DTS403H1S
Final Essay
Simone Thomas
996041545
Narration and Texts
Narratives are important pieces of history. They provide insight to the past. Written narratives offer links that would not have been able to be made. These written texts are part of a story that is passed down from generation to generation. Written texts are objects that symbolize the importance of human agency and the ability to share one’s story. More specifically, the text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave by Mary Prince is an object that forces one to remember and to reflect. This text was given to me from my grandmother, which was given to her by her grandmother.
The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave is a representation of a female slave. Published in 1831, it circulated widely across Britain(Ferguson, 1992). Though the story depicts the life of a slave, Mary Prince, the story is narrated by a member of the anti-slavery society. It was the first narrative of a black woman published in Britain. Once confiding to British abolitionists, Mary Prince receives work and assistance by the anti-slavery society. The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave outlines that emancipation maintains systems of power and control. This text outlines the power dynamics which shaped race, gender, and labor of black enslaved women (Ferguson, 1992). It is part of a narration that recites story of change and development.
The text is recorded during the height of the abolition movement in Britain. This text is shaped by the conditions of production. Thus this text is used a piece or propaganda towards the movement (Ferguson, 1992). The abolitionists constructed it to fit a distinct agenda to share messages or concern and to provide evidence. As mentioned in the introduction of the text, the initial ideas are that of Mary Prince. However every aspect of the text is edited (Carretta,1996). This shows the relationship between power, race, gender, and labor.
This object is part of several cultural processes. This object was sued as part of the British abolition movement in the 19th century. It articulated that “Britain’s mission was to bring to him “the Divine gift” of civilization” (Ferguson, 1992). The abolition movement was used as a tool to civilize enslaved people. The feeds on the idea that slaves were to be taught and constructed. This strengthens the power dynamic between those who are enslaved and within power. “Indeed, by the late nineteenth century, a similar pride in Britain’s civilizing mission would rationalize imperialism” (Ferguson, 1992). This mission allows imperialism to take on a new form. Abolition still allows for discrimination, supremacy, and control to continue. An example of this scheme to civilize others was the conversion to Christianity. “Afro-Briton publications in prose took the form of spiritual autobiographies that trace the transition from pagan beliefs to the Christianity shared with the author’s British readers” (Caretta, 1996). A goal of the abolition movement was to Christianize the enslaved people. Enslaved people who converted to religion were seen as virtuous and civilized. This object had a particular purpose at this point in time.
This object was created with a particular agenda. The abolitionists depict Mary Prince in a certain manner, thus they shape the outcome of the text. Several Evangelical abolitionists present Mary Prince in a very moral fashion. The text is used to uphold her virtue as a female. For instance, Mrs. Pringle states, “We have found her perfectly honest and trustworthy” (Prince, 2000). The abolitionists portray Prince in a well mannered way. Her conversion to Christianity plays a large role in this. As well the abolitionists try to subdue her sexual experiences. This is done to ensure that Mary Prince is seen as a Christian and this worthy of being listened to(Caretta, 1996). These express the “demands made by the emancipation campaign in its intense final stage and the evangelical views of desirable female behavior” (Ferguson, 1992). This shapes the way in which Prince’s narrative is written. Details are changed to reflect this ideology (Caretta, 1996). This text was made to tell a story and to share information about emancipation.
There are several other factors that influence the way that this text is written. For instance there is a shift in power in the British metropole. “The abolition of slavery could strengthen the authority of the government and the state” (Blackburn, 1988). This reshaped those who held power. The text was created out of a political agenda to ensure a hierarchy of control still remained. This also shaped new ideas that were emerging out for this new formed government. “Anti-slavery thought “justified state intervention in regulating the workings of economic contract” (Blackburn, 1988). Abolition was seen as economically feasible. It was believed that was cheaper to use wage labor than slave labor (Blackburn, 1988). These ideas only strengthen notions that a hierarchy of power was to be maintained. Abolition did not call for a revamping of power dynamics.
Despite how emancipation came about “it was produced to reassure planters that emancipation would be accomplished in such a way to ensure to the West Indian estates a continuing supply of labor” (Blackburn, 1988). Abolition would ensure that planters controlled labor. This granted power to control every aspect of a slave’s life. “Schemes for emancipation thus included discussions of ways in which former slaves could be barred from significant land ownership while vagrancy laws penalized attempts to leave the plantation” ( Blackburn, 1988). None of these motives are used to grant liberty to the enslaved. These conditions for abolition constrain the freedoms of the enslaved people. Abolition maintains the existing power structure.
Furthermore, the context in which the text is written is shaped by these factors. “After it had been thus written out, I went over the whole, carefully examining her on every fact and circumstance details” (Prince, 2000). An abolitionist by the name of Mr. Pringle speaks of the authenticity of the text. His introduction reflects the need to represent Mary Prince. Mary Prince can not speak on her behalf. Thus Prince is heard through the voice of the abolitionists (Caretta, 1996). This represents the power dynamics in which she faces. This shaped the ways in which it is recorded. The slave voice can only be heard through the master. It expresses “the limitations on a female’s slaves right to authorship and publication” (Ferguson, 1992). Mary Prince can not write her own narrative. This is due to the fact that she is a woman and because she is a slave. “Slaves could not represent themselves” (Ferguson, 1992). As a black female her voice and concerns could not be heard without the abolitionists. This reiterates the power dynamics in which Mary Prince is facing.
The cover of this text depicts this as well. Mary Prince is on her knees pleading for recognition of her humanity. The abolitionist movement does not change the conditions in which Prince faces (Ferguson, 1992). Prince is discriminated as a woman. Prince is treated defiantly because of her race. Though abolition will end slavery it would not change existing notions or race, gender, and labor. As a black female, Mary Prince would still be positioned at the bottom end of a hierarchy of power (Ferguson, 1992). Prince is still expected to work in relation to a master. As a black female, Prince is expected to work as labor unit for existing power structures. Every aspect of Princes’ life is still controlled with even with abolition (Ferguson, 1992).
This narrative gives insight into the lived experiences of the people of the Caribbean. It is historically significant because it reflects the conditions of the enslaved people based on race, gender and labor. It represents “tales about the silenced living and the silent dead” (Ferguson p. 1992). It reflects the silencing of voices through the power dynamics that shape their every day lives. Most importantly this text represents “the collective movement for black women’s rights that was to be notable absent” (Ferguson, 1992) in the British anti-slavery movement. Emancipation does not end the master slave relationship. It continues with abolition where very aspect of life is controlled.
Abolition marked the end of slavery, while emancipation marked the liberation of slaves. But freedom was something more than solely the two. Once slavery ended, expectations of freedom were expected. As seen in Frederick Douglass, “My Bondage and My Freedom,” these expectations were not fulfilled following liberation. Emancipation did not provide freedom due to social, economic, legal and political obstacles. By examining the stereotypes of the particulars of emancipation, followed by the social, economic, legal, and political disappointments of liberation during and after slavery, the limitations of emancipation were evident.
Frederick Douglas’ text explains how he experienced emancipation by escaping and running away. He joined the abolition movement with very high hopes. As a member of this association he stated, “My acquaintance with the movement increased my hope for the ultimate freedom of my race, and I united with it from a sense of delight, as well as a duty” (Douglas, 2003). Douglass wanted freedom for all slaves. He believed that emancipation could offer this. Likewise Mary prince was associated with the abolitionist movement in Britain. She experienced emancipation by running away from her former masters. Her narrative portrayed a sense of content that came along with her liberation. After living in Britain over a period of twelve months, she explained the lifestyle of ex-slaves in Britain. Prince remarked, “They hire servants in England; and if they don’t like them, they send them away: they can’t lick them,” followed by the statement that “they have their freedom (Prince, 2000).
Mary Prince also depicted the stereotypical life that was expected after emancipation. There was the belief that the slave would become free and could therefore do anything they wanted. This is also seen by the Princes of Calabar. Once brought to England they are treated with much respect (Sparks, 2002). The Robin John brothers attended school, were baptized under the Methodist faith, and were befriended by the elite classes of England. They “spent their time studying scripture and attending preaching,” as well as “they studied gardening and agriculture” (Sparks, 2002). Sparks portrayed the life after emancipation as one without ordeal. The Robin Johns appeared to be pleased with their newfound lives after emancipation. Both Mary Prince and the Princes of Calabar enjoyed their liberty in Britain. Both incidents revealed a happy ending to emancipation. It gave the idea that emancipation provided freedom. This is shown by the blissful tone of the stories of their lives after the end of their hardships in slavery.
But Douglass revealed something different. Emancipation offered Douglass something he did not want or expect. In a letter to Garrison, Douglass wrote, “as to nation, I belong to none. I have no protection at home, or resting-place abroad. The land of my birth welcomes me to her shores as a slave, and spurns with contempt the idea of treating me differently; so that I am an outcast from the society of my childhood, and an outlaw in the land of my birth” (Douglas, 2003). Douglass explained that he was treated as an outcast after his liberation. He was not welcomed in the land that he grew up in or the land where his ancestors were born. It was evident that emancipation allowed slaves to be free of a master, but it did not offer them freedom; for emancipation brought upon many disappointments and limitations (Douglas, 2003). But when black slaves were liberated, risking death or not, they did not experience freedom afterwards. It was evident that emancipation presented many restrictions (Douglas, 2003).
These texts act as informers. They provide knowledge about the experience of emancipated people. These texts discuss the process of emancipation and how it came to be. The texts reveal that black individuals through the Caribbean and the United States encountered some form of limitation on their newfound liberty. Though they went through the process of emancipation, illegally or legally, these individuals did not reach freedom (Douglas, 2003). Frederick Douglass was still in search of freedom. He wrote this piece of literature to break the silence of what emancipation entailed. He wanted to end this illusion that emancipation brought upon absolute happiness. As seen in various parts of the world, emancipation occurred at different times. In Jamaica it occurred in 1838 and in the United States it occurred in 1865 (Douglas, 2003). This emancipation set up a false interpretation for the future lives of the former slaves. The term emancipation imposed a universal freedom set upon all people despite of race. But in reality it took longer for changes to occur (Douglas, 2003). This abrupt emancipation of a people could not change public opinion. Due to the social, economic, legal and political limitations, slaves did not experience freedom immediately after emancipation. Emancipation was supposed to act as a tool to lead the black slaves to freedom. Instead it offered an additional route which opened up new forms of evils (Douglas, 2003). Ultimately racial discrimination was continued to maintain the division between the races and to withhold the black race from attaining freedom.
These texts are part of a memory. It is part of a moment in time, which generates a connection to the past. It had diasporic qualities because it is able to recognize a moment in history that continues to be remembered. These same stories are part of a narrative that formulates meanings for those who use them. These texts are used to recognize, to remember, to understand, and to inform. The way that people interact with this text in the past reflects the way that people interact with this text today. The texts were circulated throughout Britain and the British Empire. They would have been read at meetings amongst abolitionists. After they reached the shores of the United States and spread amongst Abolitionists in North America. These objects circulated to share a message. They had a particular function.
In “Objects, Exchange, Anthropology,” Miller discusses the exchange relations within social life. Transactions are part of our every day lives. People tend to know how to much share or to give with someone else. The properties of exchange “derives from broader cultural structures and premises, from inequalities and asymmetries in rights over people, social groups, and their products” (Miller, 2010). In this case, the exchange of this text was shaped by the social grouping of different people. The inequalities that existed at the time and the power dynamics determined how these transactions were executed. Also, exchanges involve relations that may not be part of the original exchange. The “first exchangeability of this depends on their cultural features and the ways in which it fits in to a society” (Miller, 2010). The texts were produced and published to provide evidence. They highlight the atrocities of slavery. It is a narration of personal suffering. It appeals to the moral judgment of the audience. The texts were written to move people, to make them feel, and to make them want to achieve something.
In similar these meanings are negotiated in new contexts of interaction. A student, a professor, or anybody that picks up this text can read it and is able to connect with it in a similar manner. It generates feeling in someone that reads it. It was made to do so. It is an account of feelings and relationships. It demands for empathy. One can read the text as evidence of moral. Someone can learn to understand the complexities of abolition and emancipation through texts such as these. One can decipher a general sense of plantation structures, relationships, and slave owner dynamics. It explores the physical and emotional abuse of plantations. One can also identify with Mary Prince to learn more about the history of black individuals in Britain. It has a form of intimacy which asserts a form of subjectivity.
Miller begins his article with a discussion about the function of objects. Here function is an aspect of humanity’s adaptation to the environment (Miller, 2010). However Miller argues that there never was a functional society that was solely concerned with the function of things. Instead, the ways objects are produced reflect the complexity and elaboration of a ritual or social distinction (Miller, 2010). One must look at objects with a material culture theory. Objects are framed in a certain context. Generally this frame is not seen and humans are unaware of how that framing can constrain them.
Likewise Mary Prince was framed in a particular manner. Mary Prince dictated her life story to Susanna Strickland, an abolitionist. The preface and the supplement in the text were written by Thomas Pringle. Black slaves were not allowed to write on their behalf. The Christian abolitionists wrote for them. There was little access for literacy for slaves. The ideas come from Mary Prince. Mary Prince sat beside the abolitionist and gave her account. She provided a series of protests to generate discussion and change; however the text is framed and controlled by the abolitionist. The language of the text was in the words of the abolitionists (Carretta, 1996). The abolitionist wrote down what was said and put it into a language that could be understood by the larger public. In addition, the text was edited through the publishing process.
People make things, which represent them or others, but also it is important to see how things make people as well (Thomas, 1991). This text constructs the way people identify. In different spaces people see this text as a memento of the human displacement of thousands of people. In an interview with a University of Toronto student of Afro Caribbean descent, she explains how the text is a reminder of how vast the slave trade was. People moved from region to region. Likewise this text moved from region. It underlines where people were displaced to. The text reached several parts of the African eastern coast, as well as the colonies in the Caribbean. Its route corresponds with the route of the slave trade and the route that ideas about abortion traveled.
This text can convey different meanings with audiences. A scholar can use this text to unravel historical processes, geographical displacements, and political power structures. A student can use this text to learn about the origins of the abolitionist movement and the end of the slave trade. A descendent of someone from the Afro-Caribbean, Afro-American, or Afro-British community can sue this text to be familiar with the history of their diasporic communities and the development of a distinct diasporic community.
Texts such as The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave are part of the identity of a diasporic community. It provides a sort of distinctiveness that generates a uniting element amongst people within this diaspora. Thus one internalizes the meaning of the object. In this way, the object is an actor because it is acting on individuals (Latour, 2007). Objects affect how we perceive and understand things. In an interview with a single mother of Afro-Caribbean descent, she explains why this object really matters. She outlines her relationship with this object. She sates “it is important to know your roots. It is important to understand where you’re from to know where you are going.” An overarching theme that arose across the interviews was the past connections to the present, and also to the future. For one to comprehend the world in which they live today, they must be aware of what went on before to be able to completely and wholeheartedly identify who they are. Mary Prince’s narrative is not just a tale about a slave who was able to share her story with two abolitionists. When a person picks up the text, they are not solely reading a chronicle of events. They are reconnecting with their roots. A familiarization with one’s origin is fundamental to how one identifies oneself and how one identifies within a diasporic community.
Narratives are essential pieces of history. They grant insights to the past. Written narratives present links that would not have been able to be made. These written texts are part of a story that is passed down from generation to generation. The text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave is an object that is part of history. It forces one to remember and to reflect. Though this text was given to me from my grandmother, it has several different meanings and values attached to it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blackburn, Robin. The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776-1848 (London: Verso, 1988), pp. 419-472.
Carretta, Vincent. “Introduction,” in Unchained Voices: An Anthology of Black Authors in the English Speaking World of the Eighteenth Century (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1996).
Douglass, Frederick. My Bondage and My Freedom ed. John David Smith. New York: Penguin Books, 2003
Ferguson, Moira. Subject to Others: British Women Writers and Colonial Slavery, 1670-1834 (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 273-298.
Latour, B. (2007) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. Stuff. London: Polity Press, 2010.
Prince, Mary. The History of Mary Prince: A West Indian Slave, ed. Sara Salih. New York: Penguin Books, 2000 (1831).
Sparks, Randy J. “Two Princes of Calabar: An Atlantic Odyssey From Slavery to dddddddFreedom,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 59, 2002.
Thomas, N. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific, chapter 1, 1991.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Commentaries
March 2 – Migration and Illicity: Qat in Transit
In “Bundles of Choice: Variety and the Creation and manipulation of Kenyan’s Khat’s Values” Carrier observes the value placed on types of miraa. Miraa is transported all over the world. It is priced accordingly in the international market because of its value. The marketing of this product is very complex because it affects the social, cultural, and economic value of the product (Carrier, p. 416). It is legal in Kenya, but is illegal in other countries such as Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. This makes the product even more of a delicacy because it can only be consumed in particular places. This increases the demand for the product.
Carrier takes a minute in his paper to outline what value means. This is critical to understand the relationship between production, consumption, and exchange of any object. Carrier notes that there is ambiguity around an object’s usage, its exchange, and sign values. He mentions that there are several types of values: “aesthetic, commercial, critical, economic, gestural, statuary, strategic, symbolic, tactical and utility” (Carrier, p. 418). But this can make the analysis of any object very difficult. Carrier argues that sources of value cannot be fully understood in a written theory. The material’s qualities also have an impact on the object. In addition, factors such as “trade costs, seasonality, supply and demand, the ability to negotiate, and the risk factors” (Carrier, p. 418) determine the value of the miraa. I agree with Carrier because the value of an object can differ depending on so many different factors. A similar point was made in Appadurai’s article about value. Value can “be highly variable from situation to situation” (Carrier, p. 419).
In Klein’s article “Khat and the creation of tradition in the Somali Diaspora,” he examines the value and status of khat in the United Kingdom. Khat has taken on a new cultural context (Klein, p. 51). It is often believed that Khat has helped maintain a cultural identity outside of the homeland. It is usually seen as a traditional custom despite the laws created against it in several countries; however Klein argues that khat is a false creation of tradition (Klein, p. 58). Klein has generated a very different analysis of diasporic objects. He brings forth the concept of a false memory. He argues that khat is part of a false memory because people do not understand the origins of the object and its consumption pattern (Klein, p. 59). Klein provides ample evidence to show that this consumption did not form until the 1970s. He notes that the historical records reveal that access to the product varied from refugee camps to civil wars. This is very interesting because is sparks a dialogue about the relationship between individuals in a diaspora and a diasporic object. If diasporic objects are exchanged and come to be understood through oral narratives, how does one ensure that the diasporic object reflects the identity of a diasporic community? If it cannot do this, is it still a diasporic object? In addition, there are several campaigns against the use of khat with the Somali community in the UK because of its destructive nature on the body, as well as on the collective community. Do its negative impacts shape the way the diasporic object is perceived and used in a diasporic community?
Questions
1. What is a cultural tradition? Are there boundaries that confine it? How can one tell if an object is part of a tradition?
2. What is the difference between a transnational object, a diasporic object, a cultural object, and a tradition? What factors that can indicate this?
March 9 – Object Diasporas: Museums, Circulation, and Identity Politics
In Catalani’s article “Telling ‘Another’ Story: Western Museums and the Creation of Non-Western Identities,” Catalani argues that an identity can form through collective memories and histories. This is done through the objects within a museum. Catalani defines the terms history and memory. This is great way to start off any paper because she lets the reader know precisely what she wants to look at. She states that both terms coincide with the past. “They can help people engage with their own stories, identity and historical heritage” (Catalani, p. 3). I agree with Catalani because this can be connected to a sense of belonging. Collections in museums can unite dispersed people from all over the world. Catalani makes an interesting point because she highlights the importance of a collective consciousness. The collections do no only reflect an individual. The collections portray collective memories, which is why it is so powerful. It can touch and connect with so many different people. These collections consist of speeches, images, and signs that are displayed in museums (Catalani, p. 4). These objects are ways that people identify with their history and culture.
In “Object Disaporas Resourcing Communities” Basu also looks at the trajectory of material culture. Basu notes how non-western objects in western museums are diasporic. Basu also argues that “objects articulate between and across cultural histories and the cultural zones of others” (Basu, p. 18). It is evident that objects have gone through different flows and power relations over time. This narrates the diasporic nature of object’s cultural history.
Basu sets up his paper to analyze this. He breaks his paper up into different sections to provide more background to the diaspora group that he analyzes. He examines the diaspora’s historical formation and distribution. This is fundamental to nay paper because it provides solid background reading for the reader who does not know much about the specific diaspora. He also conjures up a great thought. He states that “mapping of this diaspora material culture is an ongoing process” (Basu, p. 6). Much truth lies in this because there are still diasporic objects that are yet to be found and identified in museums all over the world. Collections are filled with items that originate elsewhere.
Very similarly, Catalani also recognizes this fault in non-western collections at western museums. They symbolize the colonialism that allowed for these collections to form. Therefore it is important to maintain collaborations between museums and community groups. This allows for communities to form a sense of community. Individuals can define their cultural identity by “reclaiming an intellectual ownership towards the collections in the museum” (Catalani, p. 9). It also creates ties between the local community and the institutionalized museum. Likewise Basu states that these “diasporas of collections of have been the very forced behind the creation and maintenance of new partnerships and collaborations” (Basu, p. 20). The collections bridge the two groups together. They provide new ideas about the collections. This produces networks of exchange.
Questions:
1. Should museums repatriate the collections dispersed all over the world? Should there be compensation?
2. Do museums draw on cultural assumptions of diasporas? How does this shape an exhibition?
March 16- Object Diaporas II: The AGO Maharajah Exhibit
In Thompson’s article, “Slaves to Sculpture” she explores the concept of art. More specifically she examines the portrayal of African art and illustrates that no Africa art exhibit can be neutral (Thompson, p. 38). The art carries different meanings because it can be interpreted in so many different ways. Thompson underscores the problem with African art exhibits: it does not appear to be natural. It seems foreign (Thompson, p. 39). I think this argument can be applied to any form of art, not only African art. Diasporic objects that are displayed as art in any museum are foreign to the setting in which they are in. They are left to reside far away from their homeland. This will always structure the meanings associated with any object in a museum. The meanings that are produced from these objects are controversial because it is always shaped and framed by larger discourses.
In Hilden’s article “Race for Sale” she outlines different problems with the institution of a museum itself. She argues that the practices of museums follow a Universalist tradition despite its efforts to deracialize museum practices (Hilden, p. 12). It takes on a Eurocentric discourse. The other problem that Hilden takes note of is the relationship between diasporic communities and the new approaches taken at museums to deconstruct any obscure practices. She argues that the participation of a diasporic community at a museum (such as the viewing of a diasporic object) is also a form of continuing colonization through its classification of art (Hilden, p. 12). I agree with Hilden because the objects that once were portrayed as primitive artifacts are now portrayed as art based on an aesthetic criterion. But the objects are still defined in European terms. Judgments about what is art and what defines great art are still framed through a Eurocentric lens. A claim continues to be made. An individual that visits the museum is told what art is based on what it displays in its exhibits.
Both articles highlight the importance to examine the agency of a museum. One can ask, “To what extent can museums form relationships between diasporic communities and Diasporic objects?” (Thompson, p. 44). Hence, wow much power does a museum actually have to execute this? This is a great question to ask because it is questioning the very nature of museums and its ability to display culture through art as fact. She is underpinning the concept of a museum and why society has one. Thompson goes on to question can “an institution ever be conceived as a force for change?” (Thompson, p. 39). This is another important question because it challenges the function of museums and its facilitation of representing culture through objects. Museums can bring about change, but only if they abandon Eurocentric discourses that frame the exhibits. Museums tend to replicate the “pattern of post colonial politics” (Thompson, p. 40). Museums often serve the agenda of the museum itself (as an institution), not the people that are represented inside.
Questions:
1. Do objects in museums have their own agency despite the agency of museums to control and frame the meanings and values of its exhibits?
2. How can museums deconstruct Universalist discourses that are deeply embedded in the formation of museums in order to meet the demand and the supply of exhibitions that accurately portray and inform people about different diasporic objects and diasporic identities?
March 23 – Reworked Objects: The Steel Pan
In Dudley’s article “Music from Behind the Bridge: Steelband Aesthetics and Politics in Trinidad and Tobago, he outlines how the Steelpan came out of the prohibition in Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago supplied oil to the US during the war. Oil cans were mass produced and this granted the space to produce the Steelpan. The materiality of this instrument is very interesting. This reveals how objects are always rooted to the land. Diasporic objects have deep connections to when they were made, where they were made, how they were made. Several processes dictate their formation and the trajectory that they take.
Dudley explores how the Steelpan is a symbol. It represents a form of politics that existed in the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago. It positions people in relation to the pan. There is a set of politics in the music and a politics that is embodied in the instrument. The Steelpan is an active participant that has the agency to speak on behalf of a population and still be rendered a valuable space to intellectually analyze the production of identity. The Steelpan is the national instrument of Trinidad and Tobago. It is interesting that an object can be owned by a country. Usually brands or companies are owned by nations, not the actual object (such as a car, or a building, or an appliance). Several countries do not have a national instrument. This is fundamental in diaspora studies because the Steelpan renders that an object takes on a nationalistic identity. Other scholars such as Stephanie Rains, also take on a similar stance. She argues that objects are part of a material culture that has a nationalist function (Rains, p. 52). Likewise the Steelpan functions as a marker of Trinidadian nationalism within the Caribbean and also around the world.
In Walrond’s article, “Steelpan, Caribbean Identity, and Cultural Relevant Adult Programs” she also examines the symbolism of the Steelpan. She sets up her paper with the history of the Steelpan, its function in story telling, its connection to social justice, and its use as a symbol of cultural identity. Walrond does an excellent job of articulating how the Steelpan is used as pedagogy of resistance (Walrond, p. 26). I think her use of pedagogy is critical to the analysis because pedagogy stimulates a discussion over how one comes to explore, interpret, and understand knowledge. In this case it provides awareness about the formation of the Steelpan and how it shaped the social relations within Trinidad and Tobago (Walrond, p. 27). The Steelpan used as a pedagogical tool shifts the way one thinks about teaching. It provides new insight into how objects can be used as instructional aids, which illustrates that multifunctional component of diasporic objects. It also raises awareness about the ways objects can be used to share information. A Steelpan player, when they play the Steelpan, is not only playing notes on an oil canister. It produces a new process of inquiry that we haven’t experienced before. It disrupts traditional patterns of pedagogy, such as narratives of culture and rhetoric about identity.
Question:
1. How are the politics embodied in the Steelpan manifested outside of Trinidad and Tobago? Does a shift in place change or amend the politics centered on this object?
2. Are there other diasporic objects that function as a form of resistance? Is resistance in the homeland or in the host country?
March 30 – Food Stuff: Eating into Identity
In Mannur’s article “Culinary Nostalgia: the Powerful Place food Occupies in our Cultural Imagination” she outlines how food connects people to their homeland. She emphasizes the importance of recreating the tastes of home within the kitchen. She outlines the need to maintain this aspect of one’s heritage. I think her use of the novel, The Namesake provided great insight about the role of food in diasporic communities. The protagonist of the book searches for restaurants that serve foods that she is familiar with. She also searches for shops that would sell the ingredients needed to make her traditional dishes. The protagonist has a yearning for this food. This yearning is not created by physical hunger, but from nostalgia for the homeland.
In Sutton’s article “Whole foods: Revitalization through Everyday Synesthetic Experience” he examines how food is an integral part of the migrant’s experience outside of the homeland. He looks specifically at food that is made within the homeland and is sent to the diasporic community elsewhere. He focuses on the senses to unravel how memories are shaped and formed. Sutton uses the example of traveling smells and tastes to “explain how everyday experiences evoke memories on which identities are formed” (Sutton, p. 121). The tastes and smells of the homeland are not left behind when people move. It is carried with them. These two senses tie into Sutton’s concept of wholeness. Outside of the homeland there is a “lack of fit” (Sutton, p. 122), and a need to maintain a whole that is created by the union of several sensory domains. Certain foods are considered whole because they refresh and revive memories of the homeland and reproduce the diasporic identity.
I think Sutton makes an essential argument. Food provides an idea of memory and an idea of home. Food is always attached to the land (Sutton, p. 123). It is where ingredients are grown, it is where ingredients are cultivated, and it is where these ingredients are manufactured into the products that are used to make food. Certain foods are part of a distinct cuisine in a culture (Sutton, p. 123). Hence food reproduces a diasporic identity. Food that travels from its place of origin provides a space to connect with the homeland because food has a sense of familiarity. Its quality, its ingredients, and its production are all reminders of the homeland.
Both articles highlight that food is a function of social relations. It brings people together because social functions gather around food. Food is at the heart of cultural events and festivities. Food has the function of connecting people within a diasporic community. Hence everybody shares a common understanding of the object. If diasporic groups come from the same point of origin, and are displaced, the meaning attached to the food does not vanish. Everyone will still understanding the meanings attached to the food and how to act in relation to the object. This is because food is a component of one’s identity.
Question:
1. Sutton argues that a returning to the whole requires a mutual tuning in based on shared sensory experiences that are explicitly synesthetic. Is this always the case?
2. What do first hand accounts, such as narratives like The Namesake, provide for diasporic studies, which secondary sources cannot?
In “Bundles of Choice: Variety and the Creation and manipulation of Kenyan’s Khat’s Values” Carrier observes the value placed on types of miraa. Miraa is transported all over the world. It is priced accordingly in the international market because of its value. The marketing of this product is very complex because it affects the social, cultural, and economic value of the product (Carrier, p. 416). It is legal in Kenya, but is illegal in other countries such as Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. This makes the product even more of a delicacy because it can only be consumed in particular places. This increases the demand for the product.
Carrier takes a minute in his paper to outline what value means. This is critical to understand the relationship between production, consumption, and exchange of any object. Carrier notes that there is ambiguity around an object’s usage, its exchange, and sign values. He mentions that there are several types of values: “aesthetic, commercial, critical, economic, gestural, statuary, strategic, symbolic, tactical and utility” (Carrier, p. 418). But this can make the analysis of any object very difficult. Carrier argues that sources of value cannot be fully understood in a written theory. The material’s qualities also have an impact on the object. In addition, factors such as “trade costs, seasonality, supply and demand, the ability to negotiate, and the risk factors” (Carrier, p. 418) determine the value of the miraa. I agree with Carrier because the value of an object can differ depending on so many different factors. A similar point was made in Appadurai’s article about value. Value can “be highly variable from situation to situation” (Carrier, p. 419).
In Klein’s article “Khat and the creation of tradition in the Somali Diaspora,” he examines the value and status of khat in the United Kingdom. Khat has taken on a new cultural context (Klein, p. 51). It is often believed that Khat has helped maintain a cultural identity outside of the homeland. It is usually seen as a traditional custom despite the laws created against it in several countries; however Klein argues that khat is a false creation of tradition (Klein, p. 58). Klein has generated a very different analysis of diasporic objects. He brings forth the concept of a false memory. He argues that khat is part of a false memory because people do not understand the origins of the object and its consumption pattern (Klein, p. 59). Klein provides ample evidence to show that this consumption did not form until the 1970s. He notes that the historical records reveal that access to the product varied from refugee camps to civil wars. This is very interesting because is sparks a dialogue about the relationship between individuals in a diaspora and a diasporic object. If diasporic objects are exchanged and come to be understood through oral narratives, how does one ensure that the diasporic object reflects the identity of a diasporic community? If it cannot do this, is it still a diasporic object? In addition, there are several campaigns against the use of khat with the Somali community in the UK because of its destructive nature on the body, as well as on the collective community. Do its negative impacts shape the way the diasporic object is perceived and used in a diasporic community?
Questions
1. What is a cultural tradition? Are there boundaries that confine it? How can one tell if an object is part of a tradition?
2. What is the difference between a transnational object, a diasporic object, a cultural object, and a tradition? What factors that can indicate this?
March 9 – Object Diasporas: Museums, Circulation, and Identity Politics
In Catalani’s article “Telling ‘Another’ Story: Western Museums and the Creation of Non-Western Identities,” Catalani argues that an identity can form through collective memories and histories. This is done through the objects within a museum. Catalani defines the terms history and memory. This is great way to start off any paper because she lets the reader know precisely what she wants to look at. She states that both terms coincide with the past. “They can help people engage with their own stories, identity and historical heritage” (Catalani, p. 3). I agree with Catalani because this can be connected to a sense of belonging. Collections in museums can unite dispersed people from all over the world. Catalani makes an interesting point because she highlights the importance of a collective consciousness. The collections do no only reflect an individual. The collections portray collective memories, which is why it is so powerful. It can touch and connect with so many different people. These collections consist of speeches, images, and signs that are displayed in museums (Catalani, p. 4). These objects are ways that people identify with their history and culture.
In “Object Disaporas Resourcing Communities” Basu also looks at the trajectory of material culture. Basu notes how non-western objects in western museums are diasporic. Basu also argues that “objects articulate between and across cultural histories and the cultural zones of others” (Basu, p. 18). It is evident that objects have gone through different flows and power relations over time. This narrates the diasporic nature of object’s cultural history.
Basu sets up his paper to analyze this. He breaks his paper up into different sections to provide more background to the diaspora group that he analyzes. He examines the diaspora’s historical formation and distribution. This is fundamental to nay paper because it provides solid background reading for the reader who does not know much about the specific diaspora. He also conjures up a great thought. He states that “mapping of this diaspora material culture is an ongoing process” (Basu, p. 6). Much truth lies in this because there are still diasporic objects that are yet to be found and identified in museums all over the world. Collections are filled with items that originate elsewhere.
Very similarly, Catalani also recognizes this fault in non-western collections at western museums. They symbolize the colonialism that allowed for these collections to form. Therefore it is important to maintain collaborations between museums and community groups. This allows for communities to form a sense of community. Individuals can define their cultural identity by “reclaiming an intellectual ownership towards the collections in the museum” (Catalani, p. 9). It also creates ties between the local community and the institutionalized museum. Likewise Basu states that these “diasporas of collections of have been the very forced behind the creation and maintenance of new partnerships and collaborations” (Basu, p. 20). The collections bridge the two groups together. They provide new ideas about the collections. This produces networks of exchange.
Questions:
1. Should museums repatriate the collections dispersed all over the world? Should there be compensation?
2. Do museums draw on cultural assumptions of diasporas? How does this shape an exhibition?
March 16- Object Diaporas II: The AGO Maharajah Exhibit
In Thompson’s article, “Slaves to Sculpture” she explores the concept of art. More specifically she examines the portrayal of African art and illustrates that no Africa art exhibit can be neutral (Thompson, p. 38). The art carries different meanings because it can be interpreted in so many different ways. Thompson underscores the problem with African art exhibits: it does not appear to be natural. It seems foreign (Thompson, p. 39). I think this argument can be applied to any form of art, not only African art. Diasporic objects that are displayed as art in any museum are foreign to the setting in which they are in. They are left to reside far away from their homeland. This will always structure the meanings associated with any object in a museum. The meanings that are produced from these objects are controversial because it is always shaped and framed by larger discourses.
In Hilden’s article “Race for Sale” she outlines different problems with the institution of a museum itself. She argues that the practices of museums follow a Universalist tradition despite its efforts to deracialize museum practices (Hilden, p. 12). It takes on a Eurocentric discourse. The other problem that Hilden takes note of is the relationship between diasporic communities and the new approaches taken at museums to deconstruct any obscure practices. She argues that the participation of a diasporic community at a museum (such as the viewing of a diasporic object) is also a form of continuing colonization through its classification of art (Hilden, p. 12). I agree with Hilden because the objects that once were portrayed as primitive artifacts are now portrayed as art based on an aesthetic criterion. But the objects are still defined in European terms. Judgments about what is art and what defines great art are still framed through a Eurocentric lens. A claim continues to be made. An individual that visits the museum is told what art is based on what it displays in its exhibits.
Both articles highlight the importance to examine the agency of a museum. One can ask, “To what extent can museums form relationships between diasporic communities and Diasporic objects?” (Thompson, p. 44). Hence, wow much power does a museum actually have to execute this? This is a great question to ask because it is questioning the very nature of museums and its ability to display culture through art as fact. She is underpinning the concept of a museum and why society has one. Thompson goes on to question can “an institution ever be conceived as a force for change?” (Thompson, p. 39). This is another important question because it challenges the function of museums and its facilitation of representing culture through objects. Museums can bring about change, but only if they abandon Eurocentric discourses that frame the exhibits. Museums tend to replicate the “pattern of post colonial politics” (Thompson, p. 40). Museums often serve the agenda of the museum itself (as an institution), not the people that are represented inside.
Questions:
1. Do objects in museums have their own agency despite the agency of museums to control and frame the meanings and values of its exhibits?
2. How can museums deconstruct Universalist discourses that are deeply embedded in the formation of museums in order to meet the demand and the supply of exhibitions that accurately portray and inform people about different diasporic objects and diasporic identities?
March 23 – Reworked Objects: The Steel Pan
In Dudley’s article “Music from Behind the Bridge: Steelband Aesthetics and Politics in Trinidad and Tobago, he outlines how the Steelpan came out of the prohibition in Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago supplied oil to the US during the war. Oil cans were mass produced and this granted the space to produce the Steelpan. The materiality of this instrument is very interesting. This reveals how objects are always rooted to the land. Diasporic objects have deep connections to when they were made, where they were made, how they were made. Several processes dictate their formation and the trajectory that they take.
Dudley explores how the Steelpan is a symbol. It represents a form of politics that existed in the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago. It positions people in relation to the pan. There is a set of politics in the music and a politics that is embodied in the instrument. The Steelpan is an active participant that has the agency to speak on behalf of a population and still be rendered a valuable space to intellectually analyze the production of identity. The Steelpan is the national instrument of Trinidad and Tobago. It is interesting that an object can be owned by a country. Usually brands or companies are owned by nations, not the actual object (such as a car, or a building, or an appliance). Several countries do not have a national instrument. This is fundamental in diaspora studies because the Steelpan renders that an object takes on a nationalistic identity. Other scholars such as Stephanie Rains, also take on a similar stance. She argues that objects are part of a material culture that has a nationalist function (Rains, p. 52). Likewise the Steelpan functions as a marker of Trinidadian nationalism within the Caribbean and also around the world.
In Walrond’s article, “Steelpan, Caribbean Identity, and Cultural Relevant Adult Programs” she also examines the symbolism of the Steelpan. She sets up her paper with the history of the Steelpan, its function in story telling, its connection to social justice, and its use as a symbol of cultural identity. Walrond does an excellent job of articulating how the Steelpan is used as pedagogy of resistance (Walrond, p. 26). I think her use of pedagogy is critical to the analysis because pedagogy stimulates a discussion over how one comes to explore, interpret, and understand knowledge. In this case it provides awareness about the formation of the Steelpan and how it shaped the social relations within Trinidad and Tobago (Walrond, p. 27). The Steelpan used as a pedagogical tool shifts the way one thinks about teaching. It provides new insight into how objects can be used as instructional aids, which illustrates that multifunctional component of diasporic objects. It also raises awareness about the ways objects can be used to share information. A Steelpan player, when they play the Steelpan, is not only playing notes on an oil canister. It produces a new process of inquiry that we haven’t experienced before. It disrupts traditional patterns of pedagogy, such as narratives of culture and rhetoric about identity.
Question:
1. How are the politics embodied in the Steelpan manifested outside of Trinidad and Tobago? Does a shift in place change or amend the politics centered on this object?
2. Are there other diasporic objects that function as a form of resistance? Is resistance in the homeland or in the host country?
March 30 – Food Stuff: Eating into Identity
In Mannur’s article “Culinary Nostalgia: the Powerful Place food Occupies in our Cultural Imagination” she outlines how food connects people to their homeland. She emphasizes the importance of recreating the tastes of home within the kitchen. She outlines the need to maintain this aspect of one’s heritage. I think her use of the novel, The Namesake provided great insight about the role of food in diasporic communities. The protagonist of the book searches for restaurants that serve foods that she is familiar with. She also searches for shops that would sell the ingredients needed to make her traditional dishes. The protagonist has a yearning for this food. This yearning is not created by physical hunger, but from nostalgia for the homeland.
In Sutton’s article “Whole foods: Revitalization through Everyday Synesthetic Experience” he examines how food is an integral part of the migrant’s experience outside of the homeland. He looks specifically at food that is made within the homeland and is sent to the diasporic community elsewhere. He focuses on the senses to unravel how memories are shaped and formed. Sutton uses the example of traveling smells and tastes to “explain how everyday experiences evoke memories on which identities are formed” (Sutton, p. 121). The tastes and smells of the homeland are not left behind when people move. It is carried with them. These two senses tie into Sutton’s concept of wholeness. Outside of the homeland there is a “lack of fit” (Sutton, p. 122), and a need to maintain a whole that is created by the union of several sensory domains. Certain foods are considered whole because they refresh and revive memories of the homeland and reproduce the diasporic identity.
I think Sutton makes an essential argument. Food provides an idea of memory and an idea of home. Food is always attached to the land (Sutton, p. 123). It is where ingredients are grown, it is where ingredients are cultivated, and it is where these ingredients are manufactured into the products that are used to make food. Certain foods are part of a distinct cuisine in a culture (Sutton, p. 123). Hence food reproduces a diasporic identity. Food that travels from its place of origin provides a space to connect with the homeland because food has a sense of familiarity. Its quality, its ingredients, and its production are all reminders of the homeland.
Both articles highlight that food is a function of social relations. It brings people together because social functions gather around food. Food is at the heart of cultural events and festivities. Food has the function of connecting people within a diasporic community. Hence everybody shares a common understanding of the object. If diasporic groups come from the same point of origin, and are displaced, the meaning attached to the food does not vanish. Everyone will still understanding the meanings attached to the food and how to act in relation to the object. This is because food is a component of one’s identity.
Question:
1. Sutton argues that a returning to the whole requires a mutual tuning in based on shared sensory experiences that are explicitly synesthetic. Is this always the case?
2. What do first hand accounts, such as narratives like The Namesake, provide for diasporic studies, which secondary sources cannot?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Development Tasks and Commentaries
Task A Object Description
The text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave was the first narrative of a black women to be published in Britain. It is a text about a female slave in Bermuda. Mary Prince married a free man and was able to move to England. In England she met a group of British Christian abolitionists. She shared her life story with them. Mr. and Mrs. Pringle inscribed the life story of Mary Prince. The text consists of a preface, a narrative by Mary Prince, a supplement to this narrative, and four appendixes. It was written by the abolitionists and it was later published in 1831.
The original text would have consisted of scribbles of thoughts and accounts on pieces of paper. This included just the narration of Mary Prince. Then the abolitionists drafted an introduction, a supplement, as well as appendixes to provide support for Prince’s narrative. This would have consisted of a booklet. At the publishing company the text would have been binded in book form so that it was easier to distribute it to different sources. The text was first published in England. Today, it is published at various publishing companies. It is printed in both hardcopy and paperback. It is priced at 10-20$ Canadian.
Task B Object Historical Context
The owners of the text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave were two abolitionist by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Pringle. They wrote down the story of Mary prince, edited it, and published it. The book was originally owned by British abolitionists. It was sold to various people who were interested in the concept of abolition. It was read at abolition meetings and public speeches in Britain. Over time the text became a popular source to cite the cruelties of slavery. It was used to destroy slavery and to bring forth a new system of labor.
This object has switched owners several times. It has traveled to various parts of Europe, Africa, North America, and the Caribbean. It is difficult to track the exact places that the text reached because multiple copies were made and the copies were exchanged through friends, family members, and acquaintances. Also there was opposition to the text, so places that appear not to have a strong abolitionist stance, may secretly have access to these types of texts.
Over time, the ownership has crossed through the hands of many people. The text has been mass produced and sold at various book stores around the world. The contemporary copy was published in 2000. Like in the past, the text is used to enlighten and share knowledge about the experiences of slaves in the British Empire. Its current use is shaped by how it was used in the past. The text is now studied by scholars and students interested in colonial history, political geography, and diaspora studies. An interaction with this text provides a connection to the past through narration.
Task C Object Social/Cultural Context
The text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave was shaped by social, cultural, and political processes. It was used as a form of propaganda for Christian British abolitionists in the 19th century. It was used as proof to reveal the hardships of slavery. The text was written prior to the end of slavery. It was one of the instruments that helped spread the abolition movement to different parts of the British Empire, as well as to other empires that maintained the system of forced labor.
In the 19th century, there were different uses for the text. The abolitionists used the text a tool to gain support for their cause. They edited the text so that is supported their ideals. They also got the text published and circulated across Britain. For the black slaves, the text is used as a space to have their voices heard. It was used as a source of empowerment. In the 21st century, the text is used to link the present to the past. It is used by people within Afro-Caribbean, Afro-American, and Afro-British diasporas to remember and to understand one’s roots and origins.
It can convey different meanings depending on one’s positionality. It can create a form of intimacy or it can provide a memory. It can provide new insight or reinforce ideas about one’s identity. The meaning of this object differs amongst different audiences depending on how is used and what it is used for.
Task D Research Question
How is the narrated text, The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave created in light of social and political processes in Britain during the 19th century? What function does this text have during the 19th century and does this function differ over time? How do different audiences experience or relate differently to the text over time?
February 2 – Object Theory II: Positioning Objects
Miller begins his article with a discussion about the function of objects. Here function is an aspect of humanity’s adjustment to the built environment (Miller, p. 45). Humans use and experience objects in relation to the environment that they are in. Miller goes on to argue that there never was a functional society that was solely concerned with the function of things. Instead, the ways objects are produced reflect the complexity and elaboration of a ritual or social distinction (Miller, p. 48). Miller provides a valid point in that objects are not only important because of what they are used for or how they are used. Function is just one aspect of an object. In the words of Miller, one must look at objects with a material culture theory. All objects are part of a larger set of processes that are occurring. They are framed in a certain context. Generally this frame is not seen and humans are unaware of how that framing can constrain them.
In “Objects, Exchange, Anthropology,” Thomas discusses the various exchanges that one encounters throughout life. People tend to recognize how much to exchange with others. This comes out of practice and routine. Thomas explains that the properties of exchange “derives from broader cultural structures and premises, from inequalities and asymmetries in rights over people, social groups, and their products” (Thomas, p. 8). Thomas raises an excellent point about how exchanges can involve relations that may not be part of the original exchange. Something that is passed down from generation to generation will take one a new trajectory and meaning when it is traded to a new person. Politics of power and control shape these transactions that could be balanced or unbalanced. The exchangeability of an object this depends on their cultural features and the ways in which it fits in to a society.
In “Theories of Things,” Miller explores the creation of objects. He argues that humans create objects that represent themselves. Millers explains how this is a relational association. Objects can also create people. This is an important point because objects shape the way we perceive things and come to understand the meaning and value to certain things. We place certain meanings and values on an object. At the same time, objects shape how we distinguish these meanings and values. These meanings and values can change over time and across distances. Objects take on different trajectories depending on where they are exchanged. In “Objects, Exchange, Anthropology,” Thomas discusses the various exchanges that one encounters throughout life. People tend to recognize how much to exchange with others. This comes out of practice and routine. It is also shape by how we create the object, what values we place on the object, and how the object functions within out society. The object is then a vital aspect within our lives. It situates itself to a position of influence, where the object is able to shape how we experience the object and the meanings that the object bestows on us.
Question:
1. Do you think that there never was a functional society that was solely concerned with the function of things? Can one view objects without analyzing its functions. Can objects exist without a function?
2. Are all objects framed within a certain context? Does faming actually constrain humans? Can you think of an example where humans are aware of this framing?
February 9 – Object Theory III: Enacting Objects
Latour discusses how to reassemble the social aspect of objects. He describes the actor-network theory. He indicates that objects are part of larger networks. They provide a type of performance because they are actors. Objects are constantly acting upon humans, as well as other objects. Latour looks at how scientific method claims neutrality when looking at social processes of different objects.
Latour highlights a decisive point. You can not use social to explain all things. You must explain the social in relation to humans. One must try to decide what the social becomes. Objects can represent social ties and associations, but only in relation to humans. These can be put into effect and followed covertly. I agree with Latour because one must figure out how objects become institutionalized and how power is connected to the object. One can not ignore the dynamic of power. One must critique objects as actors and actants. One must see what is acting upon what, and what is being acted upon. This is necessary because power relations are not equal. We do not live in a symmetrical or balanced world.
Latour argues that objects have agency. This is a relational quality since objects are actors; however this can get really complicated. What happens to intentionality with agency? Intent relies on the human. Their positionality shapes the way they read, interpret, and evaluate an object. An object does not have intent. This article generated several thoughts into my mind. I wondered about the properties of these actors. Were the actors conscious of their meanings, values, and actions? Or are objects incapable of this? Can only humans become self aware moral actors? This gets complicated because agency does not require intent, whether it is good or bad. People can act based on their choices, opinions, and morals. But for objects, as an actor, it can create an effect. This is because humans rely so heavily on the objects. They take them for granted and so, the objects affect what we do.
Questions:
1. Can objects have agency without human intervention?
2. How does free will change the relationship between intentionality and agency?
February 16- Objects and Nostalgic Practice: Souvenirs, Mementos, and Heirlooms
In “Celtic Kitsch: Irish-American and Irish Material Culture” Rains explains how she visits different sites and collects souvenirs, mementos, and heirlooms. She sees these as cultural symbols. She analyzes Irish American consumption and commodities. She argues that these symbolic objects are loaded with elements of nationalism. Rain argues that the function of these objects is to represent a nationalistic identity. There is some truth to this. Within a diasporic group, mementos and heirlooms are circulated from one generation to the next. When they leave the homeland, they can be viewed as symbols of a distinct culture.
Rains explores the processes of mass-production and global distribution, to underpin how these objects travel with the intent of sharing a particular identity. I think Rains should have elaborated more on this point. The ways in which objects are exchanged across space, its availability, and how it is marketed is fundamental to how objects are portrayed to the rest of the world. In “Mementos as Transitional Objects in Human Displacement” Parkin does a better job of connecting larger processes to his research. He “emphasizes the inevitability of society and social process” (Parkin, p. 305). Parkin focuses in on displacement. He argues that people carry memories of the homeland with them. These act in the forms of objects. Humans are able to create an emotional relationship to the object. The mementos that are taken by people in flight articulate something about the individual. Parkin makes an insightful point because sometimes during flight, people flee with little or none of their things. Sometimes mementos are all that they have. It is the only memory they have of their home and previous way of life.
This can be referred to as material culture. Cultures are produced and reproduced by the objects that represent them. The objects, because they originate in the homeland, they represent the true authenticity of the culture and the nation. I agree with Rains on this point because the objects are performing a type of identity; however Parkin provides an opposing view though. He states that it depends on the person’s selfhood. A person can formulate a new identity in places that promote individual autonomy (Parkin, p. 318). The formation of a new identity is more difficult when this is not granted. It depends on the place that one resides. One may not always be able to perform their identity. An individual may be forced to assimilate in some way.
This can also be related to the relationship between the body and the mind. People that are forcibly displaced carry transitional objects with them. These objects carry their cultural knowledge, and some aspect of their identity. People become so connected to them that they are reobjectifed by the objects (Parkin, p. 315). This reveals the power of objects and the extent that they act upon humans.
Questions:
1. Can a transitional object lose its national identity? If so, how does this happen?
2. If someone carries a memory, that memory acts as an object. How is this object exchanged with younger generations? Does this object lose its integrity because it can only be fully comprehended by the person who has this distinct memory of the past?
The text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave was the first narrative of a black women to be published in Britain. It is a text about a female slave in Bermuda. Mary Prince married a free man and was able to move to England. In England she met a group of British Christian abolitionists. She shared her life story with them. Mr. and Mrs. Pringle inscribed the life story of Mary Prince. The text consists of a preface, a narrative by Mary Prince, a supplement to this narrative, and four appendixes. It was written by the abolitionists and it was later published in 1831.
The original text would have consisted of scribbles of thoughts and accounts on pieces of paper. This included just the narration of Mary Prince. Then the abolitionists drafted an introduction, a supplement, as well as appendixes to provide support for Prince’s narrative. This would have consisted of a booklet. At the publishing company the text would have been binded in book form so that it was easier to distribute it to different sources. The text was first published in England. Today, it is published at various publishing companies. It is printed in both hardcopy and paperback. It is priced at 10-20$ Canadian.
Task B Object Historical Context
The owners of the text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave were two abolitionist by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Pringle. They wrote down the story of Mary prince, edited it, and published it. The book was originally owned by British abolitionists. It was sold to various people who were interested in the concept of abolition. It was read at abolition meetings and public speeches in Britain. Over time the text became a popular source to cite the cruelties of slavery. It was used to destroy slavery and to bring forth a new system of labor.
This object has switched owners several times. It has traveled to various parts of Europe, Africa, North America, and the Caribbean. It is difficult to track the exact places that the text reached because multiple copies were made and the copies were exchanged through friends, family members, and acquaintances. Also there was opposition to the text, so places that appear not to have a strong abolitionist stance, may secretly have access to these types of texts.
Over time, the ownership has crossed through the hands of many people. The text has been mass produced and sold at various book stores around the world. The contemporary copy was published in 2000. Like in the past, the text is used to enlighten and share knowledge about the experiences of slaves in the British Empire. Its current use is shaped by how it was used in the past. The text is now studied by scholars and students interested in colonial history, political geography, and diaspora studies. An interaction with this text provides a connection to the past through narration.
Task C Object Social/Cultural Context
The text The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave was shaped by social, cultural, and political processes. It was used as a form of propaganda for Christian British abolitionists in the 19th century. It was used as proof to reveal the hardships of slavery. The text was written prior to the end of slavery. It was one of the instruments that helped spread the abolition movement to different parts of the British Empire, as well as to other empires that maintained the system of forced labor.
In the 19th century, there were different uses for the text. The abolitionists used the text a tool to gain support for their cause. They edited the text so that is supported their ideals. They also got the text published and circulated across Britain. For the black slaves, the text is used as a space to have their voices heard. It was used as a source of empowerment. In the 21st century, the text is used to link the present to the past. It is used by people within Afro-Caribbean, Afro-American, and Afro-British diasporas to remember and to understand one’s roots and origins.
It can convey different meanings depending on one’s positionality. It can create a form of intimacy or it can provide a memory. It can provide new insight or reinforce ideas about one’s identity. The meaning of this object differs amongst different audiences depending on how is used and what it is used for.
Task D Research Question
How is the narrated text, The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave created in light of social and political processes in Britain during the 19th century? What function does this text have during the 19th century and does this function differ over time? How do different audiences experience or relate differently to the text over time?
February 2 – Object Theory II: Positioning Objects
Miller begins his article with a discussion about the function of objects. Here function is an aspect of humanity’s adjustment to the built environment (Miller, p. 45). Humans use and experience objects in relation to the environment that they are in. Miller goes on to argue that there never was a functional society that was solely concerned with the function of things. Instead, the ways objects are produced reflect the complexity and elaboration of a ritual or social distinction (Miller, p. 48). Miller provides a valid point in that objects are not only important because of what they are used for or how they are used. Function is just one aspect of an object. In the words of Miller, one must look at objects with a material culture theory. All objects are part of a larger set of processes that are occurring. They are framed in a certain context. Generally this frame is not seen and humans are unaware of how that framing can constrain them.
In “Objects, Exchange, Anthropology,” Thomas discusses the various exchanges that one encounters throughout life. People tend to recognize how much to exchange with others. This comes out of practice and routine. Thomas explains that the properties of exchange “derives from broader cultural structures and premises, from inequalities and asymmetries in rights over people, social groups, and their products” (Thomas, p. 8). Thomas raises an excellent point about how exchanges can involve relations that may not be part of the original exchange. Something that is passed down from generation to generation will take one a new trajectory and meaning when it is traded to a new person. Politics of power and control shape these transactions that could be balanced or unbalanced. The exchangeability of an object this depends on their cultural features and the ways in which it fits in to a society.
In “Theories of Things,” Miller explores the creation of objects. He argues that humans create objects that represent themselves. Millers explains how this is a relational association. Objects can also create people. This is an important point because objects shape the way we perceive things and come to understand the meaning and value to certain things. We place certain meanings and values on an object. At the same time, objects shape how we distinguish these meanings and values. These meanings and values can change over time and across distances. Objects take on different trajectories depending on where they are exchanged. In “Objects, Exchange, Anthropology,” Thomas discusses the various exchanges that one encounters throughout life. People tend to recognize how much to exchange with others. This comes out of practice and routine. It is also shape by how we create the object, what values we place on the object, and how the object functions within out society. The object is then a vital aspect within our lives. It situates itself to a position of influence, where the object is able to shape how we experience the object and the meanings that the object bestows on us.
Question:
1. Do you think that there never was a functional society that was solely concerned with the function of things? Can one view objects without analyzing its functions. Can objects exist without a function?
2. Are all objects framed within a certain context? Does faming actually constrain humans? Can you think of an example where humans are aware of this framing?
February 9 – Object Theory III: Enacting Objects
Latour discusses how to reassemble the social aspect of objects. He describes the actor-network theory. He indicates that objects are part of larger networks. They provide a type of performance because they are actors. Objects are constantly acting upon humans, as well as other objects. Latour looks at how scientific method claims neutrality when looking at social processes of different objects.
Latour highlights a decisive point. You can not use social to explain all things. You must explain the social in relation to humans. One must try to decide what the social becomes. Objects can represent social ties and associations, but only in relation to humans. These can be put into effect and followed covertly. I agree with Latour because one must figure out how objects become institutionalized and how power is connected to the object. One can not ignore the dynamic of power. One must critique objects as actors and actants. One must see what is acting upon what, and what is being acted upon. This is necessary because power relations are not equal. We do not live in a symmetrical or balanced world.
Latour argues that objects have agency. This is a relational quality since objects are actors; however this can get really complicated. What happens to intentionality with agency? Intent relies on the human. Their positionality shapes the way they read, interpret, and evaluate an object. An object does not have intent. This article generated several thoughts into my mind. I wondered about the properties of these actors. Were the actors conscious of their meanings, values, and actions? Or are objects incapable of this? Can only humans become self aware moral actors? This gets complicated because agency does not require intent, whether it is good or bad. People can act based on their choices, opinions, and morals. But for objects, as an actor, it can create an effect. This is because humans rely so heavily on the objects. They take them for granted and so, the objects affect what we do.
Questions:
1. Can objects have agency without human intervention?
2. How does free will change the relationship between intentionality and agency?
February 16- Objects and Nostalgic Practice: Souvenirs, Mementos, and Heirlooms
In “Celtic Kitsch: Irish-American and Irish Material Culture” Rains explains how she visits different sites and collects souvenirs, mementos, and heirlooms. She sees these as cultural symbols. She analyzes Irish American consumption and commodities. She argues that these symbolic objects are loaded with elements of nationalism. Rain argues that the function of these objects is to represent a nationalistic identity. There is some truth to this. Within a diasporic group, mementos and heirlooms are circulated from one generation to the next. When they leave the homeland, they can be viewed as symbols of a distinct culture.
Rains explores the processes of mass-production and global distribution, to underpin how these objects travel with the intent of sharing a particular identity. I think Rains should have elaborated more on this point. The ways in which objects are exchanged across space, its availability, and how it is marketed is fundamental to how objects are portrayed to the rest of the world. In “Mementos as Transitional Objects in Human Displacement” Parkin does a better job of connecting larger processes to his research. He “emphasizes the inevitability of society and social process” (Parkin, p. 305). Parkin focuses in on displacement. He argues that people carry memories of the homeland with them. These act in the forms of objects. Humans are able to create an emotional relationship to the object. The mementos that are taken by people in flight articulate something about the individual. Parkin makes an insightful point because sometimes during flight, people flee with little or none of their things. Sometimes mementos are all that they have. It is the only memory they have of their home and previous way of life.
This can be referred to as material culture. Cultures are produced and reproduced by the objects that represent them. The objects, because they originate in the homeland, they represent the true authenticity of the culture and the nation. I agree with Rains on this point because the objects are performing a type of identity; however Parkin provides an opposing view though. He states that it depends on the person’s selfhood. A person can formulate a new identity in places that promote individual autonomy (Parkin, p. 318). The formation of a new identity is more difficult when this is not granted. It depends on the place that one resides. One may not always be able to perform their identity. An individual may be forced to assimilate in some way.
This can also be related to the relationship between the body and the mind. People that are forcibly displaced carry transitional objects with them. These objects carry their cultural knowledge, and some aspect of their identity. People become so connected to them that they are reobjectifed by the objects (Parkin, p. 315). This reveals the power of objects and the extent that they act upon humans.
Questions:
1. Can a transitional object lose its national identity? If so, how does this happen?
2. If someone carries a memory, that memory acts as an object. How is this object exchanged with younger generations? Does this object lose its integrity because it can only be fully comprehended by the person who has this distinct memory of the past?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)