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?