The Mobility of Theory

Bibliographic Data

ID7102800
AuthorsGavin Lucas (0000-0003-1619-7955, University of Iceland, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume23
Issue1
Pages13-32
Publication date2021-06-10
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueCurrent Swedish Archaeology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1102-7355 • E-ISSN: 2002-3901
PublisherSvenska Arkeologiska Samfundet (PUBLISHER • SE)
DOI10.37718/csa.2015.01
OpenAlexW3166923245
LanguageEN
Citations received18
References cited23

Halfway through the second decade of the new millennium, it seems many archaeologists are wondering about the future of their discipline.Perhaps this is a perennial issue, but it does appear -especially in relation to theory -that there is real sense of a sea change happening in archaeology.Such moments typically elicit both negative and positive positions, the former often as a prelude to the latter.Thus one characterization of the current state of archaeological theory is expressed through an attitude of disappointment, boredom even: a perceived lack of real theoretical debate or innovation.Post-processualism has become middle-aged, normalized (Olsen 2012); there are no great theoretical divides, just a plurality of positions which prefer to join hands rather than fight anymore -"a community of discourses" (Hodder 2012a).Some archaeologists have even suggested this marks the death of theory altogether -although what they mean more specifically is the death of theoretical paradigms rather than theory per se (Bintliff & Peirce 2011).For others, however, it rather marks a turning point in our discipline: the context for the birth of a brand new theory, a new paradigm (Olsen 2012; Kristiansen 2014).Kristian Kristiansen, in the last keynote for this journal, offered a very positive message (albeit carefully qualified in terms of politics) about just such a new paradigm, one based on a

Sociology · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access