We Have Never Been Latourian: Archaeological Ethics and the Posthuman Condition

Abstract

This article is motivated by the recent proposal of a ‘symmetrical’ approach in archaeology. Symmetrical archaeology takes its starting point in Bruno Latour's contention that we have – paradoxically – always been able to practice a symmetry between humans and non-humans, and that we have, simultaneously, also always been able to distinguish humans from non-humans. It has been argued by its proponents that symmetrical archaeology has ethical ramifications, yet this dimension remains only vaguely described in the current literature. This article seeks to explore what it might mean to extend ethics from humans to non-humans, and it contends that such a relationship is already being practised. Archaeological practice and heritage management are salient examples of how the ability to distinguish and conflate humans and non-humans frequently occurs along the lines of a number of undeclared and un-critiqued political and ethical logics. In effect, some things and some people are embraced by an empathetic embroidery, while others are disenfranchised. The article contends that a symmetrical principle in archaeology and heritage poses central ethical challenges to the ways in which the archaeological Other is defined and identified.

Keywords:

• symmetrical archaeology
• humans
• non-humans
• ethics
• body
• heritage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The main body of this article was written when I enjoyed a Marie Curie research fellowship at the University of Cambridge on the Forging Identities project, funded by EC Framework 7. Basic ideas in the article were presented at a Forging Identities workshop on ethics and politics in 2010, and discussion with the participating PhD students stimulated me to move on with the manuscript. A number of individuals have contributed significantly in the advanced work with this article: Ben Davenport, Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, Juliane Wammen, and in particular Dacia Viejo-Rose and Mikkel Bille. Moreover, I am very grateful for highly valuable comments and critique provided by two peer reviewers, Rodney Harrison and an anonymous referee. All mistakes remain my own.