Object Social/Cultural Context

I think objects like my bracelet are shaped in cultural processes over time because of the way peoples skills and trades are passed down from generation to generation.  People who generally make such items in Bangladesh (outside of manufacturing zones), are those from lower classes that depend on their ability to create goods for others.  These artisans make things like pots, paintings, jewellery, utensils, clothing, and many other items that are usually a part of their daily lifestyle and job to make.  Some of the influences that can be seen in Bengali artwork and creations have remnants of tribal-Indian, Burmese, Persian looks that all combine to create a unique effect on the different pieces.  Expanding outside of my bracelet, artisan work in Bangladesh has a variety of uses and can be found in almost every household within the city, that range from ornaments, decoration, and jewellery that often make its way to the bigger cities for sale within or for exporting purposes.  In Bangladesh, there are many different cities and dialects present that often carry varying practices and ways of life.  As such, artisan work like pottery and jewellery can be perceived and used differently by the social classes (political and upper-classes, middle-class and educated group, low classes and the poor). To the lower and poorer classes, such objects would be perceived as everyday objects with no real value, or objects that can be sold to others as a form of income.  To the buyer and different classes, these objects are the final product, and one pays some sort of monetary value for its possession.

Object Historical Context

The beaded bracelet has gone through several stages within its lifespan and under my ownership, where it has been passed through the artisan, the vendor, and to myself as the final owner.  I am sure that others may have this type of bracelet and may vary slightly between models, but the majority of people who have bought it from the Cox’s Bazaar region are mainly tourists and vacationers from the country.  The visual look of the bracelet is comprised of earth tones (brown, black, grey), and reminds me of Bangladesh’s natural appeal, as I’m sure it can give the same feeling to others who own the same type of bracelet.  Uses for this bracelet are very limited, but can have different meanings due to how it was acquired: some may have received it as a gift, others may have bought it personally (like myself).  However, the primary reason for the bracelet could be as a souvenir, or for beautification and accessorizing purposes by the person who bought it.  For myself, beaded jewellery feels like a much more natural alternative to metallic goods that represents my humble and earthly approach to life.  This is why I usually wear beads in the first place, and being able to purchase something from my home country that allows me to feel comfortable in expressing myself internally and visually is a great thing.

Beaded jewellery can be found across the world, and is a very simple and basic design form that has been present in the world for ages.  This somewhat gives me the feeling of unity with generations of people across the earth that have at some point worn beaded jewellery because of its simple, affordable, and worldly influence.  Every time I put the bracelet on, draw its strings to tighten, it gives me the feeling of being close to the country it is from, and the various people’s hands it has passed through to where it is now.  Because of its neutral tones, I am able to wear it during many different occasions, and is able to follow me through my daily activities.  It strengthens the diasporic imagination I have around it, and helps me to understand the process in which an artists work can make its way to different people across the world, with varying meanings.

Object Description

The object that I have chosen to do my final assignment on is a beaded bracelet from Bangladesh that I purchased during my trip in 2007. The bracelet is a simple draw-string type that has glassy black beads with a center stone piece 'tablet' which has a tan/white/foggy color to it. The length of the bracelet covered in the spherical beads feel and look to be of a black colored stone or possibly even glass. Two rows of dark brown string hold the entire piece together, that are intricately weaved to create a draw-string system that allows one to pull both ends to tighten and secure it onto a wrist, and remove by tugging on the body of the bracelet to expand the draw-strings. The bracelet is made from a total of 20 spherical beads that are roughly 4mm in size, of which 16 are black and 4 are clear, as well as one ‘tablet’ style center bead that measures approximately 5 cm x 1.4 cm.

The bracelet was approximately put together sometime in 2006/2007 by artisans in the southern region of Bangladesh, and sold by vendors on the beach. Assuming that beads are of stone material, they may have been cut portions from a bigger rock, which were sized, rounded, and polished to create the shiny and glass-like appearance of each bead. Cost for each bracelet is probably very low because of the cost of labour and materials in the region. I paid approximately 35 taka, which converts to 50 cents Canadian. The production cost is most likely anywhere between 3 to 10 taka, and is marked up in price significantly because the point of purchase was at a tourist filled beach area (still cheap once converted). The object has traveled with me back to Canada, and other vacations for the last 3.5 years, and always reminds me of Bangladesh, its people, and I enjoy its simplistic and natural look. Each of my beaded jewellery comes from different parts of the world, and represents a subtle and humble approach to my outlook on life.

Objects as ______

The article by Appadurai deals with the way commodities are exchanged and the process in which we attribute ‘value’ to them. These objects act as an agent for socialization around it, and ultimately leads to the transferring of the commodity that can often fluctuate the value for the object. Appadurai refers to Georg Simmel, and his account of how value is prescribed and can be subjective. The author discusses how value can be placed on something based on the surrounding social context, and that human factors, transactions, encounters, and actions allow for an object to be encoded with significance and value.

“We still call those objects valuable that resist our desire to possess them” (Simmel, page 67). This statement is very interesting to me because it shows how value, interest, and desire for ownership builds upon something as it is further away and in rarity, like diamonds for example. As the piece goes further into discussion, Appadurai speaks about Marx and capitalism in regards to using money for exchange of commodities. The author also leaves room for his argument to be proven otherwise, because he uses language that goes something like, “if my argument holds water…”, and is acknowledging that his combining of Marx’s and Simmel’s theories may or may not be applicable to objects. It is interesting to note that commodities can also be classified as ‘goods’, ‘objects’, ‘products’, and even ‘artifacts’ when an object ages through time. By the end of the piece, I think Appadurai is able to link different theories and ideas together like ‘value’ and ‘exchange’, so that the reader is able to comprehend how commodities are able to be in the socialization process.

In the second reading for the week by Carrier, the author starts off with a very basic principle: there is a need and deeper meaning for objects aside from their basic utility purposes. An interesting note that author also makes is that objects are a marker of heirarchies, and from there on stems exclusion and inclusion of people as a sociological process. Carrier goes on to explain that objects act as status markers for societies that are bigger in size, as opposed to smaller societies because people in smaller and limited areas are more likely to know each other. Whereas, in larger communities, status markers allow for the owners to get more of an esteemed appeal, but with no mark of reputability from just the objects alone.

Carrier I believe, does an extremely good job of organizing his ideas and makes the article approachable with his ease of language and tone. I find that the use of sub-sections and his way of contrasting ‘Objects as ____’ is very key in presenting the authors ideas to the reader. By giving the reader real life examples as to how objects are attached to people and the way we use them as markers, the reader is able to justify the authors breakdown of how objects are approached in a social and economical process.

Question #1: As objects such as artwork ages, the ‘value’ of it starts to increase. In what case do we have objects that decrease in value over time? What are some examples of institutions that dominate and control the value of objects, with the help of multi-level groups/bodies?

Questions #2: If people don’t live up to their role in life based around their identity and interaction with their everyday objects, do we have the right to penalize them based on the failure to comply with what was EXPECTED? Example: Police officer opens fire without cause.