I am writing an article for an anthology that will not be published for quite some time but here is the abstract.
Towards an object-oriented gender archeology
Gender archeology has helped to elucidate and problematize androcentric interpretations of archaeological material. However, what remains a common ground with other Kantian influenced archeology is the anthropocentric perspective that depends on the correlation between subject and object. Centrism is perhaps necessary but the archaeological source of material is not an ancient socially constructed entity a la Butler, Foucault, Bourdieu, etc. The objects of various shapes, temporalities and sizes are our source of material and those should be in center. Within the different versions of object-oriented ontology (OOO) humans as subjects ceases to exist. She is one of many real and sensual objects. In the democracy of objects humans consists of different objects at the same time as she is a part of several different objects. We have to begin with the objects that make up the human first. Latourian relations between these objects are not what determine the object’s capacities or properties. Following the ontologies by Harman, Bryant, Bogost and Morton, this article approaches the much scorned notion of essence (without essentialism). The article illustrates how such an object-oriented gender archeology could work.