Objects as Commodities

In the Carrier article, Approaching Objects, the author lays out their take on the relationship that exists between the individual or group and the objects in that society. The difference between objects as purely things which serve a particular function or service, and the relationship which actually exists is an area which this article contests is sorely underrepresented. This would appear to be the case in many Western societies, as the rise and subsequent domination of capitalism and capitalist practices has meant the creation of a society in which the value of objects is primarily based on their desirability, linking objects to the market and not necessarily the relationship between the object and the consumer. The article goes on to discuss this very point, tying in the connection between objects and consumers based on a gendered lens of consumption as, “objects, and particularly consumer goods, begin to enter more private and female realms once they are produced...people take them to what may be the most private and female realm there is, home”. But this gendered view of objects as consumer goods fails to develop the notion that it is both genders which engage with objects at the various stages of its production, consumption, and possible disposal. As well it is the relationship, similarities and differences, that the genders have with these objects that can help illustrate the idea that objects exist in many different realms with its human owner.

      The article also discusses the relationship between objects, their owners, and social status. This idea of social status through the consumption of goods was also discussed last week in Shankar's article. The difference though is in the way the Carrier article focuses not on how the owner uses the object to gain status, but rather on the the social thought that goes into thinking about an object and how this thought is responsible for garnering a certain status for the object owner. Tied in with this, the article also goes on to discuss objects as signs. While we generally think about objects in rather concrete terms, objects actually exist in a multifaceted and complex array of meanings, and it is through these meanings that one can identify themselves. This concept is carried over into the final area discussed in the article. While objects undeniably have a public function in many cases, it is through the relationship that the individual has in private with the object that may ultimately be the definer of what that object comes to be understood as representing. But the private use of objects is still arguably tied to the public, since it is through the private that relationships with the public are built.

      The Appadurai chapter on, Commodities and the Politics Of Value, takes the discussion in a much more economic direction. The introduction is extremely explicit in its distinction on the coverage which the chapter will discuss, which is extremely important for an academic publication. The purpose of the chapter is to attempt to illustrate how objects/commodities, value, and politics are all intrinsically linked to one another as, “focusing on the things that are exchanged, rather than simply on the forms or functions of exchange, makes it possible to argue that what creates the link between exchange and value is politics”. Appadurai makes sure to distinguish between an object and a commodity, with a commodity referring to an object which has economic value. The relationship between commodities, value, and people is an interesting one, which ties in quite well to several aspects brought up in the Carrier article. Most notably, the way in which economic systems, capitalism, and capitalist structures play a part in defining what commodities have value, and how the public perceives these objects. Appadurai proposes that the relationship of commodity value revolves around the perceived attainability, or lack thereof, of the object.

      Where Appadurai expands upon the somewhat limited view of commodities as strictly objects tied to the industrialized, capitalist realm is by discussing the exchange of goods throughout several regions around the globe. The purpose of this is to highlight that the exchange of commodities based on value is not something which is exclusive to the developed world. Rather, commodities span various social, economic, cultural, and political strata, and even though these areas may vary, the transactions almost always mirror one another.

Questions:

1. If the consumption of objects is directly linked to the meanings objects are given, then could it be said that objects prior to consumption are meaningless? Or is the meaning just something completely different?
2. How do found or made (personal) objects factor in with the economics of commodities? Can they in certain situations be considered to have economic value?