On Zelizer and Weiner

             I really enjoyed Zelizer’s article Do Markets Poison Intimacy? because I feel as though that is a question that much of the American public muddles through, with mixed results.  This article reminds me of Graeber’s book in that it talks of how people have sort of intermingled morality and the economy, or in this article inter-personal relations and the economy.  The individual case examples Zelizer uses, with most occurring during an average college student’s lifetime, highlight the precarious circumstances that love/family/friendship find themselves in when mixed with economic motivation.  The article walks the reader through these examples but eventually leads one to the conclusion that people consistently and constantly navigate intimacy and economic activity without corruption—and they have to.  Though this article refutes claims that money only poisons caring relationships as opposed to strengthening them as well, I still am curious the role money does then have in relationships.  If it can exist in a healthy, loving relationship—then what is it’s role?  It mentioned economic relationships between family, friends, and lovers—and of course each one would be different—but this article for me opens up further questions.  With these relationships always changing in society I imagine it would be near impossible to record, analyze, and publish results before they became obsolete.  I really enjoyed this article, and even already it’s made me start to examine the role of economy in my relationships in ways I hadn’t thought of before.

Weiner’s article I found to be very interesting.  Starting with an account of her career she leads the reader into a discussion of the dominant ideas and theories within anthropology.  She points out that they are not unaffected by their time period during the Enlightenment and she delves into a discussion of the objects that “seemingly stand outside the reciprocity model”. (Weiner, 394).  This article reminded me of the times when I went the museum as a child, and not understanding something historical or cultural significance, wondered why it was in a museum at all.  But eventually as I got older I was able to piece their importance together and realize their value.  The way Weiner related Trobriand Island, African, and Pacific trade to the idea of densities of objects is very thought provoking.  It makes me wonder what objects have these high cultural values in the United States? As well as connects to Zelizer’s article with the question of how do these dense objects fit in with intimacy and relationships?