Commodities: Economic vs. Social Value

Arjun Appadurai’s essay is initially concerned with an economic variation on the concept of commodities and its history. The point he makes about objects being not difficult to acquire because they are valuable, but that they are valuable because they’re difficult acquire, seems like common sense to me. However, further into the essay the economic definition of commodities seems to be too simplified for Appadurai and as we’ll see, Kopytoff as well. Kopytoff expands on this notion of economic value by adding cultural value to commodities. Davenport adds to this by suggesting commodities were not only items of economic value, but items that were a representation of social relations and ‘crucial to the maintenance and alteration of social relations.’ (95) Appadurai obviously agrees as he puts his essay in the framework of ‘different regimes of value in space and time’ (4) and this is the path that the subsequent essays in this book follow.

Davenport writes about the values of traditional Eastern Solomon Island cultures and puts forth two types of value: economic and spiritual. Commodities represent the economical value aspect because of their ability to be bought, sold and traded in order to support key social occasions and events. Davenport’s essay is interesting because it describes the type of commodity with a one way trip. In that it is produced specifically for consumption, but once consumed will never re-enter the commodity state because of the role it fulfills in traditional Eastern Solomon Island funerals. What I find most interesting here is the commodities value that these sacred spiritual objects contain. To my knowledge most objects used for rituals, traditional, religious, spiritual or otherwise, would not be considered commodities, but simply items for sale. What’s the difference between the two? To me, the difference is the demand for the item. Most items used for religious purposes are mass produced in order to fulfill a demand, but they are not difficult to acquire - unless you look at the location. For example, trying to buy Hindu prayer objects in Vietnam turns these items simply from goods for sale to commodities because of the lack of availability, the desire for their social value drives up their economic value. What is different about these items that are produced in the Eastern Solomon Islands is that they’re produced, bought and remain in the geographic area. To my knowledge they do not go anywhere else and probably would not retain the same value in another geographic location.

Alfred Gell describes the Muria people of central India, who belong to the lower caste and to whom the showing off of wealth that is not agreed upon within the collective communal framework of 'traditionally sanctioned public feasting... [is] seen as socially threatening, hubristic and disruptive' (111), but due to the fact that they have been gaining more wealth, not collectively, and are shamed to act as if they're poor. As a result, the rich are getting richer because they consume as if they're poor. Gell believes that the Muria are now becoming less isolated thanks to an increase in tourism and the desire to obtain the items seen as traditional to these tribes, they are now losing a traditional status. In fact, Gell believes that the Muria will "eventually cease to dress as Muria, but will dress up as Muria when making explicit their ethnicity." (136)

Eric's discussion of Nancy Munn's work is interesting to me because her work and her findings seem similar to Davenport's which I think is mostly due to geographic location. Carol's description of Geary's work is also of interest because of the social and cultural valuations that were essential to religious objects. 

Nadine