Object Description

The object I am presenting is a carefully designed box of lavender fragrance candle. It weighs 290g, 10.2 Oz and with a dimension of 11cm (h) X 9.3cm (w) X 9.3 (b). The box is made up of thick card-board paper wrapped around with royal purple paper inside and purple paper outside. There is a white label at the front that says, “LAVENDER FRAGRANCE FONT” with the font style of Lucia Bright and small cursive words that mark “Fine Fragranced Luxury Candles”. On the other side of the box, there is small reminder of warnings in use and directions to use the candle. An elegant royal purple sketching of lavender is also designed all around the box.

It is probably produced in a factory with a fine line of production that is hands- free of men labour, a.k.a. , computer- driven. It is made in California, USA and claims to burn for 100+ hours. It states it is exclusively produced for Asquith & Somerset, BS39 5QQ, England. The date of production is not printed on the box. Neither do I know how much the production cost and selling price are because it is a gift from my friend in London.

In Christianity, candles can be used for decoration and ambience, as a symbol to represent the light of God as well. Other religions like Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism use candles for ceremonial and celebrative reasons too. My friend first intended to buy this for me to use it during meditation of the Bible as well as a fancy decoration for my room. The purpose of candle in Christianity that has existed long time ago is translated into the purpose of my candle now and today.

In terms of a transnational experience, this calls the candle into new relations of exchange through space. It has travelled all the way from California, U.S.A to London, England and then to Hong Kong where Vivian gave it to me the past Christmas. The object has flown through space to satisfy different desires, from retailing to offering a sentimental value to myself.

Because it is a gift given by one of my best friends, this object has been attached with a deep sentimental value. Vivian said she got this present for me from a bookstore on an ordinary day in London after jogging. She instantly thought of me when she saw this because she knows I am a big fan of purple and lavender scent. The story of how she thought of me without the prior intention of buying a Christmas gift but ended up getting one is particularly smoothing and refreshing. The object has been personalized after hearing the story because the candle is unlike any other kind of candle but one that can light up many memorable but subtle thoughts of Vivian who is miles away in another country.

Object Theory I: Approaching Objects

Carrier, J (1995) Gifts and commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700.

The objective of this article is to approach objects from a sociological perspective where the relationship with objects is terms as “consumption” in social sciences. And this perspective can be taken from two ways: objects as markers in status hierarchy and semiological method of seeing objects. To support the first notion, CARRIER cross-referenced Weber’s definition of “status group” and Veblan’s definition of “status” as the demonstration of the ability to pay. In the situation of a capitalist society, consumption of objects becomes important to cause a distinction of the classes and eventually the status. Objects therefore end up becoming markers of status. And when objects are seen from a semiological perspective, they can be observed with clarity in public structures of power, meaning & identity as well as in interpersonal, private structures of social relationship. Using Barthes’s model and the illustration of advertisement, the signifier (the product) actually takes on the meaning of the signified (the attributes represented by the object, event or person) and so it becomes a sign (the meaningful product). Jean Baudrillard names the objects as “sign value” when they exist as elements in relation to other objects under a system of social positions and differences between them. Using Parisian bourgeoisie example, object signs can gain an independent existence of their own after mechanization of production. CARRIER acknowledged the difference and similarity between objects as markers of status and as signs. She further stated the shortcoming of Jean’s theory that objects not only exist in public structures but also exist within interpersonal, private structures of social relationship where personal relationships within them affect our experiences with objects and the ways we understand them. CARRIER did a fair job in stating out the research question which explored the relationship of objects in the form of “consumption” on social sciences terms. Her introduction was not a straightforward one as she explained reason for mentioning the word “consumption” in relation to objects, how certain areas of life have been devalued (such as private and female) and corrected a wrong concept of people can see objects for private consumption. Her use of subtitles to state the various relationship between objects and the different sociological terms are effective for readers to follow her logic of discussion. Her methodology is to investigate the ways that objects are implicated in personal relationships by describing historical changes in people’s relationships with objects as well as the modern state of those relationships. The model of people, objects, and social relations are taken from the work of Mauss. The methodology is the right one but the sampling source and quantity is questioned, more details are needed. The reason is the model of people, objects and social relations need to be taken from the pre-capitalist and industrial societies and it is hard to comprehend how she can find this kind sampling. There is depth in her investigation but breadth wise, it is not sufficient. Multi- sided research is encouraged. Otherwise, I am convinced by CARRIER’s argument. I am unsure how she can prove her argument with ample and convincing evidence.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) In Mauss’ social scales, CARRIER mentioned there is the spectrum with one end when object is being a part of the group of people itself and the other end when object is not substantially related to the group of people. The scales have two distinctive ends but I question how does the middle point which separates the two ends be differentiated in a quantitative sense?

(2) I question the credibility of this journal because the list of peer reference is not available in the paper. Does anyone know CARRIER here? :P

Appadurai, A. (1986) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective.

There are two objectives in this essay. The first is to preview and set the context for the essays that follow it in this volume. The second is to propose a new perspective on the circulation of commodities in social life. APPADURAI used the context that is set for the essays is to use Georg Simmel’s quote that Value is a judgement made about them by subjects. He defined what economic subjects as well as the economic exchange in which value of objects is determined reciprocally in terms of sacrifice. Economic objects circulate in different regimes of value in space and time. He further gives distinction commodity can be seen as mute and inert but alive when it is thing in motion that illuminate their human and social context. He also gives an overarching framework in stating out this essay is to be covered from historical, ethnographic and conceptual grounds and will be followed by five sections in the continuation of explaining commodities and the politics of value. Cleverly separated into subtitles, they are “The Spirit of Commodity”, “Path and Diversions”, “Desire and Demand”, “Knowledge and Commodities” and the last one is “Politics as the mediating level between exchange and value”. APPADURAI has done an excellent job in stating out the research question, the context, limits the scope of the field of research and explain the five sections of the essay with great depth and breadth. His argument is always backed up by references from different theorists and reader can easy to follow and understand him. His narrative strategies are mainly argumentative in nature when he breaks down his argument bit by bit with the help of the different theories he has quoted throughout the essay. He has made use of different examples to prove his argument, such as the Massim group of islands off the eastern tip of New Guinea. I am very much convinced by the author’s argument because of the detailed amount of evidences and a consistent, systematic manner throughout the essay. He also included a conclusion which gives a good reminder to reader what has just been read. However so, the author sometimes has not been direct enough in addressing and answering the research problem. He is sometimes side-tracked and has included too many unnecessary details of information that can distract reader. An example would be the overt description of “Kula” when the purpose of using this is to prove the values as both reflective and constitutive of social partnerships and struggles but almost two huge paragraphs have been devoted to explain and elaborate wht “Kula” is. (pg. 18) Despite the flaws, APPADURAI has inspired me in seeing commodity in a different perspective, that there is a reciprocal relationship between the thing called “it” and the owner who owns “it” and how does the sentimental value in commodity can be explained clearly in a step by step manner with the help of theories.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) Can APPADURAI improve his essay by putting his purpose more clearly earlier in the essay instead of stating it out and surprising the reader at the same time near the end of the paper, in conclusion?

(2) On pg. 15, APPADURAI talked about how the commodity context refers to the variety of social arenas, within or between cultural units, that help link the commodity candidacy of a thing to the commodity phase of its career. He further used women as exchange values in the context of marriage transactions. I don’t see the connection in using this example to prove the above point. Can someone explain?

What Objects Mean and How They Mean It (TURAN & SCHAMBERGER)

Material objects as facilitating environments: the Palestinian diaspora

(a) This article focuses on the significance of material objects for Palestinians in diaspora in terms of their collective identity and memory. It is a study that illustrates how objects as symbols of a person’s collective group (“object legacy”- when the object is passed down with continuity from one generation to the next) which help the creation of a sheltering and nurturing environment, named as “facilitating environment”. With the use of 4 examples of Palestinian Americans living in New York City, they explain the materiality of objects and the meanings that are associated with objects prevent failing memory and how it sustains a collective identity that are generated by materialistic characteristics not by social value. It started off with a girl’s account, Haim Sabat, her life story, how herself and her family maintained a sense of “homeland” through objects (Bethlehemic furnishing of the house). TURAN later used the quotes from Said and Appadurai to support this argument. He also suggested approaching objects from two angles, one is psychological- how objects function in the formation of collective identity and how these objects are interpreted differently through association to other people and the other is addressing the association between the objects and materiality. He extended this argument further seeing how these two approaches infer social meaning and thought the emotions that are provoked are important for individuals to make a discernment of who they are. The study has used the snowball technique to locate participants in the Middle Eastern diaspora communities of New York City, the Palestinians. Participants are selected from families who experienced dislocation and possessed objects that tied him or her to the family history and the experience of dislocation. The audio and video interviews ranged from one and a half hours to three and a half hours and questions about the meaning of objects, their degree of attachments to the objects, and degree of significance of their collective identity in their daily lives were asked. I am convinced by the author’s argument because of the multi-dimensional way (audios and videos) of doing interviews to find out information about relationship of objects to their thought of homeland as well as the snow ball sampling which guarantees the pool of interviewees are legit and of good quality.

(b) TURAN has done a good job in stating out the research problem and methods to tackle this psychological research. He has also first theorized the objects (what the objects are, how collective memory are constructed, how objects are related to self and this self-cultivation happens in two dimensions: differentiation (which eventually develops individuality) and integration (which eventually develops relatedness) in the framework of Winnicott’s theory of “transitional objects”. “Transitional objects” are supposed to disappear after it performs its function of providing security and comfort and provide a sense of continuity on both a personal and generational level. The objects have a developmental function when they are passed down to succeeding generations and become objects of legacy. These objects glue individuals together and then give a collective group identity which provides a sheltering and nurturing environment, in what Winnicott calls it “facilitating environments”. This environment not only gives a social value to collective identity but also a material and emotional dimension to it. TURAN provides insights and details in looking at how objects can help establish self identity and the relation aspect of objects as transitional to the individuals. He expands the objective into smaller categories for reader to understand it more tangibly. The interviews are conducted and analyzed in a way that either support, oppose or suggest a hybrid argument to Winnicott’s theory.

(c) Two Questions for Meaning Thoughts

a. It is funny how the different objects can be interpreted in associating individuals to homeland for different reasons. Can we still interpret the objects without asking them but by mere observation of their reactions to the objects?

b. Because how different individuals come from different origins, their interpretation of objects to their identity and association to homeland is different, is it possible to have a more systematic manner (spectrum) to categorize these accounts? I am particularly interested in how Christianity affected these Palestinians in seeing their identity. It will be great if TURAN explores this too in his study.

Living in a material world: object biography and transnational lives

(a) (a) Through Australian Journeys Gallery at the National Museum of Australia, it explores 2 examples of object biography, they are Mrs. Guna Kinne’s Latvian national dress and Minh Tam Nguyen’s Dàn tre bamboo musical instrument. This gallery explores transnational character of Australian experience. It also traces the passage of people to, from and across the Australian continent and examines how migrants, sojourners, tourists and travellers have built and maintained connections between places in Australia and places overseas through things, images, media and text. Comparing to TURAN’s article, SCHAMBERGER takes a more humanitarian way of discussing diaspora by introducing the term “object biography” examines anartefact’s life history to ‘address the way social interactions involving people and objects create meaning’ and to understand how these meanings ‘change and are renegotiated through the life of an object’.. What contributes to this is “object knowledge”- embodied understandings of the object/world that constitute the foundation for any understanding of lived experience. SCHAMBERGER has used a very easy story-telling manner to talk about 2 “object biographies”, how Guna and Minh both travelled to different parts of the world before they lastly settled in Australia. Instead of seeing these flows of ideas, people and practices in relation to the object as distinct, SCHAMBERGER is suggesting rather a growing body of work when different things and people are constantly in motion, and shaping each other. He has introduced the method of “object biography”- research method in the first paragraph to find out how objects participate in, shape and express transnational historical experience. I am convinced by the author’s argument because after reading the two “object biographies”, my perspective of seeing object connecting places and people is real and alive. What he suggested earlier to create a more fluid object from turning it more objective to subjective is my experience of understanding after reading these two biographies.

(b) (b) The author has done well in making difficult and abstract concepts that relate to transnational and object in nature easy for readers to understand and follow. It feels like reading a fiction which has made objects alive through the two biographies. Even though the research question and method are clearly stated, reader can encounter problems of having too many events all jammed together and eventually loses track of how exactly the object is affected by the events, and how the object is also affecting the events that happened. The relationship looks ambiguous sometimes because it is difficult to draw clear lines between these two variables. Personally speaking, after some major events stated out, I really like how the author inserts a picture that helps to keep me on track. The creativity of making an object alive by exploring social interactions involving people and objects create meaning and to understand how these meanings “change and are renegotiated through the life of an object” is simply mind-blowing. Because this research is done in a humanistic way without much scientific methodology, the results sometimes cause me to wonder if it is accurate or not but on the other hand, I realized because it is more like a fluid relationship, it is hard to use numbers or scientific methodology to carry out this study.

(c) (c) Two Questions for Meaningful Thoughts

a. Even though it is taken a more humanistic way of conducting this study, is it possible to increase the accuracy of the results? Perhaps incorporating some scientific methodology into the study to measure some aspects that can’t be measured before?

b. Quoting from the article, “cultural forms always have two conflicting elements: they are

often made up of bits and pieces taken from many places on the one hand, but these are quickly formed into a coherent whole on the other…”, even though the definition is offered, is there tangible example to explain this abstract idea? Better explanation for “non-linear logics that create a hybrid material world, and in turns, how this hybridity shapes human subjectivity” is definitely needed.

Welcome to Rachelle's Diasporic Lives of Objects :)

This is a journey that Rachelle is taking in Winter semester, 2011 to explore how objects connect people, across time and space, with their own historical selves and examine the historical agency of particular objects and collections in mediating transnational and diasporic experience.