From Arjun
Appadurai’s essay I conclude that a commodity is anything intended for exchange,
and this exchange includes barter and exchange of gifts. Igor Kopytoff discusses how an item can be a
commodity at one point in time and then be removed from the sphere of exchange,
although it may again be commoditized. He
demonstrates this process with a discussion of slavery. After capture and
before sale a slave is a commodity. Following sale a slave becomes a unique
person with a specific social role (although he is always a potential
commodity). The individual can again be
commoditized if his owner decides to sell him.
Things also can be seen as commodities at one point, but later placed in
a category of singular valuation that is separate from being a commodity. Appadurai’s and Kopytoff’s essays discuss the
importance of the social and cultural value placed on commodities, the true
sources of the valuation which exists before the exchange takes place. I can agree that an individual’s valuation of
something is influenced, possibly controlled, by his culture and his society,
but the authors don’t pay much attention to scarcity as a critical feature of
exchange, one that has a large impact on exchange valuation.
Colin
Renfrew discusses the potential social organization of the prehistoric people
who left grave goods in the graves at Varna in modern Bulgaria. Burying objects of value with human remains
suggests a stratified society where elites controlled the most socially
valuable items. At Varna the graves
include objects made of gold and copper at a time when the production of copper
items represented a new technology. Based
on other archeological finds, or lack of finds similar to Stonehenge or large
mounds, it was assumed that Balkan people of this time were egalitarian hunter-gatherers. The graves suggest a more complex society. The graves also demonstrate a general
property of technological development: before a new technology, in this case
the smelting of copper, is used to produce commodities it is a source of items with
a particular social function, often a demonstration of status and power. Renfrew states, “The decisive innovation in
the development of a new commodity is generally social rather than technical”
and he argues that an available technology must wait until a society places a
value on the products of the technology. (146)
The inhabitants of Varna and other prehistoric people in England used prestige
items to legitimate hierarchy. Is it that
everyone in a society like that of Varna recognizes the value of hierarchy and
is willing that elite members control the most valuable goods, or do the elites
acquire prestige items by force?
Patrick
Geary stresses the importance of religious relics in medieval Europe as a way
to “construct community identity, local prestige, and central ecclesiastical control
in Latin Europe.” (23) Relics were often
acquired as gifts or they were stolen. After
acquisition their commodity status quickly reverted to the singular status of the
sacred. Geary claims that in the
Carolingian period, 750 – 1150, gift giving was the most important method of
property circulation. (173) Sacred
relics whether they were gifts or booty had to be placed with certain religious
individuals who performed the ceremonies that verified the authenticity of the
items. What did the gift givers or those
who stole the relics get from passing these items to members of the
church? Did they receive authoritative promises
of religious salvation? Geary asserts
that the clerics who authenticated the relics were not cynical. They believed in the relics whose value they
constructed. (181) Cultural and social
valuations were essential to the process of holding and displaying relics.
Carol makes a good point about the author's neglect of the word "scarcity" in the discussion on value and exchange. Scarcity is the fundamental human condition.
ReplyDeleteRelated to this, the author doesn't discuss that in an "exchange" there is an "inequality of wants" which means that every individual in trading, values the good he purchases more than the good he gives up. Example: When one purchases a hamburger, the hamburger is valued higher than the dollar (or three!). There is no "equality" in exchange.
In the review of Christopher Bayly's essay, "The Origin of Swadeshi," Appadurai discusses that the "critical agents" in the process of supply and demand of commodities have not only been rulers, but traders (33). He cites Phillip Curtin's work on cross-cultural trade in the pre-industrial world. Curtin explains how relations between rulers and traders varied enormously over space and time.
Appadurai contends that rulers and traders are "claimants" for the regulation of demand which necessarily leads to "tension" and conflict between the two and throughout cultures. Entrepreneurs tend to be innovators in society with the creation and or acquisition of previous produced commodities for trade through arbitrage. Political elites are typically non-producers who seek "to restrict trade to a limited set of commodities and to dealings with strangers rather than with kinsmen or friends."
There is a fundamental difference between state agents and traders which should be emphasized. Traders seek, for the most part, to "satisfy" consumer demand by either producing commodities that consumers need or by arbitrage - arranging and exchanging produced goods for consumers. Their livelihood is largely based on whether consumers purchase these goods.
Rulers, on the other hand, through fiat, threats, or coercion seek to limit, regulate or prohibit goods they don't deem as culturally valuable whether from personal whim, tradition or religious reasons. Their involvement in trade is not voluntary.
The prohibition of commodities once "legal" but outlawed by political elites can have enormous cultural impact. One can look at the U.S. Prohibition era. The rise of crime syndicates and the state's response to the new "criminal class" had widespread societal consequences.