Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:48:33.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lyrics for a duskier Enlightenment. In response to Alexandra Ion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2018

Þóra Pétursdóttir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In her article ‘A taphonomy of a dark Anthropocene’, Alexandra Ion responds to and criticizes my discussion around the topic of archaeology and the Anthropocene recently published in this journal. She takes issue with most of my central arguments and especially with my leaning towards object-oriented ontology, speculative realism and the like, describing my perspective as one that is literally dark and depressing and which may lead nowhere but to a dead end. While I make it clear that I will neither answer for nor shield myself behind other peoples’ articulations of OOO, I will in what follows react to Ion's rather harsh critique and use the opportunity to sharpen my arguments further by focusing on three central themes: first, OOO and the archaeological object; second, darkness, dead ends and knowledge of things; and third, ethics, politics and responsibility.

Keywords

Anthropoceneobject-oriented ontologyagencyethicsresponsibility
Type
Reactions
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 205 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barad, K., 2007: Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Barad, K., 2012: Matter feels, converses, suffers, desires, yearns and remembers. Interview with Karen Barad, in Dolphijn, R. and van der Tuin, I. (eds), New Materialism. Interviews and cartographies, Ann Arbor, 48–70.Google Scholar
Benso, S., 2000: The face of things. A different side of ethics, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
Blake, T., 2012: The problem of change in Harman's OOO. How can a withdrawn object ‘de-withdraw?’, at https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/the-problem-of-change-in-harmans-ooo-how-can-a-withdrawn-object-de-withdraw.Google Scholar
Bogost, I., 2012: Alien phenomenology. Or what it's like to be a thing, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Boym, S., 2011: Ruinophilia. Appreciation of ruins, at http://monumenttotransformation.org/atlas-of-transformation/html/r/ruinophilia/ruinophilia-appreciation-of-ruins-svetlana-boym.html.Google Scholar
Bryant, L., 2011: Wilderness ontology, Larval subjects, at https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/wilderness-ontology.Google Scholar
Currie, A., 2017: Try and say things that have a reasonable chance of being true . . ., at www.extinctblog.org/extinct/2017/8/7/try-and-say-things-that-have-a-reasonable-chance-of-being-true.Google Scholar
Derrida, J., 2009: The beast and the sovereign, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gumbrecht, H.U., 2004: Production of presence. What meaning cannot convey, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2016: Immaterialism, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hornborg, A., 2017: Dithering while the planet burns. Anthropologists’ approaches to the Anthropocene, Reviews in anthropology 46 (2–3), 61–77.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015: Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency, Archaeological dialogues 22, 207–38.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., et al., 2015: Archaeology and contemporaneity, Archaeological dialogues 22 (1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2015: Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things. A response to critics, Archaeological dialogues 22 (2), 187–97.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2017: Climate change? Archaeology and Anthropocene, Archaeological dialogues 24 (2), 175–205.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., and Olsen, B., 2018: Theory adrift. The matter of archaeological theorizing, Journal of social archaeology 18 (1), 97–117.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016a: Against object agency. A counterreaction to Sørensen's ‘Hammers and nails’, Archaeological dialogues 23 (2), 229–35.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016b: Archaeology will be just fine, Archaeological dialogues 23 (2), 146–51.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2016a: Hammers and nails. A response to Lindstrøm and to Olsen and Witmore, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 115–27.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2016b: In praise of vagueness. Uncertainty, ambiguity and archaeological methodology, Journal of archaeological method and theory 23 (2), 741–63.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T.F., 2018: Agency (again). A response to Lindstrøm and Ribeiro, Archaeological dialogues 25 (1), 95–101.Google Scholar