Abstract
The distinction between “theory” and “theorizing,” according to Swedish sociologist Richard Swedberg (2016), offers a simple lesson in Grammar 101. Whereas theory is a noun (or theories, a plural noun), theorizing functions as a verb. Theorizing is an action, a process, a dynamism whether by trial-and-error or accident, which produces a heightened or enlightened interpretation of a phenomenon under study (i.e., a theory). Swedberg’s attention to theorizing for the purposes of generating a theory is as much an intellectual exercise as it is a pedagogical one. “I use the term ‘theorizing’,” he (2016: 6) explains, “as a short-hand for a better understanding of how a theory is put together; how it is handled in empirical research–and how it can be taught in an effective manner.” To theorize properly, he continues, one must: observe; identify empirically supported facts; name the phenomenon indicated by those facts; draw on or develop a concept to aid in analysis of the named phenomenon; fine-tune the concept by introducing metaphors, analogies, or typologies; and craft an explanation. In this book, and with Swedberg’s how-to in mind, I theorize bioarchaeology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In contrast to bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology involves specialized training in the legal and criminal entanglements of recent deaths (Komar and Buikstra 2008). Less of a concern is the contextualization of biocultural data to address questions of anthropological salience. Perhaps for this reason, forensic anthropologists have regarded critical social theories with indifference if not outright hostility. The debate surrounding the identification of “race” is one pointed example (e.g., Gravlee 2009; Konigsberg et al. 2009; Sauer 1992; Smay and Armelagos 2000).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Not all of Darwin’s neologisms have weathered the years. Gemmules, for example, the organic particles he named to explain a facet of heredity (i.e., his theory of pangenesis), was invalidated with the discovery of DNA. And, despite claims to the contrary, Darwin did not coin the phrase survival of the fittest. That honor goes to philosopher Herbert Spencer, who introduced it in The Principles of Biology (1866). Three years later Darwin included “survival of the fittest” in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species (1869) (Paul 1988).
References
Agarwal, S., & Glencross, B. (Eds.). (2011). Social bioarchaeology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990 [1980]). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans., Vol. 41). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1995 [1977]). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). The peasant and his body. Ethnography, 5(4), 579–599.
Buikstra, J., & Beck, L. (Eds.). (2006). Bioarchaeology: The contextual analysis of human remains. Burlington: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Canguilhem, G. (1951). Le normal et le pathologique. In R. Leriche (Ed.), Somme de Médecine Contemporaine (Vol. 1, pp. 27–32). Paris: Editions de la Diane Française.
Canguilhem, G. (1978). On the normal and the pathological (C. Fawcett, Trans.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Canguilhem, G. (1991). On the normal and the pathological (C. Fawcett, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.
Canguilhem, G. (1994). A vital rationalist: Selected writings from Georges Canguilhem (A. Goldhammer, Trans.) New York: Zone Books.
Canguilhem, G. (1995). Introduction to Penser la folie: Essais sur Michel Foucault. Critical Inquiry, 21(2), 287–289.
Canguilhem, G. (2008 [1952]). Knowledge of life (S. Geroulanos & D. Ginsburg, Trans.). New York: Fordham University Press.
Canguilhem, G. (2012). Writings on medicine (S. Geroulanos & T. Meyers, Trans.). New York: Fordham University Press.
Cheverko, C., Prince-Buitenhuys, J., & Hubbe, M. (2021). Theory in bioarchaeology: An introduction. In C. Cheverko, J. Prince-Buitenhuys, & M. Hubbe (Eds.), Theoretical approaches in bioarchaeology (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1279.
Darwin, C. (1869). On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (5th ed.). London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1872). On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (6th ed.). London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1874). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (2nd ed.). London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1889). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (3rd ed.). New York: D. Appleton and Company.
DiGangi, E., & Moore, M. (2013). Research methods in human skeletal biology. New York: Academic.
Geller, P. L. (2017). The bioarchaeology of socio-sexual lives: Queering common sense about sex, gender, and sexuality. New York: Springer.
Goodman, A., & Leatherman, T. (Eds.). (1998). Building a new biocultural synthesis: Political-economic perspectives on human biology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gravlee, C. (2009). How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(1), 47–57.
Haraway, D. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80, 65–108.
Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness (Vol. 1). Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Komar, D., & Buikstra, J. (2008). Forensic anthropology: Contemporary theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Konigsberg, L., Algee-Hewitt, B., & Steadman, D. (2009). Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(1), 77–90.
Larsen, C. (2015). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting behavior from the human skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemert, C. (2010). What is social theory? In A. Elliott (Ed.), The Routledge companion to social theory (pp. 17–32). New York: Routledge.
Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis rule in occupied Europe: Laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Martin, D., Harrod, R., & Pérez, V. (2013). Bioarchaeology: An integrated approach to working with human remains. New York: Springer.
Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.
Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics. Durham: Duke University Press.
Paul, D. (1988). The selection of the “survival of the fittest.” Journal of the History of Biology, 21(3), 411–424.
Power, S. (2002). “A problem from hell”: America and the age of genocide. New York: Basic Books.
Sauer, N. (1992). Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: If races don’t exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them? Social Science and Medicine, 34, 107–111.
Sloan, P. (2017). The concept of evolution to 1872. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2017 edition). https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2016/entries/evolution-to-1872/. Accessed 26 May 2021.
Smay, D., & Armelagos, G. (2000). Galileo wept: A critical assessment of the use of race in forensic anthropology. Transforming Anthropology, 9(2), 19–29.
Spencer, H. (1866). The principles of biology (Vol. 1). New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Swedberg, R. (2016). Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 5–22.
Wylie, A. (1992). On “heavily decomposing red herrings”: Scientific method in archaeology and the ladening of evidence with theory. In L. Embree (Ed.), Metaarchaeology (pp. 269–288). New York: Springer.
Zuckerman, M., & Armelagos, G. (2011). The origins of biocultural dimensions in bioarchaeology. In S. Agarwal & B. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 15–43). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Geller, P.L. (2021). What Is Theorizing?. In: Theorizing Bioarchaeology. Bioarchaeology and Social Theory. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70704-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70704-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70702-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70704-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)