The clarity of our concepts (or the lack thereof)

Many important concepts used by archaeologists are nebulous and ill-defined, and this is not good for the discipline. In the new revised edition of his excellent textbook on social science methodology, John Gerring (2012) has a chapter on concepts, and it has lots of go0d advice that would benefit archaeology.

Gerring lists seven "criteria of conceptualization" that can be applied to the concepts we use (Table 5.1, page 117):

1. Resonance.  How faithful is the concept to extant definitions and established usage?
2. Domain.  How clear and logical is (1) the language community(ies) and (b) the empirical terrain that a concept embraces?
3. Consistency.  Is the meaning of a concept consistent throughout a work?
4. Fecundity.  How many attributes do referents of a concept share? (coherence, depth, richness, etc.)
5. Differentiation.  How differentiated is a concept from neighboring concepts? What is the contrast-space against which a concept defines itself?
6. Causal utility. What utility does a concept have within a causal theory and research design?
7. Operationalization.  How do we know it (the concept) when we see it? Can a concept be measured easily and unproblematically?

 After discussing each of these, he goes on to list several "strategies of concepualization" (Table 5.2, page 131):

1. Survey of plausible concepts
2. Classification of attributes
3. Definition
1. Minimal
2. Maximal
3. Cumulative

 Gerring concludes with the observation:

“Even with the most complex concepts, carefully crafted definitions in the minimal, maximal, or cumulative mold should provide a common scaffolding upon which the work of social science can rest in a reasonable stable and consistent manner.” (Gerring 2012:140).

Gerring uses the concept of "democracy" in political science as an example of how these criteria and strategies work. For archaeology, we have many concepts that could use a good meta-analysis of this sort.  Consider "identity."

The concept of identity has become a real fad in some archaeological circles, with fanatic devotion to the concept. By a fad with fanatic devotion I refer to concepts or terms which get tossed around all the time, typically without definition, often in settings where the concept really has nothing to contribute (think about practice theory or "agency and structure," another fad with fanatical devotion in archaeology). Given that there are many types of identity (race, ethnicity, place, gender, etc.) and radically different theoretical approaches (primordialist vs. instrumentalist, and others), it is not professionally responsible to be tossing the term around without definition and without contextualization. I have read quite a few shockingly bad decontextualized treatments of "identity" in the past (and I often avoid reading anything with the term "identity" if I can help it, so I have only sampled a small portion of the literature). I find the sloppy usage itself less distressing than the fact that journals and book editors allow this stuff to pass.

If there ever was a concept in need of conceptual hygiene, identity in archaeology is it. Now it turns out that there is a very very highly-cited paper from more than a decade ago that does this work of clarification for identity (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). This paper is highly-cited, but not by archaeologists. I did some searching in Google Scholar. Yes, a few archaeologists do cite the work in their bibliographies, but I have yet to find an archaeologist who actually engages with the ideas in Brubaker and Cooper.

These authors identify five distinct meanings of the term "identity" in the social science literature (Brubaker and Cooper 2000: 6-8)

1. “often opposed to “interest” in an effort to highlight and conceptualize non-instrumental modes of social and political action” (p.6)
2. As a collective phenomenon, to denote a fundamental sameness among members of a group or category.
3. As a core aspect of (individual or collective) selfhood. Something allegedly deep, basic, abiding, or foundational.
4. As processual, interactive development of solidarity or “groupness” that can make collective action possible.
5. “Understood as the evanescent product of multiple and competing discourses, ‘identity’ is invoked to highlight the unstable, multiple, fluctuating, and fragmented nature of the contemporary ‘self.’ This usage is found especially in the literature influenced by Foucault, post-structuralism, and post-modernism. In somewhat different form, without the post-structuralist trappings, it is also found in certain strands of the literature on ethnicity—notably in ‘situationalist’ or ‘contextualist’ accounts of ethnicity.” (p.8).

 They go on to point out strengths and weaknesses with strong and weak conceptions of identity, and then they propose three distinct concepts to organize the diverse meanings that identity has taken on in the literature:

1. Identification and categorization.
2. Self-understanding and social location.
3. Commonality, connectedness, groupness.

I use this example not because I am interested in the concept of identity for itself. Much about the concept still seems slippery and difficult even after reading Brubaker and Cooper and other related works. I am not opposed to the concept per se; I particularly like Charles Tilly's use of identity in his causal mechanisms concerning inequality and political contention. Rather, this is an example of a concept in archaeology that is in dire need of clarification and healing. Why don't archaeologists cite Brubaker and Cooper? This either reflects ignorance and disciplinary myopia (inexcusable in the age of Google Scholar), or, more sinister, it could reflect deliberate avoidance of rigorous scientific approaches to social phenomena. Gerring's criteria and methods, if applied more widely, would go a long way toward conceptual clarification in our field.

Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper
2000    Beyond "Identity". Theory and Society 29:1-47.

Gerring, John
2012    Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Tilly, Charles
1998    Durable Inequality. University of California Press, Berkeley.

2004    Social Boundary Mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34:211-236.

2005    Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.