist conception of agency, and its disadvantages in light of the current re-emergence and repopularization of processual archaeology.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"39 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000011","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Against object agency 2. Continuing the discussion with Sørensen\",\"authors\":\"Artur Ribeiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1380203819000011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper expands upon some of the arguments and issues surrounding object agency that have been discussed in this journal (Lindstrøm 2015; 2017; Ribeiro 2016a; 2016b; Sørensen 2016; 2018). More specifically, it challenges Sørensen’s support of object agency in his latest discussion on the topic (2018). The paper is divided into three parts: first, it questions the relevance of replacing the conventional usage of ‘agency’, generally attached to sociological studies and reserved to describe human action, with one supported by the New Materialists; second, it identifies a series of contradictions in how agency is defined according to the New Materialisms, namely how it can be very labile and scalable yet simultaneously universal and applicable across all cultures and time periods; and lastly, it questions the quality of the philosophical ideas supporting the New Materialist conception of agency, and its disadvantages in light of the current re-emergence and repopularization of processual archaeology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological Dialogues\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"39 - 44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000011\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological Dialogues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000011\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological Dialogues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000011","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: 7

摘要

摘要本文扩展了本期刊中讨论的围绕客体代理的一些论点和问题（Lindstrøm 2015；2017；里贝罗2016a；2016b；Sørensen 2016；2018）。更具体地说，它挑战了Sørensen在其关于该主题的最新讨论（2018）中对对象代理的支持。本文分为三个部分：首先，它质疑用新唯物主义者支持的“代理”取代“代理”的传统用法的相关性，“代理”通常附属于社会学研究，保留用于描述人类行为；其次，它指出了根据新唯物主义如何定义代理的一系列矛盾，即代理如何非常不稳定和可扩展，同时在所有文化和时间段内具有普遍性和适用性；最后，针对当前过程考古学的重新出现和重新流行，对支持新唯物主义代理概念的哲学思想的质量及其弊端提出了质疑。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Against object agency 2. Continuing the discussion with Sørensen

Abstract This paper expands upon some of the arguments and issues surrounding object agency that have been discussed in this journal (Lindstrøm 2015; 2017; Ribeiro 2016a; 2016b; Sørensen 2016; 2018). More specifically, it challenges Sørensen’s support of object agency in his latest discussion on the topic (2018). The paper is divided into three parts: first, it questions the relevance of replacing the conventional usage of ‘agency’, generally attached to sociological studies and reserved to describe human action, with one supported by the New Materialists; second, it identifies a series of contradictions in how agency is defined according to the New Materialisms, namely how it can be very labile and scalable yet simultaneously universal and applicable across all cultures and time periods; and lastly, it questions the quality of the philosophical ideas supporting the New Materialist conception of agency, and its disadvantages in light of the current re-emergence and repopularization of processual archaeology.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Archaeological Dialogues ARCHAEOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

5.60%

发文量

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.