Agency&Archaeology

Mini Written Account on Agency

   The general quantitative research has always been done in a way that it always looked for trends and ruled out individualities or differences as “variances”, or “noises”. This could make sense in quantitative analysis, but the social studies until recent times also operated inefficiently in a similar way. The emphasis on the agent, opens up new horizons to the social study, since it makes the unit of measurement smaller (individual, or group instead of mass or society), and thus increases the explanatory power of the inquiry.

   There seems to be no consensus on the definition of “agency”. There are several definitions offered by Dobres and Robb, and some of them overlap at some points. The agency can be briefly described as intentional choices made by the agent, in order to attain a goal within the society. Dobres and Robb give a historical account of the understanding of agency in social study: its origins can be traced back to Aristotle, if we consider agency as the “personhood”. Many formative, functionalist, formalist, utilitarian theories has been developed. agency has much to do with the social choice theory, which is individual decision making insituations constrained by macroscale institutions. Some applications of choice theory however, remind us the basic mathematical profit maximizing, with respect to certain numerical constraints. Sociologists like Garfinkel and Giddens stated that, social agents are not always omniscient and free-willed optimizers, rather they are impractical, sometimes irrational and socially constrained beings.

    In archaeology, the importance of agency was realized lately. For processualists, agency was of little importance. They were rather interested in overall systems and constructs. An interest in agency began with post-processualism –especially under the influence of Marxism-. Emphasis was given on the individual decision making, and individual bringing about change. In 80’s, the use of agency spread to gender studies, contextual archaeology, phenomenology, social inequality studies... as well.

   There are some difficulties in understanding the notion of agency, however. First is the definition problem. Several definitions are given, and I think an omnipotent definition of agency is impossible, but more than this, impractical. The main obstacles in defining agency are problems in the intentionality of the agency, the scale of agency and its role on social change. Intentionality refers to whether individual’s actions are deliberate, based on the individual’s own volition or not. The scale of intention can change from situation to situation. Sometimes, there is favorable social environment to bring about social change, by intention. Often there are several complex constraints. Some abrupt shifts in social behaviour can even be purely a result of reflexes. The scale of agency is also variable. In most of the articles, this scale is taken for granted as the ‘individual’. But in Joyce’s article on Monte Alban for example, there is actually an interaction between two groups (or classes): the commoners and the noble elites. There is also a difference between the individualistic exercises of an individual, and his/her efforts on becoming part of a social group. And seldom individuals are not included in a particular class or group within the society. Moore points at the fact that ethically we archaeologists assume the existence of societies and social structures in the past. Practically we have to, since the traces of individuals living outside the society (outside the borders of a certain village, city, dwelling etc.) would be very hard to find in the archaeological material, since the emphasis has always been on researching traces left by groups, hordes or societies, although there are individual surprises like the Iceman wandering on the summit of the Alps. In the statement made by the post-processualists that social change can occur through the effort of the individual, there is an emphasis on the capacity of the “discrete” individual o destabilize, and change the social system. I will oppose to this idea, because in my opinion it considers the ancient individual as a potential prehistoric anarchist who is willing, and who is always able to change the system. Another erroneous assumption about the agency is that change is always brought about by struggle. The past humans may not be as individualistic nor as politicized as we are today. Change may also have occured through the intentional or unintentional alliances of individuals, to form a group, and through a peaceful new equilibrium; there may be no opposition to change at all. I don’t think that the agent (I’m not considering the individual as the “hero” here), is always so willing, so intentional and so active in creating change. This overemphasis of individual also led to the confusion of agency with individuality. Brumfiel discusses the nature of this goal that the agent tries to reach. Did past agents work towards goals that are cross-culturally predictable, or were they cultural-, historical-specific values that do not happen in our current societies? In a Marxist sense, goals are defined by “socially constructed interests”, so similar societies will construct similar aims. Here, struggle is one important source for change. Another view states that goals are defined by cultural values. Here, the important elemant is the sense of identity.

There is an interesting case study by Joyce, about the change occuring in religious practicesin Oaxaca between 700-100BC. The Mesoamerican religion has two important factors: one is the pée, the animative force, and the other is the ancestor worshipping, which enabled the noble to legitimize their situation. In the stable system, elites provide gifts to the followers, in order to create alliances with other elites. The commoners were able to conduct individual rituals, but they could also contact the “sacred” by sacrificing goods and labor to the elites, in return of some mediumship. This situation emerges competition among nobles, which increase their demands. The commoners either accept higher demands or leave the area. Human sacrifice occured as a response to this crisis. Since traditional methods were not enough to appeal commoners, this new method was chosen, by the help of which the elites were showing their ritual power and generosity (in supplying captives by warfare). This way, commoners chose to subordinate the nobles. One wonders whether this choice was chosen as an alternative to attract the “customers” of it was a covert way of coercing the commoners to supply surplus to the elites. Perhaps the elite was not religiously motivated by the cult and deliberately chosen this new practice, or they thought that it was religiously necessary to spill more blood and sacrifice humans to activate pée. In this case, one would be doubtful whether this choice was intentional in increasing nobles’ wealth or it was a practice led by cultural values.