Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:32:33.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synergy through Disunity, Science as Social Practice: Comments on Vanpool and Vanpool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott R. Hutson
Scott R. Hutson*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 232 Kroeber Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94709-3710
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In “The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism”, VanPool and VanPool (1999) attempt to demonstrate that the sometimes hostile debate between processualist and postprocessualist archaeologies disguises substantive intellectual similarities. The most important similarity is their conformity to a refined definition of science. This definition is based on seven criteria that, as a group, demarcate science from nonscience. VanPool and VanPool pay inadequate attention to critiques of the notion that science can be clearly separated from other forms of inquiry. These critiques come from both within the literature VanPool and VanPool cite as well as from bodies of literature that they do not acknowledge, such as recent sociological, philosophical, and anthropological studies of science. Many of the demarcation criteria can be shown to suffer from overly simplistic accounts of the connections between evidence and hypothesis. Other demarcations do not recognize the social nature of scientific inquiry and the consequent incorporation of interests at various scales. Although VanPool and VanPool believe their criteria of science will promote synergy between processual and postprocessual, this paper questions the conceptualization of these schools and argues that synergy is better accomplished through the appreciation of difference among the various archaeologies and openness to alternative epistemologies.

Résumé

Résumé

En “The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism”, VanPool y VanPool (1999) intentan mostrar cómo el hostil debate entre la arqueologia procesual y postprocesual oculta sustantivas semejanzas intelectuales. Para estos autores, la semejanza más importante radica en el trabajo conjunto de ambos campos sobre una definicián más amplia de las ciencias. Esta defición se basa en sietes criterios que, como grupo, distinguen a las ciencias de otras formas de conocimiento. Sin embargo, existe una literatura disponible sobre la sociología, filosofia y antropologia de la ciencias que contradice la posibilidad de separar claramente a estas de otros modos de conocimiento, a la cual VanPool y VanPool no prestan la suficiente atención. Se puede mostrar que varios de estos criterios distintivos sufren de explicaciones simplistas de las conecciones entre evidencia e hipotesis. Además, otras distinciones no toman en cuenta el contexte social de las ciencias con la consecuente incorporation de diverses intereses. Aunque VanPool y VanPool esperan que su definition de ciencia promoverá un sincretismo de la arqueología procesual y postprocesual, este articule cuestiona la conceptualization de estas dos escuelas arqueológicas, y enfatiza la posibilidad de lograr un sincretismo más poderoso a través de una apreciación de la variedad de arqueologías en práctica hoy dia, y una apertura a epistemologias alternativas.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 349 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2001

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

References Cited

Barnes, B. 1977 Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. 1985 About Science. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., Bloor, D., and Henry, J. 1995 Scientific Knowledge : A Sociological Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., and Shapin, S. (editors) 1979 Natural Order : Historical Studies of Scientific Culture. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L, and Luckmann, T. 1966 The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1982 Objectivity—Explanation—Archaeology 1981.1n77!eory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., M. J. Rowlands, and B. Segraves, pp. 125–138. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. 1976 Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Caso, A. Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, No. 13. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico, D. F.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., and Pinch, T. J. 1979 The Construction of the Paranormal : Nothing Unscientific Is Happening. In On the Margins of Science : The Social Construction of Reflected Knowledge, edited by Willis, R., pp. 237–70. Sociological Review Monograph, No. 27. University of Keele.Google Scholar
Conkey, M., and Spector, J. 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–38. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M., pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1992 Archaeology and Evolutionary Science. In Quandaries and Quests, Visions of Archaeology's Future, edited by Wandsnider, L., pp. 209–224. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 20, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. 1991 Images of Power and Contradiction : Feminist Theory and Post-Processual Archaeology. Antiquity 65 : 502–514.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1975 Against Method. Verso, London.Google Scholar
Fotiadis, M. 1994 What Is Archaeology's “Mitigated Objectivism” Mitigated by? Comments on Wylie. American Antiquity 59 : 545–555.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1980 Knowledge/Power : Selected Interviews and OtherWritings 1972-1977. Pantheon Books, New York.Google Scholar
Fraser, S. (editor) 1995 The Bell Curve Wars. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1997 Image and Logic : A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. S. 1998 The Mind's Past. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gero, J. 1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50 : 342–350.Google Scholar
Gero, J. 1996 Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by Wright, R. P., pp. 251–280. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gero, J., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. L. (editors) 1983 The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Research Reports Number 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory : Action Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. N., and Mulkay, M. 1981 Warranting Scientific Belief. Social Studies of Science 7 : 113–22.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1992 The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, A., pp. 29–64. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1958 Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1988 Situated knowledges : The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14 : 575–599.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1989 Primate Visions : Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1986 The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1991 Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. 1980 Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56 : 7–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1999 The Archaeological Process. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hutson, S. 1998 Strategies for the Reproduction of Prestige in Archeological Discourse. Assemblage 4 (http : //www.shef.ac.uk/ ∼assem/4/).Google Scholar
Kehoe, A 1998 The Land of Prehistory. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. 1985 Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981 The Manufacture of Knowledge : An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. 1983 The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work : Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, pp. 115–140. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D., and Mulkay, M. 1983 Introduction : Emerging Principles in Social Studies of Science. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, pp. 1–18. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Krohn, R. 1981 Introduction : Toward the Empirical Study of Scientific Practice. In The Social Processes of Scientific Investigation, Sociology of the Sciences, Volume IV, edited by K. D. Knorr- Cetina, R. Krohn and D. Whitley, pp. vii-xxv. D. Reidel, Boston.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1983 Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, pp. 141–170. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1999 Pandora's Hope : Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press : Cambridge.Google Scholar
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. 1979 Laboratory Life : The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Leone, M. 1986 Symbolic, Structural and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A., pp. 415–438. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Leone, M., Potter, P., and Shackel, P. 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28 : 283–302.Google Scholar
Lerner, R. M. 1992 Final Solutions : Biology, Prejudice and Genocide. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1996 A la recherche du temps perdu : A Review Essay. In Science Wars, edited by Ross, A., pp. 293–301. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1990 Science as Social Knowledge : Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. 1985 Artand Artifact in Laboratory Science : A Study of'Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. Livingston, E., and Garfinkel, H. 1983 Temporal Order in Laboratory Work. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, pp. 205–238.Sage, London.Google Scholar
Mannheim, K. 1936 Ideology and Utopia. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
Marlowe, G. 1999 Year One : Radiocarbon Dating and American Archaeology, 1947-1948. American Antiquity 64 : 9–32.Google Scholar
Marx, K., and Engels, F. 1965 The German Ideology. Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
McCafferty, S. D., and McCafferty, G. G. 1994 Engendering Tomb 7 at Monte Alban : Respinning an OldYarn. Current Anthropology 35 : 143–166.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962 The Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Merton, R. 1942 Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 : 115–126.Google Scholar
Montagu, A. (editor) 1974 Race and IQ. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. 1994 A Study in Theory Unification : The Case of Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23 : 103–145.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M., Potter, J., and Yeardley, S. 1983 Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, pp. 171–204. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. C, Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. 1994 Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 5. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
O'Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., and Leonard, R. D. 1998 Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 63 : 485–198.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. 1958 Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. In Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, edited by Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G., pp. 3–36. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. 1992 From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, A., pp. 2–26. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (editors) 1989 CriticalTraditions in Contemporary Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1963 Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. 1995 The Post-Processual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3 : 147–175.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P. 1996 Making PCR : A Story of Biotechnology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C, and Zubrow, E. 1994 The Ancient Mind : Elements of a Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. 1996 Introduction. In Science Wars, edited by Ross, A., pp. 1–15. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Rubin de la Borbolla, D. 1969 La osamentahumanaencontrada en la tumba 7 : Appendix. In El Tesoro de Monte Albdn, by A. Caso, pp. 275–324. Memorias del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, No. 13. Instituto Nacional de Antropolgfa e Historia, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1995 Behavioral Archaeology : First Prmcipfes. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1988 Social Theory and Archaeology. 2nd ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1992 Re-Constructing Archaeology. 2nded. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 1982 History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions. History of Science 20 : 157–211.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 1986 Towards a Critical Archaeology. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52 : 327–338.Google Scholar
Sokal, A., and Bricmont, J. 1998 Fashionable Nonsense : Postmodern Intellectual's Abuse of Science. Picador, New York.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1996 Time Culture and Identity : An Interpretative Archaeology. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989 Discourse and Power : The Genre of the Cambridge Inaugural Lecture. In Domination and Resistance, edited by Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C., pp. 41–62. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1990 On Modernity and Archaeological Discourse. In Archaeology after Structuralism, edited by Bapty, I. and Yates, T., pp. 127–152. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1993 Prospecting Archaeology. In Interpretative Archaeology, edited by Tilley, C., pp. 395^116. Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
Traweek, S. 1988 Beamtimes and Life Times. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Traweek, S. 1996 Unity, Dyads, Triads, Quads and Complexity : Cultural Choreographies of Science. In Science Wars, edited by Ross, A., pp. 139–150. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
VanPool, C. S., and VanPool, T. L. 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64 : 33–54.Google Scholar
Wayne, A. 1996 Theoretical Unity : The Case of the Standard Model. Perspectives on Science 4 : 391–07.Google Scholar
White, H. D., Sullivan, D., and Barboni, E. J. 1979 The Interdependence of Theory and Experiment in Revolutionary Science : The Case of Parity Violation. Social Studies of Science 9 : 303–327.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. 1983 Irony in the Social Study of Science. In Science Observed : Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, pp. 239–266. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989 Introduction : Socio-Political Context. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by V. Pinsky and A. Wylie, pp. 93–95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests; Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. American Antiquity 57 : 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 2000a Rethinking Unity as a “Working Hypothesis” for Philosophy of Science : How Archaeologists Exploit the Disunities of Science.” Perspectives on Science, in press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2000b Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the (Dis)Unity of Science. American Antiquity 65 : 227–238.Google Scholar