The Pause Between
For Christmas this year, I received a small, hand-carved, wooden key ring from my partner’s grandfather, who had made something for all the grandchildren. To make this key ring, he carved two hearts – one bigger than the other – and attached the smaller one in the centre of the bigger. The key ring was simple in design, and yet as a gift it symbolised something much more complex – a relationship and familial love. The only part of its biography that I know, is its journey from Dorset to Birmingham, in a box full of Christmas presents, on a caravan. The key ring was dormant for a while – unused – for I knew that I would use it for my house key, but I did not actually know where I had kept it! Only when I needed my key, on my way home from the train station, did I attempt to find it, and on finding it, I remember thinking, ‘Gosh, I really do need a key ring for my key!’ It was on the bus to my house then, that I finally used the key ring. Now, it has begun a new phase of its life in my possession, as a holder for my house key.
Several aspects of this gift that I received relate to the concepts that have been explored in our readings for this week; in particular, Kopytoff’s discussion of the processes of commoditisation and singularisation, and Fontijn’s proposition of an itinerant approach to objects. I do not know whether my partner’s grandfather sourced the wood himself, or whether he had purchased this in a store. Let us, for the sake of argument, consider that he had indeed purchased the wood in a store, and if so, then the wood is a mass-produced commodity – it refers to the labour of those who chopped wood to supply en-masse, which then entered the economic system and was quantified for exchange. The commoditised wood was then singularised, through a literal, transformational process, by my partner’s grandfather, who made several gifts from it, including my key chain. The grandfather then gifted the things that he made to the respective recipients. He could have attempted to sell his products, as commodities reflecting his labour, valued at a certain price, and introduced into the economic system. Had he done this, the wood would have oscillated between being a commodity and a singularised thing, moving in and out of the commodity phase. But, he gifted his products to the respective recipients, who further singularised their gifts, by using them in their own ways. I, for example, used the key chain for my house key. The fact that I used the key chain in this way, and that it was given to me as a gift symbolising an important relationship, also confirms the object’s status as a thing that has been enclaved from capitalist exchange, for I do not intend on selling it. Unless, of course, I am in dire need of money, a situation that would make the key ring a commodity candidate (Appadurai, 1986: 14). How the key ring would be valued at that point, would be determined by the cultural framework of the economic system, into which it will be introduced.
Thus Kopytoff’s approach allows me to consider how the wood and the key ring can move in and out of the commodity phase, through processes of commoditisation and singularisation. However, as I also recounted earlier, the key ring was not always amidst processes commoditisation and singularisation, and so it seems that his approach does not allow the consideration of all the phases in the key ring’s life. Before, the wood could have been singularised through its transformation into a key ring, it was presumably waiting to be used. After it had been singularised into several gifts including the key ring, it waited to be given. It travelled – while waiting for its purpose to be achieved as a gift – from Dorset to Birmingham. Finally, it was waiting again, before it could be put to use as a key ring. As we see therefore, the key ring was not always moving in and out of the commodity phase; it spent an equal amount of time waiting. This waiting in an object’s life was accounted for in our second reading. In this, Fontijn acknowledges that things move, but also recognises their inertness, durability, and ‘standing still’ as well as the importance of these pauses. He encourages us to consider: what do these pauses mean, and what do they convey about the object? How could the meaning of the key ring have changed in its moments of waiting? While Kopytoff allows only two possible phases in an object’s life, Fontijn’s emphasis on objects in waiting, opens a possibility to consider a phase beyond commoditisation and singularisation. It encourages us to ask: what else could the key ring have been, while it was waiting, if it had not been singularised or commoditised?
Thus, we can see that although Kopytoff offers a useful model for thinking about how things can be commoditised and singularised via cultural processes, it is limiting as it suggests that these are the only two paths that things can take. It does not account for their diversions, and their dormancy.
Contributed by AayushiGupta on 17/01/2022
