Craig Clunas\' Analysis of Treatise

Craig Clunas' analysis of Treatise of Superfluous Things

Craig Clunas' statement regarding the fact that people were differentiated on account of their role as consumers in the Chinese society ranging from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century accurately exemplifies the way society functioned during the era. People were virtually categorized on account of what they owned at the time, as things were superfluous and merely had the role of representing social status.

Social status was awarded depending on the differences in each individual and in most cases these differences represented personal possessions. The Ming dynasty in particular expressed its interest toward changing the way society functioned until its time and founded a state that was less involved in commerce. Slowly but gradually, emperors in the Ming dynasty became determined to isolate their country from the rest of the world. In order to do this, they put an end to overseas travel and no longer allowed individuals to engage in trade business with other countries. This had devastating consequences of China's fleet, which was actually quite impressive for the time. The fact that influential members of the Ming dynasty terminated what would have brought great triumphs to China is most probably a reason for the difficulties the country went through in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The Chinese society reached a level of cultural distortion because of the prize people started to put on objects. Conditions became critical as individuals were vulgarly interested in material possessions and lost any sense of grace. The late Ming period was seemingly a time when people realized the importance of things, and how objects could be used as a basis to determine a hierarchy.

The emperor did not appear to care that his actions greatly affected his countrymen, as he was only interested in establishing a chain of command that could not be overthrown. Objects practically came to life at the time, being directly responsible for the way people were seen by the rest of society.

It is extremely difficult to determine the exact methods through which things were valued in China during the late Ming dynasty. This is largely owed to the fact that language evolved across time and it is very likely that contemporary meanings of particular words are no longer equivalent to the meanings they had at the time. Another reason for which one is unlikely to produce an accurate account relating the way objects were evaluated during the era is that most information written at the time was supervised by influential individuals, thus meaning that they could modify texts in accordance with their personal interests.

In addition to the fact that differentiation during the late Ming dynasty was done on account on the personal possessions of each individual, women and members of the working class are rarely related to in primary sources, since the upper classes had no regard in the interests of women or of those expressed by poor people.

Although philosophy was thriving during the period, it too was affected by material worth, as philosophers discussed about how physical matter was more important than spiritual matter. Luxury works of art and antiques were related to by philosophers as being of great importance. The Chinese community had turned its attention toward valuing objects that had not necessarily been essential for them, but that simply expressed their owner's intellectual distinction through being exhibited.

Previous to the fourteenth century, people in China were apparently interested in utility only, as they did not seem to pay great importance to design, since they were aware that it did not affect effectiveness in any way and was thus unproductive. The tools they created were nonetheless excellent through their refinement and kept their value through time.

The sixteenth and seventeenth century however brought great losses to Chinese society because design started to be appreciated more than utility. Even with the fact that design should indeed be welcomed, people gradually began to lose perspective on elegance and were left with virtually no ability to distinguish between rudeness and stylishness. If design made utensils impossible to use in daily life it meant that they had no purpose and were thus ridiculous.

It is perfectly normal for a society to evolve through time and for design and technology to evolve concomitantly with it. But when design is prominent in the process of evolution the respective society is affected and is prevented from developing normally. This is the case of China in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, when the number of consumers interested in luxury experienced a rapid rise. Matters were not very different in Europe, given that capitalism can largely be considered to be an indirect product of materialism, which made people become more interested in cultural and material values than they were in effectiveness.

The Chinese society during the late Ming dynasty had troubles determining when a particular object had been elegant and when it had been vulgar. For some, vulgar meant that it could be associated with the masses and thus lost any material value, in view of the fact that it had been common.

Material values could best be described through agreeing on whether a particular object provided people with utility or whether it provided them with visual pleasure. Visual pleasure did not necessarily had to be related to material worth, since some paintings or vessels could simply be appreciated because of their interesting design, and not because of the excellence they put across.