Cited by 61

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies)

Fowles, Severin·2016·Journal of Material Culture

Abstract

This article argues that the late 20th-century tradition of material culture studies, as well as its more recent object-oriented offspring, emerged as a response to the 1980s crisis of representation and the deeper postcolonial critiques that accompanied this crisis. As it became more and more difficult to study and make claims about non-Western people, anthropologists and scholars in related disciplines began to explore the advantages of treating non-human objects as quasi-human subjects. Things proved safer to study than people and the popularity of ‘thing theory’ grew, at least in part, for this very reason. More importantly, the analytical shift of focus from people to things had the effect of salvaging – and, indeed, greatly amplifying – the representational authority of Western scholars at the precise moment when that authority seemed to be evaporating.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1359183515623818

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ontological claim of mute things is a result of epistemic violence, not constitutive of the thing itself.

    “It is important to clarify that the ontological claim of mute things is actually a result of epistemic violence, not something constitutive of the thing itself (Olsen 2010; for a critique see Fowles 2016).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. 10.1086/662027 · DOI
  2. 10.2307/1354221 · DOI
  3. Barthes R, 1972, Mythologies
  4. Baudrillard J, 2005, The System of Objects
  5. 10.1215/9780822391623 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/amet.12083 · DOI
  7. 10.1086/200061 · DOI
  8. Brown B, 2004, Things
  9. 10.1086/500700 · DOI
  10. Callon M, 1986, Power, Action and Belief
  11. 10.2307/2928386 · DOI
  12. 10.1525/9780520946286-003 · DOI
  13. 10.1525/9780520946286 · DOI
  14. Comaroff J, 1992, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination, 3
  15. Deloria V, 1988, Custer Died for Your Sins
  16. Domanska E, 2006, Archaeologia Polona, 44, 171
  17. 10.1111/j.1548-1360.2012.01153.x · DOI
  18. 10.7208/chicago/9780226259031.001.0001 · DOI
  19. Ginsburg F, 1989, Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community
  20. Harman G, 2005, Guerrilla Metaphysics
  21. 10.4324/9780203088791 · DOI
  22. Hieb L, 2006, Canyon Gardens: The Ancient Pueblo Landscapes of the American Southwest, 113
  23. 10.3366/E1471576707000034 · DOI
  24. Holbraad M, 2010, Critique of Anthropology, 30, 179
  25. 10.1017/S1380203807002127 · DOI
  26. Kiaer C, 2005, Imagine No Possessions: The Social Objects of Russian Constructivism
  27. 10.9783/9780812202496 · DOI
  28. 10.1017/CBO9780511819582.004 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Latour B, 1987, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
  30. 10.2307/800624 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Latour B, 1993, We Have Never Been Modern
  32. Latour B, 1999, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies
  33. 10.4159/9780674039964 · DOI
  34. Latour B, 1979, Laboratory Life
  35. Leach E, 1973, The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, 761
  36. Marcus G, 1992, Lives in Trust: The Fortunes of Dynastic Families in Late Twentieth Century America
  37. Marcus G, 1986, Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences
  38. Miller D, 1987, Material Culture and Mass Consumption
  39. Miller D, 1994, Modernity, an Ethnographic Approach
  40. Miller D, 1998, A Theory of Shopping
  41. 10.1086/421127 · DOI
  42. Nader L, 1972, Reinventing Anthropology, 284
  43. 10.1080/00293650310000650 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Olsen B, 2010, In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects
  45. 10.1525/california/9780520274167.001.0001 · DOI
  46. 10.1086/RESv9n1ms20166719 · DOI
  47. 10.1215/9780822386711-011 · DOI
  48. 10.1353/crt.2006.0006 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1548-1360.2012.01158.x · DOI
  50. Rathje W, 1992, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage
  51. Sahlins M, 2002, Waiting for Foucault, Still, 73
  52. Said E, 1978, Orientalism
  53. 10.1086/448481 · DOI
  54. Spyer P, 1998, Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Places
  55. 10.4159/9780674044326 · DOI
  56. Whitehead H, 1987, Renunciation and Reformulation: A Study of Conversion in an American Sect
  57. Whiteley P, 1993, Journal of the Southwest, 35, 125

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fowles, S.
Affiliations
Barnard College, Columbia University, NY, USA
Venue
Journal of Material Culture
Published
2016-03
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
9-27
ISSN
  • 1359-1835
  • 1460-3586
Cited by
61
References
6
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review