In Theory.... (Archaeology stuff)

[elanya]

I *like* Theory. I like high level theory. It interests me. I think about it on my own time. A lot of people don't. I thik I have at least a vague idea of where I stand, from a theoretical point of view. I am, at the least, a relitavist. Sometimes, I will even Go All The Way... but then people start thinking I'm crazy. Sometimes, *I* start thining I'm crazy, or at the very least, that I'm not being fair to some people, be they alive or dead (if they actually ever existed ;) Sometimes I thik that just at the tip of my brain there is a way that I can mediate my stance, or at least explain it, but I've yet to actually get that far. I'm not sure what it would take to puch me to it. If I *had* to think about it, or if I were to really immerse myself in it, to have a lot of time to read other people's theory... that might help, or it might confused me more. I don't know. I have a nice fat expensive theory book sitting at home on my shelf that I'd like to read, but I don't know when I'll make the time. (See, I know myself, if nothing else :p)

But I'm also scared to *use* theory. I'm scared to express it. I'm afraid that I won't be able to defend myself well enough. For example, I don't like Dr. Babit's pet 'multiple working hypotheses' theory. I think it is kind of silly, at the least. I have actual real issues with it, which I won't go in to if I want to have time to get myself some dinner before class at 6:30 :p I'm thinkig Mexican. Dad just gave me some Christmas Money (thanks Dad!). End tangent. But the point is that I'm afraid that I'm not going to be good at trying to be obvertly theoretical... and yet the idea really appeals to me. Is that wrong? Is it just pretentios? Am I actually capable of it? Am I just talking out of my ass?

And what does it mean for my thesis, which is really kind of old-school. It's making a lot of those old positivist, scienced-based assumptions that I'm often wary of. And yet... do I have a choice if I want to look at pirates? There isn't anything else to work with that I've found. So, how can I take theory, and my approach to it, and happily marry it to what I want to do? Where can I find *my* middle range theory?

This is partly rhetorical, partly so that I can remind myself that I do want to try and keep these things all in mind. But seriously, if you have any advice... I'm listening.

Comments

Arch theory

[forthright.livejournal.com]

Since I bet I'm the only one on your f-list who has a) published on arch-theory and b) taught arch-theory, plus what with me wanting to help you with your difficulties, here goes. As you know, I'm not a relativist of any sort. In fact, I think that relativism is bunk. And, according to a fully relativist epistemology, there's nothing you can do to refute this position, which is merely my own culturally-encoded knowledge system, no better or worse than your own. ;) But you know that already. Anyway, I'm not going to get into the whole 'is theory good' debate, at least not yet, so I'll try to stick to just one issue in this comment.

I'm a little confused as to why you reject the MWH approach, since really, you only have three options when it comes to using hypotheses:
a) Use no working hypotheses. This, as any pomo will tell you, is impossible; anyone who claims to be 'just looking at the facts' without preconceptions is really deluded. So, this is no good.
b) Use one hypothesis, which you test. This is the classical experimental / positivist perspective. You are ignoring all the details of your data except the one line of argument you want to test. You see if there is evidence to support your hypothesis, and if not, you go back and test some other hypothesis. This works all right in, say, theoretical physics. But in arch, which is mostly non-experimental and where you're stuck with what you dig up, it's a stupid way to go.
c) Use multiple working hypotheses, stated explicitly, so that you are aware in the field/archive/lab that different/contradictory conclusions are supported by different aspects of the recovered evidence. This allows you to present all the possibilities, and then decide which one is most likely, while also explicitly recognizing where there is contradictory information. To me, this seems to be the only sensible way for any archaeologist (or really, for any scientist) to proceed. I dunno, though; maybe what your prof means by MWH is not the same as what I, and all the other theorists who talk about the approach, mean by it.