Objects, exchange, anthropology follows from what I understood in Appadurai’s work: that the exchange of objects is political. In this exchange of objects different types of relationships are negotiated. Thomas discusses that some relationships are concentrated in the object only not the social relationship. Others are purely social, different types of exchange. Thomas explains that in general people have come to understand what can be appropriate for the circumstances of giving and receiving. However what we accept as appropriate does not apply to different cultures and other economic systems, we actually have come to view them as below us, negative, savage because they lack the use of money. But if anthropology is based in understanding the material use of others, indigenous people (Zulu) are as part of the system of exchange as non-indigenous.
The distinctions between commodities and gifts are made “While commodities have prices, gifts have rank”(Thomas 1991:14). Gifts have rank because the one that gives them has a sort of superiority until a form of gift is returned to them, it can be a formation of debt. Gifts are also inalienable, meaning they cannot be given back or away; this is because gifts have a social effect. The return of this gift has consequences such as the end of a friendship, engagement; in this mode gifts can be seen as actions.
Self-alienation is the way humans enhance their ability in the world, creating different objects to make life easier or enjoyable. Self-alienation, I see it as way some people get ahead by creating different technologies, Miller ties self-alienation to objectification which is abstract ideas that become objects. However the creation of these objects that enhance our capacity can back fire, and will not aid in making our life better.
Lastly Miller discuses materiality as something we don’t want to be, to my knowledge materialistic is material wealth (shallow, unhappy, alone) and its opposite spiritual wealth(simple, happy, wise). Many religions emphasize in spiritual wealth for happiness, which makes the ancient Egyptians beliefs very interesting. Their creation of material objects, statues of gods are a form of assuring an immortal transubstantiation. Both authors have discussed alienation, such as the alienation for the self in improving one life by creating objects, and gifts are inalienable.
Is it only gifts that are a type of act, can other object have strong actions upon their removal?
Is self-alienation the same as objectification? Is the only difference is that self-alienation is on the improvement of human capacity?
Hey Cat!
ReplyDeleteI understood self-alienation through Hegel's postulation that as we develop a more advanced level of conciousness we become more self-alienated in relation to our external environment. It would follow that objectification results from the relationship we create and maintain with certain objects around us; a relationship born from our consciousness. As such, while self-alienation and objectification are not necessarily the same thing, they are intimately related.
Hi Cat,
ReplyDeleteAdding to the post above, I found the examples of self-alienation presented almost similar to externalities in economics. Our construction of cars, which is a positive achievement (simply put), leads to negative issues which were not considered/did not exist prior to the creation of the car: highways, which destroy nature and lead to ruination of environments; car accidents, directly harming people. I.e., these things are external to the singular notion of "car," yet are intertwined with this - the idea of "car accidents" cannot exist with the notion (and object) of cars. Car accidents, the construction of highways, car pollution, etc all externalities to "the car" are detrimental to our connection with our environment, as Joni mentioned above. As such, I may not be understanding you correctly, but I wouldn't agree that self-alienation is connected to the improvement of human capacity, necessarily.