Can we theorize the relationship between discourses that antagonize each other? In a recent article, Arponen et al. demonstrate the tension between two different research models, and spotlight the compelling impact these methods have on archaeological interpretation. In response to their observations, this paper theorizes how we can understand the position of the researcher in relation to the events they analyse. Using Michel Foucault’s approach to the ‘discursive formation’ and Karen Barad’s theory of agential realism, in this reaction I argue that focusing on a single and most important point (the crux) is problematic, and theoretically outline how creating conceptual space for polymorphous causality can aid the analysis of a ‘dispersion of events’.

中文翻译：

---

权力及其所有伪装。环境决定论和定位“问题的症结”

我们能否将相互对立的话语之间的关系理论化？在最近的一篇文章中，Arponen等。展示两种不同研究模型之间的紧张关系，并突出这些方法对考古解释的引人注目的影响。针对他们的观察，本文从理论上解释了我们如何理解研究人员在他们分析的事件中的立场。使用米歇尔福柯的“话语形成”方法和凯伦巴拉德的代理实在论理论，在这个反应中，我认为关注一个单一且最重要的点（症结）是有问题的，并从理论上概述了如何为多态因果关系创造概念空间帮助分析“事件的分散”。