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?