In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

81 5 Bridging Critical and Indigenist Research Localized Critical Theory Critical theory is a powerful tool for examining and understanding situations of inequality. It allows us to see how individuals can be alternately empowered and marginalized by the workings of society, and also how they can choose a path, either individually or collectively, to greater consciousness of their social circumstances (Kincheloe and McLaren 2000:283; Lukács 1971). Critical theory has been rather sparingly adapted to archaeological theory,1 at least in an explicit sense, yet has great potential for understanding both the workings of the past and how that past articulates with the present (Althusser 1971). The first section of this chapter outlines the role that critical theory has played in archaeological study, and the second section turns to another paradigm of critical study, in the strong and growing body of research produced by Aboriginal scholars. I look at indigenist research, beginning with its critique of postcolonial theory and the rationale behind this position, and then turn to the diverse range of community-based approaches applied by Aboriginal scholars to questions that concern their communities. In the final section of this chapter, I work to build common ground between critical and indigenist traditions. Indigenist research both shares with and departs from conventional forms of critical theory, and it has the power to help circumscribe this more abstract body of thought to focus on local concerns and communities. I map out a localized critical theory that is suited to the needs of local and descendant communities as they seek to redress past inequalities and address social concerns of the present through the lens of archaeological and heritage-based research. This is an example of how global ideologies, such as imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism, can both be “reconfigured and recognized as being ‘constitutive of the local’” (Bhattacharya 2008:317; and see Hart 2002). chapter 5 82 Critical Theory in Archaeology Despite its great potential, critical theory has been sparingly adapted to the needs of archaeological research. The project has been taken up most fervently by historical archaeologists of what Wilkie and Bartoy (2000) have called the Annapolis School. Early work by Leone (1981a, 1981b) and Handsman (1980) laid the groundwork for establishing the utility of the approach to questions of archaeological interpretation and public presentation . In a seminal piece entitled Putting Shakertown Back Together, Wylie (1985) takes stock of the critical approach in archaeology and evaluates some of its early applications. Her title is an allusion to Leone’s work with the Shakers, in which he exposed how historical representations of this group reflect present political ideologies rather than those of the community’s past (Wylie 1985:139). Wylie suggests that there are two levels to an effective critical practice: self-reflexivity followed by social criticism and action. At the time of her writing, Wylie felt that the goals of social criticism and action , the more ambitious of the two projects, had not been broached in any meaningful way in archaeological study. In later works, Leone, Potter, and Shackel (1987) and Handsman and Leone (1989) continue their efforts to develop a critical archaeology (also see papers in Pinsky and Wylie 1989, and Shanks and Tilley 1987). The authors of the first article define their objective as an effort “to achieve less contingent knowledge” by seeking to unpack the point of view from which the conclusions are formed (Leone et al. 1987:284). A primary concern is the focus on exposing the ideological framework within which any given interpretations are shaped. This entails the demystification of ethnic, class, and individual interests embedded in the research (Handsman and Leone 1989:118). Handsman and Leone (1989:119–120) provide a four-step methodology for conducting this type of analysis. In the case studies provided in these two articles, capitalism and individualism form two parallel ideologies that inform the class interests of the early industrial age in America. Knowledge of this ideological structure, as well as our present-day sociopolitical formations, is meant to critique and reconstruct interpretations of the past. These early efforts precipitated into the more consolidated program of the Annapolis School in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so called after its focus on the historical port city of Annapolis, Maryland. Although the proponents do not consider their work to comprise a unified school (Delle 2000; Mullins 2000; Shackel 2000), the group has developed its scholarship along several recognized lines. First is the study of the evolution of capitalism, and its attendant...

Share