Commodity or roulette wheel?

What is the culture that can be attached to the commodity of the tulip? After all, if it is a commodity, it must have some kind of social life.

The answer is easy if you are talking about non-western views on the flower. Islamic people, notably the Ottomans, loved the flower because of its beauty, blood red color, and links to fertility and love. Remember that one of the first impressions of the flower was that it was a herald of spring. The flower also came to be seen as a mark of heaven or paradise. In the same way that green emeralds became linked to the prophet Muhammad, tulips became symbols of garden paradises. As the author points out, this is hardly surprising considering that those who saw the flower lived in arid, unfavorable lands. Finally, the flower also became tied (albeit slightly) to life and death. Given that the chief gardeners functioned as executioners and that the tulips blood red color could be tied to death, commanding the tulip could be seen as one owning the powers of life and death. Again, this links back to how emeralds related power in Muslim courts.

That said, what are tulips to westerners, namely the Dutch? Primarily, it is best known as a money-making scheme. And that, it seems, does not seem to be tied into any particular Dutch cultural practices. The boom seemed to arise out of chance: the flowers happened to grow in Dutch soil and there happened to be a demand for them among rich Dutchmen. that said, the latter does speak to Dutch taste: while Europe was buying red dye for their clothes, the Dutch were buying flowers. Still, much of the tulips and tulip trade was handled by people who couldn't care less about the bulbs; their only interest (again, perhaps in true Puritan fashion) was the bottom line. The money. Susan makes this point, as the sellers of the bulb weren't interested in the flower but were caught in the "get rich quick" atmosphere of the time. If there is a cultural link between tulips and the Dutch, it might be seen as an extremist stance of Puritan thrift and trading logic. Do away with government control! Trade freely with each other! Enrich yourself with your own virtue!

Susan also points out that fungibility does not create a commodity on its own. While I agree, I do not believe the tulip can count as a commodity because it rested on shaky cultural ground.
There didn't seem to be a cultural basis for it. Indeed, the sections and walks of Dutch life that weren't trading in bulbs were protesting against it because it was too risky. Again, we return to Puritan logic, albeit less extreme: work hard and be frugal. And the tulip trade went against both ideals.

Luke argues that the tulip is a commodity in that it reflected the period. Again, I disagree. In this case, anything that becomes popular or valuable becomes a commodity. Stocks in the 1920s along with Moon Shoes in the 90s. While many of the commodities we have looked at have had a "fad" period in which they were found everywhere, none of them seemed to have disappeared entirely. They have had some cultural ground to throw roots down it. Mahogany tables are still sought. Sugar, while no longer having a "culture" about it is still used frequently. Even commodities like cochineal have not faded entirely in the sense that cultures still value vivid reds.  

But tulips? They are only known as a product of their adaptive country along with wooden shoes and windmills. Only a symbol, if that. Certainly a commodity no more.