Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-wvgct Total loading time: 0.254 Render date: 2021-07-25T14:42:26.049Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Posthumanism, New Humanism and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2021

Guillermo Díaz de Liaño
Affiliation:
School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh William Robertson Wing Old Medical School Teviot Place Edinburgh EH8 9AG UK Email: guillermodiazliano@gmail.com
Manuel Fernández-Götz
Affiliation:
School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh William Robertson Wing Old Medical School Teviot Place Edinburgh EH8 9AG UK Email: M.Fernandez-Gotz@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse some of the issues associated with the posthumanist rejection of Humanism. First, we discuss some of the possibilities and challenges that New Materialism and the Ontological Turn have brought into archaeology in terms of understanding past ontologies and decolonizing archaeological thought. Then, focusing on the concept of agency, we reflect on how its use by some posthumanist authors risks turning it into an empty signifier, which can have ethical implications and limit archaeology's potential for social critique. The concept of things’ effectancy is presented as a valuable alternative to previous conceptualizations of ‘object agency’. While we acknowledge the heuristic potential of many posthumanist proposals, we believe that humanist perspectives should not be rejected altogether. Instead of creating rigid divides, we argue that elements of New Humanism, as recently defined by philosophical anthropology, can hold value when facing current societal challenges.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Alberti, B., 2016a. Archaeologies of risk and wonder. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2), 138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B., 2016b. Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45, 163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astuti, R., 2017. Taking people seriously (the 2015 Robert H. Layton Lecture). HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 7(1), 105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A., 2006. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1, 164–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrat, J.C., 2013. Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the end of the human era. New York (NY): Thomas Dunne Books.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2016. The new antiquarianism? Antiquity 90, 1681–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennet, J., 2010. Vibrant Matter: A political ecology of things. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, D.M., 2014. Critical Theory and the Digital. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bokova, I., 2010. A New Humanism for the 21st Century. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 2013. The Posthuman. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Burman, A., 2018. Are anthropologists monsters? An Andean dystopian critique of extractivist ethnography and Anglophone-centric anthropology. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8(1/2), 4864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, B., 2014. Gauging the mood: operationalizing emotion through ethnography. Contention: The Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Protest 1(2), 6174.Google Scholar
Choat, S., 2018. Science, agency and ontology: a historical-materialist response to New Materialism. Political Studies 66(4), 1027–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipolla, C.N, 2017. Postscript. Postcolonial archaeology in the age of things, in Foreign Objects. Rethinking Indigenous consumption in American archaeology, ed. Cipolla, C.. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press, 222–9.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., 2019. Taming the ontological wolves: learning from Iroquoian effigy objects. American Anthropologist 121(3), 613–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criado-Boado, F., 2016. Tangled between paradigms in the neo-baroque era. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2), 152–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLanda, A., 2006. New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
D'Orville, H., 2015. New Humanism and sustainable development. Cadmus 2(5), 90100.Google Scholar
Fassin, D., 2019. Humanism. A critical reappraisal. Critical Times 2(1), 2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M., Maschek, D., & Roymans, N., 2020. The dark side of the empire: Roman expansionism between object agency and predatory regime. Antiquity 94(378), 1630–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrando, F., 2013. Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialisms: differences and relations. Existenz 8(2), 2632.Google Scholar
Ferrando, F., 2019. Philosophical Posthumanism. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, S., 2010. People without things, in An Anthropology of Absence: Materializations of Transcendence and Loss, eds Bille, M., Hastrup, F. & Sørensen, T.F.. New York (NY): Springer, 2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, S., 2016. The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies). Journal of Material Culture 21(1), 927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, A., 2013. The poverty of philosophy: realism and post-Fordism. Critical Inquiry 39(2), 347–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2006. The past is tomorrow. Towards an archaeology of the vanishing present. Norwegian Archaeological Review 39(2), 110–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2019. An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., González, P.A. & Criado-Boado, F., 2018. Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology. Antiquity 92, 507–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graeber, D., 2015. Radical alterity is just another way of saying ‘reality’. A reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5(2), 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G., 2018. Object-Oriented Ontology: A new theory of everything. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. & Wastell, S. (eds), 2007. Thinking Through Things: Theorising artefacts ethnographically. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012. Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2014. The asymmetries of symmetrical archaeology. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 228–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbraad, M., 2012. Truth in Motion: The recursive anthropology of Cuban divination. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbraad, M. & Pedersen, M.A., 2017. The Ontological Turn: An anthropological exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, L. & Mulcock, L. (eds), 2004. Anthropologists in the Field: Cases in participant observation. New York (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jiménez, A., 2020. Seeing in the dark: Roman imperialism and material culture. Antiquity 94, 1643–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanier, J., 2014. Who Owns the Future? New York (NY): Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015. Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency. Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 207–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malm, A., 2018. The Progress of this Storm: Nature and society in a warming world. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S.V., 2019. The thing-in-itself: a reaction to current use of the term in archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 26(2), 123–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M., 2010. Not for Profit: Why democracy needs the Humanities. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(3), 87104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010. In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C., 2012. Archaeology: The discipline of things. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B. & Witmore, C., 2015. Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things. A response to critics. Archaeological dialogues 22(2), 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popa, C., 2019. The responsibility of European archaeologists. European Journal of Archaeology 22(2), 255–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porpora, D.V., 2017. Dehumanization in theory: anti-humanism, non-humanism, post-humanism, and trans-humanism. Journal of Critical Realism 16(4), 353–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preucel, R.W., 2016. Pragmatic archaeology and semiotic mediation. Semiotic Review 4, 18.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016a. Against object agency. A counterreaction to Sørensen's ‘Hammers and nails’. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2), 229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016b. Archaeology will be just fine. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2), 146–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2019. Against object agency 2. Continuing the discussion with Sørensen. Archaeological Dialogues 26(1), 3944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, J., 2015. What do things want? Object design as a middle range theory of material culture. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26, 166–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, K., 2012. In quest of a New Humanism: embodiment, experience and phenomenology as critical geography. Progress in Human Geography 37(1), 1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2016. Hammers and nails. A response to Lindstrøm and Olsen & Witmore. Archaeological Dialogues 23(1), 115–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2019. Appropriation of effective and changing things. A prehistorian's perspective, in Engaging Transculturality. Concepts, key terms, case studies, eds Abu-Er-Rub, L., Brosius, C., Meurer, S., Panagiotopoulos, D. & Richter, S.. Abingdon: Routledge, 264–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Z., 2016. An indigenous feminist's take on the ontological turn: ‘ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology 29(1), 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trepanier, L. (ed.), 2018. Why the Humanities Matter Today: In defense of liberal education. Lanham (MD): Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Tsing, A.L., Swanson, H.A., Gan, E. & Bubandt, N. (eds), 2017. Arts of Living on a Damaged Plane: Ghosts and monsters of the Anthropocene. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2015a. La intencionalidad importa: una crítica a la agencia de los objetos en la arqueología [Intentionality matters: a critique of object agency in archaeology], in Personas, Cosas, Relaciones: Reflexiones Arqueológicas sobre las Materialidades Pasadas y Presentes [People, things, relations: archaeological reflections on past and present materialities], eds Acuto, F. & Franco Salvi, V.. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala, 151–74.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2015b. Materiality in practice: an introduction, in Practicing Materiality, ed. Van Dyke, R.M.. Tucson (AZ): The University of Arizona Press, 132.Google Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2014. Understanding objects in motion: an archaeological dialogue on Romanization. Archaeological Dialogues 21(1), 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versluys, M.J., 2017. Discussion. Object-scapes: towards a material constitution of Romanness? in Materialising Roman Histories, eds van Oyen, A. & Pitts, M.. Oxford: Oxbow, 191–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wentzer, T. & Mattingly, C., 2018. Toward a New Humanism. An approach from philosophical anthropology. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8(1/2), 144–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2007. Symmetrical archaeology. Excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4), 546–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014. Archaeology and the new materialisms. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1, 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, F., 2010. Notre humanité: D'Aristote aux neurosciences [Our humanity: from Aristotle to neuroscience]. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Wolff, F., 2017. Trois Utopies Contemporaines [Three contemporary Utopias]. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Zuboff, F., 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Posthumanism, New Humanism and Beyond
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Posthumanism, New Humanism and Beyond
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Posthumanism, New Humanism and Beyond
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *