Culture - Commodities Are \"Good

¶ … culture - commodities are "good to think with"

The Proposition that commodities are "good to think with" was stated by Levi-Strauss in his theoretical models in an attempt crack the code of culture and to explain the meaning of the existence of objects. Levi-Strauss explained that the existence of the material objects is not just to serve straight forward utilitarian purposes. He further noted that the existence of objects is to enable humans to construct and give meanings within their cultural universe which is what he termed as a symbolic role of objects (Paul a. Soukup, 2011)

The meaning of the concept from the symbolic perspective that commodities are good to think with can be derived based on what every object symbolizes and what a consumer can think of while getting the utility value from the object or just by seeing the object we already think of something which varies depending on one's culture. Different individuals based on their own cultural beliefs in one way or another have attached cultural meanings to certain objects. These objects are used to identify specific cultures as they represent that particular culture and whenever one interacts with such commodities for instance food or clothing or craftwork, we think of that particular culture they represents or symbolizes. Objects are owned for different reasons and the value that one gets from an object he or she acquires is what differentiates consumption. Both the cultural and personal experiences while one interacts with various objects play an integral role in what these objects mean or make us think of. At the mention of an object, one's mind wonders around what that particular object can do which therefore explains that we use the commodities to think and we do not just need the commodities for their utility values. (Sherry Tuckle, n.d).

There is a difference between the objects in the non-western societies and the western societies. Western societies represent an advanced consumer society flooded with so many commodities of which some are meaningless when presented to individuals from non-western societies or have little or no personal or cultural value. Roland Barthes a French Semiotician concentrated on this part of analyzing and interpreting the proliferation of commodity objects within the advanced societies. Barthes mentioned that certain commodities have more stories to tell, others are political only that the political aspects have been detached. He associated a bunch of red roses with the cultural symbol of romance and love and a wedding ring to mean a romantic love. He also attached meaning to the mode of dressing to mean that individuals wore certain dresses or adopted certain dress codes not for comfort but to communicate their status or culture. Other commodities are consumed to derive pleasure or entertainment which explains why one goes for a certain television brand or a type of car. The choice of cars among the youths and the purpose of owning the cars among other gadgets have something to do with what their peers will think of them not the utility part (Scott Atkins, 1995).

Baudrillard, (2012) another individual who studied material culture called it the sociology of consumption. He studied the objects and not the consumer; he asserted that consumption should be taken seriously as an important institution where social class status and prestige are displayed. Certain objects depict a certain class in the society and when one possesses those prestigious objects then there is a message to the society in terms of the social status. The objects therefore have symbolic value as he mentions the objects of the modern consumer, it is implied that consumption in the modern society simply involves manipulation of signs and ordering of objects to mean what the consumer want them to. The objects are contextual and when taken out of their boundaries then we think differently about them by either misjudging or assigning new meanings.