"Archaeology of Idols" explores 40,000 years of the human creation of, entanglement with, enchantment by, and violence toward images. Case studies roam from the Paleolithic to Petra and from the Hopi to the Taliban, all the while placing the sculpted, painted or otherwise constructed devotional objects of archaeology into dialogue with contemporary social theory on the problem of representation, iconoclash, fetishism and the sacred. Archaeological texts by David Lewis-Williams, Lynn Meskell and Zainab Bahrani are paired with writings by W. J. T. Mitchell, Alfred Gell, David Freedberg and George Bataille as part of a larger project designed to build an archaeological iconology that seeks to understand why humans have always been such prolific makers and breakers of idols. Our goal, then, is not a representative survey of human-idol relations in an particular time or place let alone in prehistory generally. Rather, our investigations make strategic and selective leaps that highlight idolatry as a basic aspect of the human experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have to admit I have never used a blog before. I assume we just comment?
I was struck in class by the issue of double consciousness, specifically the quote about Hal where the character describes how they attribute emotions to 'him,' even though they knew 'he' was only a computer. This raised the question of whether Hal is a sentient being or merely a human construct. My question, in short, is 'what's the difference?', or rather, 'what is the difference between a sentient being and a construct? How do we separate them?' Certainly sentience can be applied, rightly or wrongly, to constructs - this is the nature of idols. But can a sentient being itself be constructed as an idol? In 'sin of the calf' the Israelites compare the calf not to Moses' tablets or Moses' god, but to Moses himself. It seems as if the people view him as the idol they follow. When he disappears for a time they want a new idol, and Aaron creates the golden calf.
This question is not meant as to challenge a 'common sense' perception of the world on a theoretical basis; I don't want to suggest that there is no difference between these two phenomena once theory has stripped them to their fundamental aspects. Instead, I want to work towards discovering what the difference actually is. The difference is not power – an idol invested with enough power can exert more influence over other humans, and through them over the rest of the world, than a human who lacks power – nor is it the source of that power – a human might need to invest an idol with power, and a population might need to be willing to accept that power, but a powerful human also draws his or her power only from the consent of others, whether through more Rousseauien notions of universal consent or through the consent of a few who force the consent of the many in a more Hobbesean state of nature. The answer cannot be biological life, either, if animate objects such as Moses can be idols. A tempting answer is agency, but this answer could be attacked either by arguing for the agency of things or by arguing that human agency is itself a construct. I am stuck at the moment. I hope others can help think through this question.
Double consciousness is definitely an interesting topic, and one that is intrinsically linked with the creating and maintaining of idols. There seem to be a wide variety of idols, both in the sense of the materials they are constructed from and the level of human interaction with them.
Ellen's "Fetishism" helped me to understand some of the relationships better. At the VERY LEAST, it provided some definitions within which we can work (or outside of which we can expand); there were no less than 6 definitions offered, from various sources. Propositions ranged from De Brosses' - that the worship of stone figures led to consideration of abstract religion - to Haddon's attempt at a simple definition ("an intangible power or spirit incorporated in some visible form"). I must say: I found the contemplation of each of the definitions fascinating. Ellen brings his paper to a conclusion with something like "fetishism = control." Through the making and breaking - and thus, redefining - of images and relationships the person(s) involved with the fetish (or idol) has control.
I would agree wholeheartedly with Jeff and Ellen that power is key, control is the greatest concern. Ellen defines the "ambiguous tension between person and object in terms of control" as one of the four defining characteristics of a fetish. I'm interested to see what other authors and scholars will have to say on the issue of control throughout this course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_(Law_&_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit)
This is a link to an episode of Law and order where these people perform a rebirthing ceremony that actually kills the girl. This idea of rebirthing is mentioned in Frazer's "sympathetic magic" reading. It's a really interesting idea in which they rebirth the adopted child so that the child feels more of a connection to his/her adopted parents, and in this case, is less of a trouble maker. It does seem a little barbaric, the idea of making a child go through such a traumatic experience to connect with the adopted parents. I also think that even if it was to work it would have to be on a very young child who hasn't got a firm hold of reality yet.
This is a link that talks about the rebirthing process as a means of attachment therapy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_therapy
I find the idea of double consciousness to be extremely fascinating and the idea how almost every culture is linked, in some way, to idols/fetishism. For example, look at the ancient Egyptians and the Native Americans; every ritual in their daily lives revolved around these fetishes. All of these are very intriguing and I can't wait to see where this class will take us.
Post a Comment