"The Forgotten Ones: Small Narratives and Modern Landscapes" is a short introduction to "historical archeology" and the debates surrounding this concept. The book, written by Anna Lihammer, is Swedish, but the language is English. Its publication was supported by the Museum of National Antiquities (Historiska Muséet) in Stockholm. The book consists of short and sometimes repetitive chapters. Some deal with the method (or lack of it) of so-called historical archeology and its relation to "regular" history as an academic discipline. Others are case studies of a number of "marginalized groups" (or supposedly marginalized) and concrete archeological excavations that might give us new information about their place in 19th and early 20th century Swedish society. I never read about historical archeology before, so criticizing "The Forgotten Ones" might be a bit risky, but I will risk it nevertheless.
While several different definitions (some of them peculiar) exist of "historical archeology", the most straightforward one is that we´re dealing with archeological excavations of historical sites, as opposed to pre-historical ones. The more recent the site, the more written sources potentially exist about the period in question (or even the site itself in some cases). Historians, almost by definition, privilege the written sources, while archeology in such cases is seen as unimportant or, at best, as a supplementary discipline. Lihammer argues that this leads to "the grand narrative" being promoted at the expense of "small narratives" of various marginalized groups. But the "grand narrative" isn´t objectively true history, but an ideological construct of the dominant strata in society, uncritically taken over by posterity. Written sources should not be seen as better or more pure than, say, archeological artifacts. Rather, they are themselves artifacts - artifacts of upper class discourses, showing how the dominant minority viewed the world and attempted to bring it under its control. At times, Lihammer becomes explicitly political, arguing for a deconstruction of the "grand narrative of modernity" in favor of a multivalent collection of small narratives, giving voice to the previously marginalized and invisible groups. I think it´s obvious that the politics in question are leftist.
The case studies deal with people living in slums, Travellers, crofters, the mentally ill, and (somewhat surprisingly) displaced Soviet soldiers interned in camps during World War II. As already mentioned, all examples are from Sweden. One of Lihammer´s points is that these groups played a central role in the emergence of modernity, including as ideological "Others" against which the bourgeoisie contrasted the modern project, yet they have been marginalized by the "grand narrative". A related point is that "landscapes" aren´t entirely "objective" or "neutral" either, rather being structures of meaning and various power relations. These constructed landscapes also hide the lives or even existence of various marginalized groups. Historical archeology can sometimes literally unearth them!
Lihammer´s articles do contain some interesting information. For instance, excavations at Pinoberget in Värmland reveal that crofters ("statare" in Swedish), often considered to be the lowest social group in 19th and early 20th century Sweden, weren´t uniformly dirt poor or lacking in agency. There was a surprising amount of social stratification at the Pinoberget crofter settlement, with some "cottages" actually being quite large. Many "crofters" were industrial workers rather than landless peasants, they had access to horses, and the settlement was integrated with the urban economy, rather than with the surrounding rural countryside, since typical urban habits (such as coffee drinking from specially manufactured cups) were common. Lihammer suggests that the crofters consciously adopted a kind of "urban" identity precisely to distinguish themselves from the farmers in nearby villages. Indeed, the road connecting Pinoberget with the outside world didn´t even pass the farming villages, presumably because the crofters themselves wanted it that way, not because of hideous apartheid-like oppression. Of course, it would be interesting to know how representative Pinoberget was for Swedish crofters in general.
Another interesting piece deal with the Traveller settlement of Snarsmon in Bohuslän. (In Swedish, Travellers are called "resande" or "tattare". The latter term is considered derogatory.) Today, the settlement is long gone, and so little known that an official local map place it at the wrong location! The settlement was isolated from the nearby farming villages, but its location was actually well planned from a Traveller viewpoint. It´s close to several important roads, and situated just south of the Swedish-Norwegian border. Since Travellers were frequently persecuted, they preferred to settle at the border between two legal jurisdictions (and in this case, two nation-states). The point, once again, is that even this unwanted and oppressed group had "agency", revealed by a closer study of their little hamlet, which to an outsider otherwise might simply look like the dwelling of outcast unfortunates.
While this is no doubt interesting, Lihammer´s book is - ironically - open to the same criticism as she levels against "the grand narrative of modernity", her own position really being a kind of "grand narrative of postmodernity". And if looked at closely, this narrative is also the expression of a certain dominant elite perspective: that of the postmodern multi-culturalist bureaucracy. This is most obvious in her treatment of the Travellers. Traditionally, Travellers *did not want to be noticed by majority society*, including the government bureacracy. Thus, their "inclusion" into the "narrative" is problematic and may simply reflect the political agendas of the supposedly "woke" and "benign" latter day incarnation of the same bureaucracy the Travellers have tried for generations to avoid. That the bureaucrats work with some Traveller ethno-activists doesn´t change the basic fact, that we are still dealing with a control mechanism to integrate the Travellers into mainstream society. Now, I don´t necessarily mind integrating Travellers. My point is the ironic observation that Lihammer´s "inclusive" perspective might be subject to the same criticism as the previous majority perspectives on this group. It´s still about power relations, a power that simpy emanates from a different dominant group...
But where the "small narratives" really break down is when Lihammer discusses the working class slums in Årstadal south of Stockholm. She describes the inhabitants of the slumlands as an marginalized group, bemoaning the fact that the slums have been completely forgotten today. Indeed, even their physical existence have been destroyed!
Naaah.
*The working class is not a marginalized group in Swedish society, and everyone acknowledges its important place in the grand narrative*. The organized labor movement with its class struggles and political organization is completely absent from Lihammer´s study, as if the destruction of the slums didn´t have something to do with *workers themselves wanting to destroy them*. It becomes really weird when the author treats the fact that workers played a central role in the emergence of modernity as some kind of huge revelation. Who knows, maybe it is a revelation for privileged middle class academics doing historical archeology, but if so, what power relation is *that* all about?
Ultimately, "The Forgotten Ones" is itself a kind of artifact, perhaps telling us something about the ideological narratives of the early 21st century dominant groups..
No comments:
Post a Comment