+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: A democratically viable future? (/showthread.php?tid=1370)
Pages:
1
2
A democratically viable future? - YellowPete - 25th January 2009
Where to begin with such a pointless yet mundane issue with supposedly no relevance to archaeology, let alone the future of society.
What is democracy?
Is it a standard for A future or is it a hopeful idealistic target?
I would admit, at first it comes to mind that this sounds like an echo of standards in achaeological practice.
Well this is the crucks of the matter.
People and archaeologist spend their time making comments of why are we here what are we doing?, where its all pointless and we achieve nothing.
well here is a viewpoint:
are we the quintisential manifestation of a democratic practice, where we self govern from a position of equality, with equal merit, with equal participation, where we are informed of our role and job, with a fair representation of an interested parties, where we determine the level of acceptable workable standard as our agenda for a mutually benificial future.
Or is it?
Are we in the process of presenting the options and opportunities for an archaeology that we can be proud to pass on to the next generation that we could be justify considering the circumstances?
Are we in the process of keeping the commercial viability at a vibrant nexus of effective professional product, where we will neither cut too far (all too often), or sit and dominate in untenable commercial cartels?
A free market or a fair trade market?
are we the first point of contact with the old world where the technological resource available to the industry revolves around a skilled and manually orientated work force?
Are we blurring the opportunities of the technologically developed world and the hands on experience of the human form in any given environment, whether past, present or future?
What is the future of a industry, or world living precariously on the edge of commercial viability?
Do we cooperate?
Do we undermine?
Do we work a realistic tenable future where a vibrancy of skills are challenged and force ourselves to think of where we hope our place to be in the real world politique?
Do we work in concert or work to be the last institution standing?
I fear that the only way forward is to fight to be the Last Man Standing, for A Few Dollars More.
Do we learn to manage and manipulate the archaeolgical standards to satisfy the marrying of industry, collegues, opportunities all with the future in mind where our ability to conduct work will be based around the level of distrust, and hard feeling that we make now in our present to ferment into the future generations coctail of no choice?
Do we take responsibility or take heed of the direction our leaders will force our hands to?
A little rebellion is good for the spirit, for if we wish to imagine that the future is beniegn, then i fear we must awake from this coctail that has fermented for over the last decade.
Can we offer an politically astute work force ready for the burden of creating a considered and measured future beyond the commercial edge, but rather as a building block for future institutions that shall lead the socio-economic fore for the next 50yrs, as our foundation for a stable and sustainable socio-political dialogue that can interest and engage future generations?
do we see the future as a basis for building credit, for rainy days or, is a prepared future beyond the valuation of a credit, beyond that earnt through the hard work necessary when our time already disappears underfoot?
Anyways food for thought?
a hope beyond measure for a future for those whose have yet to glimpse a future that may one day may desire as a standard to be situational rather than to be hopefully dreamt of.
txt
Mike
A democratically viable future? - troll - 25th January 2009
Hells teeth! Even Hodder would be scratching his head! Tough one (or batch) to answer. I think that archaeologists themselves are often guilty of underestimating the enormity of their responsibility to the public at large. We are after all engaged in the characterisation of our collective past-a past that undeniably has/can and will be used for purposes of national sentiment, legitimation and " citizenship". For me, I feel that archaeology has an obligation to contribute to the social sciences, to the education system and the community at large. In the purest sense, archaeology is a science and an art that encompasses the study of political theory and is not by rote, driven by it.
"democracy" in my view is simply a concept as yet unattained since its inception by the Greeks. Its meaning and value has completely changed far beyond its original ideology. Western nations/cultures are yet to achieve "democracy" after centuries of trying so I would find it difficult to see how this can be achieved by archaeology as a profession. In the context of our profession, I think it would be a huge achievement if we could reach a consensus on many of the more pressing issues. For me (I can hear people yawning already!), I would like to see a profession that adheres to obligatory and binding professional standards that are regularly monitored and policed. I would like to see heritage issues backed by unambiguous and comprehensive legislation rather than limp guidance gestures. Those are my basic foundation stones upon which all else hang. What I really don`t want to be a part of is the Judean Peoples Front scenario where endless semantic "dialogue tennis" obscures and obfiscates progress towards solutions. I don`t feel that we (as a profession) need to strive for "true" democracy in the process of our endeavour for change. It would be like asking Hodder for a simple answer and hoping that he gets his point across before old age takes its toll.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
A democratically viable future? - RedEarth - 26th January 2009
Hang on, I'll just get my dictionary... be with you in a couple of days...
A democratically viable future? - Oxbeast - 26th January 2009
My favourite bit is this:
"do we see the future as a basis for building credit, for rainy days or, is a prepared future beyond the valuation of a credit, beyond that earnt through the hard work necessary when our time already disappears underfoot? "
Lets all ponder this one for a while.
A democratically viable future? - Velociraptor - 28th January 2009
Hi all,
I saw the introduction post to this topic by YellowPete.
It (kind of) reminds me of a conversation I had down the pub with "Dirty Dave" (from this board) the other week. We jokingly contemplated a thread on BAJR called "Archaeology - The Cynical Side" but this Democracy thread triggers some of those same-intended thoughts, anyway.
I go back in time to 1985. "Back then" I imagined that if I got into archaeology, it would be a well-respected profession, with "a duty" shared by us all, to re-discover our lost archaeology / heritage, that in turn would go into museums and help to give improved knowledge for our history books and our school history lessons?
Well, that was the "dream" or whatever you want to call it.
I remember sitting in the diggers' hut (as a dig volunteer, 1986)and someone (an older digger) saying that funding from the government was phasing out and everything would be paid for, by the developer.
I remember saying: "But the developer will not want to pay for a big dig - they will only want the minimum".
So straight away, ARCHAEOLOGY is not a democracy, in the sense that all archaeologists in the UK cannot vote on what the National Policy for the "profession" is? Not that they ever could, of course?
Does the IFA or any other body truly act as a "indirect democracy organisation" in that it is representing all UK archaeologists, in regards to influencing government policy? This "debate" continues, regardless of your view, on this point.
What if, the Government, desparate to kick-start the Building Industry, relaxes nearly all archaeology planning reulations, to aid the industry further (my particular horror scenario, that I dwell on too much, perhaps)?
Connected to the paragraph above, what if the IFA complains to the Government about this scenario and the government, in turn replies: "The economty is in dire straights. Homes and Industries are important. History and Museums are a luxury items that we cannot invest in any further, right now. We have made our decision. You IFA people have no political rights / legislation to fight us, anyway". There would be nothing any archaeologist could do, if the government decided that; none of us would have a democratic / influencing vote on that - except vote against that government at the next general election? But in the long run, that would make no difference.
Another huge factor is, ARCHAEOLOGY IS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. At least in the sense of units, tenderring against each other, for jobs each month. You might be able to get them to "vote" for an agreed minimum standard of digging and report writing but remember UNDECUTTING has been the name of the game for a while and will get worse, if the recession drags out?
If the heads of units are desparate to (job-wise) survive, are they likely to "vote" for increases in standards or workers conditions, when such things would further drive-up their overheads?
Needless to say, contracts are getting fewer and shorter and the out-of-work digger does not get a "vote" on who will take them on, for how long, or for what wages. The digger never did.
Sure, units some times have staff meetings. These are NOT to give everyone a say on all aspects of company policy. They are to get everyone to suggest better work methods within their jobs but nothing more than that. (If diggers could vote on everything in such meetings, would they vote themselves redundant - even if it was obvious there was little work, vote that they themselves must improve, or vote themselves a wage freeze for the next year - to help the company?)
If two employees at a unit have an argument, will they both be fairly / democratically be judged by their peers and bosses? Answer: ONLY IF THE TWO IN DISPUTE ARE OF EQUAL RANK. The lower rank person (ultimately) will always be outranked / disbelieved by those of higher rank. The true question is then "will a grudge be held against the lower rank complainer?" because if so, the excuse of redundancy will eventullay be used as the means to get rid of the lower rank complainer. And the lower rank person never gets a "vote" on this. (This paragraph is based on true events - many times over).
In regards to the paragraph above, membership of PROSPECT will only help you if your dismissal is a sacking (i.e. something that can definitely be seen as "disputable"). To nullify the effects of a digger's union membership / support, all the employer has to do, is declare the digger "redundant" - be that in a genuine round of redundancies that are about to occurr, or one "manufacured" for the purpose of getting rid of a digger.
What conclusions, can I offer?
ONE:
Archaeology is a profession permanently divided against itself (They should have nationalised it in the 80s - made it a branch of the civil service, not privatised it?) Whilst archaeology remains divided / competing against itself, everyone is not truly going to vote for better standards in absolutely everything. They (unit bosses) will vote for a few (academic side of) things - to pretend to show-willing but not on everything.
TWO:
Archaeology is at the mercy of the government (or is that government indifference?) and the Building Industry. If the building industry manages to get "lower tender prices" for archaeology work from now on, they will stay lower.
THREE:
It still has not been established nor "nationally accepted, in view of the UK population and government" that any one archaeology "body" represents the Archaeology profession in this country and can say YES or NO to government / industry and ENFORCE its archaeological decisions. Only curators in county planning departments can do this?
FOUR:
"The lot" of the digger, with or without IFA / PROSPECT membership will only improve, according to what unit it joins - that are (A)the "better treatment" units to work for and (B) which units gets the longer contracts. The digger cannot "vote" on which units these will be. He has to travel / work around the country and find this out by experience.
FIVE:
I think a lot of the "older" diggers endure all of the above, out of memory of "the good old days" (1970s - 1980s ?) The spirit of thought, that said archaeology was about going into a field, digging down and finding ancient things, that then improve our knowledge. I would like to "keep thinking this" as in essence, that is what archaeology should be about but the politics, insecure work conditions, divided profession and lack of will, on the government to show improved comittment, funding and legislation, cast a shadow upon "the idyllic archaeological attitude" I have presented at the start of this paragraph.
SIX:
I would like to offer positive ideas to solve what I have written above but I honestly cannot. What I have written above is TRUE from my perspective but whether others share my views I have no idea. If the majority do not, I would say "well, it is ONLY a post on a forum board what difference can it make to you or anyone else, whether you agree or not?"
My "what difference does it make" attitude is brought about because I cannot see how a change / difference can be brought about.
A change of government policy (to the supportive) would greatly help but I cannot envisage that happening.
The IFA would have a greater legal effect if "a benevolent government alowed them to have more effect" but it is not going to happen in a Recession?
Jobs for unemployed diggers will only be brought about by units winning contracts, nothing else. The unit bosses ultimately control diggers wages and conditions. If the IFA were to complain, the unit merely leaves the IFA and continues to tender / practice as usual.
As usual, I say, "it is not WHAT you know but WHO you know that counts". Find the units, supervisors and diggers you like working with (which also incorporates working out which units pay the best wages)and stick with them (in a work and social sense)as much as you can.
A democratically viable future? - RedEarth - 28th January 2009
I should imagine that anyone reading the recent posts on this thread would be put off replying (see other thread by Velociraptor) by the confused discussions of the nature of democracy - perhaps Herr Host your should re-name this section of the forum 'BAJR polls' as some people seem to have taken the title a little too literally!
As for the state of modern archaeology didn't Churchill say something about democracy being the worst form of government, apart from all the other ones? No system is perfect. If I were to suggest to a developer that it was all about 'going into a field, digging down and finding ancient things' I doubt they would be greatly impressed. Expressing like that does make it sounds like a luxury, perhaps we should stop bothering!
What's this obsession with being well-respected? I couldn't give a monkeys about that as long as I were able to make a reasonable living and allowed to do the job to a good standard. I don't imagine geotechnical specialists worry about being respected as much as some archaeologists do.
'I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work' - Kent Brockman
A democratically viable future? - Velociraptor - 29th January 2009
In answer to RedEarth....
To a developer, who has been compelled by law, to pay for an archaeology dig, he at least expects some archaeology guys to turn up and see them 'go into the field, dig down and find ancient things'.
Because when he does not see that happen (nothing is found) on the site, he asks why the hell has he been made to pay for dig, if there is nothing there?
Watching Briefs are even worse. Upto 95% of the time, nothing comes up. The developer says "You have got a good job, doing bugger all".
(In fact, the way things presently are commercially, BLANK WATCHING BRIEFS are the easiest and quickest way for a unit to charge money).
As for "Democracy" on this board, it is irrelevant, all this voting, if the votes are only showing opinion ON THIS BOARD and are not being applied to achieving a real-life practical aims, elsewhere. If this cannot be achieved, then BAJR forum board will remain a talking shop / letting-off-steam board......nothing else.
At this present point in time, I myself feel, that as I type this (and all my previopus posts), I am merely: "talking/ letting-off-steam, on a forum board......nothing else" because I cannot see (or be guaranteed)that what I type here, could be applied to a real-life positive gain? I am sorry to admit this but it must be said?
A democratically viable future? - 1man1desk - 30th January 2009
Posted by Velociraptor:
Quote:quote:I think a lot of the "older" diggers endure all of the above, out of memory of "the good old days" (1970s - 1980s ?)I'd like to reply to Velociraptor's long post, from the perspective of another person who joined in what he views as the 'good old days' (I started in archaeology in 1979, full-time from 1984).
Quote:quote:I remember ... someone (an older digger) saying that funding from the government was phasing out and everything would be paid for, by the developer.In the 'good old days', when archaeology was publicly funded, the resources available were tiny compared to nowadays. There were no DBAs or evaluations in advance of planning permission, and very few excavations were funded. Those that were funded were usually much smaller in scale than they would be now, and done to poorer standards. There was usually little or no guaranteed funding for post-excavation.
I remember saying: "But the developer will not want to pay for a big dig - they will only want the minimum".
There were exceptions to this - usually EH or equivalent digs on a few nationally important sites, that were done to research excavation standards. These were rare, but they used lots of people, so they form the basis of the rose-tinted view that many have of those times.
Quote:quote:What if, the Government, desparate to kick-start the Building Industry, relaxes nearly all archaeology planning reulations, to aid the industry furtherThey would only do that if they thought it electorally advantageous. Democracy in action, I am afraid. In any case, if archaeology was government controlled and funded, they would be even more likely to take this action - they would have higher priorities for spending public money, and developers would howl even louder about archaeologists getting in the way than they do now.
Quote:quote:Another huge factor is, ARCHAEOLOGY IS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. At least in the sense of units, tendering against each other, for jobs each month. You might be able to get them to "vote" for an agreed minimum standard of digging and report writing but remember UNDECUTTING has been the name of the game for a while and will get worse, if the recession drags out?Well, standards overall did improve after the start of competitive tendering, largely because more money was available.
If the heads of units are desparate to (job-wise) survive, are they likely to "vote" for increases in standards or workers conditions, when such things would further drive-up their overheads?
Units do tend to price on the basis of the lowest standard that they think will satisfy the curator. If curators could raise that standard across the board, then units would price to a higher standard, and none of them would be reluctant to do so because they would not be disadavantaged.
Quote:quote:It still has not been established nor "nationally accepted, in view of the UK population and government" that any one archaeology "body" represents the Archaeology profession in this country and can say YES or NO to government / industry and ENFORCE its archaeological decisions. Only curators in county planning departments can do this?Actually, curators can't do it either, and neither can the IFA. Our democratically-elected government makes the law, and no special interest group (no matter how ethically sound and internally democratic) can over-rule them.
In relation to your comments on conditions for diggers and power relationships between senior and junior employees of units - at least modern diggers are employees, and have employment rights. In the 'good old days' that you look back to so fondly, circuit diggers were often nominal 'volunteers', getting cash-in-hand 'subsistence' payments instead of wages, and with less rights than a wheelbarrow. Alternatively, they might have been MSC conscripts.
To wrap up - I enjoyed the old days a lot. I worked all over the country, had a lot of fun, and worked on some excellent digs. I look back on those days with some nostalgia. However, I would not go back to those times under any circumstances. There are far better ways to give our profession the reform it does need.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
A democratically viable future? - Velociraptor - 30th January 2009
Hi 1man1desk,
I do like your replies...
I do kmow of people digging in the 70s, on paltry amounts.
I started as a "doley digger" in 1985. There was s tiny amount of funding (sometimes) for the projects I was on, from the local council or due to the dig being a MSC project.
I was offered an a MSC place on long-running dig but TURNED IT DOWN.
The others got 90 per week as diggers, for four days per week.
I got 28.50 per week as a "doley volunteer" on site (but by not being MSC registered, I could also go to college for 12 hours a week - which MSC diggers could not do). I knew that none of us would get a permanent job from that site. It would still be DOLE for us all, at the end. At least I ended up with A levels.
(I even had a RESTART interviewer telling me to do this!)
But yes, 1man1desk, my "good old days" were better than some others.
As for the future?...........no idea
A democratically viable future? - YellowPete - 31st January 2009
A true democracy is the same as a standard neither acheivable or unattainable as long as we wish to take part in a constructive manner.
As for democracy beyond this as far as i am aware there have been only two successfull types of democracy:
the first being based upon a division of exclusion of a group of individuals by the basis that they are sub-standard, or in a way slaves to be owned and branded by their nameless masters
the second being a division based on economic exclusion whereby their potential partisipation was hindered purely by the economic viability of being equal in relative presence or intellectual ability
let alone the understanding of the aforementioned issues:
at the upcoming ifa conference an issue of voluntery amateur archaeology associations undermining the viability of the professional industry by whatever means of undermining could yet be concieved, or beleived.
if the governemnt deciedes that archaeology is a good way of occupying the youth of today in an engaging way then do we become intellectually exclusive to them.
do we embrace and accept jobseeker involvment at the cost of the body of work that many individuals have dedicated their lives to as a study and body of work?
Do we also leave ourselves open to intimidation by an uninterested and resentful chain gang enforced by the government and law to be involved?
Do we blend community archaeology together with governmental employment ventures if they decide its the way they want to go with us?
are we going to decide?
txt
Mike