Theory and Critique of Dealings with Objects..

Our readings for this week each provide a voice in the dialectical (to echo the idea brought up by Miller) development of scholarly work: Miller advances a theory on material objects within the sphere of social anthropology, while Thomas presents a critique of economic anthropologists’ notions of exchange.

Miller in his second chapter of Stuff, postulates that it is both “plausible and helpful” to construct theories about things (42). A main foundation of his theory, put forward in the chapter, is of a “humility of things” (50). Objects can and should be studied, and not merely set aside as subordinate in importance to human relations. Indeed, objects are important in their own right because they are unseen. They provide the frame of human existence and its social relations, and are most effective when they are accepted at face value, thus able to inconspicuously define boundaries in social relations. This understanding of objects’ importance deriving from the ‘unseen-ness’ of them in everyday life relates to Miller’s main argument: Objects create and form people. Objects exist prior to us; we grow up in a world surrounded by them before we begin to make objects ourselves, and thus objects (consciously plural) encompass “landscapes of our imagination and cultural environment to which we adapt” (53). Miller takes his examination of this through an examination of Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism, with the effect of focusing upon the specifically dialectical relationship between people and things. Indeed, it is the (dialectically) dynamic interaction between subjects (persons) and objects which is the true focus here I believe. The objects of humility may be ‘unseen,’ but we still engage with these, resulting in the continued development of Bourdieu’s habitus (Ibid.). In fact, it is because objects are ‘unseen’ that the dynamic interaction of continued (re)construction is able to result in who we are and what we do, our habitus.

Thomas in his “Objects, Exchange and Anthropology” in Entangled Objects: Exchange, material culture and colonialism in the Pacific lays out a critique against the lack of political and historical contextualization by scholars of exchange. He argues that in order to comprehend “forms of prestations” (which means ‘payments of what is due,’ from what I can decipher from a quick internet search) which enables an understanding actual movements and values of things, namely a political and historical contextualization (18). Additionally, Thomas, unlike Miller, is focused particularly on the political component in exchange. He argues that the notion of “reciprocally dependent” people in exchanges of gifts in inaccurate (22). Instead, a power differentiation most likely exists between those taking part in the acts of giving and receiving (8).

Among Thomas’ several critiques of scholars’ theories, I found the issue of objectification of identity particularly interesting. Not interesting insomuch as it is a transformative idea (or critique), but the idea that objects express subjects and the critique of this as restrictive is an interesting dilemma to ponder, given our examinations of objects and identity in previous weeks (and my own particular interest in ‘identity’).

My, highly related questions, therefore, are:

A) “How can (and should?) we merge these two works, vis-a-vis identity and (1) the construction of this in a dynamic interaction of subject(s) with objects as claimed in Thomas, and (2) the issues relating to the restrictiveness of objects as expression(s) of subject(s).”

B) If, as Miller argues, objects are interesting because they are invisible, the frame of social experience, how can we place this conceptualization this within contemporary capitalism and the creation of demand for things? (That is, to me it seems that there are certain types of things which have become hyper-visible in “framing” our lives, particularly things which are representative of a “lifestyle”.)

Objects, and Exchange, and Anthropology! Oh My!

Please excuse the extremely corny nature of this post's title. The chapter entitled, Objects, Exchange, Anthropology, provides some very detailed information surrounding the anthropological background of object theory, which can be overlooked by many. As with several of the previous articles discussed in this class, this one focuses a good portion of its attention on the nature of exchange; that is how individuals, groups, and/or communities traverse through a world where the exchange of objects is central to life. The author describes this process as inherently political in nature, dealing with the tendencies for exchanges to be unequal or egalitarian in nature. Of course the distinction is made between the social aspects of transactions versus the strictly money oriented ones, but this difference is not fully fleshed out. Sure, as the author points out, some transactions lack the formation of any sort of relationship with the other individual, such as buying a pair of shoes, but arguably by entering the store you are beginning a pseudo-relationship of sorts, which will end once the transaction is over and you leave the store, but from the time you enter the store you become engaged in a relationship of consumer/provider with individuals who work for that store, as well as the store itself.

      The article stresses the importance of understanding cultural differences in order to fully gauge the formation of exchange and objectification among different cultures. As is the tendency in anthropology, much of the earlier work is extremely Euro-centric, placing emphasis on the primitiveness of certain exchange practices among non-European peoples. The author makes sure to call attention to this, calling for a greater understanding of the international relationships between peoples, production, consumption, and exchange. This tendency for Western society to ignore the “primitive”, while celebrating the industrious leads to what the author refers to as alienation. With this it is meant that through the industrialization of society we become less communal, instead focusing on ourselves. This is contrasted with those primitive societies which Western society objectifies, whose promotion of Kin-based relationships creates a different dynamic when it comes to object exchange, an instance this author refers to as “savage commerce.” In this type of “commerce” the inalienability of objects as gifts or commodities is brought into questions. The exchange of gifts may in fact imbue the object with inalienable qualities, as the relationship surrounding the exchange would in many cases would mean that the meaning of such gift, as well as the gift itself contain concrete implications. The author makes it clear from the beginning that there is no intention on their part to suggest new theories for object/exchange relationships, but rather to provide an overview/critique of several of the key works which are pertinent to understanding the subject matter.

      To be completely honest I don't really know what to make of the Thomas piece entitled, Theories of Things. The chapter seems to be filled with seeming irrelevant information regarding the authors early life. I'm sure there's some meaning behind it that I may just be completely overlooking, but I found it a little frivolous. The author does start off with making claims regarding the focus of the chapter, but I found that the thesis as it were is very hard to detect throughout the chapter. One of the main points of discussion seems to be on the function of objects versus the materiality of objects. This is exemplified through Hindu jugs, and picture/ painting frames. Both of these objects present the reader with instances where it is not the object itself, but the function which each object has that defines the object and its relationship with an individual or other “stuff”. Another main point brought up is that of self-alienation/objectification, which the author describes as not the representation of objects, but rather focusing on an object as but one part in a much larger process. Our interaction with the object is just as defining as the object itself. As noted before, there just seems to be a scattered/unfocused approach to this reading, making it hard for me personally to follow along with the author's train of thought.

Questions:

1. If the giving of a gift results in one individual being indebted to the other, is this just another form of commodity transaction? That is, instead of owing money the individual owes some other form of remuneration that isn't monetarily based?
2. If we can no longer separate subject and object, then from what do we derive meaning? Is it just a cycle of meaning then? Object describes subject and subject describes object?

Gifts

Objects, exchange, anthropology follows from what I understood in Appadurai’s work: that the exchange of objects is political. In this exchange of objects different types of relationships are negotiated. Thomas discusses that some relationships are concentrated in the object only not the social relationship. Others are purely social, different types of exchange. Thomas explains that in general people have come to understand what can be appropriate for the circumstances of giving and receiving. However what we accept as appropriate does not apply to different cultures and other economic systems, we actually have come to view them as below us, negative, savage because they lack the use of money. But if anthropology is based in understanding the material use of others, indigenous people (Zulu) are as part of the system of exchange as non-indigenous.

The distinctions between commodities and gifts are made “While commodities have prices, gifts have rank”(Thomas 1991:14). Gifts have rank because the one that gives them has a sort of superiority until a form of gift is returned to them, it can be a formation of debt. Gifts are also inalienable, meaning they cannot be given back or away; this is because gifts have a social effect. The return of this gift has consequences such as the end of a friendship, engagement; in this mode gifts can be seen as actions.

Self-alienation is the way humans enhance their ability in the world, creating different objects to make life easier or enjoyable. Self-alienation, I see it as way some people get ahead by creating different technologies, Miller ties self-alienation to objectification which is abstract ideas that become objects. However the creation of these objects that enhance our capacity can back fire, and will not aid in making our life better.

Lastly Miller discuses materiality as something we don’t want to be, to my knowledge materialistic is material wealth (shallow, unhappy, alone) and its opposite spiritual wealth(simple, happy, wise). Many religions emphasize in spiritual wealth for happiness, which makes the ancient Egyptians beliefs very interesting. Their creation of material objects, statues of gods are a form of assuring an immortal transubstantiation. Both authors have discussed alienation, such as the alienation for the self in improving one life by creating objects, and gifts are inalienable.

Is it only gifts that are a type of act, can other object have strong actions upon their removal?

Is self-alienation the same as objectification? Is the only difference is that self-alienation is on the improvement of human capacity?

The Object-Self Relationship in a Dialectical Material Culture

The importance of materiality to anthropological discussions is the subject of much analysis and observation in two illuminating chapters written by Daniel Miller and Nicholas Thomas, respectively. Theories of function and representation are called into question and are replaced by an overarching postulation of the importance of the relationship between objects and subjects, and their corresponding cultural and historical contexts. Miller enthusiastically defends his claim that material culture should be given a more prominent role in the field of social anthropology, and examines his topic through two explorative roles: first, through the objectification of crude physical objects and the roles they play in everyday life, and second, with an eye to philosophy. Thomas also explores the relationship between object and subject; however, he dedicates most of his energies to debunking conceptions of materialism as evolutionary and divisive. He refrains from formulating an overarching hypothesis regarding material goods, and instead seeks to discuss and disprove what he sees as mis-postulated conceptions of material exchange.
Thomas makes the role of culture and history the focus of his work, and attacks what he sees as a pervasive post-colonial “us versus them” conception of trade and commodification. He criticizes the evolutionary view that places primitivism and modern society in direct opposition, and also rejects the tendency by many critics of capitalist society to romanticize traditional and “simple” economic systems. He insists that, while exchange is central to daily life, we should not be so quick to view life as primarily “transactional,” and should instead recognize the myriad cultural and historical factors surrounding materiality. Thomas disagrees strongly with the iconic essay on “the gift” by Mauss, rejecting Mauss' typologies of “gift and “commodity” as being exclusive to separate regimes. Thomas accuses this, and other works, of being “oriented toward a general type instead of historical actualities,” and cautions against the establishment of an “us” and “them” mindset. He is quick to expound upon the numerous examples of commodification in non-western societies, and makes note of the fact that the tradition of gifts prevails in western society, as is seen in the example of birthday parties. Ultimately, I found Thomas' work to be helpful in reviewing and understanding other influential works on the subject of materiality; however, I felt that it was high in criticism and lacking in new information. Thomas did not seem to present any new theories or concepts that might enhance the discussion of material culture, although it is possible that his arguments escaped me. I personally found Miller's work on material culture theory to be much more informative and illuminating.
Miller rejects theories that ignore material objects, and instead proposes a dialectical material culture theory. He finds serious fault with what he refers to as function theory, or the idea that form follows function as an aspect of humanity's adaptation to the environment. Miller asserts that if such a theory were true, we would live in a worldwide homogeneous society whose variances correlated only with environmental differences. He finds similar fault with theories of representation, such as those presented by Durkheim and Mary Douglas, stating that they do little to increase our understanding of the intrinsic relationship between people and things. Miller presents his theory of material culture as influenced by the works of Goffman on frame analysis, or the manner by which social frames and cues inform our behaviour, and by Combrich's discussion of the sense of order which argues for the humility of things. That is to say, we fail to notice a frame that is placed in the appropriate context because it conveys to us a sense of normalcy surrounding that which it frames. Miller hypothesizes that it is not the object itself, but the context in which we relate to the object through unconscious cues, that lends importance to the material world. The cultural and religions context surrounding Miller's 50-plus pots studied in an Indian village remove the pots from the realm of mere function and allow them to transcend commodification to become important frames for religions and cultural events. As such, a pot gains importance as a cultural marker through a cultural or historical frame, just as a piece of art gains value in the context of a museum.
Miller draws heavily upon Pierre Bourdieu's theory of socialization and Claude Levi-Strauss' theory of structuralism in order to construct his argument. Levi-Strauss's discussion of the dualism of cosmology and philosophy serves to launch Miller's discussion of vulgar objects into the more philosophical realm. It is here that he draws from the works of Hegel, Marx and Simmel, among others, to examine the dialectical nature of material culture. The progression from primitive simplicity to the development of an advanced consciousness about the self as introduced by Hegel, is fundamental to the phenomenon of self-alienation, or the consciousness that is created by positing something outside of itself. Furthermore, Miller echoes Simmel when looking at our dialectical and often paradoxical relationship between the material and immaterial. He observes that, as our material acquisitions grow, we may come to have inconsequential relationships with any one of them, thereby rendering ourselves indifferent. However, our reach for a conceptualization of immateriality generally serves only to lend greater importance to specific forms of materiality.

Question #1: Miller argues for the humility of things; that objects are important because we don't see them; they set the scene and ensure appropriate behaviour, without being open to challenge. How would this argument apply to more visible objects of personal or status value that we have discussed in previous readings?

Question #2: Miller gives a theoretical example of an Australian Aboriginal living in a metropolitan area who experiences a negative disassociation from material society and retreats to the outskirts of the metropolis. How does this example relate to the discussion of dialectical and self-alienating materialism?

Commodities: Exploring the Relations Between Humans and Objects

In an “Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value,” Appadurai questions why one must look at the social life of commodities. He raises an interesting point about the relationship between value, exchange, and politics of commodities. He explores and critiques Marx’s own writings on commodities, commodity exchange and the historical use of the words. Appadurai raises an interesting point that one must follow and understand the meanings inscribed in the forms of commodities, their uses, and their trajectories. This involves tracing its production, distribution, and consumption. I also agree that commodities have economic value based on a demand that is set and shaped by the parameters of the exchange of the particular object. Appadurai refers to this term as the regimes of values, revealing that the degree of value coherence varies in different situations. Thus a commodity is shaped by the context and phase that it is in giving it a form of commodity candidacy.

In Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western capitalism since 1700, Carrier provides insight into the relationship between how one perceives an object and the relationship between a person and an object. Carrier introduces how objects are markers of status hierarchy. Objects can mark social status since groups of people can be identified by their consumption patterns, as well as the way that objects are commoditized. It is interesting how the way people identify themselves in relation to objects shape the cultural meanings of the object. He uses a semiological approach in identifying how objects create cultural meanings. For instance in advertising, objects become commodities by betraying a set of cultural ideas. This signifies a type of sign-value because there are a set of attributes within the object.

Both articles discuss how objects become commodities through the relations between humans and the objects. These objects carry meanings inscribed in their character and elements. They carry some form of value that is not based on aesthetic values, but one that is based on providing some form satisfaction. Thus objects play a significant role in shaping the ways commodities are produced and moved across space. In addition, Appadurai goes on to argue that there are four types of commodities: commodities by destination, metamorphosis, diversion, and Ex-commodities. The fourth definition caught my eye because I ponder on whether a commodity can change between a commodity state to some other form of state, which ultimately leads back to what a commodity is. “A commodity is not one kind of thing rather than another, but a phase in a life of some things” (pg. 17). The commodity phase is just one stage in an object’s life and objects can move in and out of this state. Commodities have life histories and careers, which are shaped by the politics of authenticity, knowledge, control, and demand. This can be partial and differentiated due to the trajectories that it takes and different commodity flows. Contrastingly, Carrier argues that commodities can be contrasted based on opposing meanings of objects. This is done by the existence of objects as elements in relations between objects and the differences between the social differences between social positions. The social meanings of objects assert different social distinctions.

Questions:
1. Is a commodity not one kind of thing rather than another, or can it be contrasted based on opposing meanings?
2. If one can not trace the production and distribution of an object, can its value solely stem from the consumption of an object?

Approaching objects

One of the theories suggested that as human beings, we do have material needs, and objects can satisfy such needs. In this theory, objects are seen as something similar to consumer goods rather than something that has meaning or practical reasons attached to the individuals. In other words, objects are seen as parts of the productions. And for many years, social scientists study the relationship between objects and people through the idea of ‘consumption’; according to them, “consumption” are associated with “range of activities which include looking advertisements, shopping or displaying objects in social setting, etc”. In this regard, consumption is seen as a relatively domestic matter rather than a private matter. One of the ways looking at this special relationship is through status, with references to Max Weber, different objects are associated with different status groups in which they allow people to have certain power or privileges. Similarly, Veblen found that consumption is an example of treating objects as status markers. However, Veblen was more concerned with objects as status in relations with the ability to pay whereas Weber paid greater attention on class. For both Veblen and Weber, objects are very important because they are associated with the social identity. By means, people can identify themselves and claim for their positions in society through social identity. For example, by looking at the types of clothes that one is wearing, people can tell about his class or status that he is in.
Unlike objects as status, objects as signs are more concerned with the set of meanings and implications rather than being just a transaction. In other words, this object theory focused on the meanings of culture and reflects. An example from the article is a person who watched an ad on television, would be more likely to interpret that ad with the meaning that is associated to him. Furthermore, the existence of an object depends on its relationship with other object. For instance, by having or possessing objects, people can actually distinguish themselves from others.
In his introduction, Carrier argued that objects exist in practical relation with concrete individuals rather than being as a production itself. He suggested that people need to understand objects as something that are related to interpersonal, private structures and social relationship. Although it was not mentioned, when reading his essay, I have a feeling that his idea is somewhat similar to the idea of object agency? The idea of object agency is the idea of an object that is assigned with feelings and seen as human that has a capacity to make choices and to act on true basis of conscious choice.
Carrier has done a good job in guiding the readers to the claims that he made. In the article, he first stated out those major theories of object that are out there with reference to many famous scholars such as Max Weber and Veblen and so forth, then second, he stated out his position. One of the things that I found interesting when reading this article is that people links to object through the ways they are interact in their networks. In this regard, networks here refer to the interactions of families, friends, ethnic communities or kinship, etc… Smartly, Carrier draws on the work of a famous sociologist Vivian Zelizer in which she argued that money is not just about economic transactions. Rather, it has special meanings that attached to it. I found that such claim is very interesting and perhaps, Carrier should talk more about this on his essay.
Unlike Carrierm Arjun takes a different approach. Possibly, his potential research question might be how does object shape the human and social context? He thought about the relationship between people and objects in terms of economic commodities and the politics of value. According to him, “economic value” is the “exchanges of sacrifices”. This reminds me of the term “opportunity cost” which I have learned earlier in another class. Throughout the essay, Arjun talked a lot about “consumption” and which he defined as “subject to social control and political redefinition”. When reading this article, I felt that Arjun has been vogue about his claims and perhaps he should have more references in his work. Furthermore, I felt that Arjun has not been clear about providing evidences to support his reason. This leaves me to a question of what does this article has to do with object beside than the idea of mass consumption? And how does the idea of consumption link to the relationship between object and people diaspora? Where are the connections? How is this article useful for our study of the diasporic lives of objects?

Fluid Objects

Appadurai’s “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value” challenges the basic assumptions and theorization around commodities put forth by Marx and other early political economists. Carrier’s introduction, “Approaching Objects” also questions historic assumptions in the study of commodities, in particular the focus upon the production of commodities, and the function of commodities in the public realm over the private. Both articles challenge dominant and conventional definitions and positioning of objects and commodities, and they also focus upon exchanges and transactions as the source of value and meaning.

Appadurai and Carrier challenge the assumption of many theorists of mass society and capitalism who articulate “a link between a growth in the perception of objects as signs and the emergence of capitalism” (5). Refocusing the analysis of objects away from capitalist mass society is crucial for Carrier’s task in orienting the reader towards objects as they are situated in private contexts. I found that Carrier’s article illuminated and articulated a lot of the choices made by authors in last week’s readings, in particular Tolia-Kelly’s focus upon the home and female subjects. The significance for diasporic communities or objects may lie in the fact that public meanings and value do not necessarily correlate in the private context. The notion of private situations, or enclaves where objects have restricted meanings challenges theory and inquiry that is dependent upon totalizing systems of signs and meanings.

Thus both Appadurai and Carrier are interested in how objects are situated spatially, temporally, and institutionally. I found their interest in these contexts and how object exchange facilitates and creates value in social relationships convincing. However Carrier’s citing of Mauss’ essay The Gift and the development and progression of objects in social relations from embodiments of the group to individuated and impersonal objects was less convincing to me. The articles made me think about the many different positioning of objects and forms of exchange that exist even within late capitalist Western mass society and so I was less taken with Mauss’ development trajectory.

Instead of taking a historical approach that can often romanticize, idealize, and simplify social relations in pre-capitalist societies, I much prefer Appadurai’s notion of “commodity potential” and the “total trajectory from production, through exchange, distribution, to consumption” (13). This approach is an analysis of objects and commodities that seeks to shift away from the Marxist economic analysis of commodities, which limits itself to mechanisms of production. The focus upon consumption and “commodity candidacy” is a definitional shift emphasizing temporal fluidity and how meanings are embedded through exchange, and can shift over time and space (13). Appadurai refines Marx’s arguments about commodity culture in modern capitalist society, observing that while such cultures are more intensely commoditized, they cannot be totally commoditized because social exchange places objects in motion, and they can occupy a variety of states over time. Maquet’s four types of commodities (16) is an important part of Appadurai’s argument against Marx’s focus on production.

The method of analysis that Appadurai proposes for the study of objects and commodities is more convincing that the traditional Marxist view because it includes both production and consumption. While Appadurai fails to focus on his definition of politics, and his claim that “the link between exchange and value is politics” (3), he presents a compelling case where the lives of objects are complicated, and I found it more reflective of my everyday and daily interactions with objects. The article challenged the idea that consumers are passive recipients of meaningless, unnecessary commodities in contemporary capitalist societies, and offered a perspective that allows for inquiry into relationships with objects. Appadurai’s article does a better example of explaining relationships with objects, like the many examples from last week’s readings, than the Marxist model because in allowing for greater complexity in relation to objects, Appadurai is more attuned to the less economic and more affective meanings of objects.

1. Did you agree with Mauss’ stages of social evolution in interaction with objects? [The idea that in ‘archaic’ societies “transactions are motivated by a mixture of need and social obligation…people are indistinct from the groups that define and contain them, just as objects are indistinct from the groups that posses them” (9) and in modern societies “objects and society increasingly have come to be seen as independent of each other” (10).]
2. According to Appadurai, “The diversion of commodities from specified paths is always a sign of creativity or crisis, whether aesthetic or economic” (26). Can you think of such diversions, and what creativity or crisis do you think they are indicative of?

Arjun Appaduri’s opening chapter illustrates the links and relationships that commodities acquire in their exchange, taking extra care to highlight the social relations. In turn, the acquisition of value is explored, how that value is altered, and its relation to politics. Appaduri takes great efforts to create a definition for commodity, and differentiates it from an object or gift in the way value is instilled in it. Economic value is of utmost importance, and the role of money is explored extensively, especially with the regards to its role in circulating commodities. The tendency for commodities to be tied to capitalist modes of production is acknowledged, but alternative modes are identified as well.

By and large, I found this reading to be packed with information, but to the point that it became difficult to process the arguments being made. Appaduri used extensive evidence to support his claims, but often these references were made out of context. It seemed that he would often postpone expanding on claims, stating that he would address them later. This hesitation resulted in a lack of interest on my part, as I found it difficult to connect his points. However, as the chapter wrapped up, I found myself more intrigued, as a number of points that had initially been unclear became clearer to me.

In particular, I enjoyed the section on desire and demand. The ties between small communities and large scale politics seemed to mimic the greater trends established in the chapter. Despite making clear that these positions are not entirely cross cultural, the general sense of universality and insidious nature of demands and desires stood out to me. This, I guess, all comes back to the socially constructed nature of these traits. Here, the hierarchal links are somewhat surprising in that the traders, in some instances, have a stronger hold than those of higher authority or nobility. Again, I found Appaduri’s assessment of luxury goods and their historical significance a perfect illustration of his arguments. The interconnectedness of production, demand, exchange, expansion etc., as well as the shifting boundaries between luxury and everyday commodities made clear that commodities are more a state than an object. This becomes quite interesting when considering the transcultural implications.

In contrast to the Appaduri reading, I found the Carrier article to be highly edible and quite direct. The article uses extensive references, and clearly addresses how they assist with the argument at hand. Carrier wishes to address the multifaceted relationships we have with objects, beyond the initial stages of production. The tendency to place greater significance on the beginning or origin seems to contradict the object biographies we explored last week, wherein it was their histories which instilled them with value. Although I found the gender and special breakdown between production and consumption less than convincing, I did appreciate the way it linked to public structures (somewhat mimicking the importance of social structures noted by Appaduri). The association between objects and status also mirrored Appaduri, and while I was better able to understand the point in this article, in comparison to the other reading, there seemed to be a great deal of room for expansion. For example, Carrier didn’t seem to address the idea of acquisition and potential for people to be living beyond their means (or outside of the class).

However, Carrier does a nice job in addressing the heightened importance of objects in foreign spaces. The importance of object ownership in creating distinction resonates with the articles from last week. Here, Carrier does address the potential for a domino like affect in people’s attempts to emulate other ranks. There is a great distinction made between objects as a social marker and as a sign. Carrier states that “objects exist primarily as elements in relations between objects” (5). While he address that this means then that their meaning is generated by their differences, it seems too that they are also linked by their similarities and through association (as with the use of jazz and Chanel NO. 5).

Questions:

1) Carrier states that “people select objects that are appropriate to their social position OR aspirations”. Throughout the article I felt that peoples tendency to live beyond their means (perhaps on credit), was not really addressed, and rather it seemed that it was assumed that people are kept in check by social phenomenon. How is “appropriate” determined in these sorts of situation, and do you think that social expectations keep people in line, or if not what does?

2) In Appaduri’s attempt to highlight his own limitations he often postpones directly addressing his points. Did you find this thoroughness informative or discouraging… or otherwise?

Object Theory I: Approaching Objects

Carrier, J (1995) Gifts and commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700.

The objective of this article is to approach objects from a sociological perspective where the relationship with objects is terms as “consumption” in social sciences. And this perspective can be taken from two ways: objects as markers in status hierarchy and semiological method of seeing objects. To support the first notion, CARRIER cross-referenced Weber’s definition of “status group” and Veblan’s definition of “status” as the demonstration of the ability to pay. In the situation of a capitalist society, consumption of objects becomes important to cause a distinction of the classes and eventually the status. Objects therefore end up becoming markers of status. And when objects are seen from a semiological perspective, they can be observed with clarity in public structures of power, meaning & identity as well as in interpersonal, private structures of social relationship. Using Barthes’s model and the illustration of advertisement, the signifier (the product) actually takes on the meaning of the signified (the attributes represented by the object, event or person) and so it becomes a sign (the meaningful product). Jean Baudrillard names the objects as “sign value” when they exist as elements in relation to other objects under a system of social positions and differences between them. Using Parisian bourgeoisie example, object signs can gain an independent existence of their own after mechanization of production. CARRIER acknowledged the difference and similarity between objects as markers of status and as signs. She further stated the shortcoming of Jean’s theory that objects not only exist in public structures but also exist within interpersonal, private structures of social relationship where personal relationships within them affect our experiences with objects and the ways we understand them. CARRIER did a fair job in stating out the research question which explored the relationship of objects in the form of “consumption” on social sciences terms. Her introduction was not a straightforward one as she explained reason for mentioning the word “consumption” in relation to objects, how certain areas of life have been devalued (such as private and female) and corrected a wrong concept of people can see objects for private consumption. Her use of subtitles to state the various relationship between objects and the different sociological terms are effective for readers to follow her logic of discussion. Her methodology is to investigate the ways that objects are implicated in personal relationships by describing historical changes in people’s relationships with objects as well as the modern state of those relationships. The model of people, objects, and social relations are taken from the work of Mauss. The methodology is the right one but the sampling source and quantity is questioned, more details are needed. The reason is the model of people, objects and social relations need to be taken from the pre-capitalist and industrial societies and it is hard to comprehend how she can find this kind sampling. There is depth in her investigation but breadth wise, it is not sufficient. Multi- sided research is encouraged. Otherwise, I am convinced by CARRIER’s argument. I am unsure how she can prove her argument with ample and convincing evidence.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) In Mauss’ social scales, CARRIER mentioned there is the spectrum with one end when object is being a part of the group of people itself and the other end when object is not substantially related to the group of people. The scales have two distinctive ends but I question how does the middle point which separates the two ends be differentiated in a quantitative sense?

(2) I question the credibility of this journal because the list of peer reference is not available in the paper. Does anyone know CARRIER here? :P

Appadurai, A. (1986) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective.

There are two objectives in this essay. The first is to preview and set the context for the essays that follow it in this volume. The second is to propose a new perspective on the circulation of commodities in social life. APPADURAI used the context that is set for the essays is to use Georg Simmel’s quote that Value is a judgement made about them by subjects. He defined what economic subjects as well as the economic exchange in which value of objects is determined reciprocally in terms of sacrifice. Economic objects circulate in different regimes of value in space and time. He further gives distinction commodity can be seen as mute and inert but alive when it is thing in motion that illuminate their human and social context. He also gives an overarching framework in stating out this essay is to be covered from historical, ethnographic and conceptual grounds and will be followed by five sections in the continuation of explaining commodities and the politics of value. Cleverly separated into subtitles, they are “The Spirit of Commodity”, “Path and Diversions”, “Desire and Demand”, “Knowledge and Commodities” and the last one is “Politics as the mediating level between exchange and value”. APPADURAI has done an excellent job in stating out the research question, the context, limits the scope of the field of research and explain the five sections of the essay with great depth and breadth. His argument is always backed up by references from different theorists and reader can easy to follow and understand him. His narrative strategies are mainly argumentative in nature when he breaks down his argument bit by bit with the help of the different theories he has quoted throughout the essay. He has made use of different examples to prove his argument, such as the Massim group of islands off the eastern tip of New Guinea. I am very much convinced by the author’s argument because of the detailed amount of evidences and a consistent, systematic manner throughout the essay. He also included a conclusion which gives a good reminder to reader what has just been read. However so, the author sometimes has not been direct enough in addressing and answering the research problem. He is sometimes side-tracked and has included too many unnecessary details of information that can distract reader. An example would be the overt description of “Kula” when the purpose of using this is to prove the values as both reflective and constitutive of social partnerships and struggles but almost two huge paragraphs have been devoted to explain and elaborate wht “Kula” is. (pg. 18) Despite the flaws, APPADURAI has inspired me in seeing commodity in a different perspective, that there is a reciprocal relationship between the thing called “it” and the owner who owns “it” and how does the sentimental value in commodity can be explained clearly in a step by step manner with the help of theories.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) Can APPADURAI improve his essay by putting his purpose more clearly earlier in the essay instead of stating it out and surprising the reader at the same time near the end of the paper, in conclusion?

(2) On pg. 15, APPADURAI talked about how the commodity context refers to the variety of social arenas, within or between cultural units, that help link the commodity candidacy of a thing to the commodity phase of its career. He further used women as exchange values in the context of marriage transactions. I don’t see the connection in using this example to prove the above point. Can someone explain?

Carrier’s article Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism

In brief, Carrier’s article Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism centers on the meanings commodities and gifts have in Western culture. To try and understand the meanings commodities and gifts entail in the West, Carrier looks at two popular sociological approaches to objects: 1) objects as markers of status and; 2) objects as signs – in other words, the way in which objects have to do with self identification.

Carrier does a really good job of answering the questions she/he sets out to do in the introduction of the article – that is, to understand people’s relationship with objects beyond the simplistic notion that our relationship with objects is based on sheer utility. He/she looks to previous work published by scholars in the field to come to this understanding.

As noted, Carrier looks at two popular sociological approaches to objects. First, Carrier discusses scholars’ work on objects and their relationship to status – a familiar concept in which objects signify status identity and the acquisition of certain objects also comes with the acquisition of a particular status group membership. Carrier then discusses past work on objects and their relationship to signs – a less familiar way of thinking about objects but one which makes the point that people identify themselves in terms of objects around them and the ways that these objects bear cultural meanings and make them feel. Examples can be seen in advertisements, Bordieu’s idea of “taste”, and other examples given. The point in analyzing objects as signs is that objects go beyond being depicted as things of utility and are instead seen as things that have a social position, evoke feelings, and can create identity.

At the end of all this scholarly discussion of how people’s relationship to objects is complex and more than just about basic, practical functions, Carrier suggests that this still isn’t enough.

“My point is that these studies are generally too abstract to give an adequate picture of people’s relationship with objects. They focus too much on types of objects and types of people and fail to relate objects to the distinct and concrete social relationships in which people experience them and the institutions in which those relationships exist. In most cases this is because writers treat objects as bearers of public meaning and private desire, as objects that people have, contemplate and display as they seek to define or comment on themselves and their place in society…[they] do not see objects as really made, bought, given, or even used. It is these neglected issues that I address in this book, as I try to situate objects in terms of interpersonal, private structures of social relationship…”

On the one hand, I think I understand what Carrier is trying to say – we can’t understand people’s personal relationship to objects by placing them in the context of broad observations that objects can imply status and act as “status signs”. It’s important to look at the social environment in which people experience objects (the ‘West’ is too broad an environment) and the social institutions in which these relationships exist. That point made by Carrier I definitely agree with if we are to understand people’s more intimate relationship to objects. However, to state that we also need to see objects as “…made, bought, given, or even used…” I found detracted from the whole point of this short intro which was to see the relationship people have to objects BEYOND their utility. Not really sure what that statement by Carrier meant…

Otherwise, I liked the article – I thought it was well written, cohesive, backed up well with evidence and examples to make the point, and most importantly it was accessible. The ideas were easy to grasp and easy to apply to related concepts, for example, diasporic objects.

How do diasporic objects fit into Carrier’s discussion of objects as status symbols or objects as “status signs”? Do they fit in to either? Both?

2. How will the experience of diaporic populations differ from people NOT of a diaspora when Carrier (in the rest of his/her book) considers the more distinct social relationships in which people experience [objects] and the institutions in which those relationships exist?”

That being said, Appadurai’s article was extremely difficult to understand and follow along with. Besides the fact that I found it way too long, it was just really hard to keep grasp of the ideas and arguments and constant contentions he/she had with other scholars on the subject of commodities and their politics. Put simply, I just didn’t get it or the point he/she was trying to make besides the argument that commodities have social lives. Hence, I only discuss Carrier’s article.

Objects as Commodities

In the Carrier article, Approaching Objects, the author lays out their take on the relationship that exists between the individual or group and the objects in that society. The difference between objects as purely things which serve a particular function or service, and the relationship which actually exists is an area which this article contests is sorely underrepresented. This would appear to be the case in many Western societies, as the rise and subsequent domination of capitalism and capitalist practices has meant the creation of a society in which the value of objects is primarily based on their desirability, linking objects to the market and not necessarily the relationship between the object and the consumer. The article goes on to discuss this very point, tying in the connection between objects and consumers based on a gendered lens of consumption as, “objects, and particularly consumer goods, begin to enter more private and female realms once they are produced...people take them to what may be the most private and female realm there is, home”. But this gendered view of objects as consumer goods fails to develop the notion that it is both genders which engage with objects at the various stages of its production, consumption, and possible disposal. As well it is the relationship, similarities and differences, that the genders have with these objects that can help illustrate the idea that objects exist in many different realms with its human owner.

      The article also discusses the relationship between objects, their owners, and social status. This idea of social status through the consumption of goods was also discussed last week in Shankar's article. The difference though is in the way the Carrier article focuses not on how the owner uses the object to gain status, but rather on the the social thought that goes into thinking about an object and how this thought is responsible for garnering a certain status for the object owner. Tied in with this, the article also goes on to discuss objects as signs. While we generally think about objects in rather concrete terms, objects actually exist in a multifaceted and complex array of meanings, and it is through these meanings that one can identify themselves. This concept is carried over into the final area discussed in the article. While objects undeniably have a public function in many cases, it is through the relationship that the individual has in private with the object that may ultimately be the definer of what that object comes to be understood as representing. But the private use of objects is still arguably tied to the public, since it is through the private that relationships with the public are built.

      The Appadurai chapter on, Commodities and the Politics Of Value, takes the discussion in a much more economic direction. The introduction is extremely explicit in its distinction on the coverage which the chapter will discuss, which is extremely important for an academic publication. The purpose of the chapter is to attempt to illustrate how objects/commodities, value, and politics are all intrinsically linked to one another as, “focusing on the things that are exchanged, rather than simply on the forms or functions of exchange, makes it possible to argue that what creates the link between exchange and value is politics”. Appadurai makes sure to distinguish between an object and a commodity, with a commodity referring to an object which has economic value. The relationship between commodities, value, and people is an interesting one, which ties in quite well to several aspects brought up in the Carrier article. Most notably, the way in which economic systems, capitalism, and capitalist structures play a part in defining what commodities have value, and how the public perceives these objects. Appadurai proposes that the relationship of commodity value revolves around the perceived attainability, or lack thereof, of the object.

      Where Appadurai expands upon the somewhat limited view of commodities as strictly objects tied to the industrialized, capitalist realm is by discussing the exchange of goods throughout several regions around the globe. The purpose of this is to highlight that the exchange of commodities based on value is not something which is exclusive to the developed world. Rather, commodities span various social, economic, cultural, and political strata, and even though these areas may vary, the transactions almost always mirror one another.

Questions:

1. If the consumption of objects is directly linked to the meanings objects are given, then could it be said that objects prior to consumption are meaningless? Or is the meaning just something completely different?
2. How do found or made (personal) objects factor in with the economics of commodities? Can they in certain situations be considered to have economic value?

Objects as ______

The article by Appadurai deals with the way commodities are exchanged and the process in which we attribute ‘value’ to them. These objects act as an agent for socialization around it, and ultimately leads to the transferring of the commodity that can often fluctuate the value for the object. Appadurai refers to Georg Simmel, and his account of how value is prescribed and can be subjective. The author discusses how value can be placed on something based on the surrounding social context, and that human factors, transactions, encounters, and actions allow for an object to be encoded with significance and value.

“We still call those objects valuable that resist our desire to possess them” (Simmel, page 67). This statement is very interesting to me because it shows how value, interest, and desire for ownership builds upon something as it is further away and in rarity, like diamonds for example. As the piece goes further into discussion, Appadurai speaks about Marx and capitalism in regards to using money for exchange of commodities. The author also leaves room for his argument to be proven otherwise, because he uses language that goes something like, “if my argument holds water…”, and is acknowledging that his combining of Marx’s and Simmel’s theories may or may not be applicable to objects. It is interesting to note that commodities can also be classified as ‘goods’, ‘objects’, ‘products’, and even ‘artifacts’ when an object ages through time. By the end of the piece, I think Appadurai is able to link different theories and ideas together like ‘value’ and ‘exchange’, so that the reader is able to comprehend how commodities are able to be in the socialization process.

In the second reading for the week by Carrier, the author starts off with a very basic principle: there is a need and deeper meaning for objects aside from their basic utility purposes. An interesting note that author also makes is that objects are a marker of heirarchies, and from there on stems exclusion and inclusion of people as a sociological process. Carrier goes on to explain that objects act as status markers for societies that are bigger in size, as opposed to smaller societies because people in smaller and limited areas are more likely to know each other. Whereas, in larger communities, status markers allow for the owners to get more of an esteemed appeal, but with no mark of reputability from just the objects alone.

Carrier I believe, does an extremely good job of organizing his ideas and makes the article approachable with his ease of language and tone. I find that the use of sub-sections and his way of contrasting ‘Objects as ____’ is very key in presenting the authors ideas to the reader. By giving the reader real life examples as to how objects are attached to people and the way we use them as markers, the reader is able to justify the authors breakdown of how objects are approached in a social and economical process.

Question #1: As objects such as artwork ages, the ‘value’ of it starts to increase. In what case do we have objects that decrease in value over time? What are some examples of institutions that dominate and control the value of objects, with the help of multi-level groups/bodies?

Questions #2: If people don’t live up to their role in life based around their identity and interaction with their everyday objects, do we have the right to penalize them based on the failure to comply with what was EXPECTED? Example: Police officer opens fire without cause.

Objects/commodities - value - politics: detached from human interaction?

This week's readings, Carrier’s “Introduction: approaching objects” and Appadurai’s “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value,” illustrate the doubled-edged sword of reading chapters in isolation from the larger work of which they constitute. While I firmly believe that an introductory chapter does not need to be a stand-alone piece of scholarly work, such a chapter must be able to coherently and fully encompass the author’s argument(s), themes and method. Appadurai, in his somewhat jumbled and verbose introduction lays out for readers his claims, the themes, and the objectives of his chapter, and the book more generally. Carrier, on the other hand fails to even fully elucidate his claims and arguments, instead focusing upon a mix of seemingly unrelated (yet potentially interesting) sub-issues. My chagrin at the lack of logical argumentation along the lines discussed in last week’s class in Carrier is slightly subdued by Appadurai’s piece, yet this fails to fully assuage me due to the tangential nature of his writing: a question I continually came back to when reading was “how does this fit into the claims?”. Explication can be repetitive, yet in an introductory chapter, particularly an edited volume compared to a monograph, it should be reiterated somewhat. The lack of this in Appadurai’s chapter results in a seemingly-jumbled piece.

Substantively, Appadurai covers a lot of ground in the chapter, with a decent argumentation trajectory. His stated objectives are (1) to provide an introductory context for the following pieces in the work, and (2) to “propose a new perspective on the circulation of commodities in social life” (1986, 3). The more concrete claims he puts forward place commodities in a context of economic organization (or exchange) and value, with the connection between these and commodities being of a political nature. Indeed, he concludes that this political link has many guises, each one of which he elucidates throughout the chapter by way of examples. (Which we could, I believe, tentatively call ‘evidence’.)

He examines a variety of economic-related issues pertaining to value; Marxist modes of production, the role of exchange in capitalist structures, the differences between commodities and gifts, etc. The main objective of Appadurai is, however, to illustrate how an analysis of commodities’ (or “things’”) trajectories. We must understand the trajectories of commodities independent of the “human transactions” involved with these (1986, 5). This is essentially the same as as the notion of object biography which the readings in last week introduced. Nonetheless, the placement of object biography, or trajectories, is greatly enhanced by Appadurai’s contextualization of this in the sphere(s) of economic organization.

Carrier, comparatively, lacks the explicit stating of argument or claims. Indeed, s/he plows head-first into the chapter, with little attention to laying out the trajectory of the work. An exception to this the distinction between two main sociological approaches which Carrier wishes to illustrate, with particular emphasis on the semiological approach (1995, 2). The role of objects’ symbolic component is thus the explicated aim of the chapter, yet Carrier does not present any particular claim or argument. There are certainly some interesting snippets throughout, which do pertain to the symbolic component of objects, but these are not presented in a convincing argumentative manner. For example, Baudrillard’s assertion that there is a relationship between objects’ symbolic structure and the structure of societal relations of power is interesting. The example of a 1970s ad for a perfume illustrates how advertising engages in the boundary construction of classes, i.e. draws in those in the higher echelons of society while repelling (or so the claim goes) the so-called lower classes. A further golden nugget is the notion of “identikit”: the construction of self through the acquisition of “impersonal, prefabricated goods” (1995, 7).

I find it interesting that both pieces touch on similar issues: advertising, economic organization and ‘development’. Therefore, I’d like to pose the following questions:

1. Is it possible to conceptualize commodities, or rather, Appadurai’s thoughts on these, separate from economic considerations, e.g. the modes of production?

2. Relatedly, can we in fact think about and analyze commodities’ trajectories, or object biographies, separate from their human interaction and involvement, given the role of politics (as stated in Appadurai) as the link between commodities and value? If politics involves interests, a human capacity, can we truly divorce objects from humans?

Economics of objects

The Appadurai piece touches on a few key points in order to frame his argument surrounding the valuation of objects. Concepts of worth and value are centred on the commoditisation of objects, while providing some evidence to contrast and assess critically the ideas of Marx vis-à-vis economics and commodity. Appadurai claims that the politicization of objects is seen through the dialogue of exchange and value, as stated that commodities, like people, have social ‘lives.’  The emphasis on the idea of what ‘commodity’ actually IS illustrates that objects are not necessarily stagnated as such, rather, it is a part of the life of an object. Commodities bring with them ECONOMIC value, which is distinct from what one might consider as something’s worth… it is essentially a definite SUM of values, which stem from the intensity of 2 points of demand creating a PRICE. Now, from what can be understood from this is that the ACT of EXCHANGE sets the parameters of utility and scarcity… how much one is willing to exchange for said object will set the actual valuation of it… In sum exchange = valuation of product. What we consider natural about the process of creating value of something is, according to Appadurai, actually a politicized process where the act of exchange is what is political, where the objects involved do not necessarily carry the same importance one from the other.

In terms of actually proving the validity of the arguments, other than stating the mere concept of his thoughts, Appadurai, at least in my opinion, is unable to smoothly get off the ground with his thesis. The ideas were very eye opening, in that I would have never thought to engage the notion of object value in the politicized sense in which he depicts them. It began to get difficult to see where the argument was heading when the text began to be ram packed with what seemed to be superfluous claims and ideas that just muddled the actual root of the argument. I still cannot grasp the idea of something not being a commodity if it is to be involved in the act of exchange… is it not them commoditized by this process? By simply stating that it is a product, artefact or what other name one may label it with, it is just that, a label, but as a commodity, it encompasses more than just a title.

The Carrier piece seemed to be much simpler and concise in its claim that there is much more to objects than shear utility. There has to be a better-examined link between objects and status versus objects as signs, rather within a sociological system. Objects have come to be seen as status markers but more importantly they are part of social identity. They are attributable to certain sets of people in society.

Qu #1: With regards to status, how does the symbolism of  objects that denote class (Bourdieu) come into the conversation of value? Who values them? High class, low class? (for the sake of argument I make the assumption that high class and low class are signs of wealth and prominence within a society)

Qu #2: If we, rather those who exchange these 'things,' create value for them, how then do objects stand alone as valued artifacts? Meaning, if one does not attribute ANY valuation unto the object, how does the object have any tangible worth? *I use carrier's argument, doing away with simply looking at utility as a marker for value.

Politics, Commodities, and Status Makers

In the article Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism, Carrier discusses the importance in viewing and observing objects beyond the utility they serve. Objects have a variety of meaning that is crucial in fully understanding objects and the effect on people. Sociologist have based their studies in how objects are made and bought, this type of work emphasis in on the public domain which leads into the neglect of the private sphere which is mostly a female area.

Weber distinctions in status are dependent of what objects we own, owning certain objects can cause a person to enter a ‘status group’. Veblen views on objects cannot be determined until we know what this particular object gives back to its owner. Veblen thinks is a bad way to show one’s status with different types of objects in large societies because less people will know who you are and will use these objects as the only way to judge you. I don’t agree with Veblen in this matter because he thinks is better to display these objects as status makers in small communities that know you. In these small communities the need to show distinction does not seem as necessary, to me since if everyone knows each other business then everyone will know the fact that I am rich. In a large society that can be fast passed and anonymous the only way to be distinguish (if that its ones desire) is through very visual objects (cars, purses)

Commodities and the politics of value by Appadurai addresses two main points: examining essays that will aid in understand future essays of the same topic and to suggest a new form on the circulation of commodities and the argument that commodities have social lives just as humans do. According to Simmel the value of object is the “judgment made about them by subjects” rather than inherit property (Appadurai 1986). These valuable objects have a distance between the person, whose distance to the object can only narrow by exchange of another object. These exchanges are series of sacrifices of one object to gain another, for example if I understand this correctly: we sacrifice money to obtain a painting or a coffee.

Commodities and politics are closely linked to each other; I believe commodities are dependant on politics. Commodities are intentionally made to be exchangeable according to Marx. What makes commodities desirable is the demand for them, what is I fashion and who is able to afford them. It is political who is able to afford these sacrifices if exchange and as Appadurai mentions those is power want to keep these commodities from spreading to the general population. I believe this is just a way to separate themselves form the rest of the population, as status and class identifier.

Question 1: How are commodities are different from products, objects and goods?

Question 2: when Carrier discusses the advertisement of a product is not neutral; the product is mixed with the object. Does that mean that the product is compared with the meaning or what does mixed/ juxtapose mean?

The Politics of Value and the Circulation of Commodities

The trajectory of objects and the ways in which they develop meaning are the principal focus of the discussions elaborated by Appadurai and Carrier. In essence, the authors join in an ongoing conversation regarding the agency and mobility of objects and the role that they play in the economic system. Appadurai examines the ways in which the forces of desire and demand interact to lend economic value to otherwise exclusively social situations, and asserts that economic value is created through certain motivations and social factors surrounding the commodities exchanged. Carrier focuses more attention on the role of status in the pursuit and exchange of commodities, and makes the claim that the social groups and aspirations influence the circulation of goods.

Appadurai invokes the writings of Simmel to launch his discussion of the value of commodities as “a judgement made about them by subjects,” that is to say that politics, culture, and knowledge embody objects with distinctly social lives. Appadurai's argument that demand is a socially-regulated phenomenon I found to be especially well presented. The case study of the kula system in the Massim Islands provided a particularly vibrant example of the means by which social status and power took precedence over economic value in regulating the exchange of valued commodities. Carrier's work, too, placed precedence on the social lives of objects with an eye to the importance of status in determining object value. The works of Veblen and Weber are analysed and contrasted to debate the dynamic relationship between objects and people, with Veblen's work being given more weight in the discussion.

Veblen makes a valuable observation that objects gain greater importance in larger societies due to the subject's necessity to communicate his position in society to people who “have no other means of judging his reputability than the display of goods.” I found this particular commentary to be very illuminating to the larger conversation of diasporic objects, particularly in the context of commodity desire among certain communities. Indeed, both Appadurai's and Carrier's comments addressed a number of concerns that I had with the previous week's discussion of Shankar. The relationship between status and the value given to commodities, when viewed in the group context, lends greater understanding to Shankar's examination of the Desi community in Silicon Valley. That said, Carrier's view that status markers gain importance in larger, disconnected societies stands in sharp contrast to the Shankar's close-nit cultural community.

Both authors offer a wealth of information concerning object value, production and circulation, and both effectively utilize a wealth of scholarly material to provide us with a multi-faceted platform from which to view the debate. That said, I found Appadurai's article to be a bit 'cluttered' at times. The analyses of various scholarly works and case studies, while helpful, often became excessively verbose, and lent a disjointed feel to the work. Carrier's work, on the other hand, was disappointingly one-sided, with an excessive amount of attention focused on the role of status in the commodity trade. These criticisms must, of course, be taken with a grain of salt as both readings were introductions to larger volumes of work on the subject, and therefore not intended to be viewed as conclusive.

Questions:

(1)Although I did not touch on this aspect of Appadurai's article in my commentary, I would like to discuss it here: Appadurai claims that by increasing the gap between the means of production and the consumer, a mythology of sorts grows up around a particular object, as seen in the case of 'cargo cults.' What role might distance from the production process (or origin) of a particular object play in the greater conversation about valued objects in the lives of diasporic subjects?

(2) Carrier examines Veblen's claim that objects become more important as status markers in mass societies, as opposed to close-knit traditional communities. Appadurai discusses at length the role of the kuna system in the Massim Island, and the ways in which it is utilized to gain status and power within the community. Can a small, close-knit group use objects to assert status and power within their community, or is this phenomenon limited to mass society?

Approaching Objects - Appadurai's political commodities and Carrier's... relational objects?

Appadurai’s paper uses Simmel’s concept of value and critiques Marx’s understanding of the commodity to fuse together a concept of object value as derived from acts of exchange, the creation of value not a ‘natural’ phenomenon but a ‘political’ one. Citing Kopytoff’s argument that social contest and individual taste determine object biography, Appadurai demonstrates that commodity is a phase is the life of some things, as opposed to being a permanent state of all things. The things only being of value when they are commoditized and in the process or consideration of exchange. In the paper, Munn’s study of the kula system in the Massim Islands shows that price is derived not by negotiation of supply and demand but of calculated exchange of value perception and individual interest in one’s own reputation. Concurrently in these systems, men and commodities are “reciprocal agents of value definition” (20). Appadurai also makes the claim that demand is socially regulated and generated and proposes that the distribution of and discrepancies in knowledge about the commodity at different phases in its life (production, distribution, consumption) drive varying degrees of demand and construct different stories about the commodity. Appadurai conducts a survey of various literature on the issue of commodities to construct his argument.

            Appadurai’s survey is lengthy and tangential, veering off into arguing that commodity is a state not a thing, and a state that is temporal. Lingering on Daventport’s idea of ‘enclaved commodities’, and ‘zones of commodification’, as well as Kopytoff’s ‘jurisdiction of objectification’ Appadurai seems distracted by this issue that may link to the paper’s original claim about value as a political construction, yet clearly creates a distinct claim of commodity temporality and perhaps deserves its own essay. Because of this blending, I found the paper confusing to follow and was frequently in need of reminder of the claims of the paper. Yet in constructing the argument for the political nature of value, the examples Appadurai cites are quite useful on their own. Baudrillard’s ‘tournaments of value’, Munn’s ‘calculated exchange of value perception’ and the section on demand and knowledge, I found to be particularly apt within the paper’s context.

           

            Carrier’s introduction argues that sociologists have been lacking in their approach to studying objects, particularly in their neglect to examine the interaction between the person and the object. The way Carrier constructs this argument is by setting up a survey of existing literature about objects as status symbols (Weber, Veblen, Young & Willmott) and objects as signs (Bourdieu, Baudrillard, Schudson, Ewen). This short paper concludes with mapping out the scheme of the book it introduces, the book claiming to further interrogate in inform the previous object examinations in the realm of the private, through person-object interactions.

            Carrier’s paper is disappointingly top-heavy. The survey of what Carrier isn’t trying to prove far outweighs the support for what he is trying to prove. Perhaps the lack of support for how objects are constructed through “distinct and concrete social relationships in which people experience them” (7) lies deeper in the actual book, however as an independent paper it’s argument doesn’t land.

Question 1: Taking into account Carrier’s (lack of) argument about objects and the use of studying people’s interaction with them, can you provide an example from previous readings that Carrier may have found useful?

Question 2: Appadurai’s sources constantly refer to ‘modern capitalist societies’ and ‘pre-modern’ or ‘non-Western, preindustrial, nonmonetized” societies and systems of exchange. To what degree do you find this distinction necessary towards illustrating and supporting Appadurai’s argument of value as politically constructed?

In an article 'Living in a material world: object biography and transnational lives", it is recognized that the objects have played a very important role in the reproduction of diasporic communities. Important in a sense that not only it is associated with personal experience and memory, but also it resembles both personal and group identities. In this regard, objectivity is not just related to material things such as clothes or musical instruments. Rather, it is cultural material in which it reveals diasporic identities. According to the authors, places, people, things and practices and ideas are constantly in motion and shape each other. By means, object-centered approach allows social interactions that involve people and objects create meaning and understand how these meanings change across space and over time.
Having used heart-touching stories as narrative strategies to support their arguement, the authors illustrated stories of "Guna Kinne's Latvian national dress" and " Minh Tam Nguyen's Dan tre bamboo musical instrument". In the first story, the nature of the relation between objects and diasporic practices was the symbol of the costume which could be used in a way for Latvian people to express their ethnic identity. In other words, it is a part of preserving and promting their ethnic culture in a diasporic community. In the second story, dan tre musical instrument is associated with emotional attachment that a person has strongly felt within. In this regard, Dan tre is a trigger of memory coming from personal experience. The authors were very good at defining the term "object biography" and make it easier for the readers to follow their point . However, I found that the authors tend to focus on the influences of history on object biography; they do not mention about the meaning of object that can possibly be changed across space and over time. For instance, Dan tre told a story of sadness that Minh has exprienced. Nonetheless, it was only his point of view, what about others? To Minh, dan tre is a priceless object that he always treasures because it travels with him all his life journey. But to others who have not known or even heard of dan tre before, would they share or understand the same experience? I guess that probably not.
Unlike Schamberger, Kelly has particularly talked about the idea of re-memory in which she refers to the material culture such as identity, history and heritage. According to her, material cultures are the nodes of connection in a network of people, places and naration of the past stories and traditions. Furthermore, she talked about the idea of home in which she noted that home is not just historical identification, signification of lanscapes of belonging or tradition and self-identity. Rather, she articulated on the idea of the 'imaginary home' in which memoryy can be traced as the feeli ng og coming to a place where you have never been to but a place where you have heard of or imagined of. In this regard, the objectivity is associated with cultural identity in which relates to personal experience or memory as well as cultural practices.
Schamberger's work does not have enough and concrete evidences to support her arguemenets. At some point, she mentioned about the 'black double consciousness' in which i found not relevant to her arguement. Perhaps she should some connections between black consciousness and South Asian racial consciouness. Moreover, I have trouble understanding Kelly's methodological approach in which she chose to have interviews, mapping and home touring as her main approach for addressing the questions of her research. I found that this is not a convincible way because with the short time of conducting research and small sample group, the result might fall into generalization and less reliable. Such problems lead me to a question Is Kelly's claim of makinhg the value of re-memory suitable and applicable in the case of South Asian diaspora in England?

What Objects Mean and How They Mean It (TURAN & SCHAMBERGER)

Material objects as facilitating environments: the Palestinian diaspora

(a) This article focuses on the significance of material objects for Palestinians in diaspora in terms of their collective identity and memory. It is a study that illustrates how objects as symbols of a person’s collective group (“object legacy”- when the object is passed down with continuity from one generation to the next) which help the creation of a sheltering and nurturing environment, named as “facilitating environment”. With the use of 4 examples of Palestinian Americans living in New York City, they explain the materiality of objects and the meanings that are associated with objects prevent failing memory and how it sustains a collective identity that are generated by materialistic characteristics not by social value. It started off with a girl’s account, Haim Sabat, her life story, how herself and her family maintained a sense of “homeland” through objects (Bethlehemic furnishing of the house). TURAN later used the quotes from Said and Appadurai to support this argument. He also suggested approaching objects from two angles, one is psychological- how objects function in the formation of collective identity and how these objects are interpreted differently through association to other people and the other is addressing the association between the objects and materiality. He extended this argument further seeing how these two approaches infer social meaning and thought the emotions that are provoked are important for individuals to make a discernment of who they are. The study has used the snowball technique to locate participants in the Middle Eastern diaspora communities of New York City, the Palestinians. Participants are selected from families who experienced dislocation and possessed objects that tied him or her to the family history and the experience of dislocation. The audio and video interviews ranged from one and a half hours to three and a half hours and questions about the meaning of objects, their degree of attachments to the objects, and degree of significance of their collective identity in their daily lives were asked. I am convinced by the author’s argument because of the multi-dimensional way (audios and videos) of doing interviews to find out information about relationship of objects to their thought of homeland as well as the snow ball sampling which guarantees the pool of interviewees are legit and of good quality.

(b) TURAN has done a good job in stating out the research problem and methods to tackle this psychological research. He has also first theorized the objects (what the objects are, how collective memory are constructed, how objects are related to self and this self-cultivation happens in two dimensions: differentiation (which eventually develops individuality) and integration (which eventually develops relatedness) in the framework of Winnicott’s theory of “transitional objects”. “Transitional objects” are supposed to disappear after it performs its function of providing security and comfort and provide a sense of continuity on both a personal and generational level. The objects have a developmental function when they are passed down to succeeding generations and become objects of legacy. These objects glue individuals together and then give a collective group identity which provides a sheltering and nurturing environment, in what Winnicott calls it “facilitating environments”. This environment not only gives a social value to collective identity but also a material and emotional dimension to it. TURAN provides insights and details in looking at how objects can help establish self identity and the relation aspect of objects as transitional to the individuals. He expands the objective into smaller categories for reader to understand it more tangibly. The interviews are conducted and analyzed in a way that either support, oppose or suggest a hybrid argument to Winnicott’s theory.

(c) Two Questions for Meaning Thoughts

a. It is funny how the different objects can be interpreted in associating individuals to homeland for different reasons. Can we still interpret the objects without asking them but by mere observation of their reactions to the objects?

b. Because how different individuals come from different origins, their interpretation of objects to their identity and association to homeland is different, is it possible to have a more systematic manner (spectrum) to categorize these accounts? I am particularly interested in how Christianity affected these Palestinians in seeing their identity. It will be great if TURAN explores this too in his study.

Living in a material world: object biography and transnational lives

(a) Through Australian Journeys Gallery at the National Museum of Australia, it explores 2 examples of object biography, they are Mrs. Guna Kinne’s Latvian national dress and Minh Tam Nguyen’s Dàn tre bamboo musical instrument. This gallery explores transnational character of Australian experience. It also traces the passage of people to, from and across the Australian continent and examines how migrants, sojourners, tourists and travellers have built and maintained connections between places in Australia and places overseas through things, images, media and text. Comparing to TURAN’s article, SCHAMBERGER takes a more humanitarian way of discussing diaspora by introducing the term “object biography” examines anartefact’s life history to ‘address the way social interactions involving people and objects create meaning’ and to understand how these meanings ‘change and are renegotiated through the life of an object’.. What contributes to this is “object knowledge”- embodied understandings of the object/world that constitute the foundation for any understanding of lived experience. SCHAMBERGER has used a very easy story-telling manner to talk about 2 “object biographies”, how Guna and Minh both travelled to different parts of the world before they lastly settled in Australia. Instead of seeing these flows of ideas, people and practices in relation to the object as distinct, SCHAMBERGER is suggesting rather a growing body of work when different things and people are constantly in motion, and shaping each other. He has introduced the method of “object biography”- research method in the first paragraph to find out how objects participate in, shape and express transnational historical experience. I am convinced by the author’s argument because after reading the two “object biographies”, my perspective of seeing object connecting places and people is real and alive. What he suggested earlier to create a more fluid object from turning it more objective to subjective is my experience of understanding after reading these two biographies.

(b) The author has done well in making difficult and abstract concepts that relate to transnational and object in nature easy for readers to understand and follow. It feels like reading a fiction which has made objects alive through the two biographies. Even though the research question and method are clearly stated, reader can encounter problems of having too many events all jammed together and eventually loses track of how exactly the object is affected by the events, and how the object is also affecting the events that happened. The relationship looks ambiguous sometimes because it is difficult to draw clear lines between these two variables. Personally speaking, after some major events stated out, I really like how the author inserts a picture that helps to keep me on track. The creativity of making an object alive by exploring social interactions involving people and objects create meaning and to understand how these meanings “change and are renegotiated through the life of an object” is simply mind-blowing. Because this research is done in a humanistic way without much scientific methodology, the results sometimes cause me to wonder if it is accurate or not but on the other hand, I realized because it is more like a fluid relationship, it is hard to use numbers or scientific methodology to carry out this study.

(c) Two Questions for Meaningful Thoughts

a. Even though it is taken a more humanistic way of conducting this study, is it possible to increase the accuracy of the results? Perhaps incorporating some scientific methodology into the study to measure some aspects that can’t be measured before?

b. Quoting from the article, “cultural forms always have two conflicting elements: they are

often made up of bits and pieces taken from many places on the one hand, but these are quickly formed into a coherent whole on the other…”, even though the definition is offered, is there tangible example to explain this abstract idea? Better explanation for “non-linear logics that create a hybrid material world, and in turns, how this hybridity shapes human subjectivity” is definitely needed.