14th October 2010, 11:22 PM
Well, continuing the euphemisms, he sets up a strawman of what he would desperately like 'post-modernism' to be, situates postmodernism as the bedfellow of late 20th century globalising capitalism (to which I can only say WTF?), and eventually meanders around to articulating a sort of 'all ideas should be considered' archaeology of the future, which he hangs on the hook of Renfrew's cognitive processualism*.
Except that wasn't that (multivocality, multiple models, a rejection of a single dominant discourse) one of the core strengths of post-processualism as set against earlier explicitly processualist thought?
*Claiming that it will 'undeniably' be the theoretical archaeology of the 1990s. :I
Except that wasn't that (multivocality, multiple models, a rejection of a single dominant discourse) one of the core strengths of post-processualism as set against earlier explicitly processualist thought?
*Claiming that it will 'undeniably' be the theoretical archaeology of the 1990s. :I