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?
