Qat, Khat and Miraa: transnational flows.

For this week’s selected readings, the overarching theme is engagement with empirical examinations of object’s/objects’ usage. (Given the overt varying nature of miraa illustrated in Carrier, I find the tension between conceptualizing khat as singular object problematic.) We move from not only from the theoretical to the empirical, a move from previous examination of theoretical foundations within material cultural studies, but also temporally, from the engagement with objects and object agency and biography within a temporally-specific context placed within a historical moment (and examined in another specific, or discrete temporal moment), to a contemporary engagement with the object - here, khat (qat, miraa). While all three readings deal very consciously with contemporary qat use, there are three clearly distinguishable elements which each scholar addresses. A political dimension is covered in Wedeen’s examination of democratic performativity in Yemen. Symbolic identity construction through the use of qat amongst the Somali diaspora in the United Kingdom (though not all), as well as the socioeconomic problems and contestations occurring regarding the role of qat in this community’s well-being (although, generalization here too must not be ignored) and resultant tensions over the legality of the substance in negotiations over national membership in the UK, taken up by Klein. Finally, Carrier’s examination of Kenyan khat, miraa, and value leads to considerations on the commercial aspects of qat, both related to Nyambene Hills and the Meru specifically, and the international trade more generally (as is necessary in examinations of commercialism within globalizing economic and object flows).

Despite the different foci these articles engage, clear overlap permeates across each work, illustrating, I would argue, the interconnectivity of multiple dimensions within studies of qat, which extrapolate to the study of objects’ usage and movement more generally. This overlap is both ‘national’ - in examining miraa, the Kenyan, or more accurately, the Meru, context cannot be disassociated from that of the Somali diaspora in the UK. As such, not only does our object here, qat, cross boundaries between peoples, it crosses international nation-state boundaries, rural-urban boundaries, among a variety of other dimensions I do not mention here.

A further element of commonality is the role of qat in identity performance. This is most visible in Carrier and Klein’s pieces. In the former the role of ancestry and heritage of qat production and consumption among the Meru, as well as the significance of place within this commercialization. In Klein, identity construction takes a more central role.

A final element of comparison is the development of a “culture of consumption” (Klein 2007, 52: 59). Klein argues that the constructed myth of qat consumption amongst UK Somalis has resulted in problematic usage resulting from a lack of socially molded norms of balanced consumption. In Wedeen, this “culture of consumption” is the main focus point. For Wedeen, this culture of “qat chews” is tied to the performance of democratic values. This must be viewed within the overarching context of the chapter in question “The Politics of Deliberation.” Wedeen’s central argument entails of re-conceptualization of democracy by “deromanticizing the ballot box” and focusing instead on performative aspects of democratic values.

1) What are other examples of (an) object(s) like qat?

(While this is a truly simple question, I am curious as to your thoughts)

2) How can we reconcile the gender component, in Wedeen and Klein particularly, with the positive and arguably negative arguments made by these scholars?

qat chews

In the context of banning qat in the UK, Klein argues that khat is not a Somali tradition, and that it only became popular in recent decades. Wedeen examines the role of qat chews in Yemen in facilitating public sphere activity, discussion, and deliberation that he argues is crucial for democracy. Both articles are concerned with social interactions, cultural norms/practices, and the shaping of communities that is facilitated through qat chewing. The object and the practice around it are central, as are the multiple meanings around the situation. In both articles Klein and Wedeen aren’t interested in advocating for or against qat use, or about the legality of qat, its status as a drug, instead the articles are interested in the interactions and situations that are possible because of qat chews/chewing. Ethnic, national, and diasporic identity is depicted as arising through the role qat plays. However I found that the articles didn’t adequately explore the relationships between qat and gender identity.

Klein argues that because khat became a common social practice in Somalia during the civil war and in refugee camps there aren’t normative traditions about use as in Yemeni and Ethiopian contexts. The problems with qat use in the UK and its association with unemployment, family breakdown and poor health are ascribed to the role it has taken on in the particular Somali social and geographical context. Qat is cheaper and more readily available in the UK, and its use amongst men is tied to their loss of authority because Somali women headed the group’s migration and settlement in the UK. Using the term the sociology of drug use, Klein represents qat as a proxy for the issues that arise around and because of its use. This method of inquiry is more concerned with qat as an object and the relations that arise around it, than with a cultural ‘tradition,’ where qat would be understood as ‘normal’ and necessary for group identity. The view Klein offers challenges popular discussions and depictions of qat, showing how the same object takes on multiple meanings in different contexts and systems of representation.

I found Wedeen’s lack of exploration of the gendered dynamics of qat chews problematic. While the article was about Yemen, I think these dynamics are also playing a part in Klein’s discussions of the anti-qat movement in the UK. Wedeen argues that debate, deliberation and critical reflection facilitated by chewing qat creates a democratic public sphere or space. I found Wedeen’s argument that democracy isn’t just about an electoral process compelling, and agree that there are many different sites and activities associated with democracy. Wedeen depicts qat chews as creating an Habermasian imagined community or minipublic where co-membership is fostered. However the gendered use of qat is a serious consideration that Wedeen fails to sufficiently address. His acknowledgement that female politicians are excluded, and that qat chews are segregated, as well as address different topics seems to indicate that the minipublics formed by qat chews are closed communities predicated upon women’s exclusion. I’m not disagreeing with the work Wedeen argues qat does in facilitating democratic debate, but he fails to engage with the effect of qat chewing as a gendered practice. What does it mean to call qat chews a democratic practice or process when women are generally excluded from the frank political discussions that occur? An electoral system that excludes women, or any other distinct social group wouldn’t be described as democratic. Yet the informality of qat chews, and their status which Wedeen depicts as being analogous to salons and coffeehouses of 16^th century Europe is the basis of Wedeen’s celebration. His interest in qat and the processes and performance it facilitates is that it isn’t institutional, that critical rational political debate can exist in fluid, informal situations like qat chews and isn’t solely possible through a free press for example. Yet qat chews are also highly regulated environments where status, class, hierarchy, and certainly gender matter, as Wedeen grants “Many scholars have also argued that Habermas exaggerates the possibilities for equal treatment in public and neglects to theorize the ways in which each participant is enmeshed in particular power relationships affecting his or her ability to speak and to be heard” (117). Wedeen aruges that even though there is a hierarchy within qat chews, it is still a democratic process, just one that isn’t tied to liberal notions of equality. But by not seriously addressing concerns around women’s exclusion, the weight of Wedeen’s argument is challenged.

Qat chews certainly facilitate certain performances of democracy, but wouldn’t it be possible to argue that the types of discussions that occur within qat chews allow power to continue to reside within powerful elite men in the face of nominal gender equality at the ballot box?

Can qat chews be considered a democratic political forum if one social group is systematically denied access?

Khat a taste of Africa

Bundles of Choice: Variety and the Creation and Manipulation of Kenyan Khat’s Value by Carrier is an article that describes how Khat (Miraa) is produced packaged and delivered internationally. Khat is produced in East Africa and part of the Arabian Peninsula, in these countries Khat is major contributor to social life. Khat let’s you be awake for longer periods of time, euphoric sensation, excitement, high self-esteem, and can also banish the feeling of hunger (Bali 1997). Chewing Khat makes social interaction less challenging, users have higher self-esteem and as Bali writes participants develop “ideas of greatness”. The value of Khat is not based on its side effects but on what is represents. Khat is a symbol of fertility and creative potential, receiving Khat is more than a gift it is a blessing (Carrier 2006). The value of Khat is complicated due to its vast varieties such as: the age of the tree (linkage to Meru ancestry), length of stems, different types of trees and packaging. These different categories and types of Khat are crucial for retailers since persons have loyalty to certain type of Khat. These categories are crucial to retailers but the value of social interaction and the connection to home cannot have a monetary value. Khat is illegal in Europe, Canada and the States but it still has a high demand from the diasporas in these places. For diasporas the value of Khat is based on memory and freshness; even though there is not much option and it is not the best Khat diasporas are willing to pay 3 pounds for “the taste of Africa”.

Retailers are able to manipulate the market of Khat to earn the most profits by mixing different types of leaves together. Khat is a lifestyle of the peoples of Eastern Africa, playing a dominant role in activities, once parted from Africa Somali, Kenya, and Yemen diasporas continue to chew as this is major component of their social life. I found interesting that even the wrapping use for Khat had become a national symbol of Kenya; it demonstrates its importance in this country and the diasporas. I fell that the chewing Khat is not completely different from ethnic dances, rituals, ethnic foods and other activities that link diasporas to their home, expect the fact that it is illegal. Participants of the diaspora perform all these practices in order to be integrated into that society. I fell that different ethnic groups have rituals, foods, and dances that we looked down upon; I feel that by looking down on these practices we as a society are making their practices illegal.

If Khat is less addictive than tobacco or alcohol, why is a less addictive drug considered illegal in Canada?

Does Khat and Marijuana hold the same meanings of a ‘taste of home’ ?

Transnational Objects

One of this week readings that I found enjoying very much is the work of Stephanie Rain's "Celtic Kitsch: Irish-America and Irish material culture". His article presented the way that Irish material culture presented to tourists and such objects act as menentio of the tourist experience. In this regard, the object becomes some kinds of national symbols. According to Rain, there are two characteristics that the objects need to have which include the following (1) level of familiarity and (2) the context that diasporic consumption contributes to their making kitsch and inauthentic. When reading this article, one thing i found very interesting is the idea of Touristic representation of consumption. That is, the idea that "visitors attempt to create the sensation of belonging to the culture they are visiting". To be honest, I never thought of this idea until I read this article. I always wanted to know when people visited to a place, why did they want to buy a small gift or souvenirs from that place? Thanks to Rain, I now find an anwser for such question as it is a feeling that visitors want to have a place where they are belong to. I like the way he introduced his essay as it is very clear how he expected the readers to follow his arguement. To me, the essay is short but it is well-written and well-presented with a lot of examples, pictures as evidences to support his claim.
On the other hand, David Parkin's work "mementoes as transitional objects in Human Displacement" went into a different direction. His main arguement was that the movements of people are associated with the objects that people attached themselves to it. In other words, his main concerned was to understand whether physical objects associated with particular persons or their personhood that go beyond their individuals' biological body. In his research paper, he found that people who left their home country during or because of crisis, often bring objects with them resembling their selective remembering, forgetting and envisioning of home. When reading Parkin's article, I felt very much related to because I am an immigrant myself. However, I found several points that I had to disagree with the authors (1) his example of refugees came to a new place and brought with them an object that made them to remember of their homeland, is too simple. By means, the role of these transitional objects is not just for activating memory, but also it helps to shape the new life experience as well. For instance, when an immigrant comes to a new country, he brings with him an object for remembering his homeland. However, it does not stop here. The object is a like a mirror reflecting his culture in a new place, it is not his personal item. Rather, it is a piece of cultural possession. People would look at it and pretty much have an idea of what his culture is and sometimes an object can have a positive and negative meaning attached to it. Say, a muslim immigrant came to a new country and have a job interview. She wears a turban on the day of an interview. This can shape her personal experience as (1) she might get the job because of the impression that she make or (2) she might face with discrimination because she was seen as foreigners who is inacapable of doing work. I guess that I understand the point that Parkin made but I wanted to say that transnational objects do not just act as an object that used for remembering, forgeting or envisioning of home. Rather, it has more meaning to it as it reflects a person identity and potentially shape his personal experience in totaly different ways.

My memento is a tradtional "ao dai" dress given by my mother who also recieved it from my grandmother. According to my mother and grandmother, the dress is supposed to represent luck. The dress, for me, is an image of home and for my proudness to be a Vietnamese. I wear it to every big event that I have to attend. However, once I wore the dress to a Vietnamese festival held in Toronto. I realized that there is a differnt meaning attached to this dress. At the party, I was treated differently and in some extent, I could say that I was partially discriminated within my own group. Later, I found out that it was because of the dress I am wearing is representing some kinds of communist symbol.THis is something that I felt related to what Parkin's example of Girima in his article as well as Rain's example of national object.

Question 1:
Can the idea of internet shopping that allowed people to extend their markets be considered as diasporic consumption object? Do people have to go to the place to buy that souvenirs are the ones categoriezed as diasporic consumptions?

Question 2:
We buy things that we like and most often luxury stuff is attached with economic value and social status. Can diasporic objects have value since they have only personal relations attached to it? How can we measure the value of those diasporic objects?

OBJECTS AND NOSTALGIA – SOUVENIRS, MEMENTOS, HEIRLOOMS

This week’s readings concerned objects and nostalgic practices. The two articles I discuss in this commentary are Berdahl’s piece on East Germany and Rains work on Irish material culture.

The Berdahl article centered on East German objects and the multiple meanings they took on (to Ossis and Wessis alike) after the fall of the Berlin Wall and socialism. After the reunification of East and West Germany, Berdahl explores how East German objects have taken on large nostalgic significance for Ossis, so too as the experience of their GDR everyday life has been “museumified”. Berdahl’s primary claim here is that “Ostalgie” (a term she invents to mean nostalgia for the East) products and practices both contest and affirm the new German order brought about by reunification. Berdahl discusses the importance of production to Ossis during the GDR and the subsequent collapse of such production after reunification to give readers a sense of context and the importance people of the East placed on products (objects). She then gets in to a discussion of the politics of value – Eastern things are less valued than Western German objects after 1989 – followed by an analysis of the significance East German objects have to those of the former East and their struggle to keep Eastern things on the shelves and in their minds. Here is where Berdahl makes her main claim about nostalgia – the nostalgia East Germans have of their things and former way of life.

I thought Berdahl’s narrative strategy in using a specific case study to illuminate her points and theories was incredibly helpful and benefited her article significantly. Unlike some of the other readings we’ve looked at this semester, her ideas and theories about the significance of objects and their changing meanings were more easily understood here (to me, at least) because she had a concrete case study to back up her claims and arguments.

However, there is one main conflict I had with this article and the overall “feeling” of the piece. Even though Berdahl briefly addressed this issue on pg. 202, I had the sense throughout the reading that it, in a way, really discredited the reunification of Germany and the rights Germans, especially German youth, fought for. No doubt, I do agree with her main claim that for people of East Germany, objects take on significant amounts of nostalgia. What I have trouble with, is the way she framed this nostalgia. The way Berdahl frames the narratives of the people and their objects – be it games, aprons, beers, whatever—makes it seem like the reunification of Germany was something these people were against and so they clung on to their Eastern objects as a way of showing their support for the East and former GDR times. I can’t help but get the feeling that Berdahl’s narratives, at least in the first half of the article, come across as oppositional and almost bitter toward the events of German reunification.

Question 1: What do you think of the way Berdahl frames nostalgia? Do you think she frames nostalgia as oppositional? Is it even possible to remember things of the past without being oppositional towards the present/ future?

The Rains article considers ways in which Irish material culture is presented to tourists and the ways in which it acts as a memento of their tourist experience. The article also focuses on the relationship between the Irish diaspora and its visits to Ireland – souvenirs and the material culture of tourism as a means of exploring cultural connections between the diaspora and their homeland, Ireland.

There were several points raised in the reading but I generally agreed with and believed Rains main claims. Regarding Irish material culture and tourism (by way of strangers or people of a diaspora), Rains argues that tourist consumption fits the pattern of “transactions of incorporations”. That is to say, that visitors attempt to incorporate themselves into the culture they are visiting by buying and shopping for souvenirs. “Material-culture consumption is a method of allaying feelings of marginalization as it allows a sense of participation in the local culture…” (Rains pp. 56) In the way that this argument lends itself to how material culture (souvenirs) function to BOTH visitors as well as members of a diaspora going back “home”, this claim put forth by Rains is believable and agreeable. It also sheds some valuable insight to understanding why many people who have the opportunity to travel abroad become kind of obsessed with souvenirs and shopping while on their travels.

A moment in the reading that was particularly striking was when Rains discussed the different kinds of material culture that exist across ethnic groups. He argues that certain ethnic groups HAVE TO have to incorporate kitschy objects into souvenirs, national identity, etc. Why? Because illuminating the community’s real stories and struggles would be impossible, nevermind that it wouldn’t sell anything. “Nowhere are the deracinating and alienating effects of capitalism felt more powerfully than in communities whose histories are determined by domination, displacement, immigration…kitsch becomes, in such spheres, the congealed memory of traumas too intimate and too profound to be lived over without stylization and attitude.” (Rains 57)

Question 2: Besides the example of Irish culture and the kitsch material culture this ethnic community makes use of, can we think of other ethnic groups where kitsch “becomes the congealed memory of traumas too profound to be lived over without stylization…”?

Mementos and Authenticity

My object is a large silk scarf from Singapore. It has a traditional Batik pattern on it. I got it at the airport the last time I was leaving Singapore, along with other souvenirs for friends. The pattern is specifically from the uniform Singapore Airlines flight attendants wear, called a sarong kebaya made up of a tight-fitting long skirt and blouse. Pierre Balmain designed the current ‘Singapore Girl’ uniforms in the 1960s. Both the Singapore Airlines uniform, and the pattern itself have become national symbols. In Singapore many souvenirs are items with this pattern on it in various colours, from aprons to umbrellas and scarves. In this case Singapore Airlines’ corporate branding has become part and parcel of national symbols and mythology. Singapore Airlines flight attendants adhere to a particular stereotype of ‘Asian women’ that has been criticized, and is certainly not representative of Singaporean women. Yet this particular print is recognizable as distinctly Singaporean. This is an instance of national and corporate branding being intertwined.

The Singapore Airlines uniform is defended as being traditional, yet the sarong kebaya is an Indonesian tradition. Singapore itself is a young nation and thus its national symbols and mythologies have been recently constructed, in this case a uniform that was designed for an airline by a French designer.

Rains’ article on Celtic Kitsch explored the process by which the American Irish diaspora engages with an Irish Material culture that is produced for their consumption. The relationship or exchange with Singaporean material culture is somewhat different because its primary consumers are tourists, not Singaporeans living abroad. There isn’t really a unified community or Singaporean diaspora in the way that Irish Americans represent a distinct community. For tourists to Singapore souvenir models of the Merlion, Singapore Airlines uniforms, and magnets about laws against chewing gum are ubiquitous. Together they offer a unified picture of the tourist artefacts Singapore has to offer, and construct the nation beyond its boundaries. They are markers of Singaporean identity produced through capitalist exchange; these objects gain authenticity through movement.

Rains’ writes “For, while visitors to Ireland are clearly justified in feeling that they do have connections to the local culture which go beyond those of more typical touristic relationships, in most cases they have very few ways of actually marking or demonstrating these connections outside of the typical touristic relations of production and consumption in the form of souvenirs and heritage networks” (56-57). As a diasporic consumer of Singaporean culture I can recognize how kitschy these items are, but when I bring them back to my friends in Canada they’re appreciated as artefacts of an exotic place. In Singapore you wouldn’t be caught dead with a Merlion shirt, or carrying a bag/umbrella/scarf with the Singapore Airlines pattern on it. Especially within certain circles these items would be extremely tacky ways of adhering to constructed patriotism. The very objects that allow tourists to access local culture aren’t really a part of local culture at all. Rains’ article and my relationship with the scarf demonstrate how an objects ability to perform authenticity is contingent upon the space and context it occupies, and travels through.

Nostalgia as discrete points

The four readings provide a diverse set of perspectives on this week’s theme of objects and nostalgic practice. Out of this collection I particularly enjoyed the pieces by Hirsch and Spitzer, and Berdahl, although this enjoyment was due more to the subject matter than the methodological rigour of the articles as such. That being said, both were able to provide evidence and supporting reasons for the claims made compared to the pieces by Parkin and Rains, which I felt were lacking in this department. Parkin’s article was very interesting to read however - it is the first piece were the connection between this class and my other studies in conflict have really coalesced, in a clear and direct manner.

I’ve chosen to focus this reflection on Spitzer and Hirsch, and Berdahl however, as I find these two articles lend themselves for comparison most suitably. A commonalty shared by these two is the centrality of a specific historical setting in which the objects came into being, and a completely different setting in which they are being re-examined, without much involvement or engagement with the objects in the time between.

In Berdahl’s piece, the role of East German everyday material commodities (a conscious word choice) in defining East German identity prior to reunification, and as a means of identity (re)construction following this within the context of hegemonic West German influence on the united nation-state (again, consciously chosen). Berdahl’s aims were to draw a distinction between ‘mere’ nostalgia, and what she terms “socially sanctioned commemorative practices,” as well as illustrate the role of active participation in Ostalgie through the consumption of specific commodities as a means of challenging the domination of West German. This latter point is, in my view, the most interesting, and Berdahl’s conclusion of the dualistic nature of this opposition to hegemonic impositions of culture, values and identity as being both challenging and reaffirming the status quo is a subtle yet intriguing point.

The article by Hirsch and Spitzer is similar in the historical ‘discrete points’ here the engagement with objects takes place. Berdahl’s article centers on the role of commodities as constituting socialist identity during the division of the country, followed by the re-appearance of these commodities in years following reunification and the disillusion this has brought. I.e., the fall of the wall and reunification ‘breaks’ the time-spectrum within which these particular commodities are engaged with by people, and which also clearly divides the symbolic meaning of these. The book of recipes and Dr. Kessler’s books similarly involve this temporal ‘break’ (and here, also spatially): The point at which these objects were made (in concentration camps during WWII), and the point at which they were discovered and retrieved (in the post-war period).

These two pieces are valuable for illustrating the connection of objects to re-discovering the past: The concentration camp objects provide a way to examine gender through a ‘return’ to that specific place and time, without the inference as such of time (ignoring here the role of observation and subjectivity). The examination of everyday commodities and activities (e.g. discos) enables a look at how the interaction of these has changed, as well as the symbolic meaning attributed to them (i.e. both as a means of returning to the good old days, and as reconstituting identity). In Hirsch and Spitzer, the objects must speak for themselves; in Berdahl, the objects are part of a continued conversation.

As for my personal memento, I have chosen a few small pieces of jewelry which were my maternal grandmothers. I think that what is interesting about these is not so much what the objects mean per se, but what they fail to encompass. My grandmother was a Scottish war bride, marrying a (Canadian-?)Irish WWII soldier. They settled in Ontario, had some children. My mother traveled somewhat over country when she was young, settling in Nova Scotia, met my father, had children. My father is British, yet spent a portion of his childhood in Trinidad, spent many years of education in the States before coming to Canada. My family has spent the past 15 years living abroad however, with somewhat regular visits to the UK, but only one visit to Canada while I was growing up, resulting (among other things) in a lack of Canadian self-identification for me and my sister. As such, the pieces of jewelry signify to me not so much my heritage from this side of my family, but more the fluidity and transnationality of heritage, the malleability of this, and the way heritage can be constructed by oneself.

Keepsakes, souvenirs and pointless stuff

The ideas in both the Parkin’s piece as well as the Rains’ article are expressive of nostalgia and memento, and how these two attribute to objects that represent places, people and experiences. As we’ve come to see, remembering and re living through the stuff we have around us is quite complicated. Parkin seems to paint a very simple picture, however. The example of immigrants remembering a land, time and place from which they’ve come to transfer in an object is a direct and simple example for us to think of. These transitional objects are often more than just representations, rather they also act as agents to create and form personas and ideas about people and places. The idea of object agency comes into play here in a way previously not described in prior texts. Parkin also speaks to the importance of shorterm (imidiate) objects and those that might be long term “staples” in one’s transition and eventually, their new life. These long term objects can be major facilitators in the shaping of identity and personas within the context of new life experiences, for they not only remind the person from what they came from, but ground them in comfort and memory of the familiar. Investments into these objects begin to take place based on the needs of the individual. Rain likens this to the experience of mementos, and the importance of authenticity in the example of tourists in Ireland. When procuring souvenirs, one usually stops and questions the origin of the object, as if where and by whom it was made plays an all important role in how that object shapes the memory attached to it. This is the same for the transitional object, as it comes from something authentic. Just as an object can gain an investment from the individual, sometimes replacing relationships and filling a void in lack of trust, souvenirs act as nostalgia, bringing, say, the tourist back to a place and experience, not necessarily their own, but of something “authentically produced.” I found both pieces to be quite illuminating and simple (and I use simple as marker for easy understanding, not underdeveloped). Parkin and Rain speak on what we’ve been discussing at length in class, but I feel like this is a synthesized way of putting it.  

My memento is a watch given (I begged for it actually) to me by my aunt. It was her first luxury item she bought when she began running Republic National Bank of New York in 1989, the year I was born. It represents a time when all things were well with our family, and it conjures memories of power and perseverance, as she was the only female executive of a private bank in North America. This watch IS why I wanted to be an investment banker, as it painted a world of fast paced excitement and prosperity. Coming from a mixed race background, this watch instilled in me that I could be accepted by the white upper class kids I was surrounded with. It represented privilege. It carries with it trust and happiness, just as Parkin mentions in his text.

Question #1: How does one configure objects into the framework of lifestyle outside of the “obvious” expensive means better? I mean to say, we value objects not only based on what they mean to us, but what of those people who value simply on cost?

Question #2: Materialism plays a big part in clothing, and I think most of us have that “I can’t go without it” garment in our closet, but what of all the other stuff? Why did you buy it in the first place other than because you needed clothes to wear… how important were they at the time?   

Objects, Repersonalization, Rememory

This weeks articles talk a great deal about the nostalgic and collective nature of objects that people use on a day-to-day basis.  We surround ourselves with objects and prescribe importance and meaning to them, and we tend to position ourselves with the objects so that we can re-establish and re-define some sort of origin.  One of the authors, Parkins, talks about the movement of immigrants and displacement of people and the way these groups are able to use objects as mediums of recollection through their immediate practical use, and for the nostalgic purposes they can serve.  We use objects through transitional periods that can later allow us to personalize with the prescribed meaning they are to serve.  I think that much of what Parkins and all the others were talking about was greatly focused on during the earlier DTS classes, and can be repetitive in what they are trying to prove.  We know that transitional objects serve as important agents of establishing connections and create a yearning, as well as providing a way for people to think about their origins in a realm that is separated from just practicality.  I find that experiences and everything else that is representative of the homeland is processed in the mind, with the object taking up a tangible role.  This tangibility creates the memory, recollection, re-establishment, and serves as reminders of what ‘once was’ individually to each person.  We find something so simple as a recipe book, reminding many people of the experiences and nature of relative’s lives around the Holocaust.  This is a stark example of how these objects have a practical purpose, and is able to give people thought processes into the lives of their relatives and homeland experiences at the same time. 

We also learn about people being forced to leave their homes under pressure and in a short amount of time.  I think this also has significance because the very action of picking items over another, and taking them through movements create importance of that object because of how it was chosen in such short notice and pressure.   One would associate the pressure and even the forceful nature of choosing objects to bring along as the important aspect of the object itself.  I think all the authors, even from the previous readings, explore objects and their meanings from different points of view that address the way people perceive their objects.  This brings to light the various ways in which people PLACE importance in the object first, where memories and repersonalization may follow.  

(1) How do you think people should deal with objects that provide negative memories and recollections?  For example: a ring that belongs to a deceased relative can bring bad memories and thoughts of past experiences.

(Just one question this week)

Personhood and authenticity

In Parkin’s article Mementoes as Transitional Objects in Human Displacement examines how objects are able to extended and create personhood for a diaspora. Therefore the movement of people is associated to the objects that person was able to take with them. It is important to note that the objects chosen to travel are dependent on the type of movement: normal calmed, or traumatic, forced, unexpected. As Parkin notes transnational objects can be for immediate use only (money, food) or objects that will help in rebuilding an identity in the host country. Parkin focuses on the transnational objects of traumatized diasporas, as he explains the objects that they were able to take are reminders of who they were before displacement. In some cases when the displaced person cannot trust anyone they “inscribe their sense of a personal future and identity in whatever remains to hand of impersonal physical, mental and bodily bricolage: to invest emotionally, in other words, in accessible objects, ideas and dreams rather than in the living people around one.”(Parkin 1990: 308).

The Rains article Celtic Kitsch: Irish-America and Irish Material Culture focused on the material culture of tourism and the importance of authenticity of objects. Tourist feel if they buy something from their trip that they will have a connection to Ireland even if these souvenirs are massed produce and over play the culture of Ireland (shamrocks, harps). I see these souvenirs as a way tourist and visitors want to redefine themselves in similar ways that displaced diasporas use objects for re-personalitization in the new country.

Although Parkin claims that mementos extended and create personhood he really does not explain how it occurs, which objects or so. I think to fully understand his point he should had given more example of the objects that created that personhood a particular diaspora.

My memento is a necklace that my grandmother bought in Mexico and then upon her passing became part of the family. I became attached to it, to the point I hid it because I decided it should only be used for very special occasions. A couple months ago my mother wore it, which made me realize: why should I hide a part of a memory of someone that means so much to me? I guess I was afraid of losing it, or it lose it’s meaning if I use it regularly. Now I think I should wear this necklace because of the distinct individuality I get by wearing it; I also want that constant reminder of my grandmother, which is insured when I wear the necklace.

1.Rains explains that objects must be standardized to represent something… are heirlooms a production of our own standardization of objects or they already been standardized in the society?

2.Parkin mentions Thomas says exchange of object creates personhood, is this creation of personhood based on the social network created by the exchange? Or what does he mean?

3. I’m curious… what would be the object that you would take in a case of forceful displacement that you think would create personhood or reestablish your identity in a new country?

more facilitating/ failed facilitating objects - Parkin and Rain

David Parkin’s article claims to examine the ways mementoes facilitate transition in cases of human displacement, refugees and returnees. He suggests that the mind and body as one entity are created by the movement of objects, using as an example refugees who carry objects for survival and articles of "sentimental value which both inscribe and are inscribed by their own memories of self and personhood" (304). The mistrust created in a person who is experiencing forced displacement also facilitates an increase in trust in objects, beginning at the point of departure. Parkin also asserts that objects in these situations also function as foci for grief over a no longer existent person, community, or homeland, and may also facilitate the recovery process to a depersonalized traumatized person’s body because they carry memories of life before the trauma. Parkin illustrates the process of displacement through citing several instances of Somali, Sudanese, and Eastern European Jewish communities in wartime and genocide risk. Objects as a source of cultural continuity, such as suggested in previous readings by Turan, is suggested by Parkin in examining objects as grief foci and recovery process.

Though the article’s title and abstract promised to focus on mementos, the majority of Parkin’s article focuses instead on the debate between fluid and fixed origin point and the politics of displacement and identity for refugees. While I concede that these are important buffer points to make for contextualization of the memento exploration, I won’t admit to them necessitating as much space in the paper as Parkin allowed them to take over. As a student of diasporic object theory, I found myself making very sparse notes throughout, and actually waiting to get to the point. Perhaps Parkin intended to write a book in which a chapter could have been dedicated to the contextualization of the politics of identity and displacement for refugees. I also found the anthropologic examinations of the process of fleeing genocidal risk in Sudan to be rather disturbing in its nature-documentary tone, ultimately I felt this passage was disrespectful especially because it was unclear why it was necessary to the paper.

Rain’s article focuses on the levels of authenticity of Irish-American diasporic mementos generated in the public and private imagination. Like Parkin and Turan, Rain’s objects facilitate cultural continuity, but they differ in how successful Rain paints the objects in this process. There seems to be a question in the article as to whether the objects can transmit much to the diaspora in terms of cultural continuity because of the ‘authenticity’ or ‘inauthenticity’ of the object. The inauthenticity of the Irish-American memento is linked with kitsch: tourist objects of nationalism, concerned with autheniticity but become severely inauthentic because of their mass production and target tourist market, and the models are thus removed from their original context (time and place). Unlike Parkin’s lengthy debate over point of origin as fixed or fluid, Rain simply implies that it is the mobility of the material culture that renders it inauthentic. She goes on to use examine the construction of ‘the authentic’ in the Waterford glass factory docu-mercial that "deliberately positions both the workers and the product as being outside of the exchange and labour relations which are likely to be the common experience of the tourist at home, both as worker and a customer. And it is precisely through this positioning of Irish craft products as being essentially outside the market, and therefore 'authentic', that their market was and is firmly established" (4).  This production of authenticity and thus of demand can be seen as evidence of Appadurai’s assertion that demand is created through the (uneven) distribution of knowledge and distance between the producers, the production of the object and the consumers of the object.

If my concern with more than of few of the article so far including Parkin’s is about the unnecessary length in contextualizing material, then my concerns for Rain’s article are the opposite. There is multiple mention of the terms ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ in the making of kitsch, however there is so little explanation of these terms that I’ve missed it completely. It leaves me arguing with her on the fact that the Irish-American diaspora becomes itself authentically through the purchase and accumulation of tourist kitsch and hope of cultural continuity attached to them – a commonly shared, uniquely diasporic experience that bonds this diaspora and renders it authentically diasporic. 

Questions for this week:

1)      What are the ethical implications of anthropologizing the actions of object selection by populations fleeing in terror of the real threat of genocide?

2)      How might the heirarchizing of ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ construct the validity of the culture of diasporic communities?

I found that Latour’s ‘Objects Have Agency’ made similar claims to what we have read in previous weeks about a historical marginalization of objects within academia. This time the discipline being questioned is sociology for its inability to recognize and examine objects as actors. Being rather convinced at this point I didn’t find Latour’s reading as informative in my thinking about these issues as readings from prior weeks (Appadurai, Miller). In terms of interrogating disciplines, I find it interesting that the authors we have read have been focused on economics, sociology and anthropology, but I think questioning the focus of geography is also important. For example both physical and human geography are not attuned to objects as actors even though they constitute human, social, and spatial landscapes.

With that aside, the important point I got out of Latour’s reading was that sociologists limit action to what ‘actors’ do ‘intentionally.’ Latour’s project is to extend the list of participants, he argues that actants are participants. A good example that Latour gave was our ability to analyze and understand systems of entangled interractions in non-human societies, but not in our own. Through action network theory Latour argues that we should not exclude objects as participants because they seem so different from the category of humn but rather include them because they are so different, or “incommensurable.” I think this is an important point, that often we disregard or ignore what doesn’t fit with the way we want to thinko about the world, but what doesn’t fit is also really important. In a way what Latour is talking about is recognizing contradictory and dialectical social relations.

The problem that I had was with understanding the relationship of objects to hierarchies, inequalities that interrupt individual action. I’ll readily acknowledge that I come from a discipline that examines the roots of inequality as being in ideology, and for example the effects of racialized thinking on material conditions. I’m interested in understanding the connection Latour is making, but I think clearer examples would help me better understand his claim. The relationship of object agency with social power relations hasn’t really been explored in any of the other readings but I definitely sturggled with what Latour was getting at in the final section of his essay.

My questions are about the disciplinary critique that many of the readings we have read make.

1. Do you think the social sciences are limited by definitions of human and humanity that arise out of other disciplines (philosophical or scientific), rather than interrogating these concepts themselves?
2. A lot of the readings have been calling for an inclusion of objects, and object agency…so what about animals?

Latour's Actor Network Theory (ANT)

Latour definitely has a good point to make but he also loves to make simple argument complicated

Latour didn’t make his purpose clear until later in the article. His purpose is to give a new insight to the reader that sociology should be object- oriented and it is for object- oriented humans. He then started the article by explaining briefly the first two sources of uncertainties as groups are “constantly” being performed and that agencies are “ceaselessly” debated. He has first acknowledged there are asymmetries such as hierarchies, inequalities in the society and he also made a distinction in two relations that are often mixed up. The first uncertainty Latour clarified is Explanandum, the cause and the explanans, the effect. Through the cause the effect, it becomes a process which is important to maintain the power hierarchy in the society. He continued pointing out the second uncertainty is in order to keep the original intuition of social sciences, they had adamantly reject the impossible solution that was proposed, namely that society is unequal and hierarchal. There is a difference between “social” as in “social ties” and “social” as in “associations”. Latour made a distinction between “social ties” and “associations” when social ties can be formed by basic social skills and they can be difficult to isolate in human societies because they are not durable and made of social stuff. (66) He also stated that “social ties” would be something that has great trouble spreading in time and space, that has no inertia and is to be ceasinglessly renegotiated which means they can’t be relied on to maintain the society. Latour has used complicated words and sentences to explain this point. I personally think it is not necessary to use metaphorical language like “load things into social ties”. Instead of “social ties”, it should be the intertwining of actions and social skills which will render more durable shifting interactions. This intertwining actually explains the previous point on “association” of “social”. The example of Shirley Strum’s baboons is used to explain the shocking discovery that males had no dominance hierarchy that baboons possessed social strategies. Latour has used this to explain the precursors of our early human ancestors must have behaved like the baboons as well. I personally am not a big fan of evolution but I agree social strategies are is a loaded version of social ties to maintain the society. Latour then clarified one last time about the tautology of “social ties” if it is confined to the understanding of just social dominance with no thing (strategies and the involvement of actors in their actions) before the article moved on. He then helped reader understand the notion of “social forces” as social action that is shifted or delegated to different types which are able to transport the action further through other modes of action, other types of forces altogether. Objects can now be participants because the definition of “social” has been renewed as “association” not just “social ties” and also the very definition of actors and agencies most often chosen. Even though it is a hard text to understand, Latour is creative enough to use imagery to explain the difference between using actors and agencies. Latour is funny to re-explain himself every time after introducing his new theory to the reader because his re-explanation can sometimes make readers greatly confused instead. Continuing with his mighty explanation, he mentioned there might exist many metaphysical shades between full causality and sheer inexistence. He also suggested the question of who and what participates in the action is important because the objects as actors also explains the contrasted landscape we started with, the overarching powers of society, the huge asymmetries, the crushing exercise of power. The importance of having object and persons is supported by Durkheim’s “definition of action” (73)

Latour later acknowledged the difficulty reader encounters because materials and social entities are on two different shelves (incommensurability). And an action that collects different types of forces woven together because they are different and he elaborated “collective” will take the place of “society”. The continuity of any course of action will be a zigzag that consists of human-to-human connections or of object-object connections. To be symmetric, for us, simply means not to impose a prior some spurious asymmetry among human intentional action and a material world of causal relations. He further acknowledged the reasons for sociologists to hesitate before letting this social fluid takes them which is to understand both continuity and discontinuity among modes of action through an imagery of moral conduct an suspension springs. After this section, Latour made a conclusion of a clear framework of how objects are taken into the account of a whole new definition of social as a fluid visible only when new associations are being made. Objects become intermediates because of their connections with humans. Latour then explained there are different types of forces which the mode of action will not make usual social ties as before. They are innovations in the artisan’s workshops; traditional, silent implements, stop being taken for granted when they are approached by users; offered by accidents, breakdowns, and strikes; when objects have receded into the background for good, it is always possible- but more difficult- to bring them back to light by using archives, documents, memoirs, etc. and lastly the resource of fiction. Latour made a clear conclusion that objects are not studies and often neglected because it is due to a lack of data, but rather a lack of will. When commensurability and incommensurability have been lifted up, all of the remaining problems are matters of empirical research. I don’t too understand the last part of the article “Who has been forgetting power relations?” But in the end, Latour said in Sociology, powerful explanations should be counterchecked and counterbalanced. Power is unequally distributed- they also have to explain how domination has become so efficacious and through which unlikely means. He suggested a fourth uncertainty to be accepted too. Last but not least, Latour has made a good transition from this chapter to the next.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) Is the question on pg. 78, “How long can a social connection be followed without objects taking the relay?” a relevant one to ask?

(2) On pg. 72, what does it mean that there might exist many shades between full causality and sheer inexistence?