In the article "objects, exchange, anthropology" Thomas tried to seek for the answers explaining the way things are and the reasons that we act in particular way at a particular time through historical context and global relations. He suggested that it is not our cultural differences that help to distinguish us. Rather, it is because we all have different history and social relations. According to him,ethnography inquiry into economic practice should reflect a combination of local and global historical perspectives. With respects to object, a person cannot just look at the object itself, but also he has to take into account the object's historical and social relations. He disagreed with Marx's idea of labor power by saying "we have no sense of what is said or thought and the image fades before we discover what becomes of things, what people make of them subsequently. The object's properties and uses thus appear to self evident, while participants' motives are either transparent or irrelevant". Interestingly, he discussed about the distinction between the gift and commodities. However, to him, objects and things are cofounded even though the gift is supposed to be ranked and labelled as subject whereas commodities have prices and labelled as objects. According to him, objects depends on it's context, has different social meaning attached to it. He used the story of the ring as his example;a ring might be initially a commodity at the factory, but if it becomes a wedding ring, it becomes a gift.
When reading this article, I am interested in looking at Thomas' argument against Marx's idea about the distinction between a gift and commodities. Thomas is brilliant when making the connection between an object as a thing and at the same time it had it's own character that is associated with a person's story. Nonetheless, I found that at the beginning, Thomas needed to be clear and shortly stated out his argument so that the readers can easily follow. Furthermore, he should give out a definition of what he exactly meant by "entangled objects".
The second essay,"the theories of things" Miller started up with a story telling in which he wanted to know in material culture how things make people and why certain things are made differently and if they are the same, why do they have different meanings attached to it. Miller took a qualitative approach by first observing the objects around him thence started to develop his theory of things. He disagreed with the revolutionary theory by saying, "this evolutionary explanation will never tell us much that is relevant to social anthropology, which focuses on the opposite problem of what we don't have in common. Evolution is not going to help us much with understanding the diversity of stuff. According to Miller, things are the way they are because of their functions. Furthermore, he argues that it would be best if we see material cultural as a subset of culture. His theory of material objects was material objects are a setting. They make us aware of what is appropriate and in appropriate. He also defined entangled things are things that work by being invisible and unremarked upon, a state that usually achieve by being familiar and taken for granted.
When reading this article, i am fascinated with his research approach and inductive reasoning by observing the phenomenon then posing a research question. I think that in terms of providing reasons, he has done a good job in supporting is argument. However, one of the problem with inductive reasoning is that it sometimes provides generalization. Specifically, his conclusion might be too generalized since he only talked about his experience and his personal interpretation.
There are two questions that I come up with
1. In the first article, there is a small chart showing thew differences between commodities and gift. I wonder in the case we buy, say a box of chocolate, it is a commodity because it has prices and it involves economic transaction. But how about when parents sending money to their children's tuition? Will this be a commodity or a gift? Isn't that it will be a commodity as it involves economic transaction, but at the same time it can be a gift?
2. According to Miller, entangled objects are things that work by being invisible and unremarked upon, a state that usually achieved by being familiar and taken for granted. In accounting term, we have entangled transaction, say if you buy a car and that car is deteriorated over time as it loses it's value. Will the entangled object happen the same?