Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power

2. The Conceptual Parameters

2 The Conceptual Parameters It is impossible to conceive of a theory of society without a conception of human nature. -Tom Campbell 1981: 18 Any study of ideology, religion, political power, dominance, or other expressions of Cahokian hegemony must first be based on a thorough understanding of the theoretical parameters involved. In order to create a model for hegemonic-driven social change it is necessary to establish the concept of cultural stability and transformation based on the principle of the individual as the locus of social variation (i.e., "praxis"). Such a model must be enveloped in a theory ofpractice within a broader structural framework (a la Giddens 1979) to provide a heuristic for cultural transformation. That type of approach, based upon structuralist principles, argues for the recognition of material culture as a patterned "text" interpretable in the archaeological record. The theoretical ramifications of hegemonic power (i.e., ideological persuasion and political coercion) are reflected in the material world.That power is inherent in human inequality and is critical for the development of hierarchical political and social structures. It is possible, incorporating these principles , to investigate the idealist world of hegemonic forces. THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY The individual as a force in social theory is neither new nor unique, yet the full understanding and elaboration of the individual's role as both actor and initiator ofsocial change are recent in anthropology and have only begun to impact regional archaeological research and studies (e.g., Pauketat 1991, 1992,1994; Emerson 1995: 10-17). This new interest in the individual, now often called the theory ojpractice, can be traced (cf. Ortner 1984) through Marxist approaches, focusing on social structures, to such important calls to action as Bourdieu's (1977) Outline ofaTheory ojPractice in the 1970s. Individual action provides the catalyst for both stability and change within the broader cultural system, for it is by multiple individuals' actions that the system is reproduced. In fact, Sahlins (1981: 67) questions "whether the continuity ofa system ever occurs without its alteration, or alteration without continuity." For those who adopt a theory ofpractice, individual action and the intended results must be considered, among many other factors, "in respect of unconscious motives, operating or 'outside' the range of the selfunderstanding ofthe agent." Even more critical are the "unintentioned consequences of intentional conduct" (Giddens 1979: 59).Yet the individual is part of a social group, and "social systems are produced as transactions between agents ... but they are the outcome ofaction only in so far as they are also involved as the medium of its production ... [And] the 'collective' is bound to the very phenomenon of action" (Giddens 1979: 95). Practice must perform within a greater social milieu that we have yet to identifY. In this particular instance I am interested in examining the structure of Middle Mississippian Cahokian society, especially as it is reflected in the realm ofideology and domination. Structure provides a categorical, conceptual framework within which individuals act to create social form, reproduction , and transformation. Most important, it provides a framework within which the material and ideal worlds are linked, for they are both transformations of that underlying structure into other mediums. Structuralism has many guises, but here I will depend primarily on Gidden's (1979: 59-95) critique of structuralism and his elucidation of structuration as an alternative methodology of cultural reproduction and transformation, although occasionally I will use both Bourdieu (1977) and clarifications from Hodder (1982: 7-11,1991: 73-79). Giddens (1979: 63-65) comprehends a "structured totality" (i.e., a social system) on the basis of three terms: structure, system, and structuration (see figure 2.1).This structured totality takes into account "an implicit recognition of a syntagmatic dimension (patterning in time-space) and a paradigmatic dimension (continuity-producing, virtual order of elements) in social analysis" (Giddens 1979: 63). Structure has a virtual existence and refers to the rules that bind time and space in social systems (i.e., it possesses structurin,R properties). However, while structures do not actually exist in time-space (except in the theoretical moment of social constitution), Giddens (1979: 10 Cahokia and the Archaeolo;;y ofPower STRUCTURE: Rules and resources, organized as properties of social systems. Structure only exists as "structural properties" SYSTEM: Reproduced relations between actors or collectivities, organized as regular social practices STRUCTURATION: Conditions governing the continuity or transformation ofstructures, and therefore the reproduction ofsystems Figure 2.1 Structure, System, and Structuration (after...