Material engagement theory is an archaeological theory with aims to explain long term change, specifically how cognitive abilities grow and develop. However this is not done by analysing human development in relation to evolution (i.e. when and where), but by considering what, how and why. Material engagement theory links cultural and biological evolution as inseparable synergetic processes. Human intelligence is deeply intra-active. It is elicited by our surroundings (human and environmental) and influences our thinking abilities and responses.
Individuals of the same genotype can have different neural, cognitive and behavioural outcomes, because of the impact of differing social, environmental and cultural differences and variations in life and learning experiences. This means individuals with similar gene types have outcomes that are probabilistic, rather than predetermined. Griffiths and Stoltz suggest "what individuals inherit from their ancestors is not a mind, but the ability to develop a mind".
MET aim to frame research questions to focus on dynamic relationships that are under-theorized from the viewpoint of cognitive and brain sciences - i.e. upon the interactions among brains, bodies and things. Material engagement theory tries to establish culturally and philosophically informed links between the brain's functional structure and material culture. It needs a methodology that is able to deal with different temporalities. To me, this means that our brains, evolved and operating in the 21st century, need to adapt to working with the archaeological realities. As I am interested in 'the object' I need to improve my understanding of material culture.
Archaeologists "take things seriously". Things enact and constitute a system of understanding. Objects have a transformational power that goes beyond the descriptive dimension of their life history. MET is not the backdrop to human cognition. Rather, objects mediate, shape and constitute our ways of being, and of making sense of the world. MET articulates and brings into focus the intersection of people and things. (How Things Shape the Mind, Lambroud Malafouris, ch3)
Semiotics discusses the nature of the sign. However there is a difference between material and linguistic signs. Material signs are durable - they can be touched, carried, worn, possessed, traded and destroyed. They are tactile and spacial and can understood in embodied ways. However, the linguistic sign is ephemeral, linear and sequential and does not have the properties of the material sign. Traditional semiotics tends to reduce signification to a contextual encoding and decoding, where there is a specific 'right answer' to decoding the signifier. Material engagement theory changes this outcome.
The material sign is expressive. It is an object therefore has substance and is an example of the sign - philosophisers call this 'instantiation' The linguistic sign has no substance, stands for a concept and is expressive. Material signs are not message carriers of a pre-defined social universe - they are actual physical forces that shape the social and cognitive universe - therefore are not static in time.
No comments:
Post a Comment