The objective of this article is to contribute to an intermediate level of theory and analysis that has been lacking in cultural and economic anthropology. THOMAS’s contribution is based on APPANDURAI’s clear distinction in what gift and commodity is. It is supported by many claims, from explaining the concept of exchange relations, prestations and ideology behind a gift and commodity, the inalienability of the gift, immobile value as known as inalienable wealth, the promiscuity of wealth and a value: A surplus of theories to fill in what have been missed out in APPANDURAI’s theory. THOMAS first tackled the problem, set up the framework for meaningful discussion of this topic and then explained his argument in a step-by-step manner from taking institutions and behaviour in native terms, also as known as small-scale societies, then bringing it down first from the exchange relation of a commodity to a relationship between things to the relationship between the gift and the person who owns it. It later has an immobile value, as known as “inalienable wealth” that is attached to things and persons. Lastly, THOMAS talked about the promiscuity of objects when no matter how theoretically gift is defined, the term “exchange” is coined by different theorists with different definitions. By also defining first “politics of value” which is the process through cultural assumptions and relations entail power create regimes of exchange, to bring the focus back on things which then introduce the term, “commodity situation”, which is important to define the commodity phase (state), commodity candidacy (categorical or conceptual aspect) and commodity context of where things are (context of exchange). Narration is easy for readers to follow. THOMAS hasn’t used a typical way of analyzing, in the empirical sense (as clear as the black and white) but analysis can be seen a procedure of engagement and a practice that cannot be differentiated into distinct levels of theory and description. He tried to find out and expose old questions that happen to be salient now. He has used ethnographic cases, historical narratives while displacing and relocating versions of these various theories and points of departure to write his article. An example would be THOMAS gave an argument and counter-argument in the section “The inalienability of the Gift” on pg. 18. I like how he acknowledged the debates in the field and offered his argument; that is to understand the forms of prestations which can generate a sense of actual movements and values only if it is synthesized with another cultural domain.
I think THOMAS sounds relevant in making his purpose clear but I can’t help but question the form of analysis that has truly been taken. “The hau is not the wind. Not at all.”, “hau” is taken from “The Gift” written by Mary Douglas which means spirit of things. It is not the wind but the spirit of things. It is an abstract idea which is somewhat difficult to understand.
(1) If “hau” means the spirit of things, how can we measure it quantitatively to understand it? Or do we have to use the way that THOMAS analyzed to only explain it?
(2) Perhaps THOMAS’s point is not to prove anything but rather making the readers aware and question what things seem right but may not be right in actuality. And when the same topic of “exchange” is brought up again, are he expecting readers to explore rather finding a right answer from a progressed reference point than before?
The objective of this article is to the findings of the last and the article started really well. “Hedonism” has been defined as a doctrine that happiness or the pleasure is the highest god. It has been changed and the argument to be found in the study of material culture. It has given the term “function”, a powerful trajectory of academic thinking. If our social and cultural customs were not met, which connected to such functions, this would produce a variation correlated largely with differences in its environment. MILLER’s thought of “function” has been made by the different precise shapes and ranges of pots in an Indian village. “Function” here carries more than just a practical context but also the symbolic significance as differences rise between the pots. Before MILLER goes further to dig out anything more, I think it is important to define what the culture the societies are celebrating because it is also a fundamental social distinction. It is so called the theory of representations, which is to produce a material culture theory that could apply to these pots and also set up a frame with which we all work under in. MILLER did a great job to quote sources to increase the credibility of this article and with his experience of fieldwork; the method of analysis for this article is pretty good in making us aware of what is appropriate and inappropriate. “Structuralism” in material culture should not be understood as entities in isolation but rather the relationship between such things and with the Indian pots, they can be understood when each is in relation to the whole system. An example: through a process of habituation, individuals grow up in a theory of socialization. MILLER didn’t explain the term “objectification” clearly at the first place. He made use of the relationship between society and the law to say law isn’t something that is oppressive force or alien from oneself but if we humans realized law exists because we created it, we would start seeing ourselves in it. According to Hegel, it is dialectical. From talking about Marx’s theory that humanity starts with nature itself and it is human labour that transforms nature into objects and humans are alienated from their products/objects (self-alienation). Subjects can turn into objects when consciousness is taken away. The last part that subtitled was “materiality”, not only that is to find meaning and implications of materiality itself besides, but also to have a theory of things (framing) and how to progress towards a dialectical theory of objectification that transcends things and persons. This is issue is a pretty philosophical one actually. Materiality is later one compared with the different views from different religions like Hinduism, Christianity. Even though the words used in this article are not difficult, the article is highly disorganized with random additional opinions of different theorists and MILLER’s opinion. Instead of comparing so many theorists together, I suggest MILLER to keep things more simple so that his conclusion of “we can achieve this modesty partly through a greater acceptance of our own materiality as well as that of the world” will be better supported and tangible to the readers. The transition from talking about theology and divinity to the conclusion is not a smooth one. I would also suggest having more subtitles so that the article can be better organized and readers can follow through without doing detours during reading. And MILLER should spend more time thinking of pieces of information in the article should be cancelled because they are not necessary to prove the point clearly but rather distract the reader from getting it. Lastly, I find it difficult to understand the part of “materiality” and “immateriality”, perhaps it is a bit too philosophical for me.
(1) What is his theory that explains the findings of the last?
(2) These two articles in this week are tightly related. How can the information from these two readings be combined and give reader a more holistic picture of what objectification is and how objects should be positioned historically, structurally within social and ethnographic context?
No comments:
Post a Comment