Preface: The Future is Now: Common Problems, Common Threads

International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Mar 2014

Stephen A. Mrozowski, LouAnn Wurst

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10761-014-0252-7.pdf

Preface: The Future is Now: Common Problems, Common Threads

Int J Histor Archaeol Preface: The Future is Now: Common Problems, Common Threads Stephen A. Mrozowski 0 LouAnn Wurst 0 0 L. Wurst Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University , Kalamazoo, MI , USA 1 ) Fiske Center for Archaeological and Research, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts , Boston, MA , USA The papers in this special issue provide concrete examples of what using archaeology to do history backward might look like. No doubt there will be subsequent attempts that will build on these efforts with improved results. As a group the papers are varied in their focus and in some instances time frame, but what they share is a common concern for the future. The uncertainties and anxieties surrounding the future are clearly evident in the case studies presented by the various authors. They reflect the authors' deep concern that the future of our existence is imperiled by policies and ideologies couched in rhetoric that is all too familiar. That familiarity stems from the common problems and common threads that bind the papers as efforts to transcend the boundaries of past, present and future, as well as other boundaries such as society and nature. Wurst and Ridarsky set the stage for the papers that follow by examining the rhetoric of the New Deal by first governor, then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt and his advisors confronted the problems of the Great Depression through a variety of programs that involved a massive infusion of government funds. In areas such as upstate New York, efforts to aid the plight of rural farmers involved the government purchasing unproductive farms. The formula used to classify which farms would be deemed unproductive is consistent with the Neoliberal axioms of our own time. Rather than using government funds to help farmers who wanted to remain farmers, Wurst and Ridarsky found that those who really benefited the most were successful commercial farmers. These policies were justified by a progressive rhetoric similar to that being invoked today as a model for how to tackle our own challenges. The formula used in New York for determining marginality stands in sharp contrast to a different reality revealed by a combination of archaeology and historical research. As Wurst and Ridarsky demonstrate quite convincingly, many farm families who were deemed - marginal appear to have lived lives that were stable and satisfying, calling into question the basis of the rhetoric that many on the left look to with hope. The power of rhetoric is also central to the paper presented by Quentin Lewis. Focusing on the early nineteenth century community of Deerfield, Massachusetts, Lewis critically examines the rhetoric of improvement and its links to scientific farming. Situating his study within the broader topic of climate change, Lewis evokes the Marxian concept of the metabolic rift between humans and nature to argue that Capitalisms insatiable appetite for energy is to blame for our current environmental crisis and that by using archaeology we can study this process backward. What he finds is that the ideology of improvement was strongly associated with more commercial forms of agriculture in which greater productivity was deemed more important than maintaining the long term fertility of soils. The growth of scientific farming was led by merchant agriculturalists who speculated in land and sought to use credit and more intensive production to accumulate wealth. In this instance the ideology of capitalist accumulation tended to abstract nature to the point where it was seen as something to be manipulated and improved through technological intervention. Although these did indeed produce greater wealth for the few, it was at the expense of sustainable farming practices that have resulted in the loss of farming as a way of life that continues in the region today. Randall McGuire begins his paper by confronting the stark reality of the decline in workers wages, rights and protections in the contemporary world of fast capitalism. He argues that capitals anti-union agenda is framed in the context of the monstrous lie that workers no longer need unions since all of these rights have already been granted to workers by the capitalists themselves or the government. Instead, he uses the examples of archaeological work at Blair Mountain, the Lattimore Massacre and the Ludlow tent colony to remind us that workers rights were only granted through serious and engaged class struggles and that they often paid for them with their blood. McGuire suggests that connecting ideas of workers rights present and past is vital to our recognition that contemporary struggles are a continuation of those occurring at these and other sites, and that this memory work is instrumental in fostering the solidarity necessary for the political action to fight back. Margaret Wood addresses a different, but not unrelated topic by examining the role of material culture in struggles over (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10761-014-0252-7.pdf

Stephen A. Mrozowski, LouAnn Wurst. Preface: The Future is Now: Common Problems, Common Threads, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 2014, pp. 205-209, Volume 18, Issue 2, DOI: 10.1007/s10761-014-0252-7