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?