Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:02:53.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The thing-in-itself. A reaction to current use of the term in archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Svein Vatsvåg Nielsen
Svein Vatsvåg Nielsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Norway
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars writing within symmetrical archaeology, or speculative realism, have lately claimed that archaeology should strive to grasp the thing-in-itself. This paper questions the rationale of this claim. It presents the philosophical definition of the concept of a thing-in-itself and a short presentation of its reception. The author argues that the concept of the thing-in-itself has nothing to offer archaeology, and questions why contemporary theoretical archaeologists show such an interest in this term.

Keywords

Thing-in-itselfImmanuel Kantsymmetrical archaeologyspeculative realismarchaeological theory
Type
Provocation
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 123 - 126
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Austin, M., 2010: To exist is to change. A friendly disagreement with Graham Harman on why things happen, Speculations 1, 66–83.Google Scholar
Flohr Sørensen, T., 2016: In praise of vagueness. Uncertainty, ambiguity and archaeological methodology, Journal of archaeological method and theory 23(2), 741–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flohr Sørensen, T., 2018: The triviality of the new. Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond, Current Swedish archaeology 26, 93–117.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F., 1991: The encyclopaedia logic, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1967: What is a thing?, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ion, A., 2018: A taphonomy of a dark Anthropocene. A response to Þóra Pétursdóttir’s OOO-inspired ‘Archaeology and Anthropocene’, Archaeological dialogues 25(2), 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I., 2005: Kritikk av den rene fornuft, Oslo.Google Scholar
Karatani, K., 2003: Transcritique. On Kant and Marx, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2015: The mobility of theory, Current Swedish archaeology 23, 13–32.Google Scholar
Meillassoux, Q., 2008: After finitude. An essay on the necessity of contingency, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, J.H., 1979: The critic as host, in Bloom, H., Man, P. de, Derrida, J., Hartman, G.H. and Miller, J.H. (eds), Deconstruction and criticism, London, 177–208.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2007: Keeping things at arms length. A geneology of asymmetry, World archaeology 39(4), 579–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2018: Lyrics for a duskier Enlightenment. In response to Alexandra Ion, Archaeological dialogues 25(2), 205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ. and Olsen, B., 2018: Theory adrift. The matter of archaeological theorizing, Journal of social archaeology 18(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seth, A., 1893: The epistemology of neo-Kantianism and subjective idealism, Philosophical review 2(3), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C., 1975: Hegel, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žižek, S., 1989: The sublime object of ideology, London.Google Scholar
Žižek, S., 2009: The ticklish subject. The absent centre of political ontology, London.Google Scholar