Dialectics, Heterarchy, and Western Pueblo Social Organization

8/9/2019 Dialectics, Heterarchy, and Western Pueblo Social Organization

1/4

Society for merican rchaeology

Dialectics, Heterarchy, and Western Pueblo Social OrganizationAuthor(s): Dean J. Saitta and Randall H. McGuireSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 334-336Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694702 .Accessed: 19/01/2015 15:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128. 226.139.159 on Mon, 19 Jan 2 015 15:57:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2694702?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2694702?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam


2/4

DIALECTICS, HETERARCHY, AND WESTERN PUEBLOSOCIAL ORGANIZATION

DeanJ. Saitta nd RandallH. McGuire

Rautman's ritique f our rticle Although hey HavePetty aptains TheyObeyThem adly:TheDialecticsof PrehispanicWestern ueblo Social Organization McGuire nd Saitta 1996) provides swith n opportunity oclarify omepoints boutour theoretical erspective. autman hares our dissatisfaction ith ttempts ocharacterize rehispanic western ueblosocial organization s either galitarian r hierarchical. he, however, uestions ur dismissal f processual heory nd ouradvocacy f dialectical pproach o the roblem. heproposes nstead n alternative pproach hat elies n the oncept fheterarchy. ehave ittle roblemwith heuse of heterarchy s a descriptive abelfor ate Prehispanic ueblo social orga-nization, utwedesire more ynamic nderstanding f that rganization han he oncept f heterarchy llows.We ind hatunderstanding n a dialectical pproach.

La critica de Rautman e nuestro rticulo Although hey Have Petty aptains TheyObeyThemBadly: The Dialectics ofPrehispanicWestern uebloSocial Organization McGuire nd Saitta 1996) nos ofrece na oportunidad e clarificar uestraperspectiva eorica. autman stdi e acuerdo on nuestra ritica e los ntentos ecalificar a organizaci6n ocial de los ndiosprehispdnicos e os PueblosOccidentales omouna ociedad gualitaria como ociedadjerdirquica.inembargo, lladescon-ffa de nuestro echazo e teoria rocesual nuestro poyodel uso de una teoria ialectica ara explicar a organizaci6n ocialde estos ndios rehispa'nicos. lternativamente,llapropone l concepto e heterarqufa. osgusta l concepto e heterarqufapara describir a organizacion ocialde los ndiosPueblo en el epoca prehispa'nica ardia, ero deseamos n conocimiento eesa organizaci6nma'sdindmica e lo ofrecido or el concepto e heterarqufa. ncontramos ste conocimiento n una teoriadialectica.

W e are pleased o have he pportunity orespond o Rautman's houghtful ndconstructive omment n our paper.

Ourmajor oal n the nitial aper was to redirectthe debate boutPrehispanic ueblo social orga-nization way from unproductive ipolarposi-tions o more uanced onsiderationsf henatureanddynamics f that rganization. autman's ri-tique fulfills that goal for us. Along withRautman, e start rom he very mportant osi-tion hat ate western ueblo socialorganizationwas complex nd contradictory. ddressing hepoints f disagreementhat autman aises llowsus to better larify ome spects f our onceptualframework. e hope that his xchange f deaswill extend he discussion f aboriginal ocialorganizationn the Southwest/Northwest'n newandproductive irections.

Our rticle hallenged he ppositional hinking

about ueblo ocial organizationhat, n ourview,is reflected y the Grasshopper-Chavez assdebate nd that has hindered hinking bout hemeaning f the puebloan rchaeological ecord.Rautman grees with s that ppositional hinkingis unproductive. he disagrees, owever, n claim-ing hat his ort f hinking s not necessary on-sequenceof a processual nalytical ramework.Rautman roposes hat he concept f heterar-chy-a concept borne of processualist ommit-ments to the study of social systems -cancapture hesort f organizational ariability ndinterplay etween puebloan egalitarianism ndhierarchy hatwe explored n our rticle. he alsoargues hat we should ot sk f ocieties re com-plex,but ather ow hey re complex.

We think hat Rautmanmakesgood points nboth ounts. o the xtent hat he oncept f het-erarchy llowsthat heconstituent elements r

Dean J. Saitta * Department f Anthropology, niversity f Denver, enver, O 80208Randall H. McGuire * Department f Anthropology, inghamton niversity, inghamton Y 13902

American ntiquity, 3(2), 1998,pp. 334-336.Copyright by the Society or American rchaeology

334

This content downloaded from 128. 226.139.159 on Mon, 19 Jan 2 015 15:57:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

COMMENTS 335

variables n a system an be related n differentways, t directs s to think n terms f organiza-tional ariability, nd the uggestion f organiza-tional ariabilitys what'smost nteresting bout

the archaeological ecord. We especially greewith autman's laim hat rganizationalomplex-ity s to be found n any ociety nd hat ur ask sto lluminate henature nd transformative oten-tialof that omplexity.

However, he difficulty or s is that, lthoughuseful s a general raming oncept, eterarchy san analytical oncept s static nd silent n theissue of causality. t does not direct s to think nterms f particular ausal powers, nor does it

address he orts f nternal ynamics hatwe seeorganizing ueblo ocial ife. ut nother ay, et-erarchy s an abstractionhat oes not apture urinterest n the lived experience f ancestralpuebloan eoples.Rautman s aware f his imita-tion,we think, here he states hat proposingheterarchical rganizationn a given ociety oesnot uniquely dentify ny single organizationalstructure. nd, nthe ame entence autman ec-ognizes that heterarchy s just a beginning n

understanding:the concept orces s to specifymore learly he ontext ndtemporal uration fthe relationships e are describing. hus, wehave ittle roblem ith he use of heterarchy s adescriptiveabelfor ate Prehispanic ueblo ocialorganization, utwe desire more articular nddynamic nderstanding f that rganization hanthe oncept f heterarchy llows.

The reasonwhywe value he oncept f heter-archy ifferently han autman elates o some dif-ferences we have with her concerning argerepistemologicalommitments. s discussednourarticle, e are committed o dialectics s an orga-nizing rinciple orbuilding ocialtheory. s anorganizing pistemological ommitment, ialec-ticsdirects s to theoretical oncepts hat re use-ful for simultaneously explaining andtransforming he world. Processualist ommit-ments o concepts ike system nd self-organi-zation re ess useful orus in this dualpurposethan re concepts uch s social formation ndsocial struggle. e view social ife n terms fbundles f processes hat re locked n complexand contradictorynterplay, ather han as stipu-latedby the concept f heterarchy) set of sys-temic elements hat an be ranked r unranked

in different ays nd that sually equire xternalinputs o produce hange. Ourpreferred onceptsimply n interest n particular inds of causaldynamics, nd they have a particular critical

edge hat s not ssociated with he oncept f het-erarchy. hus, while processualist rchaeologymaynot, s Rautman uggests, ecessarily tipu-lateoppositionalhinking,his ritical dge s cer-tainly till missing rom ts largely unctionalistandevolutionistonceptual ramework.

Henceourviewof the pueblos s communalrather han heterarchical. se of the term com-munal ends message bout he pecific indsof social processes hat re of analyticalnterest o

us. The conceptmakes specific tatement bouthowwe see these ocieties eing rganized; .e., sinvolving he collective ppropriation f surpluslabor.This n turn llows us to distinguish om-munal orms rom ther rrangements ormobiliz-ing urplus, .g., ributary ndcapitalist orms. yqualifying heterm communal ith complexwe send an additionalmessage that collectiveappropriation f surplus s neither simple noregalitarian, ut rather an involvemultiple nd

even competing political hierarchies, ariousforms f productive pecializationnd, n certaintimes nd places, uneasy rticulation ith non-communal elations f surplus ppropriation.

In this iew ommunalism ecomesmuchmorethan, s Rautman uggests, just one form f het-erarchical rganizationn a middle-rangeociety.For us, middle-range ociety does not exist.Although t is now commonplace o think boutsocieties s occupying laces along continua forganizational ariation, hisperspective an dullappreciationf some mportant eatures hat adi-cally differentiate ocieties rom ach other. snoted bove, f special nterest o us is how soci-etiesvary n the ways hey ppropriate ocial sur-plus labor. A typology f social formationsincorporating, inimally, ommunal, ributary,and apitalist orms aptures mportant ifferencesin the waysthat uman roups roduce nd dis-tribute ocial urplus. hese onceptsnturn nviteinvestigationf how these elations re variouslycreated nd reproduced cross time and space.Some relations an be reproduced ia fairly igidpolitical ierarchy hileothers an involvemoreflexible heterarchies of various sorts.Understandinghese elationships,s well as the




4/4

336 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 63, No. 2, 1998]

specific tensions and contradictions hat canchange ocial formations rom ithin, s the bjectof empirical esearch. autman s with s in rec-ognizing uch ariability, ut nourview conceptof heterarchy s neither ssential ounderstandingit, nornecessarily referable o otherways f pro-ceeding.

In sum, we share withRautman n interest norganizational ariability, ut we have differentwaysof thinking bout t and,perhaps, ifferentultimate oals for rchaeologicalnquiry. ecanstudy he astwith oncepts orne f n objectivistinterest n making ense of whathappened, rwecanstudy hepastwith oncepts hat, ialecti-

cally, lso remind s of andconfront s with) hehistorical ontingency f our own lived experi-ence. The difference s important. e think hatanalysis f the ntellectual nd social causes andconsequences f concepts sed to interpret hearchaeological ecord s an important iece ofneglected usiness n our discipline. t is time oevaluate he merits nd imitations f concepts nd

typologies ot only n terms f how they elp usinterpret ndexplain he past, ut lso in terms ftheir roductivity or reating ertain ubjectivitiesor consciousnesses bout he nature f ived xpe-rience cross ime nd space. t s this notion hatgivesour dialectical pproach ts critical dge.We did not llude o this dea nour riginal aper,let alone develop t. Rautman's omment ringsthe ssueto the foreground, owever,ndthus erinterventions an important nd constructive on-tribution o the discussion. We look forward ohelping ustain t.

Note

1. The cultural rea that rchaeologists ave traditionallycalled the Southwest ncludes heMexicanstates f Sonoraand Chihuahua. rom he perspective f Mexicothis s theNorthwest. he abel Southwest/Northwest reserves he ra-ditional erm ut also breaks down the chauvinism f onlyviewing he rea from North merican erspective.

ReceivedDecember 1, 1997; accepted December 9, 1997.

Annapolis Pasts Carolina's HistoricalHISTORICAL RCHAEOLOGYN L d

ANNAPOLIS,MARYLAND andscapesEdited y PaulA.Shackel,aulR.Mullins, ARCHAEOLOGICALERSPECTIVES

and Mark . Warner Edited y Linda Stine,Martha ierden,In this ookof ssays ummarizing he Lesley . Drucker,nd Christopher udge

findings f heArchaeologyn Annapolis Synthesizing wealth f researchn

project, he ontributors how hat radi- archaeology, eography, nd history, hetional bjects f tudy ikeGeorgianman- essays n this ollection ocus n the richsions nd colonial rafts annot e under- and varied andscapes f SouthCarolinastoodwithout onsidering heir omplete andparts f North arolina. heir nterdis-social nd economicmilieu. he volume ciplinary pproachwilldeepen hereader's

showshow rchaeologistsan nterpret he understanding fhowCarolinians-and,different ocial, emporal, nd theoretical by mplication, ther mericans- ave

pieces f city's istory, nd t provides changed he and and howthey, n turn,scholars ith n example f he multifac- havebeenchanged y their nteraction

eted ffects f apitalismnd ndustrializa- Wihet.tion n one corner f he United tates. 304 pages, llus., SBN 0-87049-976-9, 45.00408 pages, llus., SBN0-87049-996-3, 50.00 Shipping & handling: $3.50 for irst ook; $.75

Web Site: http://sunsite.utk.edu/utpress for ach additional book.

kr 0 0 .0



Documents

Dialectics, Heterarchy, and Western Pueblo Social Organization