Object Theory I: Approaching Objects

Carrier, J (1995) Gifts and commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700.

The objective of this article is to approach objects from a sociological perspective where the relationship with objects is terms as “consumption” in social sciences. And this perspective can be taken from two ways: objects as markers in status hierarchy and semiological method of seeing objects. To support the first notion, CARRIER cross-referenced Weber’s definition of “status group” and Veblan’s definition of “status” as the demonstration of the ability to pay. In the situation of a capitalist society, consumption of objects becomes important to cause a distinction of the classes and eventually the status. Objects therefore end up becoming markers of status. And when objects are seen from a semiological perspective, they can be observed with clarity in public structures of power, meaning & identity as well as in interpersonal, private structures of social relationship. Using Barthes’s model and the illustration of advertisement, the signifier (the product) actually takes on the meaning of the signified (the attributes represented by the object, event or person) and so it becomes a sign (the meaningful product). Jean Baudrillard names the objects as “sign value” when they exist as elements in relation to other objects under a system of social positions and differences between them. Using Parisian bourgeoisie example, object signs can gain an independent existence of their own after mechanization of production. CARRIER acknowledged the difference and similarity between objects as markers of status and as signs. She further stated the shortcoming of Jean’s theory that objects not only exist in public structures but also exist within interpersonal, private structures of social relationship where personal relationships within them affect our experiences with objects and the ways we understand them. CARRIER did a fair job in stating out the research question which explored the relationship of objects in the form of “consumption” on social sciences terms. Her introduction was not a straightforward one as she explained reason for mentioning the word “consumption” in relation to objects, how certain areas of life have been devalued (such as private and female) and corrected a wrong concept of people can see objects for private consumption. Her use of subtitles to state the various relationship between objects and the different sociological terms are effective for readers to follow her logic of discussion. Her methodology is to investigate the ways that objects are implicated in personal relationships by describing historical changes in people’s relationships with objects as well as the modern state of those relationships. The model of people, objects, and social relations are taken from the work of Mauss. The methodology is the right one but the sampling source and quantity is questioned, more details are needed. The reason is the model of people, objects and social relations need to be taken from the pre-capitalist and industrial societies and it is hard to comprehend how she can find this kind sampling. There is depth in her investigation but breadth wise, it is not sufficient. Multi- sided research is encouraged. Otherwise, I am convinced by CARRIER’s argument. I am unsure how she can prove her argument with ample and convincing evidence.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) In Mauss’ social scales, CARRIER mentioned there is the spectrum with one end when object is being a part of the group of people itself and the other end when object is not substantially related to the group of people. The scales have two distinctive ends but I question how does the middle point which separates the two ends be differentiated in a quantitative sense?

(2) I question the credibility of this journal because the list of peer reference is not available in the paper. Does anyone know CARRIER here? :P

Appadurai, A. (1986) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective.

There are two objectives in this essay. The first is to preview and set the context for the essays that follow it in this volume. The second is to propose a new perspective on the circulation of commodities in social life. APPADURAI used the context that is set for the essays is to use Georg Simmel’s quote that Value is a judgement made about them by subjects. He defined what economic subjects as well as the economic exchange in which value of objects is determined reciprocally in terms of sacrifice. Economic objects circulate in different regimes of value in space and time. He further gives distinction commodity can be seen as mute and inert but alive when it is thing in motion that illuminate their human and social context. He also gives an overarching framework in stating out this essay is to be covered from historical, ethnographic and conceptual grounds and will be followed by five sections in the continuation of explaining commodities and the politics of value. Cleverly separated into subtitles, they are “The Spirit of Commodity”, “Path and Diversions”, “Desire and Demand”, “Knowledge and Commodities” and the last one is “Politics as the mediating level between exchange and value”. APPADURAI has done an excellent job in stating out the research question, the context, limits the scope of the field of research and explain the five sections of the essay with great depth and breadth. His argument is always backed up by references from different theorists and reader can easy to follow and understand him. His narrative strategies are mainly argumentative in nature when he breaks down his argument bit by bit with the help of the different theories he has quoted throughout the essay. He has made use of different examples to prove his argument, such as the Massim group of islands off the eastern tip of New Guinea. I am very much convinced by the author’s argument because of the detailed amount of evidences and a consistent, systematic manner throughout the essay. He also included a conclusion which gives a good reminder to reader what has just been read. However so, the author sometimes has not been direct enough in addressing and answering the research problem. He is sometimes side-tracked and has included too many unnecessary details of information that can distract reader. An example would be the overt description of “Kula” when the purpose of using this is to prove the values as both reflective and constitutive of social partnerships and struggles but almost two huge paragraphs have been devoted to explain and elaborate wht “Kula” is. (pg. 18) Despite the flaws, APPADURAI has inspired me in seeing commodity in a different perspective, that there is a reciprocal relationship between the thing called “it” and the owner who owns “it” and how does the sentimental value in commodity can be explained clearly in a step by step manner with the help of theories.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) Can APPADURAI improve his essay by putting his purpose more clearly earlier in the essay instead of stating it out and surprising the reader at the same time near the end of the paper, in conclusion?

(2) On pg. 15, APPADURAI talked about how the commodity context refers to the variety of social arenas, within or between cultural units, that help link the commodity candidacy of a thing to the commodity phase of its career. He further used women as exchange values in the context of marriage transactions. I don’t see the connection in using this example to prove the above point. Can someone explain?