Please excuse the extremely corny nature of this post's title. The chapter entitled, Objects, Exchange, Anthropology, provides some very detailed information surrounding the anthropological background of object theory, which can be overlooked by many. As with several of the previous articles discussed in this class, this one focuses a good portion of its attention on the nature of exchange; that is how individuals, groups, and/or communities traverse through a world where the exchange of objects is central to life. The author describes this process as inherently political in nature, dealing with the tendencies for exchanges to be unequal or egalitarian in nature. Of course the distinction is made between the social aspects of transactions versus the strictly money oriented ones, but this difference is not fully fleshed out. Sure, as the author points out, some transactions lack the formation of any sort of relationship with the other individual, such as buying a pair of shoes, but arguably by entering the store you are beginning a pseudo-relationship of sorts, which will end once the transaction is over and you leave the store, but from the time you enter the store you become engaged in a relationship of consumer/provider with individuals who work for that store, as well as the store itself.
The article stresses the importance of understanding cultural differences in order to fully gauge the formation of exchange and objectification among different cultures. As is the tendency in anthropology, much of the earlier work is extremely Euro-centric, placing emphasis on the primitiveness of certain exchange practices among non-European peoples. The author makes sure to call attention to this, calling for a greater understanding of the international relationships between peoples, production, consumption, and exchange. This tendency for Western society to ignore the “primitive”, while celebrating the industrious leads to what the author refers to as alienation. With this it is meant that through the industrialization of society we become less communal, instead focusing on ourselves. This is contrasted with those primitive societies which Western society objectifies, whose promotion of Kin-based relationships creates a different dynamic when it comes to object exchange, an instance this author refers to as “savage commerce.” In this type of “commerce” the inalienability of objects as gifts or commodities is brought into questions. The exchange of gifts may in fact imbue the object with inalienable qualities, as the relationship surrounding the exchange would in many cases would mean that the meaning of such gift, as well as the gift itself contain concrete implications. The author makes it clear from the beginning that there is no intention on their part to suggest new theories for object/exchange relationships, but rather to provide an overview/critique of several of the key works which are pertinent to understanding the subject matter.
To be completely honest I don't really know what to make of the Thomas piece entitled, Theories of Things. The chapter seems to be filled with seeming irrelevant information regarding the authors early life. I'm sure there's some meaning behind it that I may just be completely overlooking, but I found it a little frivolous. The author does start off with making claims regarding the focus of the chapter, but I found that the thesis as it were is very hard to detect throughout the chapter. One of the main points of discussion seems to be on the function of objects versus the materiality of objects. This is exemplified through Hindu jugs, and picture/ painting frames. Both of these objects present the reader with instances where it is not the object itself, but the function which each object has that defines the object and its relationship with an individual or other “stuff”. Another main point brought up is that of self-alienation/objectification, which the author describes as not the representation of objects, but rather focusing on an object as but one part in a much larger process. Our interaction with the object is just as defining as the object itself. As noted before, there just seems to be a scattered/unfocused approach to this reading, making it hard for me personally to follow along with the author's train of thought.
Questions:
- If the giving of a gift results in one individual being indebted to the other, is this just another form of commodity transaction? That is, instead of owing money the individual owes some other form of remuneration that isn't monetarily based?
- If we can no longer separate subject and object, then from what do we derive meaning? Is it just a cycle of meaning then? Object describes subject and subject describes object?
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteI understand subject-object relationships as less cyclical and more interactional. I think the importance of the object, at least in Miller's argument, is that it frames the context of a situation and thereby allows the subject to respond appropriately. If we were to follow Miller's argument, we would assume that an object's 'humility' is what ultimately frames our material experience. That said, I do not agree entirely with Miller's observation that objects exist purely as frames for subject experience, and while subject-object interaction may not necessarily be cyclical, a greater understanding of its nature is needed.
Hi Matt
ReplyDeletewith regards to question 1: i would say not usually but maybe sometimes yes. From what i know gifts are social, social consequence, not based on monetary value. Another elements of gifts is usually the receiver does not know the price, the price tag is removed from this exchange. But why I'm not sure is if when a person receives a gift that by all means is inferior to what they gave (price, utility, aesthetics). At this point the receiver is disappointed for it expected a higher value (monetary or functional) of a gift. Then this might mean a form of a commodity transaction.
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteI understand your point about Thomas' article and the inclusion of his own intellectual development (or whatever we should call that part). However, while it may not be terribly informative theoretically, I find such personal anecdotes (generally) interesting, for different reasons. In this case, I think the main 'take-away" for me was his experience of studying pots, an interest stemming form his previous studies, and the opinion of people in the community that he was "missing the point" serves to illustrate the "invisibility" or "unseen-ness" of everyday material objects. While this could have been a shortened passage, certainly, I find the medium of using such an example illustrative. Not only of how we (i.e. people generally), but also how academics, do not see the "frame" of life which is objects. As such, this component in his personal anecdote(s) acts as both an example of objects' "unseen-ness" and as an implicit critique of anthropologists for NOT seeing this. Academics write, after all, for other academics in their field. (Perhaps a crude generalization.)
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteI was actually just thinking about your first question. To be indebted is simply a measure of how both parties measure reciprocity. Which kind of comes into the argument Thomas was making regarding the social repercussions that come from a mistake made in gift giving... if there is in fact a miss-communication and one party feels they've been, for lack of a better word, ripped off, meaning they feel they've lost out on something, the relationship is strained. HOWEVER, socially speaking for a second, the saying goes, don't do something for someone because you expect something in return. So the whole argument is kind of morally unjust I guess.
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteAbout your first question, even if there is indebtedness, and even if it is then a commodity transaction...it's a very different commodity transaction. For example a friend giving me a birthday present might mean that I am expected to do the same on their birthday. But nevertheless it's a very different transaction than the bowl of soup I just bought. And does that not call into question the validity of the category 'commodity transaction' if it is so broad?
--Gillian
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteYou draw a really intersting similarity between gifts and commodities and make a good point in arguing in your first question that (if as the author suggests)the act of gift giving involves indebtness, then couldn't it [gift-giving] be seen as just another form of commodity transaction? It is true -- instead of owing money, the person just owes something non-monetary. However, it is important to keep in mind that commodities must be goods for which there is demand. Depending on the gift, it might not be necessarily be considered as 'in demand' and therefore wouldn't be considered a commodity.
supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market
ignore that last random bit
ReplyDelete