Shankar explores the intersection of materiality and language use, namely the way in which middle-class South Asian American communities “discursively create objectifications through talk and consumption of visual media.” The paper describes and discusses what Shankar calls ‘metaconsumptive practices,’ which is the term she has given to describe the formation of relationships with objectifications of objects, through verbal discussions and visual media, as opposed to the objects themselves. In the context of this paper, such objectifications are utilized in contests of status in the community described.
Shankar’s methodology entails an analysis of a specific case study; a ‘Desi’ community in Silicon Valley, a community she is clearly familiar with and embedded in to some degree though it is never explicitly stated. She makes a convincing case for the role of these objectifications in status displays in a middle-class community, but I am less convinced of her explanation of the role they play in a specifically diasporic context, as well as their more contextualized significance.
Her use of a single case study serves more as an illustration rather than proof of her argument, which is fairly effective in its role but I would have been interested to see either a more fleshed out theoretical discussion of how and why objectifications can be vital in community building, or a broader number of case studies that could assert their significance.
These ways in which the article is lacking are also the reason I was unsatisfied with the ‘diasporic’ element of the analysis. As a Chinese-Canadian, I can understand and innately agree with the assertion that material consumption can play an important role in communities of color in the West. But how and why? What are the cultural or structural factors that produce this kind of respect for extravagance, and the ability or desire to extend the perception of wealth to beyond the nuclear family? Shankar describes this briefly but does not explore it with any depth when she mentions that ‘parents defined upward mobility as their children having a better life than they did in terms of commodities.’
The reason I find this interesting is because it reminded me of an issue that has been widely discussed in recent months: Asian-North Americans and meritocracy, specifically academic. It started in reaction to the “Too Asian” article by MacLean’s and has now spread to the USA in reaction to Amy Chua’s book in defence of strict ‘Chinese parenting.’ In frustratingly few of these discussions has there been any mention of the capitalist colonialist roots of the need for the rise of the ‘model immigrant,’ and I feel as though this same discussion is lacking here in exploring the desire to display wealth and therefore success to other members of one’s community, as well as for others to latch onto that success and consider themselves a part of it.
Tolia-Kelly’s article does a better job of tackling a more contextualized analysis as well as a broader range of meaningful examples. The discussion is a somewhat similar one of indirect experiences, though this time of memories themselves rather than just objects, and she addresses more directly the question of these consumptive practises in a context of creating diasporic communities.
I really appreciated the attention given to the dynamic and dialectical nature of Asian’s, especially in relation to colonial pasts and present. What I found particularly interesting in the article was the way in which objects are ascribed new meanings as they cross borders and move between spaces – something that was briefly touched upon in our first class by Prof. Macdonald. I wondered briefly to what extent these objects can move between meanings as they move between spaces, or if they must necessarily accrue them. By this I mean, can a kitschy souvenir object decrease again in meaning and symbolic value if/when its owner returns to ‘the homeland,’ and the item loses again its individuality in the new context? To what extent is its former role as signifier of a distant culture retained? I suppose by this question I was wondering about the fluidity or reversibility of object biographies, whether an object can lose its status as one that has meaning. This is possibly a ridiculous question and my first inclination would be to say ‘no,’ but it was sparked by the question of commodity pathway diversion of objects that Appadurai has mentioned and the idea that objects can move in and out of a commodity state, so, can they also move in and out of a ‘symbol’ state?
I also found curious the use of the term ‘re-memory’ in the way that Toni Morrison introduced it. It’s been years since I read Beloved, but re-memory appeared to be something unintentional and oftentimes painful and traumatic. In the context of the article, individuals go to great lengths to create an environment that is triggering of collective memories and past, and selectively choose positive memories. To what extent is human agency important in shaping re-memories? Though it seems that colonial past is acknowledged, the objects chosen to be placed in the home do not trigger traumatic remembrances of them (and this choice is understandable). What role does the creation of such environments also play in exoticizing a home culture, suppressing trauma and coming to terms with a colonial present? The objects are described as being pathways to collective memories and racial experiences, but it is clear that the selectivity involved plays a role in privileging specific experiences and memories above others.
No comments:
Post a Comment