5th September 2008, 02:18 PM
Aren't there two separate arguments here?
The first is about how we organise an equitable wage structure, the second about the impact the commercial imperative may have on our methodologies and results.
It all reminds me of the A-level debating point: this house believes that the pursuit of wealth leads to corruption. Responses so far seem to be emphasising the moral implications of an entirely privatised profession. But framing this as an ethical question quickly breaks down into either/or answers (two legs bad, four legs good) unless you're management material (four legs good, two legs better). If its morality you're after can I recommend a priest. Commercial sector archaeology is flawed, but not fatally. The goal must be to build a knowledge-generating framework from a wealth-generating foundation. It's a question of what we want archaeology to do - whether society wants archaeology to live up to its potential, providing a unique commentary from afar as a transformative force in the present. This brings us back to the way the commercial imperative influences the quality of our method and results. For all those moralists out there, I'll simply ask: can a tender document really be evil?
The first is about how we organise an equitable wage structure, the second about the impact the commercial imperative may have on our methodologies and results.
It all reminds me of the A-level debating point: this house believes that the pursuit of wealth leads to corruption. Responses so far seem to be emphasising the moral implications of an entirely privatised profession. But framing this as an ethical question quickly breaks down into either/or answers (two legs bad, four legs good) unless you're management material (four legs good, two legs better). If its morality you're after can I recommend a priest. Commercial sector archaeology is flawed, but not fatally. The goal must be to build a knowledge-generating framework from a wealth-generating foundation. It's a question of what we want archaeology to do - whether society wants archaeology to live up to its potential, providing a unique commentary from afar as a transformative force in the present. This brings us back to the way the commercial imperative influences the quality of our method and results. For all those moralists out there, I'll simply ask: can a tender document really be evil?