Paper and Powerpoint

15. What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger, 14–28. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

1. Making Sense of Material Culture

Every day we swim in a sea of images and navigate our way through a world of things, and many of the images we look at are of the things we have, want to have, or believe (thanks to advertising) that we need to have. Everyone has certain basic needs, such as housing, clothing, and food, but most people want many other things: automobiles, tools, accessories to our clothing, television sets, food products, computers, tablets, smartphones… the list goes on, almost endlessly. From our childhood until our old age, we are given things or continually buying things that we hope will make us healthier and more a�ractive, will show our love to someone—our partners, our children, our parents—and will enrich our lives and

What Objects Mean16.

those of our loved ones. W hat Dichter points out in the quotation that begins this chapter is that the objects we own also reveal a great deal about ourselves, and that studying objects is a useful way to �nd out about people and gain insights into, as he puts it, “the soul of man.”

e ning Material Culture

�e things we buy or are given are known as “objects” and “artifacts” in scholarly discourse, and these objects and artifacts form what social scientists call material culture. Material culture is the world of things that people make and things that we purchase or possess, so it is part of our consumer culture. Material culture is a subject of great interest to archaeologists, anthropologists, and many other kinds of social scientists and scholars because these objects provide information about what we are like and how we live now—and how we lived in earlier times. Some scholars use the term “object” for more or less contemporary material culture and “artifact” for the material culture of earlier times, but like many scholars of material culture, I see them as interchangeable.

In his book, Objects: Reluctant Witnesses to the Past, Chris Caple de�nes objects and artifacts (2006:1):

�e word “artefact” is derived from the Latin terms ars or artis, meaning skill in joining, and factum meaning deed, also facere meaning to make or do.... �us an artefact can be considered to mean any physical entity that is formed by human beings from a nail to the building it is in. �e term “object” is also widely used to refer to any physical entity created by human beings.... For the purpose of this book, the terms “artefact” and “object” can be used interchangeably.

Caple uses the British spelling for “artefact.” For our purposes, I will de�ne artifacts as relatively simple objects showing human work- manship. Automobiles and airplanes may have materiality, but they are very complex and complicated machines and, in fact, have many di�erent smaller and less complex artifacts in them. Scholars may

1. Making Sense of Material Culture 17.

argue about de�nitions of material culture. Generally speaking, we can say that if you can photograph it and it isn’t too large and compli- cated, we can consider it to be an example of material culture.

Material culture, we must recognize, is a kind of culture—a term that has hundreds of de�nitions. One de�nition of culture I like, because it shows the relationship between culture and artifacts, is by Henry Pra� Fairchild and is found in his Dictionary of Sociology and Related Sciences (1966:80):

A collective name for all the behavior pa�erns socially acquired and transmi�ed by means of symbols, hence a name for all the distinctive achievements of human groups, including not only such items as language, tool-making, industry, art, science, law, government, morals and religion but also the material instruments or artifacts in which cultural achievements are embodied and by which intellectual cultural features are given practical e�ect, such as buildings, tools, machines, communication devices, art objects, etc.

�is de�nition is useful because Fairchild points out that culture is based on communication and argues that artifacts embody and con- cretize various cultural values and achievements. Culture is passed on from one generation to the next and is, to a great degree, symbolic in nature. Cultural values and beliefs take form or are manifested in arti- facts and objects—that is, in material culture. W hat this suggests is that we can use artifacts to help us gain insights into the cultures that produced them, if we know how to interpret or “read” them. Material culture gives us a means of understanding be�er the societies and cul- tures that produced the objects and used them.

Frank Nuessel o�ers another, more up-to-date de�nition of the term culture:

�e world “culture” comes from the past participle cultus of the Latin verb colere, which means “to till.” In its broadest sense, the term refers to recurrent pa�erns of human behavior and associated

What Objects Mean18.

artefacts that re�ect the beliefs, customs, traditions, and values of a particular society or group of people. �is behaviour includes oral and wri�en symbols such as language (folk talks, proverbs) as well as other traditions including dress, religion, ritual (dance, music, and other culture-speci�c rites), and so forth. Artefacts may include the representational arts such as paintings, po�ery, sculpture, wri�en literature, architecture, and the tools necessary to create them—all of which are transmi�ed from one generation to another. (2013:207)

Nuessel’s article appeared in a book edited by Marcel Danesi, Ency- clopedia of Media and Communication (2013), and o�ers us an insight into where the term “culture” comes from and into the way it has been understood by social scientists. My focus in this book is on the way that objects (he calls them “artefacts”) re�ect beliefs, a�itudes, and values found in various societies. Freud said that dreams were the key to the unconscious; I have chosen artifacts and objects as the keys to what we might describe as our collective psyches.

The Blue Carbuncle as a Model for the Study of Material Culture

Reading people is a voyeuristic form of game enjoyed by many individuals who look at people and, based on a number of di�erent ma�ers, including their clothing, artifacts they may have (rings, earrings, canes, handbags, briefcases), facial expressions, and body language, try to �gure out what they are like. Certainly, one of the greatest people readers was Sherlock Holmes, who was able to discern all kinds of interesting information about individuals who caught his a�ention for one reason or another. �at is one of the reasons the Sherlock Holmes stories are so popular. A er meeting someone and scrutinizing him or her carefully, Holmes is able to give detailed information about that person, based in large part on clues o�ered by the objects he or she wears and other clues to his or her activities and identities.

1. Making Sense of Material Culture 19.

In �e Blue Carbuncle, Holmes gives a large, wax stained, old hat that has come into his possession to his friend Watson and asks him what the hat reveals. Watson describes the hat as follows:

It was a very ordinary black hat of the usual round shape, hard, and much the worse for wear. �e lining had been of red silk, but was a good deal discoloured. �ere was no makers name; but as Holmes had remarked, the initials “H. B.” were scrawled upon one side. It was pierced in the brim for a hat- securer, but the elastic was missing. For the rest, it was cracked, exceedingly dusty, and spo�ed in several places, although there seemed to have been some a�empt to hide the discoloured patches by smearing them with ink. (Doyle, 1975:159–160)

Holmes says to Watson, “You know my methods. W hat can you gather about the individuality of the man who has worn this article?” Watson examines the hat and �nds li�le of interest. “I see nothing,” he says. �en Holmes replies:

On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing inferences. He picked up the hat and gazed at it in the peculiar introspective fashion which was characteristic of him. “It is perhaps less suggestive than it might have been and yet there are a few inferences

What Objects Mean20.

which are very distinct, and a few others which represent at least a strong balance of probability. �at the man was highly intellectual is of course obvious on the face of it, and also that he was fairly well- to-do within the last three years, although he has now fallen upon evil days. He had foresight, but has less now than formerly pointing to a moral retrogression, which, when taken with the decline in his fortunes, seems to indicate some evil in�uence, probably drink, at work upon him. �is may account for the obvious fact that his wife has ceased to love him…He has however, retained some degree of self-respect. He is a man who leads a sedentary life, goes out li�le, is out of training entirely, is middle-aged, has grizzled hair, which he has cut within the last few days, and which he anoints with lime- cream. �ese are the more patent facts which are to be deduced from his hat. Also, by the way, that it is extremely improbable that he has gas laid on in his house. (Doyle,1975:160)

We can see how Holmes made his deductions about the individu- ality of the man who had owned the hat from the chart opposite. In essence, Holmes is o�ering an applied semiotic analysis of the hat.

Holmes’s deductions strike us as ingenious, though the notion that a person with a large head must have a large brain in it and therefore a large intelligence is quite ridiculous. �ere are other deductions Holmes makes in the stories that are equally spurious. But this story, �e Blue Carbuncle, provides an example that demonstrates what we do when we examine material culture. Watson is the typical person who cannot see very much in any objects because he doesn’t know how to “read” them. Holmes is the scienti�c student of material cul- ture who can use objects to determine a great deal about individuals who own and use them. Holmes can do this kind of analysis because of several things:

First, he has a great fund of knowledge about all kinds of things that he can use to interpret objects and other kinds of signs. Because he knows so much, he is able to make sense of many things that seem to be of a trivial nature. Second, he is very a�entive to details and uses

1. Making Sense of Material Culture 21.

them to make inferences that will help him solve crimes. A er Holmes explains how he has analyzed things, Watson replies something to the e�ect that what Holmes did was remarkable, to which Holmes says, “Elementary, my dear Watson.” Readers take great pleasure in seeing how Holmes was able to make his deductions and inferences.

�e more you know, the more information you have, and the more theories you have studied, the more you can see in things, so it is important to bring a store of relevant knowledge to objects when you are analyzing them. Any given object can be seen as a “�gure” against

Characteristics of Man (Clues) Holmes’s Reasoning behind Deductions

Man was intellectual Cubic capacity of hat

Decline in fortune Hat is three years old, of best quality but man hasn’t been able to afford new one

Moral retrogression Broken elastic not replaced

Foresight Man had hat securer put on as precaution

Recent haircut Hair ends, clean cut by a barber, stuck in lower end of hat lining

Uses lime-cream Smell of hat lining

Goes out little Dust on hat is brown house dust not gray street dust

Wife has stopped loving him Hat hasn’t been brushed for weeks

Out of training Moisture in hat from perspiration, indicates man is out of shape

No gas in house Wax stains from candles suggest he reads by candlelight, doesn’t have gas

What Objects Mean22.

the “ground” or “background” of the culture in which it was made and used. Objects also a�ect the cultures in which they are found, so ana- lyzing them and interpreting their signi�cance is a complicated ma�er.

�e process of analyzing artifacts to �nd out about the cultures in which they were made works two ways: the objects tell you about the culture, and the culture tells you about the objects. W hen we deal with ancient cultures, we o en know li�le about them and so use arti- facts from earlier periods to make inferences and to try and �gure out what life was like then. In contemporary societies, we use objects and artifacts to gain insights not provided by other methods of analysis.

On The Nature of Theory

We make sense of the world by ��ing things that happen into theories we have that explain why they happen. �eories and concepts related to them help us understand various areas of life. One of the best

1. Making Sense of Material Culture 23.

de�nitions of theories I know of is found in a chapter in Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, edited by Meenaskshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner and titled “Adventures in Media and Cultural Studies: Introducing KeyWorks.” �e authors write (2001:3):

A theory is a way of seeing, an optic, that focuses on a speci�c subject ma�er. �e Greek word theoria signi�es perspective and vision which centers upon speci�c topics, processes, and a�ributes, as a theory of the state focuses on how the government works. �eories are also modes of explanation and interpretation that construct connections and illuminate sociocultural practices and structures, thus helping to make sense of our everyday life, as an analysis of how Microso dominates the computer so ware �eld would indicate what particular issues are at stake. �us, cultural and social theories are descriptive and interpretive; they highlight speci�c topics, make connections, contextualize, provide interpretations, and o�er explanations. �ere is also a narrative component to theory as in Adam Smith’s or Karl Marx’s theories of capitalism which tell of the origin and genesis of the market economy, as well as describing how it works and in Marx’s case o�ering a critique and proposals of revolutionary transformation.

Durham and Kellner point out that all theories are partial, so you always have to recognize their limitations.

To remedy the limitations that speci�c theories have, it is useful to use a number of di�erent theories that enable you to gain di�erent perspectives on whatever it is you are investigating. As Durham and Kellner explain (2001:4):

Multiplying theories and methods at one’s disposal helps to grasp the diverse dimensions of an object, to make more and be�er connections, and thus provide richer and more comprehensive understanding of cultural artifacts and practices under scrutiny.

What Objects Mean24.

�is de�nition of theory is useful because it points out the limita- tions that speci�c theories have but also calls a�ention to the value of theories in helping us to interpret the signi�cance of speci�c objects and to �nd relationships among phenomena that we might not have recognized without these theories.

W hat large theories do is generate smaller, less comprehensive theories and concepts that do the spade work in analyzing phe- nomena. For example, Freudian psychoanalytic theory is based on Freud’s notion that our psyches have three levels: consciousness, pre-consciousness, and an unknowable unconscious, and three forces operating within our psyches: an id or desire, an ego or ratio- nality, and a superego or conscience. As he writes in his essay, “Psy- choanalysis” (1963:244):

�e Corner-stones of Psychoanalytic �eory.... �e assumption that there are unconscious mental processes, the recognition of the theory of resistance and repression, the appreciation of the importance of sexuality and of the Oedipus complex—these constitute the principal subject-ma�er of psychoanalysis and the foundations of its theory.

Within the larger framework of psychoanalytic theory, there are, then, other theories, such as the Oedipal theory, which argues that li�le children want to monopolize the a�ention of their parent of the opposite sex. And there are a number of concepts, such as Freud’s defense mechanisms, that deal with repression, regression, ambiva- lence, and a number of other similar phenomena. �ese ma�ers will be discussed in more detail in the chapter on psychoanalytic theory and material culture. So “large” theories generate smaller and more focused theories and concepts, and it is these theories and concepts we use when considering psychoanalytic theory to help us under- stand human behavior.

Let me o�er an example of the relationship between behavior, con- cepts, and theories. We will take individuals who wash their hands two hundred times a day.

1. Making Sense of Material Culture 25.

Behavior: Washes hands 200 times a day Concept: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder �eory: Psychoanalytic �eory

�ere are, of course, other psychoanalytic and non-Freudian psy- choanalytic theories that deal with the human psyche, such as Jungian theory, so a psychology department in a university may have scholars with many di�erent theoretical orientations—each of which has the- ories and concepts that adherents to these theories use to make sense of whatever it is they are interested in as far as the human psyche and human behavior are concerned.

�eories are like goggles that help determine the way we see the world, that point our a�ention to certain things, and that distract us from others. W hat Durham and Kellner argue is that the best approach to understanding cultural artifacts is a multi-disciplinary approach, since that approach enables us to see artifacts in all their many com- plexities. Single-disciplinary approaches are too narrow and o en neglect important aspects of whatever it is that is being investigated.

Nietzsche and Perspectivism

In his book, Will to Power, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) adopts a perspectivist approach that involves recognizing the importance of di�erent theories and methodologies to understand phenomena—a precursor of what we now call a multi- disciplinary approach to knowledge. He writes:

470. (1885–1886) Profound aversion to reposing once and for all in any one total view of the world. Fascination of the opposing point of view: refusal to be deprived of the stimulus of the enigmatic.

481. (1883–1888) Against positivism, which halts at phenomena—�ere are only facts.—I would say: No, facts is precisely what there is not, only

What Objects Mean26.

interpretations. We cannot establish any fact “in itself ”: perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.

“Everything is subjective,” you say; but even this is interpretation invented and projected behind what there is.—Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis.

In so far as the word “ k nowledge” has any meaning, the world is k nowable; but it is interpretable other w ise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectiv ism.”

It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm

(1885–1886) No limit to the ways in which the world can be interpreted; every interpretation as symptom of growth or of decline.

Inertia needs unity (monism); plurality of interpretations a sign of strength. Not to desire to deprive the world of its disturbing and enigmatic character!

1. Making Sense of Material Culture 27.

604. ( 1885–1886) “Interpretation,” the introduction of meaning—not “explanation” (in most cases a new interpretation over an old interpretation that has become incomprehensible, that is now itself only a sign). �ere are no facts, everything is in �ux, incomprehensible, elusive; what is relatively most enduring is—our opinions. (1968)

Nietzsche’s point is that interpretation is always an important part of any analyses we make. Take, for example, economics. Even when economists agree that certain statistics are accurate, they o en dis- agree about how to interpret what these statistics mean. A Nietzschean approach means we look at love or life—or, in our case, material cul- ture—not from “both sides now” but from all sides or, more accurately, multiple perspectives.

W hat fuels our ba�les over “truth” and “reality” and “facts” is, as Nietzsche puts it, “a kind of lust to rule.” We want everyone else to accept our disciplinary perspective on things as the one and only true perspective. �ere is, we �nd, behind assertions philosophers and other kinds of scholars make about reality, a psychological need to triumph over or dominate others, or what Nietzsche described as a will to power.

The Rashomon Problem

Rashomon, directed by Akira Kurosawa, is a �lm that created a sensation when it appeared in 1951. W hen I saw it in 1951, it made a lasting impression on me, and I believe it has a�ected the way I conduct research and write books. �e �lm, which takes place in the twel h century, opens with a priest, a woodcu�er, and another man in the Rashomon temple, seeking shelter from the rain. �e woodcu�er tells about his experiences observing what happened in a grove between a bandit, a samurai, and the samurai’s wife.

Rashomon was based on two short stories by Ryunosuke Akutagawa (1892–1927), “Rashomon” and “In a Grove.” �e �lm is notable for its brilliant camera work and the superb editing and acting. It establishes

What Objects Mean28.

an important point—four people involved in an episode in a grove give four very di�erent versions of what transpired. �e �lm poses the question: Can we know reality? Is one of the stories true and the others fabrications? If so, who is telling the truth, and how do we �nd out who is being truthful? If we were to take Rashomon as an object of study, we would �nd that scholars from di�erent disciplines would disagree about how to interpret it and who is telling the truth in the �lm. �e Rashomon problem for us is this: W hat do we do when theorists from di�erent disciplines disagree about how to interpret an artifact or object? W hat do we do when experts disagree?

We begin our study of theories useful for study ing material culture w ith Freud- ian psychoanaly tic theor y, a controversial and fascinating exploration of the way the human mind functions. Freud’s ideas have in�uenced thinkers in many di�erent areas, and he is generally considered to be one of the most in�uential thinkers of the twentieth century.

This page intentionally left blank

�e Middle Ages never forgot that all things would be absurd, if their meaning were exhausted in their func- tion and their place in the phenomenal world, if by their essence they did not reach into a world beyond this. �is idea of a deeper signi�cance in ordinary things is famil- iar to us as well, independent of religious convictions: as an inde�nite feeling which may be called up at any moment, by the sound of raindrops on the leaves or by the lamplight on the table. … “When we see all things in God, and refer all things to Him, we read in common ma�ers superior expressions of meaning.”

William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 475

Here, then is the psychological foundation �om which symbolism arises. In God nothing is empty of sense: nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud Deum, said Saint Ire- naeus. So the conviction of a transcendental meaning in all things seeks to formulate itself. About the �gure of the Divinity a majestic system of correlated �gures crystal- lizes, which all have reference to Him, because all things derive their meaning �om Him. �e world unfolds itself like a vast whole of symbols, like a cathedral of ideas. It is the most richly rhythmical conception of the world, a polyphonous expression of eternal harmony. … From the causal point of view, symbolism appears as a sort of short-circuit of thought. Instead of looking for the relation between two things by following the hidden detours of their causal connections, thought makes a leap and discovers their relation, not in a connection of cause or e�ects, but in a connection of signi�cation or �nality.

Johan Huizinga, �e Waning of the Middle Ages, pp. 201–202