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.