The article by Appadurai deals with the way commodities are exchanged and the process in which we attribute ‘value’ to them. These objects act as an agent for socialization around it, and ultimately leads to the transferring of the commodity that can often fluctuate the value for the object. Appadurai refers to Georg Simmel, and his account of how value is prescribed and can be subjective. The author discusses how value can be placed on something based on the surrounding social context, and that human factors, transactions, encounters, and actions allow for an object to be encoded with significance and value.
“We still call those objects valuable that resist our desire to possess them” (Simmel, page 67). This statement is very interesting to me because it shows how value, interest, and desire for ownership builds upon something as it is further away and in rarity, like diamonds for example. As the piece goes further into discussion, Appadurai speaks about Marx and capitalism in regards to using money for exchange of commodities. The author also leaves room for his argument to be proven otherwise, because he uses language that goes something like, “if my argument holds water…”, and is acknowledging that his combining of Marx’s and Simmel’s theories may or may not be applicable to objects. It is interesting to note that commodities can also be classified as ‘goods’, ‘objects’, ‘products’, and even ‘artifacts’ when an object ages through time. By the end of the piece, I think Appadurai is able to link different theories and ideas together like ‘value’ and ‘exchange’, so that the reader is able to comprehend how commodities are able to be in the socialization process.
In the second reading for the week by Carrier, the author starts off with a very basic principle: there is a need and deeper meaning for objects aside from their basic utility purposes. An interesting note that author also makes is that objects are a marker of heirarchies, and from there on stems exclusion and inclusion of people as a sociological process. Carrier goes on to explain that objects act as status markers for societies that are bigger in size, as opposed to smaller societies because people in smaller and limited areas are more likely to know each other. Whereas, in larger communities, status markers allow for the owners to get more of an esteemed appeal, but with no mark of reputability from just the objects alone.
Carrier I believe, does an extremely good job of organizing his ideas and makes the article approachable with his ease of language and tone. I find that the use of sub-sections and his way of contrasting ‘Objects as ____’ is very key in presenting the authors ideas to the reader. By giving the reader real life examples as to how objects are attached to people and the way we use them as markers, the reader is able to justify the authors breakdown of how objects are approached in a social and economical process.
Question #1: As objects such as artwork ages, the ‘value’ of it starts to increase. In what case do we have objects that decrease in value over time? What are some examples of institutions that dominate and control the value of objects, with the help of multi-level groups/bodies?
Questions #2: If people don’t live up to their role in life based around their identity and interaction with their everyday objects, do we have the right to penalize them based on the failure to comply with what was EXPECTED? Example: Police officer opens fire without cause.
Hi Albi,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to speak to your first question as I'm unsure I understand your second question. Police officer opening fire without cause is something so regular that I expect it of them and thus distrust them greatly, and yes, think they still should be punished for it even though I expect it. I also expect them not to be punished for it.
In terms of your first question, the European market and the WTO have the ability to control and dominate the value of commodities in post/colonial relation especially to the global South. When European nations dropped preferential trade with former colonies (agreements made before the WTO), the price of rice being sold by southern farmers was driven way up, stimulating an epidemic of farmers across the world loosing their farmers and committing suicide. Trade rules established by the WTO govern commodity prices and kill attempts to strengthen infrastructure of a country who is trying to sell.
Hey Albi,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to touch on your second question as I understand it... If one is to live up to a perceived notion of what they should be like, there is already a problem with that mind state, but in terms of actually being in a position that commands responsibility and power, one should be held accountable for actions taken, especially if that "expected" role is to protect. In answering your question, I fail to see how this would relate directly to the study of objects... rather this may be a discussion based solely on concepts of labelling, which we have seen done in the texts this week (IE labeling of objects) If,indeed, you are referring to the interactions with objects such as a loaded firearm, that EXPECTATION will differ greatly depending on the hand that weals it.
Hey Albi,
ReplyDeleteAbout your first question, an example of objects that decrease in value over time is objects that become easier to access over time. Computers for example have gone from costing thousands of dollars to hundreds of dollars. Appadurai's example of problems of exclusivity giving way to questions of authenticity as luxury items like 'oriental rugs' because more accessible (and therefore a less reliable indicator of status) is another instance of decrease in value over time (44).
--Gillian
Hi Albi,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Carrier did a good job organizing his thoughts and ideas with his ease of language of tone. Thank you for bringing up his point on Western culture and how the anonymity of people prevails and thus, objects take on even more significant meaning ...I thought this was an interesting and very important point in the discussion of objects and their purpose beyond utility, so thank you for bring that up.
In addressing your first question, while humans aren't objects, I do want to make the point that people going down in value as they age is interesting because I think it shows the importance Western society really does place on objects -- most objects go up in value as they age...minus, of course, food and other perishables. Why is it then that as humans age, they're value goes down and as objects age their value goes up? I think it can be argued that it depicts the overwhelming importance Western society places on objects and material things over people...
Hey Albi,
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your first question, I think that Appaadurai and Gillian address it with the idea that the value of an object is based on its difficulty to obtain. In that way, it is not that the age of an object necessarily increases its value, but rather its rarity.
On a different note, I think there are a lot of objects that lose value over time, not because they are any more or less obtainable, but because the objects themselves become altered over time. I am thinking here of food (like a moldy loaf of bread). I guess this works the other way around too, with foods like wine and cheese, which seem to age for the better!