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 as
much 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 has
shown how insufficient it is to have only two levels, there are instead assemblages/objects of multiple
scales. Further, as Levi Bryant says, there is no harmony or identity of parts and wholes. Parts
arent parts of a whole and the whole isnt a whole for parts. Rather, what we have are relations of
dependency where nonetheless parts and wholes are distinct and autonomous from one another (p
217).
Relations between two autonomous objects create a third autonomous one but it does not erase the
two 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 being
in 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 view
of the archaeological record? It is because all these artifacts, ruins, bones, etc. were and 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.
Like my former discussion of distributed objects Bryant also argue that objects are not dependent on
a particular location in time and space. A school class is an object but it forms in the morning and
dissolves in the afternoon, it is non-existent during the evening and night (in most cases). Sometimes
it is located in the school building, on other occasions it is on excursion away from the school
building. An archaeological analogy would be a trade item that is found in one location. It is part of
many different objects (trade corporation, ship, market, etc.) that is widely distributed in time and
space (it is perhaps even a hyperobject in Mortons sense). There is therefore no way we can ever get
a holistic view of objects. It
Bryant, Levi (2011). The Democracy of Objects. Open Humanities Press: Ann Arbor.
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 a
holistic view of the archaeological record? It is because all these artifacts, ruins, bones, etc. were
and 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 Report on March 4, 2012
at 04:20
Categories
Archaeological theory
Archaeology
Climate and related issues
Entertainment
Events
Mayanist studies
New age and creationism
Travels
Uncategorized
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. | The Ocean Mist Theme.
About these ads (http://en.wordpress.com/about-
these-ads/)