Object Materialization and Objectification

The article by Turan is on material objects serving as a medium for the Palestinian diaspora, that allows for the restoration of bonds between people and their homelands. Turan talks about the different ways members of the Palestinian community remember their homeland through the generations. For some, it is a personal and lived experience being in Palestine as a child, and for others, it is an experience more through a socially constructed idea of what the homeland is like. For example, Turan speaks about Hiam Sabat’s objects and the way family homes would be decorated/organized to resemble homes. We then learn about the way object materiality can create a psychological association to the homeland through many of the different interpretations and representations made from the objects themselves. For the Shankar article, the author speaks about the way objects are used in an indexical and referential way by people so that there is an objectification that is circulated through everyday talk, media, and other forms of communication and expression. There is a whole process of having an object tell something, about someone, which is often reiterated by others to conceive a diasporic imagination in whole.

Turan and Shankar both do an excellent job of introducing the reader to a very simplified understanding of how objects can be identified as the medium between people and place. It was also very interesting to learn about the two different angles that objects and diaspora can be studied; these are psychological and tangible ways of looking at objects. Both show a more personal perspective of the person in subject, and their experience of how objects/images/surrounding environments play a role in their overall integration in the new world and to what extent objects serve as a medium. In a very easy-flowing manner, both authors are able to show how objectification can lead to social processes that enable for the connections and networking of ideas to create a unified, yet personal idea of the homeland. We can understand that this process happens within the individual, but at the same time, is a unified experience through people who have similarities and common denominators.
One of the things that come to mind, is the way objectification may occur (even amongst groups and communities) with people completely oblivious to the way it is happening and the influential role the object plays. For example, a man can hold on to his grandfather’s medals from a war because of what it represents, its status, and legendary nature through the generations without much thinking. I think that these feelings of place attachment can be conscious, or subconscious amongst some people, and is able to influence them very powerfully and create a sense of identity at a micro and macro-social level. Certain objects are sometimes sought after through courage, strength, motivation, and a lot of work, which can serve a symbolic representation of struggle and class. After a certain amount of time, the association between the objects and who/what it represents begins to take shape, and helps to strengthen the imagination.

Question #1: Would an object that is lost/destroyed/stolen, have the same merit as one that is currently in possession/tangible? Would the memory and stories of the object still have the same amount of influence as it would if it changed form? (Example: weathered statue, or photograph that is fading).

Question #2: What are your thoughts on my following statement? Object materialization and objectification serves as a way of creating a diasporic imagination through restoring, replicating, and confirming one’s beliefs and ideas.