Socio-cultural Background of Object

There is only one history for candle but there are multiple narratives in looking at candle. How is candle related to socio-cultural practices? In the past, candles would mainly be used for religious and more formal reason but today, candles can be used in songs for a person to express feelings through.

Taking the example of “Candles” by Hey Monday, if you are looking at the chorus,

“Blow the candles out,
Looks like a solo tonight.
I'm beginning to see the light,
Blow the candles out,
Looks like a solo tonight.
But I think I'll be alright.”

Candles are used to create a more melodramatic and private atmosphere throughout the song. Blowing out the candles can be associated to seeing and understanding the loneliness of the singer. The single light of a candle is used to contrast the intense light in the power line. Candles in this context carry a sentimental value which helps humans express their emotions.

More information about the lyrics:

http://www.lyricsreg.com/lyrics/hey+monday/Candles+lyrics/

Comparing from the society in the past to today’s, there’s an increase in the accessibility of candles. As much as the candles were more widely used for religious and formal reasons, only a certain group of elites could and would get them for how the candle served the function. The accessibility is therefore limited. As time pass by, the identity and role of the candle has changed from simply fulfilling its utility in religious ceremonies to now, candles are used for home decorations and gifts for the beloved ones. Candles have become something more personal and is powerful to bring people as family and ethnic units closely together. As you see, there is also an increase in the accessibility and diversity in the kinds and designs of candles from this new industry. From being a mass- produced product in the past, it has now even changed to something that is DIY (Design it Yourself).

More information about DIY candles:

http://www.victorystore.com/dyo/candles/

http://candles.lovetoknow.com/Candle_Making_Material

It is interesting to see the evolution of the role of candle throughout human history. Candles that are used for the sake of traditions like: religious, military, remembrance, purpose are still kept today. The meaning of candles is now expanded for private consumption of humans for simple home decoration, celebration of birthdays, anniversary, appreciation, etc., a figurative way of speech and expression in songs and lastly even for medical purposes like aromatherapy. As the society is changing, the identity of candle changes from one time to another in relation to the humans. It is obvious enough to see how candles have becoming a more personal, aesthetic and meaningful object to humans today than the past.

Latour's Action Network Theory (ANT)

Latour definitely has a good point to make but he also loves to make simple argument complicated

Latour didn’t make his purpose clear until later in the article. His purpose is to give a new insight to the reader that sociology should be object- oriented and it is for object- oriented humans. He then started the article by explaining briefly the first two sources of uncertainties as groups are “constantly” being performed and that agencies are “ceaselessly” debated. He has first acknowledged there are asymmetries such as hierarchies, inequalities in the society and he also made a distinction in two relations that are often mixed up. The first uncertainty Latour clarified is Explanandum, the cause and the explanans, the effect. Through the cause the effect, it becomes a process which is important to maintain the power hierarchy in the society. He continued pointing out the second uncertainty is in order to keep the original intuition of social sciences, they had adamantly reject the impossible solution that was proposed, namely that society is unequal and hierarchal. There is a difference between “social” as in “social ties” and “social” as in “associations”. Latour made a distinction between “social ties” and “associations” when social ties can be formed by basic social skills and they can be difficult to isolate in human societies because they are not durable and made of social stuff. (66) He also stated that “social ties” would be something that has great trouble spreading in time and space, that has no inertia and is to be ceasinglessly renegotiated which means they can’t be relied on to maintain the society. Latour has used complicated words and sentences to explain this point. I personally think it is not necessary to use metaphorical language like “load things into social ties”. Instead of “social ties”, it should be the intertwining of actions and social skills which will render more durable shifting interactions. This intertwining actually explains the previous point on “association” of “social”. The example of Shirley Strum’s baboons is used to explain the shocking discovery that males had no dominance hierarchy that baboons possessed social strategies. Latour has used this to explain the precursors of our early human ancestors must have behaved like the baboons as well. I personally am not a big fan of evolution but I agree social strategies are is a loaded version of social ties to maintain the society. Latour then clarified one last time about the tautology of “social ties” if it is confined to the understanding of just social dominance with no thing (strategies and the involvement of actors in their actions) before the article moved on. He then helped reader understand the notion of “social forces” as social action that is shifted or delegated to different types which are able to transport the action further through other modes of action, other types of forces altogether. Objects can now be participants because the definition of “social” has been renewed as “association” not just “social ties” and also the very definition of actors and agencies most often chosen. Even though it is a hard text to understand, Latour is creative enough to use imagery to explain the difference between using actors and agencies. Latour is funny to re-explain himself every time after introducing his new theory to the reader because his re-explanation can sometimes make readers greatly confused instead. Continuing with his mighty explanation, he mentioned there might exist many metaphysical shades between full causality and sheer inexistence. He also suggested the question of who and what participates in the action is important because the objects as actors also explains the contrasted landscape we started with, the overarching powers of society, the huge asymmetries, the crushing exercise of power. The importance of having object and persons is supported by Durkheim’s “definition of action” (73)

Latour later acknowledged the difficulty reader encounters because materials and social entities are on two different shelves (incommensurability). And an action that collects different types of forces woven together because they are different and he elaborated “collective” will take the place of “society”. The continuity of any course of action will be a zigzag that consists of human-to-human connections or of object-object connections. To be symmetric, for us, simply means not to impose a prior some spurious asymmetry among human intentional action and a material world of causal relations. He further acknowledged the reasons for sociologists to hesitate before letting this social fluid takes them which is to understand both continuity and discontinuity among modes of action through an imagery of moral conduct an suspension springs. After this section, Latour made a conclusion of a clear framework of how objects are taken into the account of a whole new definition of social as a fluid visible only when new associations are being made. Objects become intermediates because of their connections with humans. Latour then explained there are different types of forces which the mode of action will not make usual social ties as before. They are innovations in the artisan’s workshops; traditional, silent implements, stop being taken for granted when they are approached by users; offered by accidents, breakdowns, and strikes; when objects have receded into the background for good, it is always possible- but more difficult- to bring them back to light by using archives, documents, memoirs, etc. and lastly the resource of fiction. Latour made a clear conclusion that objects are not studies and often neglected because it is due to a lack of data, but rather a lack of will. When commensurability and incommensurability have been lifted up, all of the remaining problems are matters of empirical research. I don’t too understand the last part of the article “Who has been forgetting power relations?” But in the end, Latour said in Sociology, powerful explanations should be counterchecked and counterbalanced. Power is unequally distributed- they also have to explain how domination has become so efficacious and through which unlikely means. He suggested a fourth uncertainty to be accepted too. Last but not least, Latour has made a good transition from this chapter to the next.

2 Questions for Thought:

(1) Is the question on pg. 78, “How long can a social connection be followed without objects taking the relay?” a relevant one to ask?

(2) On pg. 72, what does it mean that there might exist many shades between full causality and sheer inexistence?

Object Historical Context

This candle I got from my friend is owned by me now. The ownership has changed from being a display in a store in England to becoming my friend’s possession and now it’s become my possession. It’s first travelled from CA, USA (where it was first produced), then to England (where it was purchased), to Hong Kong (where the gift was handed over) and to Toronto, Canada (where the candle is now).

From this candle I’ve got from my friend, I’ve decided to expand the understanding of candles in terms of how they can travel through time in relation to bringing communities together and eventually reproduce themselves. Candles have a diasporic meaning too because they can help communities to tie their identities back to their original places as known as homeland.

Candles have been around human’s history for a long time. They have been used in religious ceremonies, meditations and timekeeping etc. The earliest known candle was believed to originate in China around 200 BC, and was made of whale fat. Candles didn’t appear in Europe until sometime after 400 AD, due to largely to the availability of olive oil for burning in lamps. The material used to make candles was changed a few times from the 18^th to 19^th century.

Candles can also be used to connect and strengthen diasporic communities. There is a weeklong celebration held in the US honouring universal African-American heritage and culture, which is observed from 26^th December to 1^st January every year. During the celebration, a candle holder will be lighted up with 7 candles and culminates in a feast and gift giving. It was created by Maulana Karenga and was first celebrated in 1966 - 1967. Therefore, this celebration is an example of how candles have a function to bring communities, in this context, it’s the African- American together and eventually reproduce themselves to be a significant group of citizens in the US. Through lighting up candles during celebration, it helps African- Americans to celebrate their victory in gaining a significant territory in the US as well as remembering where they come from- their homeland a.k.a. Africa (Different parts of Africa).

OBJECT THEORY II: Positioning Objects:

The objective of this article is to contribute to an intermediate level of theory and analysis that has been lacking in cultural and economic anthropology. THOMAS’s contribution is based on APPANDURAI’s clear distinction in what gift and commodity is. It is supported by many claims, from explaining the concept of exchange relations, prestations and ideology behind a gift and commodity, the inalienability of the gift, immobile value as known as inalienable wealth, the promiscuity of wealth and a value: A surplus of theories to fill in what have been missed out in APPANDURAI’s theory. THOMAS first tackled the problem, set up the framework for meaningful discussion of this topic and then explained his argument in a step-by-step manner from taking institutions and behaviour in native terms, also as known as small-scale societies, then bringing it down first from the exchange relation of a commodity to a relationship between things to the relationship between the gift and the person who owns it. It later has an immobile value, as known as “inalienable wealth” that is attached to things and persons. Lastly, THOMAS talked about the promiscuity of objects when no matter how theoretically gift is defined, the term “exchange” is coined by different theorists with different definitions. By also defining first “politics of value” which is the process through cultural assumptions and relations entail power create regimes of exchange, to bring the focus back on things which then introduce the term, “commodity situation”, which is important to define the commodity phase (state), commodity candidacy (categorical or conceptual aspect) and commodity context of where things are (context of exchange). Narration is easy for readers to follow. THOMAS hasn’t used a typical way of analyzing, in the empirical sense (as clear as the black and white) but analysis can be seen a procedure of engagement and a practice that cannot be differentiated into distinct levels of theory and description. He tried to find out and expose old questions that happen to be salient now. He has used ethnographic cases, historical narratives while displacing and relocating versions of these various theories and points of departure to write his article. An example would be THOMAS gave an argument and counter-argument in the section “The inalienability of the Gift” on pg. 18. I like how he acknowledged the debates in the field and offered his argument; that is to understand the forms of prestations which can generate a sense of actual movements and values only if it is synthesized with another cultural domain.

I think THOMAS sounds relevant in making his purpose clear but I can’t help but question the form of analysis that has truly been taken. “The hau is not the wind. Not at all.”, “hau” is taken from “The Gift” written by Mary Douglas which means spirit of things. It is not the wind but the spirit of things. It is an abstract idea which is somewhat difficult to understand.

(1) If “hau” means the spirit of things, how can we measure it quantitatively to understand it? Or do we have to use the way that THOMAS analyzed to only explain it?

(2) Perhaps THOMAS’s point is not to prove anything but rather making the readers aware and question what things seem right but may not be right in actuality. And when the same topic of “exchange” is brought up again, are he expecting readers to explore rather finding a right answer from a progressed reference point than before?

The objective of this article is to the findings of the last and the article started really well. “Hedonism” has been defined as a doctrine that happiness or the pleasure is the highest god. It has been changed and the argument to be found in the study of material culture. It has given the term “function”, a powerful trajectory of academic thinking. If our social and cultural customs were not met, which connected to such functions, this would produce a variation correlated largely with differences in its environment. MILLER’s thought of “function” has been made by the different precise shapes and ranges of pots in an Indian village. “Function” here carries more than just a practical context but also the symbolic significance as differences rise between the pots. Before MILLER goes further to dig out anything more, I think it is important to define what the culture the societies are celebrating because it is also a fundamental social distinction. It is so called the theory of representations, which is to produce a material culture theory that could apply to these pots and also set up a frame with which we all work under in. MILLER did a great job to quote sources to increase the credibility of this article and with his experience of fieldwork; the method of analysis for this article is pretty good in making us aware of what is appropriate and inappropriate. “Structuralism” in material culture should not be understood as entities in isolation but rather the relationship between such things and with the Indian pots, they can be understood when each is in relation to the whole system. An example: through a process of habituation, individuals grow up in a theory of socialization. MILLER didn’t explain the term “objectification” clearly at the first place. He made use of the relationship between society and the law to say law isn’t something that is oppressive force or alien from oneself but if we humans realized law exists because we created it, we would start seeing ourselves in it. According to Hegel, it is dialectical. From talking about Marx’s theory that humanity starts with nature itself and it is human labour that transforms nature into objects and humans are alienated from their products/objects (self-alienation). Subjects can turn into objects when consciousness is taken away. The last part that subtitled was “materiality”, not only that is to find meaning and implications of materiality itself besides, but also to have a theory of things (framing) and how to progress towards a dialectical theory of objectification that transcends things and persons. This is issue is a pretty philosophical one actually. Materiality is later one compared with the different views from different religions like Hinduism, Christianity. Even though the words used in this article are not difficult, the article is highly disorganized with random additional opinions of different theorists and MILLER’s opinion. Instead of comparing so many theorists together, I suggest MILLER to keep things more simple so that his conclusion of “we can achieve this modesty partly through a greater acceptance of our own materiality as well as that of the world” will be better supported and tangible to the readers. The transition from talking about theology and divinity to the conclusion is not a smooth one. I would also suggest having more subtitles so that the article can be better organized and readers can follow through without doing detours during reading. And MILLER should spend more time thinking of pieces of information in the article should be cancelled because they are not necessary to prove the point clearly but rather distract the reader from getting it. Lastly, I find it difficult to understand the part of “materiality” and “immateriality”, perhaps it is a bit too philosophical for me.

(1) What is his theory that explains the findings of the last?

(2) These two articles in this week are tightly related. How can the information from these two readings be combined and give reader a more holistic picture of what objectification is and how objects should be positioned historically, structurally within social and ethnographic context?