Maintaining the open space.

Thomas, Julian

The force of Willy Kitchen's call for the World Archaeological Congress to be 'reinvented' and to undertake a 'more principled political engagement' depends upon a particular understanding of what kind of an organization WAC is, and of what it does. WAC was originally formed as a result of the IUPPS' withdrawal of support from the Southampton Congress of 1986, occasioned by the exclusion of South African participants (Ucko 1987: 127). It exists above all to hold international congresses, which focus on a series of concerns which are distinct from those of the IUPPS (including the role of archaeology in the third world, the significance of archaeology to indigenous communities, the social and political context of archaeological activity, archaeological education, archaeological theory and the role of new technology). WAC is characterized less by a unified position or agenda than by a conviction that particular issues are worthy of debate, and a commitment to providing the conditions under which they can be discussed openly. WAC establishes the discursive space within which competing points of view can be rehearsed, and it can be distinguished from the more unified platforms of organizations like the new Radical Archaeology Forum (Hamilakis et al. 1996). I support both organizations, recognizing they exist to do different things in different ways. WAC's membership draws from different nations and cultural backgrounds, and rather than seeking to homogenize these it sets up the circumstances in which they can engage in a conversation, to their mutual enlightenment. If WAC can be said to have a single mission, it is one of consciousness-raising. Further, it is more than a semantic point that WAC meetings do not have 'delegates' (as Kitchen suggests) but 'participants', who do not represent any government unless they declare themselves to do so.

Undoubtedly WAC's discursive space was compromised by the ban on any consideration of the Ayodhya issue at WAC3 in New Delhi. It is worth recalling the circumstances under which Jack Golson, as President, exhorted those attending the Congress to refrain from discussing the destruction of the mosque. Golson and the WAC Executive were under the impression that the request to restrict debate had come from the Indian government; they were acting on the basis of information from reliable sources implying that any mention of Ayodhya might result in bloodshed and death (WAC fell on the second anniversary of the destruction of the mosque). With Congress participants arriving and considerations for local security, the WAC Executive chose to accede to the ban rather than cancel the Congress. They then agreed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the ban and provide an opportunity for a full discussion of the Ayodhya issue, which was eventually achieved with the Croatian Inter-Congress earlier this year.

WAC owes its existence to a principled political stand on the issue of institutionalized racism - surely an instance of a risked decision. But we should remember that South African participants were not excluded from WAC-1 on the grounds of the views they held. Most, if not all, of the 27 people concerned were actually opposed to the policy of apartheid. This was not an attempt to shield WAC from the insidious influence of a corrupt political philosophy, but an act of solidarity with a UNbacked academic and cultural boycott of the apartheid state. I find it quite conceivable that WAC might make such a political stand again in the future, and in its condemnation of the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque it has shown itself capable of decisively adopting a position on contemporary issues. However, I would hope that WAC will always form its policy in the light of an honest attempt to understand the complexities of a given situation, rather than a knee-jerk reaction. It is for this reason that I would be opposed to the 'no platform' policy which Kitchen advocates, which would involve denying 'participation to those who by their actions would frustrate WAC's broader aims'.

This opposition on my part is in no way related to a belief in the sanctity of free speech. As Kitchen implies, such a view soon founders on the question of whether we extend free speech to those who would themselves deny it. I would simply question whether a 'full and frank exchange of views' is possible unless all views are represented. I find Kitchen's complaint that some of the participants at the Brac Inter-Congress pursued 'specific political agendas' curious: who there did not have a political agenda? It is questionable whether, by identifying certain individuals in advance as politically unacceptable and excluding them, we could arrive at a debate which was cleansed of political content. We are all political creatures, and any discussion is automatically a political field in which we adopt particular positions. It is only through the debate itself that we find out with whom we disagree, and by how much.

WAC creates an open space for debate, and provides the participants with the opportunity to evaluate critically the arguments presented. This was surely the rationale for the session on Ayodhya at Brac: not simply to hear a presentation of 'scientific' fact, but to witness the ways in which evidence is recruited to support a case, the rhetoric which promotes it and the manner in which the protagonists acquit themselves in front of an international audience. For a discursive space is also a juridical space, a court in which we collectively and individually form our opinions. It is on similar grounds that WAC intends to publish the presentations from the Ayodhya session as an issue of the World Archaeological Bulletin. Putting what is effectively a dossier of evidence before a global audience in an uncut form allows that audience to evaluate the arguments, from its many standpoints. What makes WAC unique is that it enables a series of different critiques to be generated on a given issue, from within a series of distinct traditions of thought. Given intractable questions like the reburial of human remains, nationalism and culture-history, relativism in archaeological interpretation or the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque, I believe that it is enlightening to hear how Latin Americans or West Africans or Southeast Asians would construct an analysis. I am sceptical of Kitchen's assertion that by allowing persons a platform, or by publishing their work, WAC confers on them a position of legitimacy, or helps to circulate and promote ideas which would be better silenced. These days the dissemination of information through the Internet is both swift and extensive, and it is all but impossible to stem the flow of ideas. WAC's open forum not only allows ideas to be put forward, but it allows them to be questioned as well. It might be cosy to exclude those with whom we disagree, but I believe that it is incumbent upon us to take their arguments seriously, and to contest them.

For these reasons, I see no conflict between WAC's recognition of the inherently political character of archaeological investigation and the pluralism of the forum it provides. Our deliberations at Congresses and Inter-Congresses are not an end in themselves, but enable us to make informed choices. Sometimes our discussions will be unpalatable or disturbing. Many western archaeologists, for instance, found the demands of Native Americans and Native Australians for the restitution and repatriation of human remains difficult to cope with at WAC-1. But the conversation has to be two-sided, it has to challenge all of us. Far from 'paralysing' WAC, the events surrounding and following the New Delhi Congress have succeeded in bringing the question of Ayodhya to greater international notice. The numerous articles which Kitchen cites are testament enough to that, but it is also significant that the Indian government took the Brac Inter-Congress seriously enough to send along a senior representative of the Ayodhya Commission. We may never know who actually ordered the ban at WAC-3, but I suspect that by now they have had cause to regret their actions. This is why I find that Tierney's (1998) suggestion that WAC had been 'out-manoeuvred' at the Brac Inter-Congress by the BJP and its supporters carries little conviction. Simply because a particular point of view has been expressed in front of an international audience, it does not follow that any of them will have been convinced.

In conclusion, I do not wish to give the impression that I believe WAC as presently constituted is perfect. Some changes to the organization's statutes could allow its aims to be more adequately represented, could streamline the process of election to Council, and could outline the responsibilities of membership. To this end the WAC Officers have prepared a document for circulation to all members, which will enable these issues to be discussed decisively at WAC-4 in Cape Town. It may be that, in time, WAC will also wish to discuss ways of barring some persons from membership. But I am wary of the kind of over-codification which Kitchen mentions, and believe that the organization is better judged by its practice than by its rules, codes and statutes. That practice, I believe, requires that Council and Executive should maintain a degree of flexibility to act.

WAC-4 will take place in January of 1999. It will be an open platform, in that Martin Hall as Academic Secretary is exercising no restriction over what will, and will not, be discussed, and by whom. It would be a curious kind of 'bottom-up' organization which chose to compel silence and exclusion from above.

Reference

HAMILAKIS, Y., M. PLUCIENNIK & M. TIERNEY. 1996. What is the Radical Archaeology Forum?

http://archaeology.lamp.ac.uk/RAF/RAF.html

TIERNEY, M. 1995. WAC-3 and the role of archaeologists as intellectuals, WAC 3 Focus, WAC News 3(1): ii-iii.

1998. Treasures buried by layers of hate, Times Higher Education Supplement 12 June 1998.

UCKO, P. 1987. Academic freedom and apartheid: the story of the World Archaeological Congress. London: Duckworth.