8/12/2019 1+1=3 or why holism should be rejected _ Archaeological Haecceities

1/2

12/5/2014 1+1=3 or why holism should be rejected | Archaeological Haecceities

http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/113-or-why-holism-should-be-rejected/ 1/2

Archaeological Haecceities

Johan Normark's neorealistic blog: Archaeology, the Maya, 2012, climate, travels, and more

Posted by: Johan Normark| March 3, 2012

1+1=3 or why holism should be rejected

One often encounters the claim that archaeologists should have a holistic view. We must take asmuch as possible into account to understand the past society as a whole. This claim depends on

the idea that all entities are parts of a whole, such as agents (micro) are part of a structure (macro).The thesis of holism in social sciences often has these two levels (or other varieties). DeLanda hasshown how insufficient it is to have only two levels, there are instead assemblages/objects of multiplescales. Further, as Levi Bryant says, there is no harmony or identity of parts and wholes. Partsarent parts of a whole and the whole isnt a whole for parts. Rather, what we have are relations ofdependency where nonetheless parts and wholes are distinct and autonomous from one another (p217).

Relations between two autonomous objects create a third autonomous one but it does not erase thetwo earlier ones. Bryant exemplifies this with a romantic relationship which is not composed of two

objects but rather three objects (two persons and the relationship itself). The couple talks about beingin a relationship, their friends treat the couple as a unit, etc.

So given the example of the romantic relationship above, why cannot we talk about a holistic viewof the archaeological record? It is because all these artifacts, ruins, bones, etc. were and still are partof greater objects and these objects are in their turn part of even greater objects. There is no upperend and there is none at the bottom either. There are objects all the way, objects within objects, andso on.

Like my former discussion of distributed objects Bryant also argue that objects are not dependent ona particular location in time and space. A school class is an object but it forms in the morning anddissolves in the afternoon, it is non-existent during the evening and night (in most cases). Sometimesit is located in the school building, on other occasions it is on excursion away from the schoolbuilding. An archaeological analogy would be a trade item that is found in one location. It is part ofmany different objects (trade corporation, ship, market, etc.) that is widely distributed in time andspace (it is perhaps even a hyperobject in Mortons sense). There is therefore no way we can ever geta holistic view of objects. It

Bryant, Levi (2011). The Democracy of Objects. Open Humanities Press: Ann Arbor.

http://haecceities.wordpress.com/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/

8/12/2019 1+1=3 or why holism should be rejected _ Archaeological Haecceities

2/2

12/5/2014 1+1=3 or why holism should be rejected | Archaeological Haecceities

http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/113-or-why-holism-should-be-rejected/ 2/2

(http://haecceities.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/tre.jpg)

Posted in Archaeological theory | Tags: Archaeology, Levi Bryant, Object oriented ontology,Onticology, Ontology

[...] 1+1=3 or why holism should be rejected, Johan Normark Why cannot we talk about aholistic view of the archaeological record? It is because all these artifacts, ruins, bones, etc. wereand still are part of greater objects and these objects are in their turn part of even greater objects.There is no upper end and there is none at the bottom either. There are objects all the way,objects within objects, and so on. Archaeological Haecceities, 3 March 2012 [...]

By: Anthropology - A plea for engagement | Anthropology Reporton March 4, 2012at 04:20

Categories

Archaeological theoryArchaeologyClimate and related issues

EntertainmentEventsMayanist studiesNew age and creationismTravelsUncategorized

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. | The Ocean Mist Theme.

About these ads (http://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/)

http://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/ocean-mist/http://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_websitehttp://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/travels/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/new-age-and-creationism/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/mayanist-studies/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/events/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/entertainment/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/climate-and-related-issues/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/archaeology/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/archaeological-theory/http://anthropologyreport.com/anthropology-plea-engagement/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/tag/ontology/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/tag/onticology/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/tag/object-oriented-ontology/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/tag/levi-bryant/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/tag/archaeology/http://haecceities.wordpress.com/category/archaeological-theory/http://haecceities.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/tre.jpg