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.