Does Commodity Itself Hold overall Authority and Agency?

With Arjun Appadurai's essay "Introduction:  Commodities and the Politics of Value," a point that I wish to hone in on is his use of phrasing commodities under a 'commodity ecumene,' which he develops from Braudel's The Wheels of Commerce in analyzing commodity within the world after 1500CE.  He states that he (Braudel) is concerned with the "nature, structure, and dynamics of commerce in the world after 1500" (35-6).  By looking at commodity under these three spheres or ecumene, Appadurai wants to better understand how commodities impact and intermingle not with the economies of various societies, but also their impact on a community's social and cultural ideals.  Moreover, Appadurai wants to try and find agency in the commodity.   Is the agency directly with the commodity?  It's supplier?  Consumer?  The mode it's bought and shipped?  Are there political ideals at play? One such way he approaches this question is through a demand and desire of the commodity (which he develops his 'commodity ecumene' from).  Such an example he develops is his comments of trade of luxury items between the USSR and the United States.  He argues, "...the strategic arms limitations talks can be seen as a highly competitive species of luxury trade, where the luxury in question the guaranteed nuclear restraint of the opposite side.  The ups and downs of this trade are the prerequisite for the movement of other commodities, such as foodgrains and high technology" (40).  Appadurai suggests that the commodity, particularly through trade, can greatly impact the political relations between nations, as well as having a controlling affect or bind between the two nations' economies--it can have a great impact thus on political relations and their respective economies.  Thus, the agency here is within the commodity--both nations wanting its desire and demand, with other ideals caught in the balance.

Yet, does commodity hold a strong command of agency in other regions, say not just between superpowers, or is it the supplier and consumer (previously raised in this blog)?  Brian Spooner's "Weavers and Dealers:  Authenticity and Oriental Carpets" argues that with items carpet, he wishes to explore whether its meaning and importance within the culture it originated from (Middle Eastern region) was altered with it becoming a commodity in the West.  he writes, "The relationship between weavers and dealers, and between producers and consumers, is now much closer, largely as a result of changes in the political economy at both ends" (215).  This suggests that the orginators or makers of carpet, its sellers and buyers, are able to have a more stable relationship in the making, selling, and buying of the commodity.  Yet, there is a problem.  Spooner notes that there is a communication problem.  He argues, "They have to do both with the social needs within each society and with perceived inferiority and superiority between societies, as these perceptions affect cultural borrowing and the communication and diffusion of ideas and symbols" (215).  Two cultures at odds with one another makes the transfer of ideas of what the carpet means, and ultimately its production and selling, makes it somewhat difficult to assign the carpet's agency as commodity.  One culture states it means this and the other culture that, making it a bit of a tug-of-war as to who holds command and dominance of the commodities agency, especially socially.

Lee Cassanelli's "Qat:  A Quasilegal Commodity" notes that the use of Qat as a stimulant and beneficient commodity within social realms and circles of Northeast African nations, is used by almost all facets of society, from farmer's use after a day's labor to utilization within religious ceremonies.  Yet, Cassenelli points out that the commodity, though beneficial as a social lubricant to an extent, his also had a detrimental affect.  He states, "There are many merchants, mechanics, and Somali war widows whose livelihoods depend on the continuation of the qat trade; but there are also those office managers, abandoned wives, and neglected children who see the culture of qat consumption destroying the fabric of work and family life" (255).  This statement brings up two interesting points.  Firstly, it demonstrates that qat has the authority, thus agency to provide money, jobs, and provide an overall economy to one set of people, making qat a positive commodity.  However, secondly, qat destroys home life and disrupts work.  This second point I bring up raises the issue then that sometimes it is not the commodity solely holding the agency but it is ultimately what the consumer does with the commodity, either as a social and economic benefit or as a destructive item.  Thus, the agency can be found more in the consumer and distributor with the item more as a tool.