Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:45:53.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Predicament of Ontology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2021

Robert W. Preucel
Robert W. Preucel*
Affiliation:
Anthropology Brown University Box 1921 ProvidenceRI02912USA Email: Robert_Preucel@brown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ‘ontological turn’ is currently being touted in anthropology and other social sciences as a way of providing new insights into the global ecological crisis. This move encompasses a variety of posthumanist and New Materialist approaches including assemblage theory, vibrant matter, perspectivism and object-oriented ontology. Although distinctive, these approaches share an interest in animating things. Not surprisingly, archaeologists have taken notice of this new-found fascination with things and are participating in the ontological debates on our own terms. One can distinguish three main approaches: symmetrical archaeology, assemblage thinking and relational archaeologies. This paper will examine the nature of the ontological turn and offer a critical review of its use in archaeology.

Type
Special Section: Debating Posthumanism in Archaeology
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 461 - 467
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, B., 2016. Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45, 163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbraad, M., Marshall, Y. & Witmore, C., 2011. Worlds otherwise: archaeology, anthropology, and ontological difference. Current Anthropology 52(6), 896–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B. & Marshall, Y., 2009. Animating archaeology: local theories and conceptually open-ended methodologies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3), 345–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S., 2012. Community-based Archaeology: Research with, by and for Indigenous and local communities. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R. (eds), 2016. Transforming Archaeology: Activist practices and prospects. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, D., 2016. Cultural Turns: New orientations in the study of culture. New York (NY): De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010. Vibrant Matter: A political ecology of things. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bessire, L. & Bond, D., 2014. Ontological anthropology and the deferral of critique. American Ethnologist 41(3), 440–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boydston, J.A., 1989. John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953. Volume 16: 1948–1952. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Brown, B., 2015. Other Things. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cajete, G., 2004. Philosophy of native science, in American Indian Thought, ed. Waters, A.. Oxford: Blackwell, 45–57.Google Scholar
Clifford, J., 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, J. & Marcus, G.E. (eds), 1986. Writing Culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. & Ferguson, T.J. (eds), 2008. Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging descendant communities. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Coole, D., 2013. Agentic capacities and capacious historical materialism: thinking with new materialism in the political sciences. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(3), 451–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F., 1988. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Duwe, S. & Preucel, R.W. (eds), 2019. The Continuous Path: Pueblo movement and the archaeology of becoming. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, S., 2016. The perfect subject (Postcolonial object studies). Journal of Material Culture 21(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gould, D.R., Herbster, H., Pezzarossi, H.L. & Mrozowski, S.A. (eds), 2020. Historical Archaeology and Indigenous Collaboration: Discovering histories that have futures. Gainesville (FL): University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2013. Archaeology and the Senses: Human experience, memory, and affect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. & Jones, A.M., 2017. Archaeology and assemblage. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D., 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago (IL): Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., 2013. Relational communities in prehistoric Britain, in Relational Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things, ed. Watts, C.. London: Routledge, 173–89.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. & Cipolla, C.N., 2017. Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing current approaches. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison-Buck, E. & Hendon, J.A. (eds), 2018a. Relational Identities and Other-Than-Human Agency in Archaeology. Louisville (CO): University Press of Colorado.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison-Buck, E. & Hendon, J.A., 2018b. An introduction to relational personhood and other-than-human agency in archaeology, in Relational Identities and Other-Than-Human Agency in Archaeology, eds Harrison-Buck, E. & Hendon, J.A.. Louisville (CO): University Press of Colorado, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. & Wastell, S. (eds), 2007. Thinking Through Things: Theorising artefacts ethnographically. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, P., 2012. Anthropology and what there is: reflections on ‘ontology’. Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 30(1), 143–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, P., 2017. The ontological turn. Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. http://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/ontological-turnCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbraad, M. & Pedersen, M.A., 2017. The Ontological Turn: An anthropological exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, B., 2018. Assemblage Thought and Archaeology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A.M. & Alberti, B., 2013. Archaeology after interpretation, in Archaeology After Interpretation: Returning materials to archaeological theory, eds Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. & Pollard, J.. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press, 15–35.Google Scholar
Keane, W., 2018. Ontologies, anthropologists, and ethical life. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3(1), 186–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, E., 2015. Anthropology of ontologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 44, 311–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2014. Another way to compose the common world. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4(1), 301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1963. Structural Anthropology. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
McDavid, C., 2002. Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: a pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology 34(2), 303–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, R.H., 2008. Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T., 1974. What it is like to be a bat. Philosophical Review 83(4), 435–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012. After interpretation: remembering archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 20, 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2013. In Defense of Things. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Paleček, M. & Risjord, M., 2012. Relativism and the ontological turn within anthropology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Povinelli, E.A., 2015. The rhetorics of recognition in geontopower. Philosophy & Rhetoric 48(4), 426–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Povinelli, E.A., 2016. Geontologies: A requiem to late liberalism. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W., 2016. Pragmatic archaeology and semiotic mediation. Semiotic Review 4, 1–8.Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W. & Mrozowski, S. (eds), 2010. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The new pragmatism. New York (NY): Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P., 1978. Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2019. Archaeology and the new metaphysical dogmas: comments on ontologies and reality. Forum Kritische Archäologie 8, 25–38.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2020. Ontologies, in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, ed. Smith, C.. New York (NY): Springer, 8107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollason, W., 2008. Ontology: just another word for culture? Anthropology Today 24(3), 28, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C., 1987a. Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C., 1987b. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 2015. The future of archaeological theory. Antiquity 89, 1287–96.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), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, T.S., 2009. The crisis of late structuralism. Perspectivism and animism: rethinking culture, nature, spirit, and bodiliness. Tiputí: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America 7(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E., 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3), 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesen, S., 2010. Ontology is just another word for culture: motion tabled at the 2008 meeting of the Group for Debates in Anthropological Theory, University of Manchester. Critique of Anthropology 30(2), 152–200.Google Scholar
Watts, C. (ed.), 2013. Relational Archaeologies: Humans, animals, things. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4), 546–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar