Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T19:38:20.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2018

Alfredo González-Ruibal ,
Pablo Alonso González Open the ORCID record for Pablo Alonso González [Opens in a new window]  and
Felipe Criado-Boado
Alfredo González-Ruibal
Affiliation:
Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Avenida de Vigo s/n, 15705 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Pablo Alonso González*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Productos Naturales y Agrobiología (IPNA), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Avenida Astrofisico Francisco Sánchez, 3, 38206 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain
Felipe Criado-Boado
Affiliation:
Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Avenida de Vigo s/n, 15705 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
*
*Author for correspondence (Email: pabloag10@hotmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From Brazil to the United Kingdom, 2016 was a critical year in global politics. Heritage, ethics and the way that archaeologists relate to the public were and will all be affected, and it is time to reflect critically on the phenomenon of ‘reactionary populism’ and how it affects the practice and theory of archaeology. ‘Reactionary populism’ can be defined as a political form that is anti-liberal in terms of identity politics (e.g. multiculturalism, abortion rights, minority rights, religious freedom), but liberal in economic policies. It is characterised by nationalism, racism and anti-intellectualism, and as Judith Butler states in a recent interview, it wants “to restore an earlier state of society, driven by nostalgia or a perceived loss of privilege” (Soloveitchik 2016). Our intention here is to argue that the liberal, multi-vocal model of the social sciences and the humanities is no longer a viable option. Instead, we ask our colleagues to embrace an archaeology that is ready to intervene in wider public debates not limited to issues of heritage or of local relevance, is not afraid of defending its expert knowledge in the public arena, and is committed to reflective, critical teaching.

Keywords

social archaeologycultural heritagepopulismneoliberalismmulticulturalism
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 92 , Issue 362 , April 2018 , pp. 507 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2018 

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

ACHS Association of the Critical Heritage Studies. n.d. Available at: http://www.criticalheritagestudies.org/ (accessed 24 October 2017).Google Scholar
Alonso González, P. 2016. Between certainty and trust: boundary-work and the construction of archaeological epistemic authority. Cultural Sociology 10: 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975516640569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelbeck, B. & Grier, C.. 2012. Anarchism and the archaeology of anarchic societies: resistance to centralization in the Coast Salish region of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Anthropology 53: 547–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/667621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H. & Welch, J.R. (ed.). 2014. Transforming archaeology: activist practices and prospects. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Bartoy, K.M. 2012. Teaching through rather than about: education in the context of public archaeology, in Skeates, R., McDavid, C. & Carman, J. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of public archaeology: 552–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199237821.013.0029Google Scholar
Brass, T. 2017. Who these days is not a subaltern? The populist drift of global labor history. Science & Society 81: 10–34. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2017.81.1.10Google Scholar
Cleary, K., Frolík, J., Krekovič, E., Parga-Dans, E. & Prokopiou, E.S.. 2014. Responding to the financial crisis in five European countries: people, roles, reactions and initiatives in archaeology. Archaeologies 10: 211–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-014-9259-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criado-Boado, F. 2001. Problems, functions and conditions of archaeological knowledge. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 126–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/146960530100100109Google Scholar
Dauvé, G. 2009. Contribution à la critique de l'autonomie politique. Lettre de Troploin 9: 1–45.Google Scholar
El Mundo. 2016. Pokémon Go dinamiza los museos. 5 September 2016. Available at: http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2016/09/01/57c7f51f22601d9e6d8b45a1.html (accessed 23 October 2017).Google Scholar
Fowles, S. 2016. The perfect subject. Journal of Material Culture 21: 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183515623818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N. 2017. The end of progressive neoliberalism. Dissent, 2 January 2017. Available at: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser (accessed 23 October 2017).Google Scholar
Gnecco, C. 2015. An entanglement of sorts: archaeology, ethics, praxis, multiculturalism, in Gnecco, C. (ed.) Ethics and archaeological praxis: 1–17. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A. (ed.). 2013. Reclaiming archaeology: beyond the tropes of modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. 2011. Prison notebooks. Volume 3. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Grosfoguel, R. 2008. Transmodernity, border thinking and global coloniality. Decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 80: 115–47. https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.697Google Scholar
Guldi, J. & Armitage, D.. 2014. The history manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139923880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. & Bombardella, P.. 2005. Las Vegas in Africa. Journal of Social Archaeology 5: 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050141Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. 2011. Archaeological ethnography: a multitemporal meeting ground for archaeology and anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R. 2013. Heritage: critical approaches. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.021Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2007. Can you hear me at the back? Archaeology, communication and society. European Journal of Archaeology 10 (2–3): 149–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957108095982Google Scholar
Hutchings, R. & La Salle, M.. 2015. Archaeology as disaster capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19: 699–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-015-0308-3Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2013. An inquiry into modes of existence: an anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, D. 1996. Possessed by the past: the heritage crusade and the spoils of history. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. 2008. Archaeology as political action. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Merriman, N. (ed.). 2004. Public archaeology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluciennik, M. 2015. Authoritative and ethical voices. From diktat to the demotic, in Dyke, R. Van & Bernbeck, R. (ed.) Subjects and narratives in archaeology: 55–82. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N. & Aitchison, K. (ed.). 2010. Archaeology and the global economic crisis: multiple impacts, possible solutions. Tervuren: Culture Lab.Google Scholar
Shepherd, N. & Haber, A.. 2011. What's up with WAC? Archaeology and ‘engagement’ in a globalized world. Public Archaeology 10 (2): 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355311X13086617126567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 2001. El desprecio de las masas: ensayos sobre las luchas culturales de la sociedad moderna. Valencia: Pre-textos.Google Scholar
Smith, C. & Wobst, H.M. (ed.). 2004. Indigenous archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soloveitchik, R. 2016. Judith Butler: ‘Trump is emancipating unbridled hatred’. Zeit Online, 28 October 2016. Available at: http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-10/judith-butler-donald-trump-populism-interview/seite-2 (accessed 23 October 2017).Google Scholar
Spivak, G.C. 1988. Can the subaltern speak?, in Williams, P. & Chrisman, L. (ed.) Colonial and postcolonial theory: 271–313. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waterton, E. & Smith, L.. 2010. The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16 (1–2): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250903441671Google Scholar
Winter, T. 2013. Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19: 532–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.720997Google Scholar
Žižek, S. 2002. A plea for Leninist intolerance. Critical Inquiry 28 (2): 542–66. https://doi.org/10.1086/449051Google Scholar