Theory and Critique of Dealings with Objects..

Our readings for this week each provide a voice in the dialectical (to echo the idea brought up by Miller) development of scholarly work: Miller advances a theory on material objects within the sphere of social anthropology, while Thomas presents a critique of economic anthropologists’ notions of exchange.

Miller in his second chapter of Stuff, postulates that it is both “plausible and helpful” to construct theories about things (42). A main foundation of his theory, put forward in the chapter, is of a “humility of things” (50). Objects can and should be studied, and not merely set aside as subordinate in importance to human relations. Indeed, objects are important in their own right because they are unseen. They provide the frame of human existence and its social relations, and are most effective when they are accepted at face value, thus able to inconspicuously define boundaries in social relations. This understanding of objects’ importance deriving from the ‘unseen-ness’ of them in everyday life relates to Miller’s main argument: Objects create and form people. Objects exist prior to us; we grow up in a world surrounded by them before we begin to make objects ourselves, and thus objects (consciously plural) encompass “landscapes of our imagination and cultural environment to which we adapt” (53). Miller takes his examination of this through an examination of Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism, with the effect of focusing upon the specifically dialectical relationship between people and things. Indeed, it is the (dialectically) dynamic interaction between subjects (persons) and objects which is the true focus here I believe. The objects of humility may be ‘unseen,’ but we still engage with these, resulting in the continued development of Bourdieu’s habitus (Ibid.). In fact, it is because objects are ‘unseen’ that the dynamic interaction of continued (re)construction is able to result in who we are and what we do, our habitus.

Thomas in his “Objects, Exchange and Anthropology” in Entangled Objects: Exchange, material culture and colonialism in the Pacific lays out a critique against the lack of political and historical contextualization by scholars of exchange. He argues that in order to comprehend “forms of prestations” (which means ‘payments of what is due,’ from what I can decipher from a quick internet search) which enables an understanding actual movements and values of things, namely a political and historical contextualization (18). Additionally, Thomas, unlike Miller, is focused particularly on the political component in exchange. He argues that the notion of “reciprocally dependent” people in exchanges of gifts in inaccurate (22). Instead, a power differentiation most likely exists between those taking part in the acts of giving and receiving (8).

Among Thomas’ several critiques of scholars’ theories, I found the issue of objectification of identity particularly interesting. Not interesting insomuch as it is a transformative idea (or critique), but the idea that objects express subjects and the critique of this as restrictive is an interesting dilemma to ponder, given our examinations of objects and identity in previous weeks (and my own particular interest in ‘identity’).

My, highly related questions, therefore, are:

A) “How can (and should?) we merge these two works, vis-a-vis identity and (1) the construction of this in a dynamic interaction of subject(s) with objects as claimed in Thomas, and (2) the issues relating to the restrictiveness of objects as expression(s) of subject(s).”

B) If, as Miller argues, objects are interesting because they are invisible, the frame of social experience, how can we place this conceptualization this within contemporary capitalism and the creation of demand for things? (That is, to me it seems that there are certain types of things which have become hyper-visible in “framing” our lives, particularly things which are representative of a “lifestyle”.)