Heather Burke

Beyond the looking-glass: Some thoughts on sociopolitics and reflexivity in Australian archaeology

A traditional strength of Australian archaeology has been the analysis of sociopolitical issues, especially the relationships between archaeologists and Aboriginal people (e.g. Allen 1983; Beck and McConnell 1986; Birkhead et al. 1992; Bowdler 1988; Davidson 1992; Frankel 1980; Golson 1986; Lewis and Rose 1985; McBryde 1986; Mowaljarlai et al. 1988; Mulvaney 1966; Murray 1989; Pardoe 1990; Sullivan 1983) and between archaeologists and the wider community (e.g. Bickford l98 1; Clegg 1980; Gale and Jacobs 1987; Jones 1987; McBryde 1980; Megaw 1980; Mulvaney 1981; Smith et al. 1992). However, the nature of sociopolitical inquiry in Australian archaeology appears to be changing in response to an increased emphasis on reflexive techniques, including the use of text as data (e.g. Moser 1992a, l992b).

An Anatomy of Ideology

The study of ideology is an area of research that has long been acknowledged as part of archaeology in various capacities; however, there have been many different approaches to its study, corresponding to varying appreciations and definitions of the concept. The changing extent and ways in which archaeology has acknowledged ideology as an area for productive research are part of how archaeology itself has changed as a discipline. This is no simple or unidirectional process, of course, but is part of wider changes in the social sciences, in politics, and in society.

Style in Space

The previous chapters have investigated some of the sources of architectural style within the Armidale community. In terms of social context, both local-scale membership in a particular form of capital production, and larger-scale membership in a particular social class (as a relationship to the means of production), influence the stylistic construction of identity. These boundaries are not fixed, of course, but are symbolic of relative social position at particular points in time.

Investments of Meaning

The notion that the spatial distribution of stylistic elements is not random, but is instead related to the patterning of specific groups, and thus to the way society is organized, is not a new concept (see, for example, Hill 1970; 1972; Longacre 1970; 1972). Linking this variability to issues of social power and to the construction of ideology, however, is a direction becoming increasingly common to archaeological analysis, particularly within historical archaeology. This is one of the main strengths of archaeology, and one of the few contributions it can make to the analysis of ideology, that is, contributing to the understanding of the material character of the production of a social order.

Styles of Ideology

Style so far has been viewed as a physical expression of notions of relative identity through which groups are both incorporated and differentiated. There is another level to studying style, however, which attempts to understand how a constellation of groups might come to exist in those particular patterns and not others, and what those particular expressions of social identity might convey about the participant’s construction of the world and the relative positioning of people within it. It is time to move beyond pattern recognition and focus upon the processes of pattern generation (Conkey 1990, 15). It is time to talk about ideology.

Relations of Meaning and Relations of Membership

If various forms of social identity are created through style, then any analysis of stylistic elements will describe some form of group mobilization through the use of particular stylistic elements or groups of elements. Style at this level is embedded in the first two of Stewart Clegg’s (1989) circuits of power: mobilizing relations of meaning and relations of membership. Relations of meaning incorporate a group through shared concepts of identity; relations of membership establish the boundaries of the group and negotiate the processes of inclusion and exclusion.

The Semiotics of Social Identity

I have argued in Chapter 2 that style is a means of non-verbal communication that is implicated in the ways and means by which difference may be created socially through competing constructions of identity. In exploring this premise in relation to the architecture of Armidale, it becomes necessary to investigate both the types of group identity that may be constructed through style, as well as the changing scales at which this identity might be constructed. In other words, it is necessary to search for both similarities and differences in the context of production. How is similarity emphasized through the construction of groups? How are these groups then differentiated from others? Most importantly, how does this change?

An Introduction to Armidale

Armidale is a small city in the state of New South Wales, located approximately halfway between Sydney, the state capital, and Brisbane, the capital of the adjacent state of Queensland. The wider region that encompasses the city is known as New England, which sits astride a particularly prominent section of the Great Dividing Range. Because of its height above sea level, Armidale and its immediate environs are often referred to as the Tablelands.