“Ideology,” while a prevalent term in archaeological
literature, is difficult to define precisely. In the first chapter of Ideology: An Introduction, “What is
Ideology,” Terry Eagleton enumerates a variety of definitions, some of which
are more neutral and others that either imply or assert value judgments. For
instance, ideology is to certain scholars “the process of production of
meanings, signs and values in social life,” while to others it is “systematically
distorted communication.” (1-2). The first description is fairly neutral, while
the second has clearly pejorative connotations.
Like Foucault, I am reluctant to reject the Marxist notion
of ideology as inherently distorted or false because it implies the existence
of its opposite: a universal, absolute truth. However, I do not believe that
“ideology” as a concept necessitates rejection altogether. Rather, I tend
towards the first definition, which can reflect the formation and propagation
of any belief system, dominant or marginal, as all are neither “true” nor
“false.” Additionally, in my view, ideologies are not teleological; rather,
they are relational and evolve, converge and diverge. As Said emphasized in his
discussion of Orientalism, ideologies are formed through dialectical
interactions between individuals within society. Therefore, individuals do have
the capacity to influence ideologies and even contradict them. Acknowledgement
of this individual agency makes the continued dominance of certain ideologies
that much more impressive and allows us to consider the reasons why they were
so well suited to a particular spatiotemporal arena.
In thinking about the concept of ideology and how I might
define such a problematic (but also, I would argue, useful) term, I began to
think about the ideologies of archaeology itself, both as a theoretical
discipline and a practical, applied endeavor. This passage from the first
chapter of Archaeological Theory in
Europe: The Last Three Decades emphasizes the ideological nature of
archaeology:
Each age, in each country, writes its own history and its own archaeology. As a result of these changes and differences, and as a result of the engrained social and political uses and misuses of archaeology in the European context, it is difficult to remain blind to the theoretical construction of archaeological objects, difficult not to see archaeologists transforming reality and difficult not to recognize artefacts as products rather than records (Hodder, 10).
The shift in archaeological theory and practice from
antiquarianism to post (or even perhaps post-post) processualism can arguably
be discussed as a change in the dominant ideologies of the archaeologist. As
Hodder emphasizes, the pasts we construct as archaeologists change from year to
year, decade to decade, and century to century not because of radical shifts in
the material culture that is excavated but by changes in the belief systems of
the discipline’s practitioners. Post-processualism acknowledges the influence
of the individual archaeologist’s sociopolitical history in his/her
scholarship. It is standard practice today to concede that objectivity is an
impossible and therefore futile goal. However, it is important to realize that
this shift is not an escape from ideology altogether but rather the emergence
of a new dominant paradigm within archaeology.
This recognition of the pervasiveness of ideology as an
integral component of society is important with regards to the practical,
cultural heritage applications of archaeology in addition to the theoretical.
For example, in the first chapter of Ann Stahl’s book African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction, she briefly
problematizes UNESCO World Heritage sites. According to the organization’s
website, “What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal
application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world,
irrespective of the territory on which they are located.” While this sentiment
is seemingly positive, it imposes an ideology of global allegiance to an
organization that is predominantly “Western” in philosophy, personnel and
funding. It is trendy in the United States educational system to produce
“global citizens,” but in countries that face constant socioeconomic and
political instability (largely as the result of a Western colonialist history),
prioritizing a national or even local agenda may be more advantageous. Of
course, I am thrilled that because of these organizations, tracts of biodiverse
ecosystems and historical sites have been preserved. However, it is important
to recognize that the idea that one organization can lay claim to the entire
globe is a fundamentally Western ideology stemming from an expansionist,
colonialist history.
Therefore, not only is ideology still relevant as a theoretical
concept in archaeology, it has practical implications for the preservation (and
therefore construction) of the past.
