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?