In the article Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism, Carrier discusses the importance in viewing and observing objects beyond the utility they serve. Objects have a variety of meaning that is crucial in fully understanding objects and the effect on people. Sociologist have based their studies in how objects are made and bought, this type of work emphasis in on the public domain which leads into the neglect of the private sphere which is mostly a female area.
Weber distinctions in status are dependent of what objects we own, owning certain objects can cause a person to enter a ‘status group’. Veblen views on objects cannot be determined until we know what this particular object gives back to its owner. Veblen thinks is a bad way to show one’s status with different types of objects in large societies because less people will know who you are and will use these objects as the only way to judge you. I don’t agree with Veblen in this matter because he thinks is better to display these objects as status makers in small communities that know you. In these small communities the need to show distinction does not seem as necessary, to me since if everyone knows each other business then everyone will know the fact that I am rich. In a large society that can be fast passed and anonymous the only way to be distinguish (if that its ones desire) is through very visual objects (cars, purses)
Commodities and the politics of value by Appadurai addresses two main points: examining essays that will aid in understand future essays of the same topic and to suggest a new form on the circulation of commodities and the argument that commodities have social lives just as humans do. According to Simmel the value of object is the “judgment made about them by subjects” rather than inherit property (Appadurai 1986). These valuable objects have a distance between the person, whose distance to the object can only narrow by exchange of another object. These exchanges are series of sacrifices of one object to gain another, for example if I understand this correctly: we sacrifice money to obtain a painting or a coffee.
Commodities and politics are closely linked to each other; I believe commodities are dependant on politics. Commodities are intentionally made to be exchangeable according to Marx. What makes commodities desirable is the demand for them, what is I fashion and who is able to afford them. It is political who is able to afford these sacrifices if exchange and as Appadurai mentions those is power want to keep these commodities from spreading to the general population. I believe this is just a way to separate themselves form the rest of the population, as status and class identifier.
Question 1: How are commodities are different from products, objects and goods?
Question 2: when Carrier discusses the advertisement of a product is not neutral; the product is mixed with the object. Does that mean that the product is compared with the meaning or what does mixed/ juxtapose mean?
Hi Cat (?),
ReplyDeleteAs others have commented on this week's posts, I'd like to address your questions. When reading Appadurai's chapter, I found the differentiation of commodities, goods and products interesting, particular when considering last week's readings on 'objects' - specifically. Products, I think, differ in terms of the capitalist economic component in their construction. Commodities, while retaining some of this, seems a "nicer" more politically-neutral term. Whether or not the two are mere synonyms, is an interesting question and not one I feel able to answer from reading the piece. Most likely, a second reading is in order.
That is, a second reading for ME.
ReplyDeleteHey Cat,
ReplyDeleteI think perhaps the non-neutral status of advertisement means that there are other factors that play into our perception of that object. Objects to don't hold meaning independently or in isolation, and therefore they rely on both what they are not, and other objects that carry similarities to define themselves.
Products are not advertised on the basis of what they are, but rather what they represent. So therefore, when we watch the Proctor and Gamble add for soap, we are not being enticed by the cleanliness offered by the product, but rather the lifestyle it represents. I think that by "not neutral", Carrier is referring to the persuasive approach that advertisements use.