ARE EMOTIONS A KIND OF PRACTICE (AND IS THAT WHAT MAKES THEM HAVE A HISTORY)? A BOURDIEUIAN APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING EMOTION

The term “emotional practices” is gaining currency in the historical study of emotions. This essay discusses the theoretical and methodological implications of this concept. A definition of emotion informed by practice theory promises to bridge persistent dichotomies with which historians of emotion grapple, such as body and mind, structure and agency, as well as expression and experience. Practice theory emphasizes the importance of habituation and social context and is thus consistent with, and could enrich, psychological models of situated, distributed, and embodied cognition and their approaches to the study of emotion. It is suggested here that practices not only generate emotions, but that emotions themselves can be viewed as a practical engagement with the world. Conceiving of emotions as practices means understanding them as emerging from bodily dispositions conditioned by a social context, which always has cultural and historical specificity. Emotion‐as‐practice is bound up with and dependent on “emotional practices,” defined here as practices involving the self (as body and mind), language, material artifacts, the environment, and other people. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus, the essay emphasizes that the body is not a static, timeless, universal foundation that produces ahistorical emotional arousal, but is itself socially situated, adaptive, trained, plastic, and thus historical. Four kinds of emotional practices that make use of the capacities of a body trained by specific social settings and power relations are sketched out—mobilizing, naming, communicating, and regulating emotion—as are consequences for method in historical research.     

More than Samad in Oman: Iron Age pottery from Şuhār and Khor Rorī1

The publication of field work in central Oman has lagged behind the excavations themselves. Whereas the pioneer archaeologists in Oman could identify sites and finds only as “Iron Age”, the work of the past 10 years has enabled a clear conceptual distinction to be made between the Early and Late Iron Age assemblages, as well as their regional characters. Using as a point of departure the Samad Complex, for which most intact contexts exist, the less well-known Late Iron Age of the North and South of Oman is compared by means of newly recorded material from old excavations, there, as well as from a recent survey. There were contacts between central Oman and the South Province, Dhofar although such are elusive. Despite, archaeologically speaking, undeniable trade and ethnic contacts with the outside world, central Oman has a distinctive character of its own which has not been properly credited by specialists of the final Pre-Islamic Period.