More and Less of Value

Zelizer’s article is interesting to consider trying to redefine exchange outside of social mores like avarice and infidelity. I found Feinberg’s 9/11 donations as attempting to fulfill this need by money, but interesting to hear request for public recognition as sufficient outside monetary value. If human death does not satisfy by gains for material comfort, how does public remembrance relieve some of this loss?

Weiner’s conclusion argues that analysis alone is not enough in indigenous cultures of Samoan mats and Massim shells, but must account for other areas of social object symbolism. Different models of exchange that signify prestige of owner can explain withholding specific objects from trade,Yet I wonder how these indigenous societies extend recognizing areas of pride differently than prestige?

These articles seems to illuminate needs which become overemphasized in Zelizer’s consumerist or carnal greed and Weiner’s under-recognized retention of prestige carrying objects. These social values in certain material culture represent more than what is physically lost, but resolve into internal gains that are etically different. If external satisfaction by material exchange differs in relation to internal meaning of sustenance, does any definition of economic exchange adequately bridge these tensions?