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.