Inclusivity and Multivocality in Socio-Political Archaeologies and Culture Heritage Management: Reflections, Trends, and Tensions

Abstract

Post-processual archaeology claimed to represent a new ethical agenda for the socio-politics of archaeological practice and culture heritage management; one that would include multiple “voices” and those from indigenous populations. This article explores the polarizing dichotomy between so-called “exclusivist” and “inclusivist” research trends in socio-political archaeologies that has resulted from this paradigmatic shift. Its critical focus is archaeologies of empowerment/inclusion, i.e. those approaches within the post-processual paradigm that claim empowerment and/or multi-vocality to be their primary mission. It reveals this claim to be philosophically incoherent and to have often failed to work in practice. It concludes that moves toward inclusion and multi-vocality have, in many cases, become complicit with political quiescence and a de-politicization of archaeology. Mapping general tendencies and marrying academic theory and popular culture, this paper exposes a caricatured image of the uses of the past in the present, uses that result in tensions and paradoxes that impact negatively on present-day socio-political archaeologies.

Resumen

La arqueología postprocesual afirmó representar una nueva agenda ética para la sociopolítica de la práctica arqueológica y la gestión del patrimonio cultural; una que incluiría múltiples “voces” de poblaciones indígenas. Este artículo analiza la dicotomía muy contrapuesta entre las así llamadas tendencias de investigación “exclusivistas” e “inclusivistas” en las arqueologías sociopolíticas que ha resultado de este cambio paradigmático. Su punto esencial es las arqueologías del empoderamiento o la inclusión, por ejemplo, los enfoques dentro del paradigma postprocesual que sostienen que el empoderamiento y/o la multivocalidad son su misión principal. También revela que esta afirmación es filosóficamente incoherente y que generalmente no ha funcionado en la práctica. Se concluye que los avances hacia la inclusión y la multivocalidad en muchos casos se han vuelto cómplices del quietismo político y de la despolitización de la arqueología. Este artículo, que establece correspondencias entre las tendencias generales y une la teoría académica con la cultura popular, expone una caricatura de los usos del pasado en el presente, los cuales resultan en tensiones y paradojas que tienen un efecto negativo en las arqueologías sociopolíticas de nuestros días.

Résumé

L'archéologie post-processuelle prétendait représenter un nouveau programme d'éthique pour le développement socio-politique de la pratique archéologique et la gestion du patrimoine culturel; celui qui inclurait plusieurs « voix» ainsi que celles des populations indigènes. Cet article explore la dichotomie polarisante entre soi-disant tendances de la recherche « exclusivistes » et « inclusivistes » dans les archéologies socio-politiques qui ont résulté de ce changement paradigmatique. Son objectif essentiel sont les archéologies d'autonomisation/ inclusion, c.-à-d.: ces approches dans le paradigme post-processuelle qui prétendent pour leur principale mission autonomisation et/ ou multivocalité. Il révèle que cette assertion est philosophiquement incohérente et qu'elle a souvent échouée dans sa pratique. Il conclut que le passage à l'inclusion et à la multivocalité est devenu, dans de nombreux cas, complices d'un quiétisme politique et d'une dépolitisation de l'archéologie. Avec cette cartographie des tendances générales, ainsi que l'unification de la théorie académique et de la culture populaire, cet article met a nu une image caricaturale des usages du passé dans le présent et utilise ce résultat dans les tensions et les paradoxes qui ont un impact négatif sur les archéologies socio-politiques d'aujourd'hui.

KEYWORDS:

• post-processualism
• archaeological theory
• heritage management
• inclusivity
• empowerment
• multi-vocality
• indigenous
• socio-politics

Palabras Clave:

• postprocesualismo
• teoría arqueológica
• gestión del patrimonio
• inclusividad
• empoderamiento
• multivocalidad
• indígena
• sociopolítica

Mots clés:

• Archéologie post-processuelle
• théorie archéologique
• gestion du patrimoine
• inclusivité
• autonomisation
• multivocalité
• indigène
• socio-politique

Notes

1 While some authors have argued for processual and post-processual archaeologies to be combined due to many areas of convergence, termed “processual-plus” by Hegmon (2003), the authors believe this to obfuscate the considerable departure made by the post-processual critique of the processual status quo (see Moss 2005). Instead we consider the post-processual emphasis on empowerment/inclusion to characterise archaeological approaches into the present.

2 It must be noted that more recently, and contrary to the United Kingdom's prevailing understanding of post-processualism as a separate and opposing theoretical movement to processualism, post-processualism's status as a distinct theoretical approach has been questioned, particularly in the United States. Instead it is argued to represent an accompaniment to the processual movement (Trigger 2007:477–8). The reason for this difference in perspective may have its roots in the fact that post-processualism developed in the United Kingdom and the United States largely independent of each other.

3 The term is used here in its most general meaning of someone advocating political and social change or reform.

4 Indigenous people less often call for multivocality, but rather for regaining full self-control of their culture, including law (see Warner 2005; George 2015).

5 it is worth pointing out that scholars such as Kakaliouras (2012) argue the focus on repatriation to obfuscate the fact that indigenous and non-indigenous archaeologists continue to fail applying reflexive thinking at a wide enough scale.

6 Globalization and the spread of Western values go hand-in-hand. With globalization continuing to advance, even more traditional countries and cultures are becoming increasingly Westernized, reducing the ideological need for consultation. In other words, once too much of the Other has become the Same, the need for engagement ceases to exist. The “ideological space” within which to realize consultation is continuously shrinking.

7 The term refers to the unrestricted and undisturbed communication within a transparent societal unit (see Habermas 1990). It is worth emphasizing that whilst having developed out of the post-processual paradigm, the authors are not arguing these new approaches to necessarily be post-processual themselves.

8 It is worth pointing out that scholars such as Watkins (2010) argue that the focus on repatriation obfuscates the fact that indigenous and non-indigenous archaeologists are not applying reflexive thinking at a wide enough scale.

9 It is interesting to note that a move by the National Trust to make country houses more accessible and meaningful to a wider public by “recreating historical scenes, lighting fires, and filling empty shelves,” sparked fierce criticism from scholars and other commentators, arguing them to “Disney-fy” this aspect of the country's heritage via an “infantile,” “patronizing and vulgar quest” for higher visitor numbers (see Adams 2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sven Grabow

Dr Sven Grabow is a heritage advisor for the New Zealand Department of Conservation. He also works as a teaching adjunct for Victoria University's (Wellington) Museum & Heritage Management course, and as a research adjunct for Lincoln University's (Christchurch) Landscape Design School.

Jenny Walker

Dr Jenny Walker is an independent researcher currently living in Wellington, New Zealand. Her particular interest revolves around the use of material culture as a social signifier in the past and the present.