The Object-Self Relationship in a Dialectical Material Culture

The importance of materiality to anthropological discussions is the subject of much analysis and observation in two illuminating chapters written by Daniel Miller and Nicholas Thomas, respectively. Theories of function and representation are called into question and are replaced by an overarching postulation of the importance of the relationship between objects and subjects, and their corresponding cultural and historical contexts. Miller enthusiastically defends his claim that material culture should be given a more prominent role in the field of social anthropology, and examines his topic through two explorative roles: first, through the objectification of crude physical objects and the roles they play in everyday life, and second, with an eye to philosophy. Thomas also explores the relationship between object and subject; however, he dedicates most of his energies to debunking conceptions of materialism as evolutionary and divisive. He refrains from formulating an overarching hypothesis regarding material goods, and instead seeks to discuss and disprove what he sees as mis-postulated conceptions of material exchange.
Thomas makes the role of culture and history the focus of his work, and attacks what he sees as a pervasive post-colonial “us versus them” conception of trade and commodification. He criticizes the evolutionary view that places primitivism and modern society in direct opposition, and also rejects the tendency by many critics of capitalist society to romanticize traditional and “simple” economic systems. He insists that, while exchange is central to daily life, we should not be so quick to view life as primarily “transactional,” and should instead recognize the myriad cultural and historical factors surrounding materiality. Thomas disagrees strongly with the iconic essay on “the gift” by Mauss, rejecting Mauss' typologies of “gift and “commodity” as being exclusive to separate regimes. Thomas accuses this, and other works, of being “oriented toward a general type instead of historical actualities,” and cautions against the establishment of an “us” and “them” mindset. He is quick to expound upon the numerous examples of commodification in non-western societies, and makes note of the fact that the tradition of gifts prevails in western society, as is seen in the example of birthday parties. Ultimately, I found Thomas' work to be helpful in reviewing and understanding other influential works on the subject of materiality; however, I felt that it was high in criticism and lacking in new information. Thomas did not seem to present any new theories or concepts that might enhance the discussion of material culture, although it is possible that his arguments escaped me. I personally found Miller's work on material culture theory to be much more informative and illuminating.
Miller rejects theories that ignore material objects, and instead proposes a dialectical material culture theory. He finds serious fault with what he refers to as function theory, or the idea that form follows function as an aspect of humanity's adaptation to the environment. Miller asserts that if such a theory were true, we would live in a worldwide homogeneous society whose variances correlated only with environmental differences. He finds similar fault with theories of representation, such as those presented by Durkheim and Mary Douglas, stating that they do little to increase our understanding of the intrinsic relationship between people and things. Miller presents his theory of material culture as influenced by the works of Goffman on frame analysis, or the manner by which social frames and cues inform our behaviour, and by Combrich's discussion of the sense of order which argues for the humility of things. That is to say, we fail to notice a frame that is placed in the appropriate context because it conveys to us a sense of normalcy surrounding that which it frames. Miller hypothesizes that it is not the object itself, but the context in which we relate to the object through unconscious cues, that lends importance to the material world. The cultural and religions context surrounding Miller's 50-plus pots studied in an Indian village remove the pots from the realm of mere function and allow them to transcend commodification to become important frames for religions and cultural events. As such, a pot gains importance as a cultural marker through a cultural or historical frame, just as a piece of art gains value in the context of a museum.
Miller draws heavily upon Pierre Bourdieu's theory of socialization and Claude Levi-Strauss' theory of structuralism in order to construct his argument. Levi-Strauss's discussion of the dualism of cosmology and philosophy serves to launch Miller's discussion of vulgar objects into the more philosophical realm. It is here that he draws from the works of Hegel, Marx and Simmel, among others, to examine the dialectical nature of material culture. The progression from primitive simplicity to the development of an advanced consciousness about the self as introduced by Hegel, is fundamental to the phenomenon of self-alienation, or the consciousness that is created by positing something outside of itself. Furthermore, Miller echoes Simmel when looking at our dialectical and often paradoxical relationship between the material and immaterial. He observes that, as our material acquisitions grow, we may come to have inconsequential relationships with any one of them, thereby rendering ourselves indifferent. However, our reach for a conceptualization of immateriality generally serves only to lend greater importance to specific forms of materiality.

Question #1: Miller argues for the humility of things; that objects are important because we don't see them; they set the scene and ensure appropriate behaviour, without being open to challenge. How would this argument apply to more visible objects of personal or status value that we have discussed in previous readings?

Question #2: Miller gives a theoretical example of an Australian Aboriginal living in a metropolitan area who experiences a negative disassociation from material society and retreats to the outskirts of the metropolis. How does this example relate to the discussion of dialectical and self-alienating materialism?