General Approach

  • Almudena Hernando


The introduction lays the groundwork for the main issues the book will be dealing with and clarifies the author’s motivation and viewpoint, emphasizing that the focus will be on what people actually do rather than what they think or say they do. As an archaeologist, the author has had the opportunity to confirm time, and again that forms of human behavior that are not consciously acknowledged may nevertheless leave traces in material culture (in objects or clothes, for instance). Seen from this standpoint, men and women’s actions—from the remote past to the present times—appear under a new light: certain processes are revealed that are often concealed or distorted in the self-accounts that ultimately provide the basis for the writing of history. This book focuses precisely on those unacknowledged yet fundamental processes.


Patriarchy Theory of complexity Fractal theory Reason-emotion relationship Identity construction’s mechanisms 


  1. Abraham, R. H. (1993). Human fractals. The arabesque in our mind. Visual Anthropology Review, 9(1), 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adorno, T.W. & Horkheimer, M. (2002)[1987]. Dialectic of enlightenment : Philosophical fragments. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bonino, L. (1999). Varones, género y salud mental: Deconstruyendo la “normalidad” masculina. In M. Segarra & Á. Carabí (Eds.), Nuevas masculinidades (pp. 41–64). Barcelona: Icaria.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Sociological review monograph (pp. 132–164). Londres: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Carabí, Á., & Armengol, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). La masculinidad a debate. Barcelona: Icaria.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error. New York: G.P. Putnam.Google Scholar
  9. Descola, P. (1996). Constructing natures: Symbolic ecology and social practice. In P. Descola & G. Pálsson (Eds.), Nature and society. Anthropological perspectives (pp. 82–102). Routledge: Londres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Elias, N. (1991a). The society of individuals. London: Basil Blackweell.Google Scholar
  12. Elias, N. (1991b). On human beings and their emotions: A process-sociology essay. In M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. S. Turner (Eds.), The body. Social process and cultural theory (pp. 103–125). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elias, N. (1992). Time: An essay. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Elías, N. (1994). The civilizing process. The history of manners and state formation and civilization. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1977). The political function of the intellectual. Radical Philosophy, 17, 12–14.Google Scholar
  16. Freud, S. (1986). Civilization and its discontents (1930)[1929]. In: The standard edition of the complete psychological works of sigmund freud. XXI (pp. 64–145). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los Ángeles: California University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gilligan, C. (1990). Teaching Shakespeare’ sister: Notes from the underground of the female adolescence. In C. Gilligan, N. Lions, & T. Hammer (Eds.), Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School (pp. 6–29). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. González Ruibal, A., Hernando, A., & Politis, G. (2011). Ontology of the self and material culture: Arrow-making among the Awá hunter-gatherers (Brasil). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 30, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80, 65–107.Google Scholar
  22. Hernando, A. (2002). Arqueología de la Identidad. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
  23. Hernando, A. (2006). Arqueología y globalización. El problema de la definición del ‘otro’ en la postmodernidad. Complutum, 17, 221–234.Google Scholar
  24. Hernando, A., & González Ruibal, A. (2011). Fractalidad, materialidad y cultura. Un estudio etnoarqueológico de los Awá-Guajá (Maranhão, Brasil). Revista Chilena de Antropología, 24, 9–61.Google Scholar
  25. Holbraad, M. (2009). Ontology, ethnography, archaeology: An afterword on the ontography of things. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19(3), 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins, R. (1996). Social identity. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, J. A. (2005). Fractality and the exchange of perspectives. In M. S. Mosko & F. H. Damon (Eds.), On the order of chaos. Social anthropology and the science of chaos (pp. 108–135). Nueva York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  28. Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (Eds.). (2008). Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach. Nueva York: Springer-Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Lomas, C. (Ed.). (2002). Todos los hombres son iguales? Identidad masculina y cambios sociales. Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
  30. MacWhinney, W. (1990). Fractals cast no shadows. IS Journal, 5(1), 9–12.Google Scholar
  31. Mauss, M. (1968)[1950]. A category of the human spirit. Psychoanalitical Review 55, 457–481.Google Scholar
  32. McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 453–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Midgley, Mary (2004). The myths we live by. Londres/New York: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
  34. Morin, E. (2002). The epistemology of complexity. In D. F. Schnitman & J. Schnitman (Eds.), New paradigms, culture and subjectivity (pp. 325–340). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  35. Olsen, B. (2010). In defense of things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham: AltaMira.Google Scholar
  36. Rathje, W. L. (1992). Rubbish!: The archaeology of garbage. New York: Harpercollins.Google Scholar
  37. Strathern, M. (1988). The gender of the gift. Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strathern, M. (1990). Partial connections, asad (Special Publication N 3). University Press of America.Google Scholar
  39. Viveiros de Castro, E. (1996). Os pronomes cosmológicos e o perspectivismo ameríndio. Mana, 2(2), 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2001). GUT feelings about Amazonia: Potential affinity and the construction of sociality. In L. M. Rival & N. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Beyond the visible and the material. The amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Rivière (pp. 19–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wagner, R. (1991). The fractal person. In M. Godelier & M. Strathern (Eds.), Big men and great men. Personifications of power in Melanesia (pp. 159–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets. Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Witmore, C. L. (2007). Symmetrical archaeology: Excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology, 39(4), 546–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Almudena Hernando
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de PrehistoriaUniversidad Complutense MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations