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

31.
What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger,
30–44. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

2.
A Freudian
Psychoanalytic
Approach

�e basic premise of psychoanalytic theory, as
Freud explained in his essay, “Psychoanalysis”
(1922), is that unconscious mental processes
exist and play an important role in our lives.
As he explained (1963:230):

Psychoanalysis is the name (1) of a
procedure for the investigation of mental
processes which are almost inaccessible
any other way, (2) of a method (based
upon that investigation) for the treatment
of neurotic disorders and (3) of a collection
of psychological information obtained
along those lines which is gradually being
accumulated into a new scienti�c discipline.

Freud saw psychoanalytic theory as
an interpretative art, and this mode of

What Objects Mean32.

interpretation can be applied, as we shall see, to artifacts and objects
as well as to psychological problems. As he wrote (1963:235–236):

It was a triumph of the interpretative art of psychoanalysis when
it succeeded in demonstrating that certain common mental acts
of normal people, for which no one had hitherto a�empted to put
forward a psychological explanation, were to be regarded in the
same light as the symptoms of neurotic: that is to say they had a
meaning, which was unknown to the subject, but which could easily
be discovered by analytic means.

Freud explained that we resist knowing the contents of our unconscious
and repress recognizing the importance of the Oedipus complex and
our sexuality. It is the hidden meanings and symbolic signi�cance of
various artifacts of material culture that a psychoanalytic approach
to the subject a�empts to discover. �e quotation by Huizinga with
which this chapter begins calls a�ention to the hidden meanings and
unconscious signi�cance of symbols and other aspects of life. �ere’s
more than meets the eye, he argues, to all things.

Artifacts and the Unconscious:
Freud’s Topographic Hypothesis

For Freud there are three levels to the human psyche: consciousness,
pre-conscious (material we can access and of which we are dimly
aware), and the unconscious, which we cannot access without guidance
from psychoanalytic trained therapists. �is is known as Freud’s
topographic hypothesis. It is useful to use the analogy of an iceberg to
show how the three levels are related to one another. Consciousness,
what we are aware of, is the part of the iceberg we see above the
water. �e preconscious is what we can dimly make out a few feet
below the water line. A nd the unconscious is the inaccessible dark
area that makes up most of our psyches, and that is buried deep
beneath the water line. �e important thing to recognize is that it
is our unconscious, Freudian psychoanalytic theorists argue, that
profoundly shapes our behavior.

2. A Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach 33.

We can suggest, then, that there are three levels that have to be
understood when it comes to artifacts:

Consciousness: W hat an artifact does
Preconsciousness: Other aspects of the artifact’s functionality of
which we may be aware
Unconscious: Unrecognized symbolic meanings connected to
the artifact

Presumably we are not conscious of the symbolic signi�cance and
importance of the artifacts we purchase or use. When we analyze an
artifact, we should consider the meanings it has for di�erent levels of
our psyche.

Let’s consider cigare�e lighters, which have been studied by Ernest
Dichter. Dichter, o en described as the “father of motivation research,”
used depth psychology in interviews to discern how people felt about
various products. What his research uncovered was that people o en
have a�itudes towards objects of which they are unaware, a�itudes that
are hidden in the unconscious areas of their psyches.

For example, when his researchers asked people about cigare�e
lighters, they generally replied that they used them to light their ciga-
re�es, so it was their functionality that seemed to be all-important. But

What Objects Mean34.

as his researchers probed further, they discov-
ered that at a deeper level, subjects’ cigare�e
lighters were connected to ma�ers involving
mastery and power and, speci�cally, the abil-
ity to summon �re at one’s command. �is is
tied to mythological legends such as that of
Prometheus and other myths involving �re.
Finally, his researchers found that at the deep-
est level the feeling that one’s lighter will work
is connected to a�itudes about sexual poten-
cy, and the �ame of the lighter symbolizes,
at the unconscious level, sexual union being
consummated.

W hat follows is his analysis of their di�er-
ent levels of meaning.

Conscious: Light cigare�es
Preconscious: To summon �re
Subconscious: Sexual union (“Baby,
won’t you light my �re.”)

We can use this theory about the levels
of the human psyche to analyze other arti-
facts, to discover the hidden or unrecognized
meaning that artifacts have for us.

2. A Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach 35.

A middle aged woman, whose legs were markedly bowed,
changed the tables and chairs in her living-room three times
before she could come to terms with her obsession about them.
The first time, the tables and chairs had legs as bowed as her own.
They were beautiful, costly pieces and everybody admired them,
but they made her obscurely uncomfortable. She got rid of the lot
and substituted others with delicate straight lines. These bothered
her even more. Finally, after months of wracking indecision, she
disposed of her problem by buying the kind of modern furniture
which is all massive blocks and has no legs at all!

Another woman, preoccupied with her bowel movements,
treated her whole house as though it were a gigantic bathroom.
All the walls were bare and white and the curtains were made of
some transparent plastic material. Decorative bowls, also white,
and rather oddly shaped, rested on every available flat surface.
A crowning touch, in which she took great pride, was a small
fountain, set up in the wall which originally had held a fireplace.

Milton Sapirstein, The Paradoxes of Everyday Life (1955:98)

This insert shows the way unconscious processes work in
people. Thus, the woman with bowed legs solved her problem
by getting furniture with no legs, and the woman preoccupied
with her bowel movements turned her house into a bathroom.
In both of these cases, it was unconscious imperatives that
shaped their behavior.

What Objects Mean36.

Id, Ego and Superego: Freud’s Structural Hypothesis

Freud later suggested that there are three forces at work in our psyches,
what is known as his structural hypothesis. �is theory suggests that
our psyches have three components: an id, an ego, and a superego.
Charles Brenner, who wrote an in�uential book on psychoanalytic
theory, described the structural hypothesis in his book, An Elementary
Textbook of Psychoanalysis (1974:38):

We may say that the id comprises the psychic representatives of the
drives, the ego consists of those functions which have to do with the
individual’s relation to his environment, and the superego comprises
the moral precepts of our minds as well as our ideal aspiration.

�e drives, of course, we assume to be present from birth, but the
same is certainly not true of interest in or control neither of the envi-
ronment, on the one hand, nor of any moral sense or aspirations on
the other. It is obvious that neither of the la�er—that is, neither the
ego nor the superego—develops till sometime a er birth.

2. A Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach 37.

Psychoanalytic theory suggests that the ego performs a delicate
balancing act between id forces (our drives, “I want it all now”) and
the superego forces (our sense of guilt, conscience, and similar phe-
nomena). �e id provides energy, but it is unfocused and dissociated.
It has to be controlled to some degree since we must live in society.
�e superego provides restraint, but if too strong, it inhibits us too
much, and we become overwhelmed by guilt. �e ego stores up expe-
riences in the memory by which it guides us and mediates between id
and superego forces. People who have overly powerful ids or super-
egos that dominate the ego elements in their psyches generally have
psychological problems and experience di
culties in their lives.

It is possible to classify artifacts according to whether they are
connected primarily to id, ego, or superego elements in our psyches.
W hat follows is my suggestion about how one might classify a number
of di�erent objects using Freud’s typology.

Id Ego Superego

Barbie Doll Dictionaries Bible

Playboy Magazine Textbooks Book of Fables

Bottle of Liquor Science Toys Holy Water Vessel

I used the term “primarily” because Freud’s topographic theory
suggests that objects can have di�erent levels of signi�cance.

Psychoanalytic theory also suggests that the ego can also employ a
number of defense mechanisms to help it control id and superego ele-
ments in our psyches, prevent anxiety and overwhelming guilt, and
control our instincts. We are generally not conscious of our use of these
defense mechanisms, and sometimes they are not successful in control-
ling our ids and superegos. Among these defense mechanisms are:

What Objects Mean38.

Ambivalence: a simultaneous feeling of a�raction and repulsion
Avoidance: refusal to face ma�ers that distress us
Denial: inability to accept reality of things that generate anxiety
Fixation: obsessive a�achment to something, generally as result
of trauma
Identification: desire to be like someone
Rationalization: o�ering excuses for untoward behavior
Regression: individuals return to an earlier stage of development
Repression: barring certain phenomena from consciousness
Suppression: pu�ing certain things out of mind

W hen using psychoanalytic theory, we can consider these defense
mechanisms in addition to the unconscious signi�cance of artifacts
and the relationship among these three elements of the psyche as we
analyze objects of material culture.

For example, we may identify with some sports hero and purchase
a brand of running shoe or watch advertised by that �gure. We may
develop a �xation about shoes and purchase many more pairs than we
can possibly use. Imelda Marcos, the wife of Ferdinand Marcos, the
former president of the Philippines, is famous (infamous may be more
correct) for having purchased thousands of pairs of shoes, re�ecting a
�xation she had for them.

We may rationalize our purchase of some expensive perfume or
body fragrance by convincing ourselves that it will have a positive
impact on our social life. W hen we are adults and buy an ice cream
cone, this can be considered a form of momentary regression in the
service of our egos. Much of this works at the unconscious level, so we
aren’t aware that we are using defense mechanisms, such as rationaliza-
tion, to justify our longing for, and purchasing of, artifacts of all kinds.

2. A Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach 39.

Symbolic Aspects of Material Culture

�ere is another important aspect of psychoanalytic theory as it relates
to material culture that must be considered—namely, the importance
of symbolism. As Hinsie and Campbell explain in their book,
Psychiatric Dictionary (1970:734), we can understood symbolism as

the act or process of representing an order or idea by a substitute
object, sign, or signal. In psychiatry, symbolism is of particular
importance since it can serve as a defense mechanism of the ego, as
where unconscious (and forbidden) aggressive or sexual impulses
come to expression through symbolic representation and thus are
able to avoid censorship.

Symbols are, technically speaking, things that stand for other
things. According to Hinsie and Campbell, we o en disguise uncon-
scious aggressive and sexual desires by using symbols, and doing so
enables us to escape from the strictures of the superego.

Freud suggested that most of the symbolic phenomena in dreams
have a masked sexual content, and this masking protects dreamers and
prevents the superego from waking them. As Freud wrote in the tenth
lecture of his A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1953:161):

�e penis is symbolized primarily by objects which resemble it in
form, being long and upstanding, such as sticks, umbrellas, poles,
trees and the like; also by objects which, like the thing symbolized,
have the property of penetrating and consequently of injuring the
body—that is to say pointed weapons of all sorts: knives, daggers,
lances, sabers; �re-arms are also similarly used: guns, pistols and
revolvers.

Freud is discussing symbols that are found in dreams, but it is also
quite likely that many of these objects or phallic symbols have the
same signi�cance, though this signi�cance is not recognized by us, in
our everyday lives.

Freud also discussed how female genitalia were symbolized in
dreams (1953:163–164):

What Objects Mean40.

�e female genitalia are symbolically represented by all such
objects as share with them the process of enclosing a space or are
capable of acting as receptacles: such as pits, hollows and caves, and
also jars and bo�les; and boxes of all sorts and sizes…Ships too come
into this category. Many symbols refer rather to the uterus than
to the other genital organs: thus cupboards, stoves and above all
rooms…�e breasts must be included amongst the organs of sex;
these, as well as the larger hemispheres of the female body, are
represented by apples, peaches and �uit in general. �e pubic hair in
both sexes is indicated by woods and thickets.

Freud said that sexual intercourse was o en represented in dreams
by activities such as riding, dancing, sliding, gliding, and experienc-
ing violence of some kind—all of which enable us to disguise our
sexual desires and ful�ll our unconscious wishes of a sexual nature.

It is reasonable to suggest that, since sex plays such an important
role in our unconscious wishes, desires, and fantasies, and in our con-
scious activities, many artifacts incorporate, either consciously or

Male Female

Sticks Bottles

Umbrellas Cupboards

Knives Stoves (ovens)

Guns Microwaves

Toothbrushes Refrigerators

Pens Dishwashing machines

Jackhammers Pots

2. A Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach 41.

unconsciously, sexual symbols in their design.
We can also classify objects according to
whether they are symbolically male/phallic in
nature or female/vaginal/utero in nature.

Psychoanalytic theory would suggest that
people are not aware of the symbolic signi�-
cance of the objects they use, but quite obvi-
ously a large number of artifacts have either
a masculine penetrating or female incorpora-
tive character to them. We disguise the sexual
nature of objects in our dreams so our dream
censor or superego will not wake us, so disguis-
ing the sexual nature of objects is functional.
Freud also has some interesting theories about
how we develop sexually that can be used to
analyze objects of interest to us.

It’s worth considering what Cli�ord Geertz
writes about symbols in �e Interpretation of
Cultures (2000:45):

�inking consists not of “happenings in
the head” (though happenings there and
elsewhere are necessary for it to occur)
but of a tra
c in what have been called,
by G. H. Mead and others, signi�cant
symbols—words for the most part but
also gestures, drawings, musical sounds,
mechanical devices like clocks, or natural
objects like jewels—anything, in fact, that
is disengaged from its mere actuality and
used to impose meaning upon experience.
From the point of view of any particular
individual, such symbols are largely
given. He �nds them already current in

What Objects Mean42.

the community in which is he is born and they remain, with some
additions, subtractions, and partial alterations he may or may not
have had a hand in, in circulation when he dies. W hile he lives he
uses them, or some of them, sometimes deliberately and with care,
most o en spontaneously and with ease, but always with the same
end in view: to put a construction upon the events through which he
lives, to orient himself within “the ongoing course of experiencing
things,” to adopt a vivid phrase of John Dewey’s.

Geertz points out that much of our thinking is based on “signi�cant”
symbols and that we use symbols to “impose meaning” on things; our
understanding of symbols is connected to the communities in which
we are born. He mentions that “mechanical devices”—what I describe
as objects—play an important role in our thinking.

In his book, �e Voice of the Symbol, Martin Grotjahn, a psychi-
atrist and psychoanalyst, writes that a symbol is a “message from
our unconscious which communicates truth, beauty and goodness”
(1971:xi). He adds:

A book on the symbol is therefore a book about life and its
mastery. It is also a book about death, which we must master in
order to progress from maturity to wisdom. Insight into one’s own
unconscious or that of our fellow man is insight communicated by
the symbol. Insight is inner vision and therefore closely related to
art and intuition, to tact and empathy.

Symbols, Grotjahn explains, play an important role in our
understanding of life and of art, and it was Freud who alerted us to
the signi�cance of symbols in our lives—in our dreams, our psyches,
and our everyday activities (xii).

Sexual Development and Material Culture

Freud believed that individuals pass through a number of di�erent
stages in their sexual development as they grow older. �ese stages
are described by Charles Brenner in An Elementary Textbook of
Psychoanalysis (1974:24):

2. A Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach 43.

For the �rst year and a half of life, approximately, the mouth, lips
and tongue are the chief sexual organs of the infant. By this we
mean that its desires as well as its grati�cations are primarily oral
ones…In the next year and a half, the other end of the alimentary
canal, that is the anus, comes to be the most important site of sexual
tensions and grati�cations… Toward the close of the third year of
life the leading sexual role begins to be assumed by the genitals, and
it is normally maintained by them therea er. �is phase of sexual
development is referred to as the phallic one for two reasons. In the
�rst place, the penis is the principal object of interest to the child
of either sex. In the second, we believe the girl’s organ of sexual
excitement and pleasure during this period is her clitoris, which is
embryonically the female analogue of the penis.

�e last stage, which children reach upon puberty, when they learn to
focus their a�ention on members of the opposite sex, is the genital stage.

According to Freud, young boys between approximately two and
�ve develop an unconscious desire for their mothers and hostility
towards their fathers—what he called the Oedipus Complex, a er
the Greek myth in which Oedipus, without recognizing what he was
doing, killed his father and married his mother. Eventually this mat-
ter is resolved in boys by their developing anxiety about being cas-
trated, what Freud called castration anxiety. Young girls also wish to
supplant their mothers but resolve their problem in a di�erent way,
essentially by �nding someone to supplant their father, namely a hus-
band or lover.

We can use Freud’s typology to classify objects according to wheth-
er they are primarily oral, anal, phallic, or genital in nature, recogniz-
ing that people who use these objects are generally not aware of their
sexually symbolic nature.

What Objects Mean44.

Some objects may combine several di�erent aspects, but usually it is
possible to determine that one is basic. �us, for example, a toothbrush
is primarily phallic but used for oral purposes.

Conclusions

Psychoanalytic theory provides us with a large number of concepts
that enable us to analyze material culture in terms of the way
artifacts re�ect various unconscious needs and desires and relate to
our psychological makeup. We can use the ideas Freud and other
psychoanalytic theorists have developed about the nature of the
human psyche, about the importance of symbolic phenomena in
dreams, about our use of defense mechanisms, and about the stages
in our sexual development to gain insights into the reasons certain
artifacts play such an important role in our lives as individuals and
collectively in our societies.

Oral Anal Phallic Genital

Pipe Potty Cigar Condom

Pacifier Enema Video game joystick Vibrator

This page intentionally left blank

French toys always mean something, and this
something is always entirely socialized, con-
stituted by the myths or techniques of modern
adult life: the Army, Broadcasting, the Post
O ce, Medicine (miniature instrument-cases,
operating theatres for dolls), School, Hair-
Styling (driers for permanent waving), the
Air Force (Parachutists), Transport (trains,
Citroens, Vede�es, Vespas, petrol stations), Sci-
ence (Martian toys).
�e fact that French toys literally pre�gure
the world of adult functions obviously cannot
but prepare the child to accept them all, by
constituting for him, even before he can think
about it, the alibi of a Nature which has at all
times created soldiers, postmen and Vespas.
Toys here reveal the list of all the things the
adult does not �nd unusual: war, bureaucracy,
ugliness, Martians, etc. It is not so much, in
fact, the imitation which is the sign of an abdi-
cation, as its literalness: French toys are like a
Jivaro head, in which one recognizes, shrunken
to the size of an apple, the wrinkles and hair of
an adult. �ere exist, for example, dolls which
urinate; they have an oesophagus, one gives
them a bo�le, they wet their nappies; soon, no
doubt, milk will turn to water in their stom-
achs. �is is meant to prepare the li�le girl for
the causality of house-keeping , to “condition”
her to her future role as mother.

Roland Barthes, Mythologies

47.
What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger,
46–60. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

3.
Semiotic
Approaches
to Material
Culture

Semiotics (from the Greek term for signs,
sēmeîon) is the science of signs, and a semiotic
approach to material culture regards artifacts
as signs whose meaning and signi�cance
have to be determined by the use of semiotic
concepts. Signs are things that stand for other
things or anything that can be made to stand
for something. �ink, for example, of the
American �ag. It is a sign that stands for the
United States and for various values, historical
events, and other ma�ers connected to the
country. Words are important kinds of signs.
�us the word “tree” stands for “a woody
perennial plant having an elongated main
stem.” Artifacts are also signs.

�ere were two founding fathers of semi-
otics—the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Sau-
ssure (1857–1913) and the American philos-
opher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914).

What Objects Mean48.

Saussure called his science “semiology” and
Peirce called his theory “semiotics.” It is
Peirce’s term that has become dominant. In
recent years, a number of semioticians, such
as Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco, have
used semiotic theory to analyze many dif-
ferent things. Barthes’s book, Mythologies,
uses semiotic theory and Marxist theory to
“reveal” interesting things about contem-
porary French culture, as his discussion of
French toys that starts this chapter suggests.

Saussure on Signs

Saussure set out the fundamentals of what
he called semiology in his book, Course in
General Linguistics. �is book, primarily a
collection of notes to his essays by his students
Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye at the
University of Geneva, was published in 1915.
It was translated into English by Wade Baskin
and published in 1959 by �e Philosophical
Library and in 1966 by McGraw-Hill. In this
book is found what might be thought of as the
charter statement of semiotics (1966:16):

Language is a system of signs that express
ideas, and is therefore comparable to a
system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-
mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas,
military signals, etc. But it is the most
important of all these systems.

A science that studies the life of signs within
society is conceivable; it would be a part of
social psychology and consequently of
general psychology; I shall call it semiology

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 49.

(from Greek sēmeîon “sign”). Semiology would show what
constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does
not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but it has a right to
existence, a place staked out in advance.

Semiotics studies signs in society, which means it is a social science,
and explains what signs are and how they function. �ese ma�ers are,
it turns out, quite complicated.

Saussure o�ered a de�nition of a sign, which he explained was
comprised of two parts—a sound-image and a concept (1966:66):

�e linguistic sign united, not a thing and a name, but a concept
and a sound-image. … I call the combination of a sign and a sound-
image a sign, but in current usage the term generally designates
only a sound-image, a word, for example (arbor, etc.). … Ambiguity
would disappear if the three notions involved here were designated
by three names, each suggesting and opposing the others. I
propose to retain the word sign [signe] to designate the whole and
to replace concept and sound-image respectively by signi�ed [signi�é]
and signi�er [signi�ant]; the last two terms have the advantage of

What Objects Mean50.

indicating the opposition that separates them from each other and
from the whole of which they are parts.

From a semiotic perspective, objects are signs, or technically signi-
�ers, and the task of the semiotician is to �gure out their various sig-
ni�eds. �is is complicated by the fact that the relationship that exists
between signi�ers and signi�eds is arbitrary, a ma�er of convention. So
we always have to determine what an artifact signi�es and cannot �nd
a “rule book” that explains the signi�cance of every artifact, just as we
cannot �nd a dream book that explains the meaning of every dream.

Saussure also had something very important to say about the nature
of concepts. As Wade Boskin, the translator of Saussure’s book, points
out in his introduction to the book, “De Saussure was among the �rst
to see that language is a self-contained system whose interdependent
parts function and acquire value through their relationship to the
whole” (1966: xii). As Saussure wrote (1966:117, 118):

It is understood that concepts are purely di�erential and de�ned
not by their positive content but negatively by their relations with
the other terms of the system. �eir most precise characteristic is
in being what the others are not…signs function, then, not through
their intrinsic value but through their relative position

He summed up his ideas on this subject by writing “in language
there are only oppositions” (1966:120), and these oppositions aren’t
between positive terms.

In essence, we �nd meaning in concepts (and other aspects of lan-
guage and life) by se�ing up oppositions. So what this means is that—
and this sounds like doubletalk—concepts derive their meaning from
their opposites. �us, happy is only meaningful as the opposite of
sad, and healthy is only meaningful as the opposite of sick. It is the
relationships that confer meaning on concepts and, by implication,
artifacts and objects that are part of material culture. I should also
point out that oppositions are not the same things as negations. �e
negation of happy is unhappy; the opposite of happy is sad. �ey are
not the same thing.

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 51.

W hat Saussure called a “sound-image” becomes an object or signi-
�er. �e game is to discern what is signi�ed by this object. In some
cases, to complicate ma�ers, an artifact can be thought of as a sign
system, containing a number of di�erent signi�ers and signi�eds. For
example, a photograph of a person may contain many di�erent signi-
�ers: hats, eyeglasses, jewelry, shoes, a�aché cases, briefcases, purses,
canes, and so on.

We can also consider objects in terms of their size, shape, texture,
color, and grain.

Problems with Interpreting Signs

We saw in the Sherlock Holmes discussion in the �rst chapter that an
object, such as an old hat, can contain a number of di�erent signi�ers,

What Objects Mean52.

so we might say that objects are to be thought of as signs and, in most
cases, as sign systems—signs with many other signs contained within
them. �us, the hat that Sherlock Holmes gave to Watson can be
thought of as a sign system full of smaller signi�ers: the size of the hat,
the material it was made of, and so on.

W hat follows is a list of artifacts or objects that function as signi�-
ers, and what is le to be inferred by analysts is what they signify. �e
signi�eds are all based on convention, and in many cases a number of
di�erent signi�eds can be inferred from one signi�er, which makes
analyzing signi�ers di
cult at times. �ere are also the ma�ers of
conventions changing and of lying with signs—wearing signs that
give false impressions, a ma�er to be discussed shortly.

Signifier/Object Signified(S)

Bowler Englishman

Bow tie Intellectual

Cowboy hat Cowboy, Westerner

Baseball hat worn backwards Hip-Hop

Name brand eyeglasses Stylish, fashionable

Analog watch Old fashioned

Digital watch Modern

Suspenders Old fashioned

Black turtleneck sweater Arty? Beatnik?

Expensive handbag Style conscious, wealthy

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 53.

We spend a good deal of e�ort in our
everyday lives in observing signs and trying
to interpret their meaning. W hen it comes
to material culture, these signs involve body
ornaments, clothes, shoes and other things—
each of which, due to its styling, brand, cost
and other factors, conveys di�erent things.
For example, there is the ma�er of whether an
object is a “top of the line” smartphone like
an iPhone or a cheaper brand of smartphone
that might cost the same amount of money as
an “entry level” version of the more expensive
brand. So we have to consider the brand, the
cost, whether an object is contemporary or
old fashioned, whether it is the real thing or a
“knock o�,” and so on. �is means we have to
have a certain amount of product knowledge
and general knowledge in order to determine
how to interpret an object from a semiotic
perspective. We gain this product knowledge
thanks to advertising and the media.

Peirce on Signs

Charles Sanders Peirce is the other found-
ing father of modern semiotics and the
person who gave the subject its name. He
suggested that the universe is made up of
signs and that the interpreters of signs have
to supply some of the meanings, writing
that a sign is “something which stands to
somebody for something in some respect
or capacity” (quoted in Zeman, 1977:24).
Peirce elaborated a trichotomy, saying that

What Objects Mean54.

there are three kinds of signs: iconic signs that signify by resem-
blance; indexical signs that signify by cause and e�ect; and symbolic
signs, whose meaning must be learned.

We can see these three aspects of signs in the chart below:

Icons Indexes Symbols

Mode Resemblance Causal connection Convention

Process Can see Can determine Can learn

Examples Statue of person Bomb fragments Crucifix, flags

We can combine Saussure’s and Peirce’s approaches to semiotics
and use both approaches to analyze material culture. �us, we can
see objects in terms of whether they are iconic, indexical, or symbolic,
and we can see them as signi�ers that have signi�eds to be discerned.

Photographs and other objects, such as coins, which o en have
images of important personages on them, are examples of iconic
objects. Cruci�xes and �ags are symbolic in that their meaning has
to be learned and are thus cultural in nature. Bomb fragments enable
experts to determine what kind of explosive was used and in some
cases where the explosive and bomb paraphernalia come from.

Jonathan Culler has explained the importance of semiotics as
follows:

�e notion that linguistics might be useful in studying other
cultural phenomena is based on two fundamental insights: �rst,
that social and cultural phenomena are not simply material objects
or events but objects and events with meaning, and hence signs;
and second, that they do not have essence but are de�ned by a
network of relations. (1976:4)

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 55.

�us, a semiotic approach to material cul-
ture involves searching for the way these
objects function as signs and generate mean-
ing to others. From a semiotic perspective,
nothing has meaning in itself; an object’s
meaning always derives from the network of
relations in which it is embedded. �us, when
we think about a watch, we have to consider
whether it is digital or analogue; entry-level,
mid-level, or high end; and how it compares
to other watches o�ered by other companies.

Roland Barthes on the
Semiotics of Objects

In Roland Barthes’s �e Semiotic Challenge
(1988), he has a chapter titled “Semantics
of the Object,” in which he o�ers some
insights into the role of semiotics in
analyzing material culture. He writes (168):

It is in this general context of semiological
inquiry that I should like to o�er some rapid
and summary re�exions on the way in which
objects can signify in the contemporary
world. And here I must specify at once that
I am granting a very strong sense to the

What Objects Mean56.

word signify; we must not confuse signify with communicate: to
signify means that objects carry not only information, in which case
they would communicate, but also constitute structured systems
of signs, i.e, essentially systems of di�erences, of oppositions and
contrasts.

He points out that we conventionally de�ne an object as “something
used for something,” and then adds (1988:169; italics in original),
“�ere is virtually never an object for nothing.” �ere is a paradox,
Barthes suggests, that involves objects (169–170):

�e paradox I want to point out is that these objects which always
have, in principle, a function, a utility, a purpose, we believe we
experience as pure instruments, whereas in reality they carry other
things, they are also something else: they function as the vehicle of
meaning. …�ere is always a meaning which over�ows the object’s
use…there is no object which escapes meaning.

�e problem in studying the meaning of objects, Barthes cautions,
is what he describes as the obstacle of the obvious. We have to move
beyond what is obvious and an examination of the object detached
from its role in the world. We must look at the way objects are used in
advertising, �lms, and the theater to gain a be�er understanding of
what they mean for people.

Barthes wrote his article in 1964, well before he was to write his
most well-known book, Mythologies, and in his article on objects we
can see he was beginning to examine aspects of French culture that
would lead to Mythologies. He ends the article by discussing the way
people convert objects into what he calls “pseudo-nature,” and that
theme is to be of major importance in Mythologies.

On the Veracity of Signs

One of the problems with signs, that they can be used to lie, was
pointed out by the distinguished semiotician Umberto Eco. As he
wrote in his A �eory of Semiotics (1976:7):

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 57.

Semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign.
A sign is everything which can be taken as signi�cantly substituting
for something else. �is something else does not necessarily have
to exist or to actually be somewhere at the moment in which a sign
stands for it. �us semiotics is in principle the discipline studying
everything which can be used in order to lie. If something cannot
be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth; it
cannot be used “to tell” at all. I think that the de�nition of a “theory
of the lie” should be taken as a pre�y comprehensive program for a
general semiotics.

Eco cautions us to recognize that signs can be used to mislead others,
so we must always approach objects with a note of caution.

We can see how people can use signs to “ lie” in the chart that
follows.

Objects Means of Misleading

Elevator shoes Short height is disguised

Wigs Bald person covers up baldness

Imitation crab Fake crab is much cheaper

Falsies Large breasts

Clothes of opposite sex Transvestism

It is obvious from this list that by using certain objects we can
manipulate our identities and “lie” with signs. �is process, lying
with signs, is found not only in our objects but also in other aspects
of our everyday life—including the design of objects, facial expres-
sions, body language and language itself. A great deal of what we

What Objects Mean58.

think of as “people watching” involves examining di�erent kinds
of material culture that people are wearing or using: hats, jewelry,
clothes, shoes, handbags, briefcases, and so on. One problem we face
in “people watching” is that we have no way of knowing, most of the
time, whether people are lying with signs—some blondes are really
brune�es, that beautiful blonde you see may really be a man, and that
handsome man may be a woman.

Denotation and Connotation

In semiotic theory, denotation and connotation play an important
role. Denotation, when dealing with artifacts, involves detailed
descriptions and measurements. Connotation, on the other hand,
involves the cultural meanings and myths connected to them. Let
us consider an important artifact—a Barbie doll. From a denotation
perspective, a Barbie doll is 11.5 inches tall and has the following
measurements: 5.25 inches by 3 inches by 4 inches. It was invented in
1959. �is material is all factual.

W hen we come to connotations of Barbie dolls then, we enter into
the area of what these dolls symbolize about American culture and
society, their cultural, symbolic, and mythic signi�cance—ma�ers
that are quite controversial. Charles Winick in his book, Desexualiza-
tion in American Life, o�ers an interpretation of the psychological and
cultural signi�cance of Barbie dolls and other dolls like Barbie. He
suggests that Barbie dolls re�ect a basic change in the way children
are socialized. Instead of rehearsing for motherhood with baby dolls,
li�le girls now learn how to become sexually a�ractive, practice how
to have romantic relationships, and learn how to be consumers. If
that is the case, Barbie dolls have changed the way girls develop and
profoundly a�ected relationships between men and women. We see,
then, that simple objects can reveal a great deal about many di�erent
aspects of the societies in which they are found and can have a pro-
found impact on these societies.

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 59.

The prototype teen or full-figured doll was introduced in 1957,
and Barbie appeared in 1959, followed in two years by Ken, her
male consort. Three Barbies have been sold for every Ken. An
average of over six million mannequin dolls have been sold each
year for a decade. A minimum standard wardrobe for Barbie
costs an elegant $588. … What is the effect of these mannequin
dolls on their millions of owners between four and twelve?
Such girls may be much less able to achieve the emotional
preparation for being a wife and mother that they received from
baby dolls. Barbie is a sexy teenager. A girl who protects and
sees her doll as a mother figure is seeing her mother as a teen-
ager, which is certainly confusing. If the youngster identifies
herself as the mother, then she is taking care of a child who is
already an adolescent….

For the Barbie-weaned girl, a relationship with the opposite
sex may not be marvelous and exciting; it could rather be a
routinized aspect of our culture’s material assembly line, lacking
mystery or momentum because of its predictable outcome. The
Barbie girl may learn to expect to be valued because of her ever-
increasing wardrobe and ability to manipulate her father and,
later, husband into buying clothes and more clothes. During the
latency years, she is being introduced to precocious sexuality,
voyeurism, fantasies of seduction, and conspicuous consumption.

Charles Winick, Desexualization in American Life (1995:226–227)

Winick’s theory is that Barbie dolls, and other similar kind of
dolls, reflect a basic change that took place in the socialization
of young girls and led to a major change in the way girls thought
about motherhood and their relationships to men. It is the
connotations of Barbie dolls that are all important here. Barbie
is, then, a signifier of considerable importance, and recognizing
the signified aspects of these dolls is what is so revealing.

What Objects Mean60.

Conclusions

A semiotic approach to material culture o�ers us the ability to interpret
objects and artifacts and, as the Barthes quote that begins this chapter
shows, to explain how these objects tie in to cultural codes and such
phenomena as the socialization of children and other social and
cultural ma�ers. It is important that we recognize that objects play
varying roles in society, and their meaning is not exhausted in their
immediate function. As Saussure pointed out, semiotics is the study
of signs in society. We must not forget about this important aspect of
semiotic theory which suggests that interpreting material objects can
teach us a great deal about the societies in which they are found.

This page intentionally left blank

Everyday life is crisscrossed by pa�erns that
regulate the behavior of its inhabitants with
each other and that, at the same time, relate
this behavior to much larger contexts of mean-
ing (such as…canons of acceptable etique�e, the
moral order and the sanctions of law). �ese reg-
ulatory pa�erns are what are commonly called
institutions. Everyday life takes place within the
enveloping context of an institutional order; it is
intersected at di�erent points by speci�c institu-
tions that, as it were, reach into it, and its routines
themselves consist of institutionalized behavior,
that is, of behavior that is pa�erned and regu-
lated in established ways. Again, it is important
to understand the reciprocal relationship of these
two aspects of our experience of society: every-
day life can only be understood against the back-
ground of the speci�c institutions that penetrate
it and of the overall institutional order within
which it is located. Conversely, speci�c institu-
tions and the institutional order as a whole are
real only insofar as they are represented by people
and by events that are immediately experienced
in everyday life.

Peter L. Berger and Brigi�e Berger,
Sociology: A Biographical Approach
(1972:10)

63.
What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger,
62–79. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

4.
Sociological
Analysis of
Material Culture

We’ve already dealt with two theoretical
approaches to material culture: psycho-
analytic theory and semiotic theory. To this
list we now add sociological theory, which
deals with a�empts that sociologists and
other scholars have made to understand how
institutions, as described by the Bergers above,
function in society. Sociology is, technically
speaking, the study of human beings in
groups and institutions. �e focus is on the
way society functions and includes such areas
as marriage and the family, class systems,
race, gender, religion, and other aspects of
collective behavior. In this chapter I will focus
on sociological theories and concepts that help
illuminate material culture.

What Objects Mean64.

Sociological Theory

�e French philosopher August Comte
(1798–1857) used the term “sociology” to
integrate theoretical and practical studies of
human beings. His goal for sociology was “to
know in order to predict in order to control.”
He wanted to discern the laws by which
people organize their lives so he and other
sociologists could help create a more humane
and rational social order.

Another French scholar, Emile Durkheim
(1858–1917), who is generally considered to
be the founder of French sociology, argued
that the relationship that exists between indi-
viduals and society is very complicated. As he
explained in his book, �e Elementary Forms
of Religious Life (1915/1965:29):

�ere are two beings in him: an individual
being which has its foundation in the
organism and the circle of whose activities
is therefore strictly limited, and a social
being which represents the highest reality
in the intellectual and moral order that
we can know by observation—I mean
society. �is duality of our nature has as
its consequence in the practical order, the
irreducibility of a moral ideal to a utilitarian
motive, and in the order of thought, the
irreducibility of reason to individual
experience. In so far as he belongs to
society, the individual transcends himself,
both when he thinks and when he acts.

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 65.

�is helps explain what Peter and Brigi�e Berger were writing
about in the passage that opens this chapter. We have individuality,
which is based on our physical endowments, the fact that we are an
“organism,” and we are also, at the same time, social beings, whose
ideas and values are shaped, to varying degrees, by the social order.

We are in society and society is in us, and it is simplistic to neglect
either of these two sides to our nature. We can say the same thing about
artifacts: they are in society and society is re�ected in them. �at is
why artifacts are not only reluctant witnesses to the past but also valu-
able witnesses to the present.

Functionalism

Many sociologists are structural-functionalists, who base their
investigations on the notion that the institutions in society are part of
an ongoing system of institutions, each of which is connected to all the
others. �ey focus on whether an institution (or something else) helps
contribute to the stability and maintenance of society, in which case the
institution is “functional,” or helps contribute to the destabilization and
breakdown of society, in which case the institution is “dysfunctional”
or “disfunctional.” If an institution plays no role, it is “non-functional.”

�ere is, we can see, a conservative bias to structural-functional-
ism, since it posits the maintenance of society as the primary consid-
eration rather than focusing on change and the evolution of institu-
tions and societies. We can also apply functionalism to components
of institutions and to all kinds of di�erent entities, including artifacts,
asking what function the artifact has for people. Functionalists also
distinguish between latent functions, which are not intended and of
which we are not aware (but which may be very important), and man-
ifest functions, which are intended and of which we are conscious.

�e manifest function of cell phones is to be able to make phone calls
just about everywhere. �e latent functions of cell phones may involve
anything from helping deal with loneliness and keeping track of chil-
dren to making people feel powerful by being able to summon others at
their command, so to speak, by punching a few numbers in a cell phone.

What Objects Mean66.

Our dependence on cell phones is so great that Barack Obama refused
to give up his beloved Blackberry when he became president, and the
secret service had to make arrangements so he could use it.

�ere are six aspects of functionalism that are of interest to theo-
rists of material culture:

Functional Helps maintain the entity

Dysfunctional Helps destabilize the entity

Non-functional Plays no role in the entity

Functional alternative Substitutes for original function

Manifest function Obvious, stated reason for using something

Latent function Unconscious factors involved in using something

Aspects Smartphone

Functional connects with others

Dysfunctional disturbs others, wastes time

Non-functional n/a

Functional alternative substitutes for traditional phone

Manifest function makes phone calls, sends texts to other

Latent Function controls others, avoids loneliness

From a functionalist perspective, we can then ask a number of
questions about artifacts. I will take smartphones as the subject for a
functional analysis.

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 67.

The first signs of the next shift began to reveal themselves to me
on a spring afternoon in the year 2000. That was when I began
to notice people on the streets of Tokyo staring at their mobile
phones instead of talking to them. The sight of this behavior,
now commonplace in much of the world, triggered a sensation
I had experienced few times before—the instant recognition
that a technology is going to change my life in ways I can
scarcely imagine. Since then the practice of exchanging short
text messages via mobile telephones has led to the eruption of
subcultures in Europe and Asia. At least one government has
fallen, in part because of the way people used text messaging.
Adolescent mating rituals, political activism, and corporate
management styles have mutated in unexpected ways.

Howard Rheingold, Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution

(2003:xi)

Rheingold’s insight that smartphones would change the way
we live has been born out as these devices and their smartphone
successors have become ubiquitous and now play a major role
in the social lives of young people all over the world. In many
third world countries, cell phones and smartphones have
enabled people to communicate with one another and connect
to the internet for the first time, since there are few land lines or
personal computers available.

What Objects Mean68.

We can see, then, that there is more to an
object than its primary function, and the most
interesting aspects of many kinds of material
culture involve their covert and o en unrec-
ognized functions.

Taste Cultures

Sociologists and social scientists in all
�elds love to develop typologies—that is,
classi�cation schemes—that they believe
help us be�er understand the way societies,
institutions, and other phenomena function.
One of the most interesting typologies was
done by sociologist Herbert J. Gans in his
book, Popular Culture and High Culture. Gans
wanted to defend people who like popular
culture against a�ack by elitists who like high
or “elite” culture.

He did this by suggesting that in America
(and by implication in other societies as well)
there are a number of di�erent popular cul-
tures and elite cultures, and each of them is
part of what he described as a taste culture.
�ese taste cultures entertain us, inform
us, and beautify our lives. As he explains
(1974:10):

Taste cultures, as I de�ne them, consist of
values, the cultural forms which express
these values: music, art, design, literature,
drama, comedy, poetry, criticism, news and
the media in which these are expressed—
books, magazines, newspapers, records,
�lms and television programs, paintings

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 69.

and sculpture, architecture, and insofar
as ordinary consumer goods also express
aesthetic values or functions, furnishings,
clothes, appliances, and automobiles as well.

He then discusses the relationship between
popular culture and elite culture and various
problems associated with both, before o�er-
ing a list of �ve American taste cultures. �ey
are, he points out, very general and do not deal
with religious, ethnic, and regional variants.
His book was published in 1974, so many of
his examples are dated or no longer exist, but
Gans’s theory, that there are �ve distinct taste
cultures in America, o�ers us a way of thinking
about who uses what kind of material culture.

Gans also points out that choices people
make about the objects they purchase are
connected to one another. �at is, as he
explains, people who read �e New Yorker or
Harper’s also tend to like foreign �lms, listen
to classical music, eat gourmet foods, and
choose contemporary (once this was Danish
modern) furniture.

What Objects Mean70.

�ese �ve American taste cultures are based on ma�ers such as
socio-economic class, religion, age, education, ethnic and racial back-
ground, and personality factors. �ey are listed below with examples
of each. I have limited the examples to objects and material culture he
mentions in his book:

1. High Culture
(socioeconomic-cultural elites, creative types)
Primitive Art and Abstract Expressionist Art
New York Review of Books

2. Upper Middle Culture
(executives, professionals, managers, and spouses)
Time, Newsweek
Harper’s, New Yorker, Playboy, Ms, Vogue

3. Lower Middle Culture
(older lower-middle class people)
Holly wood Modern furniture (very ornate)
Confession magazines

4. Quasi-Folk Low Culture
(unskilled blue collar and service workers)
Tabloids
Comic books

5. Youth, Black, and Ethnic Cultures
Psychedelic and multimedia art
Tie-dyed and unisex clothing
Paraphernalia of drug culture

W hile we may question Gans’s division of American consumers
into �ve, and only �ve, taste cultures (or taste subcultures), it seems
reasonable to suggest that there are a number of di�erent somewhat
amorphous cultural and socio-economic groupings in America, each
of which has certain notions about what they like and don’t like in art
and, for our purposes, in the objects and artifacts they purchase.

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 71.

W hat Gans does in his book is defend the di�erent taste cultures
and argue for aesthetic pluralism, pointing out that each of these taste
cultures �nds media and fashions appropriate to its interests, edu-
cational level, and aesthetic sensibilities. He tells us that the Lower
Middle taste culture is the dominant one in America—or was in 1972
when he wrote his book.

�e typology that Gans uses varies slightly from a classical portrait
of American society made by W. Lloyd Warner 20 years before Gans
wrote his book. In his 1953 book, American Life: Dream and Reality,
Warner suggested that there are six classes in America:

Upper-Upper: 1.4%
Lower-Upper 1.6%
Upper-Middle 10%
Lower-Middle 28%
Upper-Lower 33%
Lower-Lower 25%

What Objects Mean72.

He said that the Lower-Middle and Upper-Lower classes represent
the common man and woman in America. Although these �gures are
more than 50 years old, they are not too far removed from the eco-
nomic makeup of American society today, with the top one percent or
so owning the lion’s share of America’s wealth.

A great deal of the reading we do in books and newspapers and
magazines serves the purpose of giving us notions about what objects
and other kinds of material culture are appropriate for individuals
who are members of each socioeconomic class or taste culture. �at is
one of the functions of advertising, which teaches us how to evaluate
objects and read people in terms of the objects they wear and own.
Advertising teaches us to be “discriminating” consumers and to rec-
ognize what brands go with what kind of people.

For example, we generally scrutinize people we see (in real life, in
movies, on television, in commercials and print advertisements) in
terms of the brands they are wearing of products such as eyeglasses,
sunglasses, shirts, ties, sweaters, coats, pants, jackets, shoes, sneakers,
pocketbooks, briefcases, backpacks, and so on ad in�nitum. Many of
these products carry logos and other markers that people can see to
facilitate the process. �ey are “status symbols,” and will be discussed
in the chapter on economics, Marxism, and material culture. One
thing that wearing name brand and expensive brands seems to do is
make us feel good about ourselves and about the image we project to
others, because, in our minds, these name brand objects are indica-
tors that we are successful. �is leads to my next topic, the uses and
grati�cations that artifacts provide.

Uses and rati cations Provided by Artifacts

�e uses and grati�cation theory was developed, originally, by media
theorists who were interested in why people listened to soap operas or
watched certain television programs. Instead of trying to �nd out the
e�ects of media usage, they focused on the uses people made of the
media they consumed and the grati�cations the various media genres
provided. We can do the same thing for artifacts and theorize about

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 73.

the uses people make of the objects they have and the grati�cations
these objects have for them. To do this we have to modify the original
list of uses and grati�cations so they can be applied to the consumption
and possession of artifacts.

To Have Beautiful Things

�is is a variation of the grati�cation involved with experiencing the
beautiful. �ere is a kind of psychological reward we get from having
desired and beautiful things to wear and to have in the house, in
that possessing “beautiful” or desired objects enhances a feeling of
wellbeing in people and makes us feel that we have been successful.

To Find Diversion and Distraction

Here we �nd the process of purchasing objects enables us to escape
from our mundane preoccupations in an e�ort to enhance—we
believe—the quality of our lives. Also, the act of purchasing things
gives us, if only for a short while, a sense of power and an escape from
the anonymity that we �nd so troubling. And the objects we buy, such
as smartphones, TVs, and tablets are o en ones that we can use to
entertain ourselves, though they may have other functions as well.

To Imitate Models We Respect

Many of the artifacts and products we purchase are due to a desire
to imitate others. A French scholar, René Girard, has suggested in
his book, A �eater of Envy: William Shakespeare, that we purchase
things advertised using movie stars and celebrities because we imi-
tate their desires, as re�ected by their participation in advertisements
and commercials.

To Af rm Aesthetic Values

Every choice we make of a tie, a shirt, a piece of jewelry or any other
article of clothing or other kind of possession re�ects our “taste,”
our aesthetic values and, in the case of conspicuous consumption,
our status. We will see later, in the work done by Mary Douglas in

What Objects Mean74.

the chapter on anthropology, that our choice of objects may be more
connected to our lifestyles—the groups with which we identify—
than to our personalities and taste.

Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

Race involves categorizing people by their genetic heritage.
Traditionally, social scientists o�ered three racial categories: Negroid,
Mongoloid, and Caucasian. �is theory has come under a�ack in
recent years by scholars who argue that race is not really a biological
category but is, instead, a socially constructed one. And as more
people from di�erent races marry one another and have mixed-race
children, the utility of race as a construct seems questionable.

Ethnicity refers to groups such as Jews, Italian-Americans, and
Hispanics that share certain religious, racial, national, and cultural
traits and cuisines. In some cases, such as the bagel, a food that origi-
nates with one ethnic group, Jews, becomes widely popular and loses
its original ethnic identity. During a recent trip to Japan I saw bagels
being sold in some bakeries.

It is possible to suggest that race and ethnicity play an important
role in the choice of artifacts people purchase, and marketers have dis-
cerned that di�erent races purchase di�erent brands of alcohol, kinds
of cigare�es, and food products. For example, African-Americans
show a strong preference for menthol cigare�es (70 percent of African
Americans prefer menthol cigare�es compared to 25 to 30 percent
of white Americans), and Asian-Americans and Hispanics consume
much more rice than Caucasians do.

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 75.

Marketers use race and ethnicity to plan advertising campaigns.
�ere is a book, Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Asians, Blacks, Hispan-
ics, Native Americans and Whites (5th edition), that marketers can pur-
chase, along with another similar book, Who’s Buying by Race and His-
panic Origin. Both of these books, and others on teenagers, women,
and baby boomers, are published by New Strategist Publications.

�ere is some question as to whether race, age (generation), gender
or socio-economic class or other factors are the dominant motivators
behind the purchases of food products, clothes, and other artifacts
and products people make. Some objects are gender speci�c, such as
birth control pills (although there are now some made for men) and
nylon stockings, and some objects migrate between genders, such as
earrings, which used to be only worn by women but are now worn by
many men as well.

Status

We can de�ne status as the position an individual has in some
group, or that a group has relative to other groups. One of the ways
we demonstrate our status to others is by purchasing objects that
function as status symbols, artifacts that suggest our wealth and socio-
economic class. Sociologists suggest there are two kinds of status.
�e �rst kind, ascribed status, is based on factors such as our gender,
our age, and the status of the family in which we are born. Achieved
status is based on our merits, our abilities, and our success in various
endeavors. Traditional societies are those in which ascribed status is
dominant. In modern societies, achieved status tends to be the rule,
but since some children are born into wealthy families and have be�er
life chances than children born into poor families, achieved status
means that many people who aren’t �nancially successful su�er from
alienation and a sense of relative deprivation.

What Objects Mean76.

Role

�e concept of role is connected to status.
Role refers to behavior expected of people
who have a particular status. A person plays
many di�erent roles in the course of a day. A
woman might be a mother, an executive in
a corporation, and a member of a religious
organization—three di�erent roles. Our
role behavior is generally unconscious, but
sociologists have a concept, “dramatic role
presentation,” that deals with conscious
e�orts individuals make to create a positive
impression among other people. For
example, in a hierarchical institution such as
a university, full professors have more status
and play di�erent roles than those played by
associate professors and assistant professors.

A problem some individuals face is that
they have not learned to play certain roles cor-
rectly, so, for example, young men and women
who a�end college and have not learned the
correct roles to play as students o en get into
di
culties. We use the term “socialization”
to refer to teaching people what roles to play
in various situations in which they �nd them-
selves. Many people have been improperly
socialized, which causes problems for them
and others they come into contact with. Fash-
ion is an area where one can display improper
socialization, by wearing clothes that are not
appropriate to one’s status. It is important to
know how to dress correctly or appropriately
for various roles we are called upon to play.

Sociologists have discovered that some

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 77.

people use fashion and other objects to imi-
tate the behavior of groups with which they
identify. �us, there are groups of people who
look like motorcycle riders because they wear
leather jackets and other paraphernalia asso-
ciated with motorcycle riding, but who don’t
own motorcycles. �ey are, as the semioticians
would put it, “lying” with signs and symbols.

ean Baudrillard’s The System of Objects

Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007) was a French
Marxist, sociologist, and semiotician,
whose book, �e System of Objects (1968
French edition/1996 English translation),
is considered an important contribution
to understanding material culture. In the
introduction to the book he discusses his
perspective on material culture (1996:3–4):

Everyday objects (we are not concerned
here with machines) proliferate, needs
multiply, production speeds up the life-
span of such objects—yet we lack a
vocabulary to name them all. How can
we hope to classif y a world of objects that
changes before our eyes and arrive at an
adequate system of description? �ere are
almost as many criteria of classi�cation as
there are objects themselves: the size of
the object; its degree of functionality (i.e.,
the object’s relationship to its own objec-
tive function); the gestures connected
with it (are they rich or impoverished?
traditional or not?); its form; its duration;
the time of day at which it appears…;

What Objects Mean78.

the material that it transforms…; the degree of exclusiveness or
sociability a�endant on its use (is it for private, family, public or
general use?); and so on.

Baudrillard alerts us to the many di�erent qualities of objects and
the variety of roles they play in our lives—private and public. He pro-
vides us with a list of things to think about when we start analyzing
objects. He adds, shortly a er this passage, that he isn’t interested
in the functions of objects or the categories into which we may put
them (1996:4) “but instead with the processes whereby people relate
to them and with the systems of human behaviour and relationships
that result therefrom.” In other words, he is interested in what objects
reveal about social relations and society in general.

In a chapter on advertising, Baudrillard calls our a�ention to the
role that it plays in the way we think about and relate to objects. He
writes (1996:164):

Any analysis of the system of objects must ultimately imply an
analysis of discourse about objects—that is to say, an analysis
of promotional “messages” (comprising image and discourse).
For advertising is not simply an adjunct to the system of objects;
it cannot be detached therefrom, nor can it be restricted to its
“proper” function (there is no such thing as advertising strictly
con�ned to supplying information). Indeed, advertising is now an
irremovable aspect of the system of objects precisely by virtue of
its disproportionateness…. Advertising in its entirety constitutes
a useless and unnecessary universe. It is pure connotation. It
contributes nothing to production or to the direct practical
application of things, yet it plays an integral part in the system
of objects, not merely because it relates to consumption but also
because it itself becomes an object to be consumed.

W hen Baudrillard wrote his book, advertising may have had the
role he gives it, but in recent years advertising agencies have actually
played an important role in the design of objects as well as the e�ort

4. Sociological Analysis of Material Culture 79.

to sell them to people. I have o en thought that while many people
know very li�le about American history, literature, or culture, they all
have an enormous amount of “product knowledge” because they are
exposed to so much advertising every day—on just about every �at
surface available: television screens, computer monitors, cell phone
screens, the sides of buses, and so on. As we shall see in John Berger’s
analysis of objects, advertising plays an all-important role in selling
objects to people.

Conclusions

�e sociological perspective o�ers some interesting insights into
the role that objects and artifacts play in our lives, but it also raises
some questions about how these objects function for people and
what motivates people to purchase these objects. �e functional
perspective suggests that we cannot assume that we understand or
recognize the roles the artifacts we purchase play in our lives, that
quite o en there are unrecognized functions played by artifacts and a
multitude of di�erent factors shaping our desire to choose and possess
this or that artifact.

Sociological theory also suggests that we consider such factors as
age, gender, race, social roles, status, and the uses and grati�cations
provided by objects when considering material culture. �ere are,
then, a number of di�erent sociological models and approaches we
can use when dealing with material culture.

In the social production which men carry on they
enter into de�nite relations that are indispens-
able and independent of their will; these relations
of production correspond to a de�nite state of
development of their material powers of produc-
tion. �e totality of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of society—
the real foundation, on which legal and political
superstructures arise and to which de�nite forms
of social consciousness correspond. �e mode of
production of material life determines the gen-
eral character of the social, political and spiritual
processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men
that determines their being, but, on the contrary,
their social being determines their consciousness.

Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy
(1859:51)

81.
What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger,
80–98. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

5.
Economic Theory,
Marxism, and
Material Culture

If artifacts are simple objects showing human
workmanship, it means that artifacts are made
by others, either individual cra smen or,
what is more usually the case, large numbers
of workers in huge factories in distant places.
In contemporary America, many of the
objects we purchase are made in China or
other cheap labor countries. �e object, then,
is the tip of the iceberg, and below the seas,
where we cannot see things clearly, there is
human labor—labor that involves everything
from designing objects, manufacturing them,
transporting them, advertising them, and
selling them.

Needs Versus Desires: Traveling Light
and Arriving Heavy

Most of us have more “stu� ” (to use George
Carlin’s term) than we need. How many pairs
of pants, stockings, or shoes do we really
need? �e fact is, we tend to accumulate more

What Objects Mean82.

than we need or can use. Recently, I started thinking about all the
“stu� ” my wife and I have in our house: a piano, three sofas, a love seat,
an old school bench, three leather Mexican chairs, two television sets,
one of which is an LCD HDTV (20 inch), two desktop computers,
two tablet computers, a dozen original oil paintings, one laptop
computer, two cars, six clock-radios, eight pairs of old eyeglasses,
three vacuum cleaners, three microwave ovens, �ve thousand books,
three sets of china ware, two printers, one fax machine, one scanner,
four telephones, a dishwasher, a washing machine, a dryer, a waste
disposal system, four espresso machines, two co�ee grinders, two
MP3 players, two hi-� sets, 200 CDs, and two cars…I could go on and
on, and I haven’t said anything about my other clothes or my wife’s
shoes, dresses, blouses, perfumes, or other things.

I haven’t mentioned the brands of the various objects we
own—a ma�er of considerable importance to many people, as we
shall see. For it isn’t only the objects you have that has to be consid-
ered; the brands of the objects are of major signi�cance in the analysis
of material culture. We can see the list of objects in my household,
incomplete as it is, and from writer R ick Moranis’s catalogue of his
possessions, which I’ve only sampled, that it is easy to get lots of pos-
sessions and hard to get rid of them. “Get” is a nicer word than “buy”
and doesn’t suggest that you’re paying money for things.

We all spend a good deal of time shopping, and when we shop
we buy things—food, clothes, furniture, high-tech gizmos, CDs,
stamps, cars… you name it. �is stu� ends up in our houses, and so
we spend our lives surrounded by objects of all kinds that we’ve pur-
chased or have been given—what we might describe as the objects of
our a�ection. Our shopping and the things we buy—or things that
we are given and thus possess—are one way we de�ne ourselves as
persons to ourselves and to others, and we o en develop strong emo-
tional a�achments to our possessions. �at explains why we are so
reluctant to part with them.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 83.

Rick Moranis on Material Culture

In a humorous article in the November 22, 2006, New York
Times, writer Rick Moranis wrote a short essay, “My Days Are
Numbered,” in which he pointed out that he has:

5 television sets
2 DVR boxes
3 DVD players
19 remote controls
3 computers
5 sinks
26 sets of linen
14 digital clocks

Most of us don’t have as many sinks, refrigerators, and take-out
menus as Rick Moranis does, but if we make an inventory of our
possessions, we’re generally surprised at how much “stuff” we
have accumulated.

4 printers
2 non-working fax machines
2 answering machines
46 cookbooks
68 take-out menus from 4 restaurants
2 refrigerators
506 CDs, cassettes, etc.
9 armchairs

What Objects Mean84.

Marxist Theory and Alienation

Karl Marx developed a number of economic and psychological theories
to explain the role of capitalism in the modern world. One of the
primary factors leading people to focus their a�ention on purchasing
things is alienation, by which Marx meant a separation or estrangement
of man’s true nature from his sense of self. As he explained:

Every man speculates upon creating a new need in another in order
to force him to a new sacri�ce, to place him in a new dependence,
and to entice him into a new kind of pleasure and thereby into
economic ruin. Everyone tries to establish over others an alien
power in order to �nd there the satisfaction of his own egoistic
need. (quoted in Fromm, 1962:50)

�ese “needs” are not real, Marxists argue, but are arti�cially
imposed upon us by advertising agencies and marketers, who convince
us we need to purchase this product or that gizmo if we are going to
be really happy. We are alienated, Marx argues, because for most of us
our work is “external” to us, and we only work so we can make money
to live. As he wrote, “the life which he has given to the object sets itself
against him as an alien and hostile force” (Fromm, 1962:170).

For Marxists, then, the objects and artifacts we possess are signi-
�ers of the alienation we feel. We purchase things in order to assuage
our sense of frustration with our situation—not recognizing, of
course, why we are acting the way we do. Alienation, for Marx, a�ects
everyone in bourgeois capitalist societies, not just workers. �is
would suggest, then, that the more artifacts we feel we need to have,
the more we are signifying our alienation and the more alienated we
are. So big diamond rings worn by wealthy women are, from a Marxist
perspective, indicators of alienation and estrangement—from others
and from oneself. W hen you have big diamond rings and other expen-
sive artifacts, you always have to worry about losing them or people
trying to take them away from you by one means or another.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 85.

Class Con ict

�e unequal distribution of goods leads to class con�ict, a basic
Marxist theory. For Marx, history is the story of endless class con�ict.
As he writes (quoted in Bo�omore and Rubel, 1964: 200):

�e history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class
struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf,
guild-master and journeyman, in a word oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an
uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, �ght, a �ght that each time
ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or
in the common ruin of the contending classes.

For Marx, the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production
and form the ruling class, and the proletariat, who are the workers
exploited by the bourgeoisie, are locked in a never-ending struggle.
�e ruling classes avert class struggle by indoctrinating the members
of the proletariat with what Marx called “false consciousness,” namely,
ruling class ideas, such as the notion that everyone can succeed if they
are willing to work hard enough (the “American Dream”). �e ruling
classes also avoid class con�ict by making it possible for the prole-
tariat to purchase goods and services that distract their a�ention from
the class makeup of society and the unequal distribution of wealth.

The Role of Advertising

Advertising is for many Marxists the main engine of consumer
culture in capitalist societies. It is not just a merchandizing tool but
an industry that dominates everyday life and social relationships. A
German Marxist, Wolfgang Haug, suggests in his book, Critique of
Commodity Aesthetics, that the advertising industry has learned how
to a�ach sexuality to objects and artifacts and to “aestheticize” them,
enabling the ruling classes in capitalist societies to more fully exploit
the masses. Advertising’s immediate goal is to sell artifacts and
various kinds of products, but its long range goal is to turn people’s

What Objects Mean86.

a�ention away from their exploitation and justify the existence of a
capitalist economic system.

Another Marxist theorist, Henri Lefebvre, argues that it is adver-
tising that gives all objects their valuation. As he writes in his book,
Everyday Life in the Modern World (1971:105):

In the second half of the twentieth century in Europe, or at any
rate in France, there is nothing—whether object, individual or
social group—that is valued apart from its double, the image that
advertises and sancti�es it. �is image duplicates not only any
object’s material, perceptible existence but desire and pleasure that
it makes into �ctions situating them in the land of make-believe,
promising “happiness”— the happiness of being a consumer.

W hat advertising has done, Lefebvre believes, is transform itself
from an industry inducing people to buy objects and products to one
that gives them, and everything else, value and status in people’s eyes.
For Lefebvre, advertising has taken control of everyday life and gives
everyone a�itudes and a sense of style that inform their purchases
and their lives.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 87.

An analysis of the system of objects must ultimately imply an
analysis of discourse about objects—that is to say, an analysis of
promotional “messages” (comprising image and discourse). For
advertising is not simply an adjunct to the system of objects;
it cannot be detached therefrom, nor can it be restricted to its
“proper” function (there is no such thing as advertising strictly
confined to the supplying of information). Indeed, advertising
is now an irremovable aspect of the system of objects precisely
because of its disproportioness. This lack of proportion is the
“function” apotheosis of the system. Advertising in its entirety
constitutes a useless and unnecessary universe. It is pure
connotation. It contributes nothing to production or to the direct
practical application of things, yet it plays an integral part in the
system of objects, not merely because it relates to consumption
but also because it itself becomes an object to be consumed.

Jean Baudrillard, The System of Objects (1996:164)

I discussed Baudrillard’s book The System of Objects earlier.
Here he stressed the importance of advertising, which convinces
us to buy all these objects—most of which we don’t really need.
As advertising executives often explain, “our job is to convince
you to buy things you didn’t know you needed.”

Thorstein Veblen and Conspicuous Consumption

�orstein Veblen (1857–1929) was a “radical” American economist
who o�ered a di�erent perspective on the role of consumption in the
United States. In his analysis of Veblen’s theories, Lewis Coser writes
in Masters of Sociological �ought (1971:268–269):

Veblen is at his best when he analyzes the various means by which
men a�empt to symbolize their high standing in the continuous

What Objects Mean88.

struggle for competitive advantage. Con-
spicuous consumption, conspicuous lei-
sure, conspicuous display of symbols of
high standing are to Veblen some of the
means by which men a�empt to excel
their neighbors and so a�ain heightened
self-evaluation.

We must be mindful, Veblen tells us, of the
ultimate goal of conspicuous consumption—
namely, an enhanced sense of self.

Coser argues that Veblen uses functional
analysis in dealing with conspicuous con-
sumption. As Coser explains (1971:271):

W hen Veblen describes the various mani-
festations of the pa�ern of conspicuous
consumption, he is always at pains to fer-
ret out their latent functions. Manifestly,
candles are meant to provide light and
automobiles are means of transportation.
But under the pecuniary scheme they
serve the latent function of indicating and
enhancing status. Candle light at dinner
indicates that the host makes claims to
a style of gracious living that is peculiar
to the upper class….One serves caviar to
symbolize the re�nement of the palate
that is the mark of a gentleman.

It is necessary, Veblen suggests, to look for
the hidden or latent functions of objects
to fully understand the role they play in
our lives. �e problem is that we can never
feel satis�ed with what we have. As Veblen

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 89.

writes in �e �eory of the Leisure Class, “As
fast as a person makes new acquisitions, and
becomes accustomed to the new standard of
wealth, the new standard forthwith ceases to
a�ord appreciably greater satisfaction than
the earlier standard did” (quoted in Coser
1971:268). �is means we are locked into a
situation in which we can never stop yearning
for new and be�er things, because we are
always comparing ourselves with others who
have more than we do.

Max Weber and
Calvinist-Protestant Thought

Max Weber (1864–1920), an important
German sociologist and one of the founding
fathers of sociology, argues that Calvinist
theology is behind the development of
capitalism and the a�itudes people have
towards their possessions. In his book, �e
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he
makes a couple of important points relevant
to our interests. �e �rst involves what he
describes as “worldly Protestant asceticism.”

Calvin argues that people should discard
the Catholic medieval ascetic perspective on
life, which he sees as a philosophy that “malig-
nantly deprives us of the lawful enjoyment of
the Divine bene�cence, but which cannot be
embraced ’til it has despoiled man of all his
senses and reduced him to a senseless block ”
( John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Reli-
gion, quoted in Berger [2005:6]). We must
distinguish, Calvin argues, between the

What Objects Mean90.

ascetic extreme, which stresses abstinence and reduces life to its bare
necessities, and its opposite, which involves glu�ony and “fastidious-
ness in our furniture, habitations, and our apparel” and other kinds of
behavior that distract people from their religious obligations.

According to Max Weber, then, the “Protestant ethic” is behind the
development of capitalism. Weber argues that the Protestant ethic
loosened the grip on people’s minds of medieval notions about the
value of poverty and justi�ed consumption as something that God
wants people to do, something that has a divine signi�cance. If people
were to consume things, they needed money—so hard work had to
be glori�ed, and wasting time on non-productive pursuits a�acked.
Weber uses the term asceticism to describe the Protestant perspective
on life, but it is a di�erent kind of asceticism from the medieval, self-
denying asceticism that Calvin had disparaged.

In addition to providing a hard working and diligent workforce, the
Protestant ethic convinced people that their place in the scheme of
things had been se�led by God. As Weber explains:

�e power of religious asceticism provided him [the bourgeois
business man]… with sober, conscientious, and unusually diligent
workmen, who clung to their work as to a life purpose willed by
God. Finally, it gave him the comforting assurance that the unequal
distribution of the goods of this world was a special dispensation
of Divine Providence, which in these di�erences, as in particular
grace, pursued secret ends unknown to men. (1958:177)

�is belief that there is a “Divine Providence” that justi�es the
unequal distribution of wealth is a great comfort to those who form
the ruling class, since it justi�es their position and lifestyle. And
since Divine Providence determines our economic fate, e�orts to
ameliorate the lives of the poor are fruitless. At the conclusion of his
book, Weber discusses the ideas of R ichard Baxter, a Puritan minister,
who believed that “the care for external goods should only lie on the
shoulders of the ‘saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at
any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 91.

cage” (Weber, 1958:181). Weber concludes
his book arguing that “material goods have
gained an increasing and �nally an inexorable
power over the lives of men as at no previous
period of history” (1958:181). Our passion to
possess objects and artifacts now dominates
our lives and has reached its highest level, he
suggests, in the United States, where stripped
of its religious basis, it has become something
with the character of sport.

It is reasonable to suggest that although
overtly we have cast o� the religious notions
of the Calvinists, in the thinking of many
people there still lingers a residue of the
belief that those who have wealth are blessed
by God. �e love of external goods, the pas-
sionate desire to have things, and not just
anything but the newest and most desirable
things, has, it would seem, become Baxter’s
iron cage in which most people now �nd
themselves trapped.

Georg Simmel on Fashion

�e German sociologist Georg Simmel
(1858–1918) o�ers us an insight into the role
fashion plays in the economy. He talks about
clothing, but fashion can be considered more
broadly and understood to deal not only
with new clothing styles but also with the
development of the new models of artifacts
we use. As he explains in his essay, “�e
Philosophy of Fashion” (quoted in David
Frisby and Mike Featherstone, 1997:192):

What Objects Mean92.

�e essence of fashion consists in the fact that it should always
be exercised by only a part of a given group, the great majority of
whom are merely on the road to adopting it. As soon as a fashion
has been universally adopted, that is, as soon as anything that was
originally done only by a few has really come to be practiced by
all—as is the case in certain elements of clothing and in various
forms of social conduct—we no longer characterize it as fashion.
Every growth of a fashion drives it to its doom, because it thereby
cancels out its distinctiveness.

Simmel points out an interesting process here: as soon as the exclusivity
of a fashion becomes tainted by mass adoption, fashionistas and new
adopters have to move on to something new. So there is a never ending
chain of activity as items that are fashionable lose their distinctiveness
when other items are created or newer versions are adopted, only to
be replaced in turn by newer items. And capitalist economies are
more than willing to create new products (such as MP3 players) and
new versions of products (such as the iPod).

He also explains why women are so conscious of fashion. He main-
tains that it is because of their social and political subservience that
women pay so much a�ention to fashion. As he writes (1997:196):

Out of the weakness of social position to which women were
condemned through the greatest part of history there arises their
close relationship to all that is “custom,” to that which is “right
and proper” to the generally valid and approved form of existence.
For those who are weak steer clear of individualization; they
avoid dependence upon the self, with its responsibilities and the
necessity of defending oneself unaided. �ose in a weak position
�nd protection only in the typical form of life.

So fashion consciousness, Simmel explains, has been a means by
which women try to deal with their subservience and social and
political weakness. W hether or not women are in fact such a group,
we could say about all groups who are socially and economically
marginal or weak that fashion plays an important role in their lives,

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 93.

though in some cases rather than blending
in, they move in the opposite direction and
use fashion to call a�ention to themselves.

Walter Benjamin and the Work of Art in
the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) was a German
Marxist critic who was interested in the
impact of mass production on objects. In a
highly in�uential essay, “�e Work of Art
in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,”
Benjamin dealt with what he described as
the loss of “aura” in mass produced objects.
He begins his essay with a discussion of mass
production of works of art (in Gerald Mast
and Marshall Cohen,1974:613):

In principle a work of art has always been
reproducible. Man-made artifacts could
always be imitated by man. Replicas were
made by pupils in practice of their cra ,
by masters for di�using their works, and
�nally by third parties in pursuit of gain.
Mechanical reproduction of a work of art,
however, represents something new.

He then discusses a number of topics
related to the ma�er of reproduction, includ-
ing lithography and photography, pointing
out that authenticity relies upon the presence
of originals, which are a prerequisite for an
object to be authentic. �is led to a discus-
sion of what Benjamin calls “auras.” As he
explains (1974:616):

What Objects Mean94.

�e authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible
from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its
testimony to the history which it has experienced. Since the
historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is
jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases
to ma�er. And what is really jeopardized when the historical
testimony is a�ected is the authority of the object.

One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura”
and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical
reproduction is the aura of the work of art. �is is a symptomatic
process whose signi�cance points beyond the realm of art. One
might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches
the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.

W hat Benjamin argues is that reproduced objects, or in the case of
brand name artifacts, imitations or reproductions (and fakes), are
separated from the “auras” of original works and from tradition. Once
authenticity becomes irrelevant, he suggests, art no long is based on
ritual with its focus on the creative artist and the creative process.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 95.

Most of the essay is concerned with �lm, which explains why it is
reproduced in a book on �lm theory. But Benjamin’s notion about
auras can be applied, with a slight twist, to all manner of artifacts,
especially name brand ones like watches, handbags, perfumes, and
clothing. One of the things that the person who owns the original
painting by Jason Berger is purchasing, from Benjamin’s point of view,
is Berger’s aura, his spirit, which is an important selling point.

W hen people purchase name band products, they are, in reality,
purchasing the aura, the good name that becomes a�ached to the
creator of the product or the brand. �e names of the creators of
these artifacts are recognizable by their use of initials or logos found
on such artifacts as sunglasses, wrist watches, handbags, jeans, cell
phones, and fountain pens. �ere exists a vast industry of knock o�s
that appropriate the logos of name-brand products but lack the aura of
the real versions of these artifacts. For the people who use these knock
o�s, the fact that they are using imitations is of li�le concern.

Authenticity and Postmodern Thought

One reason for this lack of concern about authenticity is because the
concept is largely irrelevant in postmodern times. Postmodernism is an
extremely complicated concept, but it has a number of central concerns,
such as the notion that the overarching metaphysical systems that we
used to believe in are no longer considered important. As the French
scholar Jean-François Lyotard puts it, postmodernism is characterized
by “incredulity toward metanarratives,” the grand philosophical
systems that we once used to order our lives. Postmodernism also
dissolves the boundaries between elite culture and popular culture
and between original works of art and reproductions or imitations.
So authenticity is not considered important in postmodern thought.

�e postmodernists argue that contemporary American culture is
postmodern. �ey suggest that around 1960 there was a huge cultural
swing from modernist thought, which valued the great metanarra-
tives and authenticity, to postmodern thought, which mixes styles and
adopts the pastiche as a cultural dominant. In postmodern societies,

What Objects Mean96.

then, knock o�s are perfectly acceptable, even desired, since they are
a great deal less expensive than name brand originals.

John Berger on Advertising and Material Culture

John Berger is a British Marxist, who wrote a book (based on a series
of BBC television shows) called Ways of Seeing (1978). It deals with
painting and other elite arts, but also has a chapter on advertising—or
what he calls “publicity.” As he explains (131–132):

Publicity is not an assembly of competing messages: it is a language
in itself which is always being used to make the same general
proposal. Within publicity, choices are o�ered between this cream
and that cream, that car and this car, but publicity as a system only
makes a single proposal.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 97.

It proposed to each of us that we transform ourselves, or our
lives, by buying something more. �is more, it proposes, will make
us, in some way richer—even though we will be poorer by having
spent our money….Publicity is e�ective precisely because it feeds
upon the real. Clothes, food, cars, cosmetics, baths, sunshine
are real things to be enjoyed in themselves. Publicity begins by
working on a natural appetite for pleasure.…Publicity is never
a celebration of a pleasure-in-itself. Publicity is always about the
future buyer. It o�ers him an image of himself made glamorous
by the product or opportunity it is trying to sell. �e image then
makes him envious of himself as he might be. Yet what makes this
self-which-he-might-be enviable? �e envy of others. Publicity is
about social relations, not objects.

�e point the Berger makes, that publicity is about social relations,
is a bit misleading. W hat he is arguing, I would suggest, is that the
objects we purchase play an important role in our social relations and
that advertising is the engine that gives the objects we purchase their
signi�cance for us.

Conclusions

�e objects and artifacts that play such an important role in our
everyday lives—our cell phones, our digital watches, our blue
jeans, our running shoes, and all the other items that we buy, can
be understood by Marxists to be the means by which ruling classes
distract Americans from recognizing their domination and the grossly
unfair unequal distribution of wealth and income in this country. �e
fact that people who are not wealthy can purchase knock o�s of the
name brand products purchased by wealthy people may be functional
for the ruling classes, since these knock o�s allow people to imitate
the consumption pa�erns of the ruling elites in societies.

Sociologists Weber and Simmel are not Marxists, but they rec-
ognize the importance of material goods to people as giving them a
sense of their value and goodness. Weber discusses material culture

What Objects Mean98.

more broadly, tying our love of things to Calvinism and Protestant
thought and an a�ack on medieval asceticism. Simmel focuses upon
fashion, explains it is a social force based upon di�erentiation, and
links women’s concern with fashion to their social subjugation.

Baudrillard o�ers a semiotically informed analysis of various
kinds of material culture in his book, �e System of Objects, and points
out the important role advertising has in consumer cultures. Walter
Benjamin, another German thinker, calls our a�ention to the “auras”
that he alleges distinguish original works of art from imitations. �is
focus on originality and auras raises the question of authenticity and
the postmodern perspective on culture, which argues that authen-
ticity is irrelevant in contemporary societies, since the distinctions
between original/imitation and elite/pop culture are held as spurious.

This page intentionally left blank

All theories of the past rely implicitly upon some
concept of human nature: why humans behave
the way we do, and how our behavior relates to
our social and physical environment. In culture
historical views, humans primarily act to repro-
duce their peculiar cultural traditions; in func-
tionalist views humans act in response to envi-
ronmental conditions to maximize their chances
of survival.… Material culture studies: like the
body, material things are a medium through
which we create ourselves and understand other
people, and hence an inescapable element of
social reproduction. Artefacts are a key to social
relations and �ames of mind. Indeed, there has
been considerable debate among archaeological
theorists about whether things can be considered
as agents in the same way that people can. Among
the many ways in which material things relate to
agency, we may note particularly technology as a
system of social knowledge and embodied action,
the use of everyday things to communicate subtle
political meanings such as the authority of the
state, the contextual use of material things to
rede�ne or contest inherited meanings, and the
question of the extent to which the archaeological
record might be an intentional creation.

John Robb, in Colin Renfrew and
Paul Bahn, eds., Archaeology: �e Key
Concepts (2005)

1

DHM 3033 Material Culture

Assignment 2:

Sharing, describing, & classifying a meaningful or significant object or artifact from my major and option area

Multiple Deadlines:

·
5pm on Sunday, March 14

·
11:59 pm on Sunday, March 14

Note: This assignment sheet is 5 pages long. This assignment is worth 75 points.

****************Consider visiting a museum for this assignment!******************

Museums are great places to learn about material culture! 5 points extra credit will be given for the selection of a museum artifact or museum interior (as related to your major and option area. Your object may be located in the museum gift shop). Do not use an object you are using for another assignment or final paper.

Please allow enough time to fully complete all parts of this multi-part assignment.

No credit
will be given for late or incomplete submissions.

Substantial points will be taken off
if your submission does not allow other students time to access, review and comment on your presentation.

·
Post your presentation to Discussion in Canvas at absolutely no later than

5pm on Sunday, March 14

to allow for other students to respond.

Final materials DUE by 11:59 PM (one minute before midnight) Sunday, March 14:

·
Post 3 Responses to other students’ submissions in Discussion in Canvas by 11:59 PM

AND

·
Post your submission to Assignment submission folder in Canvas by 11:59 PM (for grading).
5% will be subtracted from your final grade if not posted to assignments.

Note: No late postings will be accepted for any reason.

Purpose

Upon

success

ful completion of Assignment 2, the student will make strides towards achieving the goals of this course. The student will be able to:

1. Recognize the significance of material culture…and the significance of people’s interaction with it.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the theories and products of the major theoretical movements and their adherents.

3. Evaluate the effectiveness of objects…relative to the needs of the users for whom they were designed.

4. …Communicate…utilizing the vocabulary developed by scholars in the design disciplines and social sciences.

Instructions:

Select a significant three-dimensional, man-made object or artifact of material culture related to YOUR DHM OPTION AREA (Merchandising, apparel design/fashion or interior design).

(This man-made object or artifact of material culture might be something from

your home, a museum (5 points extra credit for a museum object or artifact), a

space or building you visit (5 points extra will be given for a museum interior if you

are in interior design), your workplace, or a retail store.

This cannot be merely a photograph or image you might find of an object or artifact. You must physically touch or be very close to the actual object or artifact and take a current photograph of yourself with it. Ask permission in museums!)

Before proceeding, please review these definitions and sections in your textbook:

· what is material culture?;

· objects versus artifacts of material culture;

· material culture theories;

· and material culture typographies (classification systems)

Using PowerPoint
prepare the following:

1. Create a video with ARC with oral commentary (3-5 minutes)

OR

Create written text and slides with images (8-10 slides)

clearly showing you (your face inacluded) along with your selected object or artifact

(for example you could be next to, inside of (for a building interior) holding or wearing your object or artifact. If your face is not included 5 points will be deducted from your final grade.

Clearly indicate if you are presenting an object OR an artifact and justify your choice).

Do not select images or video of yourself or your object that you have taken prior to January 2020!

2. At the very beginning of your ARC video or on the first slide of your PowerPoint presentation, indicate your complete name, your major (DHM) and your option area (interior design, apparel design, or merchandising and how your object or artifact is related to your major.)

3.
Using material culture vocabulary,
develop a brief story. Include:

a. How you came to be interested in the selected object or artifact; and

b. When was this object or artifact created?

c. Why was this object or artifact created?

d. Who created this object or artifact? (could be a manufacturer or tribe etc.)

e. How was this object or artifact created?

f. What is the material or content of this object or artifact? (i.e. gold, silk, plastic etc. Be as specific as possible. If it is wood, can you identify the exact species of wood?)

g. Why it this object or artifact meaningful or significant to you; and

h. How you can interact with the object or artifact (Consider which senses you use. Do you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch the object or artifact and under what circumstances).

If you cannot definitively answer at least 7 of these 8 questions do NOT use that object or artifact.

“I don’t know” is not a sufficient answer. Do not guess. Be detailed in your responses.

4. Identify and select a relevant theory from your textbook (For example: Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory, Sociological Theory, Marxist Theory) and give the page number
in your textbook where you found the theory.

5. Explain and justify why the selected theory is applicable to your object or artifact. Be very specific. Use vocabulary from Material Culture textbook.

6. Classify the object using at least one typology (class system) from your textbook.

(for example: Id, ego, superego; OR

high culture, upper middle culture, lower middle culture, quasi-folk low culture; youth, Black and ethnic cultures; OR

Functional/Dysfunctional/Non-Functional, Functional alternative, Manifest Function, Latent function etc.

7. Explain why the classification(s) you chose best fit your object or artifact.

8. Give your personal assessment of the effectiveness (see below) of your selected object or artifact based on your needs. (Your needs could be that you “need” memories of your summer vacation near your work desk). Is it effective? Why or why not? This should be 5-7 complete sentences.

ef·fec·tive·ness [iˈfektivnəs]

NOUN the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success:

“the effectiveness of the treatment”

synonyms:

success ·

productiveness

·

potency

·

power

·

benefit

·

Powered by

Oxford Dictionaries

· © Oxford University Press · Translation by

Bing Translator

9. When finished, upload the ARC video (convert to a MP4 file) or PowerPoint slides (convert to a PDF file) that you produced for this activity to the online Discussion board on Canvas.

(This will give other students the opportunity to see what you have done and prepare their comments.)

10. Then ALSO upload your ARC video (in a MP4 file) or PowerPoint slides (in a PDF file) you produced for this activity to the online Assignment submission folder so it may be graded. 5 points will be taken off of your final grade if you do not complete this step.

11. On the online discussion board, thoughtfully respond to THREE other student’s activity post. Be sure to include your full name so that you will receive credit. Thoughtful responses mean that you do not simply agree with another student or tell them they have done a good job or a poor job. Be sure to offer specific, constructive criticism and advice for improvement, add comments which build on what the other student has done, or indicate specifically what you learned from the other student using terms from your textbook.

Scroll to next page for rubric

Rubric:

Assessment: Please refer to syllabus for more information on grading.

Exemplary (A)	Satisfactory (B-C)	Emerging (D-F)
Vocabulary	The assignment properly uses material culture vocabulary. (For example the assignment properly and specifically identifies and justifies an appropriate theory for the selected object or artifact.)	The assignment uses material culture and vocabulary somewhat properly.	The assignment does not properly use material culture vocabulary.
Communication	The assignment clearly and consistently communicates key points through its visual (images or video) and/or written (PowerPoint) and verbal presentation. The PPT file was easy for the instructor to open and view (and hear if video).	The assignment somewhat communicates key points through its visual, written or verbal presentation. The instructor had some problems opening or viewing (and hearing if video) the PPT file.	The assignment does not communicate key points through its visual, written or verbal presentation. The instructor was unable to open/view or hear the PPT file or it was corrupted or non-existent.
Interaction & personal interaction	The assignment clearly shows and explains personal interaction and effectiveness.	The assignment somewhat shows and explains but it is muddy and somewhat unclear.	The assignment does not all show or explain or it is excessively confusing.
Followed Instructions	Instructions were followed completely and assignment meets all stated goals.	Instructions for completing the activity were mostly followed, the assignment meets most of stated goals and the assignment is mostly complete.	Instructions were not followed and the assignment is incomplete and/or vague and does not meet the stated goals.

Feedback Plan:
Within about one week of the assignment deadline, you may expect to receive a grade on Canvas as well as a few specific tips and/or comments about your performance on the assignment from the instructor. General comments about the class’ tendencies on the assignment made be made through Canvas announcements.

Image for artifact that will use Desk school that was on 6th 1957

Desk from Eugene Field School that was on 6th and Washington Street. Eugene Field School was built in 1922 and added onto in 1928. In 1957, the school was abandoned when enrollment and the structure itself declined, the property where it sat is now Consumers grocery store.