The objects we own are expressions of ourselves and our world. They’re extensions of our interests, passions, hobbies, etc. Sitting at my desk I’m reminded that I’ve consciously made the decision to surround myself with things that bring me joy. My desk is bare of decoration besides a golden boar I bought when at Bulguksa Temple. (It is very cool). Posters from movies I like all around, well actually just one movie, but lots of posters. Behind me are two bookshelves with books I’ve read over my years of school, as well as books that I read in my free time. All of this is a long way of saying I’ve never thought about Barbie, and what can be learned from examining her role in American material culture.
Throughout the four readings this week, the two main thoughts I had in my mind were commodification and the cultural gendering of objects. Instead of Barbie’s growing up, I had action figures. (Well, I still do). Pearson and Mullins in their article, ‘’Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domesticating Ideology’’ was published in 1999, and tells of how Barbie went from being a figure of feminine power and sexuality to the as the article title would suggest a more domesticated role. Barbie has become a vehicle of ideology and promotes the idea that girls should be nurturing, domesticated, and without agency. The article goes through the phases of Barbie and how she has shifted in such ways as reinforcing evangelical right wing during the Reagan years.
To continue the conversation of gendered objects, ‘’Selling Mr. Coffee: Design, Gender, and the Branding of a Kitchen Appliance’’ by Rebecca K. Shrum analysis the shift from percolated coffee to electronic machines for coffee. The article goes over making coffee in both forms, and how percolated coffee was typically done by women in homes. The article includes extensive visuals and pricing of objects and compares how they are marketed and who is using them.
Peter Stallybrass’ article, ‘’Marx’s Coat’’ is an interesting examination of how Marx viewed objects and also gets into societal gender roles. To Marx, the coat is emblematic of a commodity and not seen for its value of providing warmth, or as it is said in the article, ‘’for the commodity becomes a commodity not as a thing but as an exchange value’’. (Page 183). The article goes into great detail about Marx’s views on objects and fetishization, but what I was most interested in was the gendered labor of pawning the coat. This was typically something done by his wife, unless in great distress then Marx himself would go and pawn the coat.
The conversation on commodities and exchange systems is continued in Igor Kopytoff’s, ‘’The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process’’. He proposes that we conduct a biography of things in the same way we do of people. He also explores what makes something a commodity, ‘’A commodity is a thing that has value and that can be exchanged in a discrete transaction for a counterpart, the very fact of exchange indicating that the counterpart has, in the immediate context, an equivalent value’’. (Page 68).
These all help me better understand my object, Magic: The Gathering cards. They can be bought and traded. Each card has a price that is attached to how desirable it is. They are a luxury commodity, that is used in a multitude of ways. Such as collecting, playing, trading, investments, art, and so on. Without the community around it, they wouldn’t have the value they have.