Week 5: Inalienable Possessions and the Density of Objects
What does Annette Weiner define as "inalienable possessions"? What makes different kinds of objects of value more or less "inalienable" or "dense"? How is the value of such objects tied to different social rank, for women and/or men?
Weiner describes inalienable possessions to be regarded as objects that more or less cannot be removed from a group, such as the elite of a society. The inalienable objects become less ‘inalienable’ when they are easily found or produced or are able to be replicated or copied; here Weiner provides shells as an example, where a shell can easily be replaced by one similar. On the other hand, an item is dense when it carries value to the given culture or group. While a entire group might not agree on a particular items worth, sometimes a subgroup of that culture, such as a family or lineage can in the case of an item such as an heirloom. On this topic, Wiener provides an example where a set of tapestries passed through a family’s many generations for four hundred years are highly valued and dense to that lineage, but might not carry the same density to someone outside the lineage (such as the wife of the son who possess the objects). Inalienable objects are often not exchanged as often as the more alienable objects because the do not carry the same weight. Weiner explains that one mush thoughtfully consider whom to give the object to as it plays a role more significant than the mere superficial level. Further, the items will differentiate between men and women, where Weiner describes how women are often involved in the making of textiles and tapestries in a given culture, and among those women, expensive, “dense” mats circulate.
inalienable possessions are objects that hold prestigious value due to the owner's hierarchal status. The object is usually passed down the generations within a family which in tale, keeps its value high or may even strengthen the value of the object. The value of the object can be less dense when for instance, when a rug from a passed monarch enters the market, it starts to depreciate when less elite members of society are circulating the object. If the object is no longer hard to find the value depreciates. In some societies women are ranked high on the social chain because they are the souls that produce such fine cloth materials. The older fabrics were considered to be more dense and therefore a women's rank would increase based on the quality and age of a rug.
Inalienable possessions are possessions that should be kept in close content of family, clan and dynasty. They are possessions that are extremely dense with cultural meanings and the density of such objects occurs due to the association with its owner’s fame and ancestral history. It is not a common object and that object is kept out of exchange like the Kula, the most symbolically dense shells are known as “Chiefly shells”. Wiener uses another example of symbolically densely object like the Japanese sacred clothing made from bark fibers during installation. I do share Wiener's thoughts that a newly magnificent silks can be used but instead due to the symbolic value placed on the object, it is completely irreplaceable. On the other hand, less dense objects are objects that are exchangeable in terms of the value of their exchangeability. She used an example of a monarch’s crown, thus while one monarch’s crown was so densely due to the ancestral history and owner’s fame, others are not. Wiener discussed that objects limits or expands the power, status and hierarchy of men and women and, women who made clothing from old textiles had power. Therefore objects expands their status and hierarchy.
An object is dense if there is a lot of history behind it. Where did it come from? Who owned it? How old is it? There is a rich history of the item. Inalienable possessions are things that are passed down in families, clans and dynasties because of their history. Inalienable possessions are dense, but have a specific group which they should ideally stay in. Each of the objects have a certain "value." They also represent a certain social ranking within a group. The denser the object, the more power a person has. Depending on the society, women can also have political rank. It a woman were to obtain a mat of high density (just like if a man were to have shells of high density) it would mean her rank is higher than those who either do not have mats, or have mats that are not as dense.
According to Annette Weiner, inalienable objects are those that are kept out of exchange markets with non-personal entities involved. This is done so as not to tarnish the value of the object(s), no matter their composition. Many facets go into the worth of these objects, causing them to be dense in meaning where they may lack in material (market) worth. For example, many of the artifacts found in museums are, quite frankly, worthless materialistically on any and all markets -- WITHOUT the history associated with them. When does a piece of paper with some ink scribbled on it surpass market price in its worth? When the letter was written by a famous statesman or celebrity. Each object in the world has worth associated with it in some form, whether expressed on a macro-level (like artifacts in a museum have worth to the entire community/world because of the history associated with them) or a micro-level (like small, family heirlooms that seem worthless to the outside world, but holds value to the family it is being passed through). Inalienable objects have dense histories tied to them, and typically stay in a certain lineage of people/entities (i.e. groups of people/museums). In the Trobriand region, Kula gifts will be kept out of exchange markets because of their perceived worth. Weiner cites this example by stating that the largest Kula rings are kept for chiefly purposed, sometimes pulled from exchange for 2-4 decades. These possessions keep their worth precisely because they are kept out of exchange for so long, and only passed through the Kula elite (strengthening a social stratification).
Weiner describes inalienable possessions to be regarded as objects that more or less cannot be removed from a group, such as the elite of a society. The inalienable objects become less ‘inalienable’ when they are easily found or produced or are able to be replicated or copied; here Weiner provides shells as an example, where a shell can easily be replaced by one similar. On the other hand, an item is dense when it carries value to the given culture or group. While a entire group might not agree on a particular items worth, sometimes a subgroup of that culture, such as a family or lineage can in the case of an item such as an heirloom. On this topic, Wiener provides an example where a set of tapestries passed through a family’s many generations for four hundred years are highly valued and dense to that lineage, but might not carry the same density to someone outside the lineage (such as the wife of the son who possess the objects).
ReplyDeleteInalienable objects are often not exchanged as often as the more alienable objects because the do not carry the same weight. Weiner explains that one mush thoughtfully consider whom to give the object to as it plays a role more significant than the mere superficial level. Further, the items will differentiate between men and women, where Weiner describes how women are often involved in the making of textiles and tapestries in a given culture, and among those women, expensive, “dense” mats circulate.
inalienable possessions are objects that hold prestigious value due to the owner's hierarchal status. The object is usually passed down the generations within a family which in tale, keeps its value high or may even strengthen the value of the object. The value of the object can be less dense when for instance, when a rug from a passed monarch enters the market, it starts to depreciate when less elite members of society are circulating the object. If the object is no longer hard to find the value depreciates. In some societies women are ranked high on the social chain because they are the souls that produce such fine cloth materials. The older fabrics were considered to be more dense and therefore a women's rank would increase based on the quality and age of a rug.
ReplyDeleteInalienable possessions are possessions that should be kept in close content of family, clan and dynasty. They are possessions that are extremely dense with cultural meanings and the density of such objects occurs due to the association with its owner’s fame and ancestral history. It is not a common object and that object is kept out of exchange like the Kula, the most symbolically dense shells are known as “Chiefly shells”. Wiener uses another example of symbolically densely object like the Japanese sacred clothing made from bark fibers during installation. I do share Wiener's thoughts that a newly magnificent silks can be used but instead due to the symbolic value placed on the object, it is completely irreplaceable. On the other hand, less dense objects are objects that are exchangeable in terms of the value of their exchangeability. She used an example of a monarch’s crown, thus while one monarch’s crown was so densely due to the ancestral history and owner’s fame, others are not. Wiener discussed that objects limits or expands the power, status and hierarchy of men and women and, women who made clothing from old textiles had power. Therefore objects expands their status and hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteAn object is dense if there is a lot of history behind it. Where did it come from? Who owned it? How old is it? There is a rich history of the item. Inalienable possessions are things that are passed down in families, clans and dynasties because of their history. Inalienable possessions are dense, but have a specific group which they should ideally stay in.
ReplyDeleteEach of the objects have a certain "value." They also represent a certain social ranking within a group. The denser the object, the more power a person has. Depending on the society, women can also have political rank. It a woman were to obtain a mat of high density (just like if a man were to have shells of high density) it would mean her rank is higher than those who either do not have mats, or have mats that are not as dense.
According to Annette Weiner, inalienable objects are those that are kept out of exchange markets with non-personal entities involved. This is done so as not to tarnish the value of the object(s), no matter their composition. Many facets go into the worth of these objects, causing them to be dense in meaning where they may lack in material (market) worth. For example, many of the artifacts found in museums are, quite frankly, worthless materialistically on any and all markets -- WITHOUT the history associated with them. When does a piece of paper with some ink scribbled on it surpass market price in its worth? When the letter was written by a famous statesman or celebrity. Each object in the world has worth associated with it in some form, whether expressed on a macro-level (like artifacts in a museum have worth to the entire community/world because of the history associated with them) or a micro-level (like small, family heirlooms that seem worthless to the outside world, but holds value to the family it is being passed through). Inalienable objects have dense histories tied to them, and typically stay in a certain lineage of people/entities (i.e. groups of people/museums).
ReplyDeleteIn the Trobriand region, Kula gifts will be kept out of exchange markets because of their perceived worth. Weiner cites this example by stating that the largest Kula rings are kept for chiefly purposed, sometimes pulled from exchange for 2-4 decades. These possessions keep their worth precisely because they are kept out of exchange for so long, and only passed through the Kula elite (strengthening a social stratification).