The Practice and Theory of Ideology

Robyn Wood
Sept 29

In her article, Conkey (2007) focuses on the historical and contemporary gendering of anthropological
theory. Taking a reductionists approach, she examines “Readers in Archaeological Theory” and reveals
how their biased research foundations have limited female representation and has effectively “ghettoized”
feminism in archaeology. Consequently, Conkey advocates for a feminist methodology that would see
gender as an ontologically complex phenomena, thus allowing anthropologists greater insights to social
life and praxes.

Martin (2019) provides a sequential review of theoretical research movements within the field of
biological anthropology that has led to its current standing as a multidisciplinary study of the evolution of
human and non-human primates using contemporary techniques. Her exposition reveals the complexity of
bio-anthropology as a discipline that is characteristically shared between scientists and anthropologists
and is thus undefinable.

Harrison’s essay (2016) explores the engagement of theory in recent sociocultural trends. She argues for a
de-centring of dominant, mainstream theories to empower a more democratized environment, or so-called
“ex-centric sites”, that allow for the inclusion of marginalized theoretical practices. Harrison claims that
this shift will provide a diverse setting where theory and practice can be used in conjunction to provide
deeper insights on society and create publicly engaged anthropologists.

At face-value, these three articles do not have any clear links, however, upon closer analysis a definitive
relation can be seen – all authors are advocating for an increase in scholarship diversity within the field of
anthropology. Martin most clearly states this when she outlines the benefits of an interdisciplinary
approach to bio-anthropology. She argues that it is because the study is comprised of scientists and
anthropologists that the discipline is able to maintain its ethical morality while advocating for
marginalized voices. Furthermore, Conkey never explicitly calls for diversity, rather, she advocates for
the inclusion of feminist scholars within archaeology. She argues that archaeology, particularly its theory,
has been heavily masculinized through history resulting in biased and problematic analyses. She believes
that the positioning of feminist archaeologists employing gender theory will rebalance the masculinity of
the discipline and allow for equal representation of the often understated feminine conviction. Finally,
Harrison asks for epistemic diversity through the reconstruction of theoretical landscapes to sideline the
few traditional approaches taken in the past and highlight a myriad of accessible and relevant paradigms,
thus increasing the diversity of scholarship within anthropology. At its core, the authors are calling for the
field to recognize the changing times and adapt with it. The world is no longer composed of separate and
distinct cultures. Rather, globalization has created hybrid communities with new labyrinthian social
structures full of complex relations with mingling and interchanging cultures. It is this increase in social
diversity that leads to the demand for scholarship diversity within anthropology. The inclusion of diverse
scholars, as Harrison concludes, will allow anthropologists to practice theory comprehensively and
develop new hybrid dialogues that are needed in this 21st century setting. Overall, diversity of scholars
and knowledge within the field will topple the structural inequalities of the discipline and developed an
enlightened understanding of the human experience.