Commodities and Social Constructs

            As already pointed out by both Carol and James, Arjun Appadurai’s essay spends a good deal of time attempting to come up with a comprehensive definition of what exactly composes a commodity.  He leads us through a number of potential definitions that all fall short in one fashion or another.  Like James, I believe Appadurai’s definition leaves out the impact the social concept of “scarcity” can have upon a commodity, but I am in agreement with Carol that a commodity is fundamentally an object intended for exchange.  Where Appadurai’s essay truly begins to shine is in his discussion of commodities as social constructs acting as receptacles of value.

            This discussion was most poignant for me when Appadurai addressed Nancy Munn’s work regarding the kula system in the Western Pacific.  This system is “an extremely complex regional system for the circulation of particular kinds of valuables” while also being devoid of a monetary currency system as we know it (Appadurai, 18).  The commodities within this system, specifically necklaces and armshells, only maintain value as seen by the men participating within the kula system itself through a shared network of stories, interactions, and reputations that make up a living history for each item within the trade network.  The example of the kula system alone shows how the monetization of a commodity does not in fact give it value but instead the social construct of a system is what grants an object its value as a commodity.