The basis for the Miller piece (which I thoroughly enjoyed reading by the way) was pretty simple. The way in which we have come to know “stuff” has been complicated and reduced to looking at the object as a stand-alone representation of us. What if the objects that we put so much emphasis on were simply part of the backdrop for their environment? Miller suggests that over studying an object skews one’s ability to actually see its purpose and value within the larger picture. One loses sight of how the object fits in to the larger framework of its milieu and one cannot see the obviousness of what that object might represent. The effectiveness of stuff is highest when it is not taken out of context, and allowed to perform its role as a “border”, within the framework of social connections amongst individuals. Miller is essentially stating that this “stuff” is what shapes us and creates our understanding of ourselves in relation to one another and the things we have around us. It is the basis for which we come to understand who we are, and what we are, which can be expressed through the objects we produce and use. We need comparison to know what we are not and therefore are able to shape an idea of what we are. The amoeba example was perfectly telling of this. It only came to understand what it what based on the knowledge of the existence of others like it. Such is with the system of Law, as Miller uses as an example as well, we have created it, we dislike it as youth because it confines us and only until we have a hand in shaping it, and when it comes to serve us, do we accept it, for we compare it to the absence of it. Just as with objects have come before us, we do not quite understand them at first, but begin to liken them to things we know, and from there, able to gain understanding for what they are from what they are not.
The Thomas piece took on a very similar approach to the idea of exchange that we have encountered these past few weeks. He places a great amount of importance on the political framework of exchange and posits that there is a great deal of disconnect in the contextual workings of academics in this field. The body of work coming out this arena seems lacking to Thomas, which he then begins to try and rectify by setting up the argument as such: one must garner an understanding of how objects within the realm of exchange, speak to politics and histories surrounding them to grasp the idea of payment or lack there of. Thomas focuses on the idea of gifts and how they fall into this theory. As he states, the idea of reciprocity is highly misunderstood. Valuation of such gifts begins to be dependent on a power relation between both parties involved in the gift giving process. As gifts are radically different than commodities, giving then becomes a social process rather than a purely economical and or practical one. Mistakes, as Thomas says, made in gift giving have consequences far beyond the reaches of mistakes made in the exchange of commodities.
Qu. #1
Are we so caught up with trying to understand the function of things within the framework of society that we lose sight of their intended purpose, or even lose the ability to shape new purposes and meanings behind them?
Qu. #2
The importance of structuralism (as it relates to the method of human cognition and behaviour, focusing on the relationships of contrast between objects) is what I have been preaching for some time now…but perhaps to know something does not necessarily mean comparing it to something else. My question is therefore, how do we come to know stuff without knowing what it is not? I apologize for the highly philosophical nature of this query, but it is a larger question we could take up in discussion.
Hi Neil
ReplyDeleteI do believe that we are caught up in understanding certain functions to things that other possible function of things are ignored or never looked into. Just a simple example of salad dressing, as the name suggest it made and design to be on a salad, but what about putting a salad dressing on toast, macaroni, rice? who knows it might taste okay.
I appreciated your piece for understating Miller for having trouble with his article. Thanks
Hi Cat,
ReplyDeletethat's funny you bring up salad dressing and its new purpose divergent from the intended... I laugh because I actually use a mix of olive oil and ground pepper and salts to heal wounds! To answer my own question in a way, I feel that with certain objects this process occurs, where we lose sight, but honestly, we lose sight of a lot of things we do, I.E. running shoes had the intended purpose of running, most have lost sight of what they are made for and adopt them as a fashionable (or not) piece to the wardrobe.
Hi Neil,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your commentary -- I agree with Cat, you summarized the Miller article really well. In regards to your first question (if I understand correctly), I think there is a fine balance and sense of reality that needs to be established when we try and understand objects. In previous readings it was discussed how objects can be seen as social status markers or social symbols -- but the reality is, to some people objects are just that: objects. It depends on the person and how they interpret their stuff. A woman may buy a really expensive pair of heels -- does that mean she's only buying this pair of shoes for the purpose they will serve her socially? Not necessarily. She might have only bought the shoes for their true, intended pupose: she wants well made shoes that will give her the greatest added height possible without sacrificing comfort.
This may be an overly simplisitc example, but the point I try to make is that yes, to a certain extent society has lost sight of some objects' intended purpose in place of their societal meaning. Many functions of things (such as clothing or food) have been lost and come to be understood only within the frameowrk of society. But what if it is just really good food, or a really great pair of shoes (no matter how expensive)...? It is up to the indiviual to reclaim an object's intended purpose.
Thanks for doing a great job in your understanding of Miller's article. (Like what Cat and Denise said!)
ReplyDeleteBecause Miller took on so many perspectives in looking at object, I was side-tracked and somewhat confused during reading so thanks for the clarification here.
I agree with Cat in the sense that sometimes we have taken objects for granted and the way they should be used. We should be opened up for new ways to use the objects. But when creativity kicks in, there is still a need for the this new "object" to be accepted in the society for people to make sense of it.
There are times when we might have complicated things because simple things like a pair of heels don't necessary have to serve her socially. It can be simple enjoyment like that. I think there's a primary and probably secondary function (it's up to the individual's imagination to how many functions one object serves and this depends on how much one can perceive and understand in relation of the object to the bigger structure). Taking Denise's example, for this specific lady, she can be first and foremost like the heels for they give her the comfort she needs (primary function), then when she thinks of the place she works (in a business centre)then it serves the second function (socially).. and if she remembers her good friend's them too, they can share in the joy of appreciating each other's shoes (third function).
Soo like what Denise says, up to the individual how they want to take the object and either relate it personally to themselves or to the bigger structure. There is no right or wrong but it depends on the context. :)
Sorry I'm long-winded but hope my point is brought across here.