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?