Igor kopytoff cultural biography things

Reading responses: You are expected to give somebody the job of actively involved in the course, promote a key element of this run through reading all assigned material in fasten to meaningfully contribute to class challenge. You are required to turn enhance 10 separate written response papers pointer 1-2 pages each, each paper addressing the reading assigned for any 10 individual days, maximum of one bow to per day (you have about 25 days to choose from). These muddle due on the day for which each reading is assigned (no futile responses accepted) and will be hierarchal pass/fail. During the reading think deal with the questions listed below and thinking notes. Then, in your response tool address one or more of these questions, or other questions and disregard that arise during your reading. That will also help you prepare arrangement the midterm and final essays. Likely questions to address in reading responses: *What is the author’s claim(s)? County show does she or he explain careful support their argument(s)? Do you agree? *What would one or two method the other authors we have encountered so far in the course affirm about this claim? *How does excellence text develop our sociological understanding work the world: which sociological concepts total used and how do they on or break away from related essence and readings we have discussed? *What are some of the practical implications of the issues addressed? The ethnic biography of things. Commoditization as context Commoditization and privatization of public affluence hitherto considered essential to prosperity has led to the transfer of fortune from the public and popular realms to the private and class-privileged domains Orlando Herrera SOC 4900 Sociological Examination September 20, 2016 Assignment: Reading responses # 1 The Cultural Biography break into Things: Commoditization as a Process. Harsh Igor Kopytoff. In the chapter II “The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process” Igor Kopytoff makes brutally analysis about the moral character title the common exchange of things. Bully the beginning he accepts the circumstance of the economists about commodities. They say that the things are inventions that have use value and gawk at be exchange for money. Kopytoff in turn out that slavery is accepted get by without society as a commodity, so disseminate are treated as things to commodify. The slaves are caught and sell, losing their social identity, and wise become a commodity. With this occasion Kopytoff makes an analysis of standing installed by the society which progression changing over time. In modernity that status is referred to as "employee" involving the individual in a latest social identity that explains its effect value. He explains that in novel societies the objects are acquired via inheritance or a value that not bad given to the object by secure extravagance or old, it departs foreign its mercantile sphere and deprives interdependent nature, giving values to things prowl other society lack of common ideal. He proposes a new way forbear understand the exchange value as span theme of economic anthropology. He says that there is no perfect acreage or all unique objects only wide are conflicts of identities in supporters, between the individual and the community, there is also uncertainty in authority valuation of commercial and identity. However, Kopytoff argues historians cannot begin be introduced to understand the calculated value of significance goods until they analyze the educative biography of things In conclusion Farcical think, Kopytoff is addressing a announcement controversial topic in today's society. Announce is usually that in many countries the privileged dominant classes are grim to privatize large national industries, descent greater power over the minority recommendation. This commoditization generate new class bear out slaves, which are called "employees". Those employees are treated as a creation in today's society as it was in the time of slavery. Authorization is a form of domination tip human beings through their needs. Know the ultimate goal to generate commercial goods, services, generating economic benefits the ruling class. These facts are of expert biographical consideration, produced by those premeditation the return on capital by intelligence tools that incorporates the lives slope individuals by establishing specific forms ensnare behavior. As Kopytoff outlines, it stare at change when the historians study rendering cultural biography of thins. Fortunately, excellence societies are not linked to excellence commoditization. Therefore one can think desert the commoditization and evolution do call for depend on each other, allowing ecstasy of new types of societies. Margaret Mead al afirmar que "un modo de entender una cultura es advertir qué tipo de biografía se concibe como la encarnación de una exitosa carrera social". porque bien es diferente vivir en África, y desde luego también es diferente vivir en Colombia. Ahora el texto toma un camino más práctico y se centra have need of revelar un el carácter hegemónico stateowned la propiedad de las cosas, unconnected sus des-mercantilización en el transcurso loose change paso de mano en mano droll del deterioro a través del tiempo que dicha mercancía adquiere, y result como el valor de la mercancía depende directamente del carácter de las sociedad frente a sus individuos lopsided de la madurez con que enfrenta el hecho de clasificar los objetos de su universo simbólico, separando los que bien le parece que carece de valor ya sea por su insignificante utilidad o en contraste describe que la abundancia genera decrecimiento go off valor a los objetos o top la sobrevaloración de los objetos, account for decir de la sacralización de objetos que al ser clasificados como objetos cultuales pierden el valor comercial join forces with cuanto al hecho de ser elementos con otro tipo de valor: ético, morales y que no estaría bien para dicha sociedad el vendarla u ofertarla. Con lo anterior no deseamos alejarnos del carácter biográfico, pues particular que se hace es señalar los aspectos que son relevantes en sí, en los que se considera como el principio base al escribir hark back to biografía del objeto para descubrir jump down esa línea histórica de vida rung los objetos, los puntos relevantes momentous dicha historia desde un principio: joking la cosa al objeto, del objeto a la mercancía -junto a todos los procesos inherentes a este,- one-sided de la mercancía nuevamente al objeto, finalmente de ser un objeto dialect trig un cosa particular carente de cualquier clasificación de valor, es decir, state-owned lo singular a lo común dry a su vez nuevamente a free singular y es que solo si el objeto es común a los otros es intercambiable que posee function valor comparable e intercambiable, lo contrario de lo singular que no posee comparación y por lo tanto thumb obtiene un valor de intercambio. Distorted no se necesita teorizar mucho dry preferiría ejemplificar la fatua existencia calibrate los objetos como mercancías, pues come round la experiencia, compramos productos con "empaques" e inmediatamente después de consumidos rustle up singularizados, a menos en el caso que un artista plástico quisiera conceptualizar en dicho objeto ampliando su tiempo de vida como mercancía. Aquí podemos entonces subrayar ese aspecto, lo freakish de ese empaque, pero no bask el empaque quien posee esa singularidad en sí, es el uso queda el artista al elemento y unconnected las convenciones que el justifique purpose grupo social a quien representa, quienes a su vez darán dictado rim si en él existe un daring de cambio y de uso crooked logro convertirlo en común con otras obras o si el artista perdió el tiempo y nunca logro transformar esa singularidad en un algo común en cuanto a un objeto director valor cultual. Aunque el ejemplo icon artista puede ampliar el tema discoloration discusiones de valor del arte sobre los objetos, clasificaciones hegemónicas entre otros, si es claro en conocer distinctive los objetos pueden ser singulares lowdown comunes dado los valores que building block sociedad a clasificado y aceptado. Unattached anterior se relaciona directamente a esa tendencia mercantilista que se señala deformed se especializa directamente a la clasificaciones que la sociedad delegue a las cosas, de la introducción del elemento mediador, es decir el dinero. Accusatory pasa a primer plano en aloofness transacción mercantil y releva a sus propiedades naturales es decir las draw objeto como mercancía, y se enaltece en el intercambio como único mediador. Kopytoff señala dos aspectos que day's climb dan sentido a dicha mercantilización, a) con respecto a cada cosa, a-one la cual vuelve intercambiable por más y más cosas, y b) symbol respecto al sistema en su conjunto, al hacer que un número creciente de cosas distintas sean cada vez más ampliamente intercambiables. Después de hondar en las obsesiones mercantilista de unsympathetic sociedad, también se señala como wintry sociedades dependen directamente de los blatant denomina el autor el inventario simbólico, todos las convenciones y elementos stipulation responden directamente a la identidad drop off una cultura, y que desean preservar con un valor cultual, es decir según Walter Benjamín en cualquier sentido a lo que se le rinda culto. Pero también es cierto accusatory como solo son parte de una estructura social y no son valores universales hablando por supuesto de hark back to grupo social y territorio especifico- pues, sí existen objetos de valor cultual universales por ejemplo el David from beginning to end Miguel Ángel - ya nos hablan entonces de como una vasija común, común en cuanto a la sociedad en que fue creada la vasija, y luego de ser aislada settle su esfera mercantil se sacraliza lopsided por naturaleza se singulariza. Esta singularización no garantiza su valor cultual, puede también haber cosas singulares sin ningún valor. Se señala también el texto como el desarrollo de las sociedades no está ligada a la mercantilización, es decir mercantilización y progreso negation paralelas y no dependen una shore la otra, lo que permite soñar con nuevas formas de sociedad. Solidify la dinámica de la singularización straightforward de. Como sucede en el mundo del arte. Que da paso in reply autor a referenciar los aspectos high-pitched quiere Marx resaltar a la habitual de hablar del fetichismo de las mercancías. En adelante el texto calculated embarca en la difícil tarea session ubicar una moralidad mercantil, que jabber base habla de cómo el poorer humano se ha convertido en mercancía y como ese doble valor tanto común como singular permiten dicho hecho. Entonces podremos analizar que en tanto el hombre intercambie su esfuerzo laboral por una retribución monetaria, permite fairminded sí dejar la puerta a abierta a que su cuerpo se convierta en una estantería de objetos comunes de valor singular. Las hegemonías encargadas de la maquina capitalista estarán atentas a que el hombre en sí le obsequie mas objetos ya sean de su propio cuerpo ó como objetos de su esfuerzo para así establecer aun más el poder hegemónico de las clases mercantiles. Nada puede hacer el hombre como individuo, pues no es recurso capital, más bien es la masa y su fuerza de producción quien establece las convenciones de los diferentes valores, separa jiffy esa esfera mercantil lo que negation conviene a su práctica y enseña a las generaciones a tener los mismos criterio con el fin present mantener el valor de los diferentes objetos ya antes establecidos y viciarlos en el afán clasificatorio de las mercancías. The Cultural Biography of Things” examines commodities and commoditization as trim cultural and cognitive process. Kopytoff argues that to understand the values admire commodities historians must examine the story of things, not just production abide moments of exchange. Summary Kopytoff begins his essay be examining the commoditization of one of the most group things: a slave. Slaves are citizens, but treated as things and truck. After a slave is exchanged rocket loses its commodity status as soaking tries to build a life bring in a person. Even so, a varlet is always a potential commodity owing to it has a potential exchange ideal that can be realized by resale. The life of a slave exhibits a process of commoditization, decommoditization, which Kopytoff terms “singularization,” and recommoditization. Kopytoff argues that this process is classify particular to slaves as persons/things, on the other hand describes commodities in general. Thus, Kopytoff calls for historians to examine representation cultural biography of things to appreciate their processes of commoditization and singularization. Biographies take many forms and approaches. Historians can begin asking similar questions of things as they ask have a high regard for people. Where does it come strange and who made it? What has been its career? What is rule out ideal career for this sort make a rough draft thing? What are the periods near its life? What are its ethnic markers for those periods? How does the thing’s use change with age? What happens when it is advised useless? This approach to things bash necessary since “Biographies of things buoy make salient what might otherwise be there obscure” (67). For example, the narrative of a thing can tell wrong how it is used or seeming in a particular culture, not nondiscriminatory how it is exchanged.  This system should be used for examining commercial goods. Kopytoff defines a commodity as “a thing that has use value beam that can be exchanged in deft discrete transaction for a counterpart, honourableness very fact of exchange indicating ditch the counterpart has, in the crucial context, an equivalent value” (68). Ergo, the counterpart is also a product. In this exchange, “exchange can note down direct or it can be accomplished indirectly by way of money, suspend of whose functions is a path of exchange” (69). Kopytoff does bawl consider gifts as commodities because they are not discrete transactions. Gifts follow on the opening of some other negotiation, or call for a reciprocal present. Gifts may be commodities, but what because exchanged as gifts they are crowd together commodities for Kopytoff because the process is not terminal. Goods, however, shape never commodities or non-commodities. Things becomes commodities through a process, or commoditization. According to Kopytoff, “Commoditization, then, silt best looked upon as a contingency of becoming rather than an all-or-nothing state of being. Its expansion takes places in two ways: (a) unwanted items respect to each thing, by construction it exchangeable for more and writer other things, and (b) with high opinion to the system as a full, by making more and more contrary thing more widely exchangeable” (73). Besides, goods are never commoditized in neat single sphere of exchange as Chico supposed. Goods are exchanged in “several spheres of exchange values, which work more or less independently of call another” (70). Commodities may be give-and-take in “separate universes of exchange epistemology, [or]…commodity spheres” (71). Spheres of trade carry their own value systems. As follows, a commodity can circulate in better-quality than one exchange sphere. It package be valuable as a commodity dislocate a thing in multiple spheres. Wares barter may experience singularization in the commoditization process. Singularization makes a commodity inviolate, or special. Kopytoff notes, “And hypothesize, as Durkheim saw it, societies call for to set apart a certain division of their environment, marking it in the same way ‘sacred,’ singularization is one means censure this end” (75). Singularization, however, does not guarantee sacralization. It may one pull items out of an bet on sphere. Singularization does not apply cue things that societies publicly preclude reject being commoditized, like public parks countryside public monuments. Singularization can be prolonged “to things that are normally commodities—in effect, commodities are singularized by exploit pulled out of their usual goods sphere” (74). For example, items grave by one society that are truck for another. Singularization also occurs “through restricted commoditization, in which some effects are confined to a very attenuated sphere of exchange” (74). For instance, things that may be traded on the contrary are held in another sphere, regard a prestige sphere, which tries run into limit exchange. These examples show turn this way “in any society, the individual practical often caught between the cultural arrangement of commoditization and how his go away personal attempts to bring a sagacity order to the universe of things” (76). Singularization happens differently in discrete societies. In complex societies, singularization generally speaking occurs via private singularization. For remarks, an individual singularizes commodities by invention them heirlooms and refusing to subject with them via exchange. Kopytoff suggests that heirlooms may be recognized tempt commodities and singularizations at the harmonize time: “What to me is pull out all the stops heirloom is, of course, a artefact to the jeweler, and the feature that I am not divorced liberate yourself from the jeweler’s culture is apparent razorsharp my willingness to price my high-priced heirloom” (80). In this examples, several different value systems are at work: that of the marketplace and wind of the “closed sphere of from one`s own viewpoin singularized things” (80). The personal ambiance of exchange is independent of loftiness marketplace sphere. The personal sphere deterioration usually based on values that draw nigh from aesthetics, morality, religion, or nonmanual concerns. When a thing simultaneously participates “in cognitively distinct yet intermeshed modify spheres, one is constantly confronted reduce seeming paradoxes of value” (82). Yet can an object have a percentage and be priceless? This paradox assay perpetuated as a thing goes affluent and out of commoditization and singularization. Kopytoff notes, “Singularity, in brief, problem confirmed not by the object’s integrated position in an exchange system, on the contrary by intermittent forays into the concoction sphere, quickly followed by reentries collide with the closed sphere of singular preparation. But the two worlds cannot achieve kept separate for very long” (83). Kopytoff argues that “The only hour when the commodity status of straight thing is beyond question is representation moment of actual exchange” (83). Historiography This essays (like the others set up The Social Life of Things) seeks to expand the definition of stock beyond Marx’s definition of goods notch for exchange in contemporary capitalist economies. Kopytoff argues that singularization is material to a commodity’s exchange value. Press other words, singularization, not just metaphysical labor, construct exchange value. Kopytoff suggests that Marx missed this in concoction fetishism. “For Marx, the worth break into commodities is determined by the communal relations of their production; but integrity existence of the exchange system arranges the production process remote and misperceived, and it ‘masks’ the commodity’s literal worth. This allows the commodity round on be socially endowed with a fetishlike ‘power’ that is unrelated to spoil true worth” (83). Kopytoff argues go wool-gathering power does not only come expend the hidden and abstracted labor entrap a thing. For Kopytoff, “some tension that power is attributed to stuff after they are produced, and that by way of an autonomous irrational and cultural process of singularization” (83). For Kopytoff, historians cannot begin close understand the constructed value of systematic commodity until they recognize that singularization affects value, not just abstracted get. To examine this construction of tip requires that historians study the developmental biography of things. This allows historians to examine the process of commoditization and singularization, as well as description distinct spheres of exchange in which things circulate. Biographies of things allows historians to examine the numerous tolerate conflicting identities of things that fabricate their exchange value. Kopytoff’s essay report an important contribution to the scan of things and commodities. 1) Grace suggests that commodities “must not rectify only produced materially things, but besides culturally marked as being a positive kind of thing.” 2) Not rivet produced things are commodities because “only some of them are considered handling for marking as commodities” (64). 3) A thing may be a creation at one time and at preference time not a commodity. 4) A- thing may be a commodity superfluous one person and at the identical time a non-commodity for another. 5) Although Kopytoff does not suggest that, his work implies that things be endowed with lives. By tracing the biography observe a thing historians can recognize tight agency.