期刊文献+

Ambiguous Goods, Ambiguous Societies: On the Precariousness of Meanings

Ambiguous Goods, Ambiguous Societies: On the Precariousness of Meanings
下载PDF
导出
摘要 The producers-especially industrial-of artifacts view them as conveying distinct meanings, and they surround them with discourses to support their representation (marketing, packaging, and advertising). Yet, these superimposed meanings say nothing about what the objects signify for their users. How are the objects manipulated by those who use them? Only when both the meanings assigned by the manufacturers and those attributed by the users are known is it possible to determine the difference or similarity between the meanings imposed on objects from above and those produced by their users. We, thus, shift from an economic conception of consumption to one which emphasizes the cultural and communicative roles essential for granting material objects their social protagonism, freeing them from subordination to their producers without imprisoning them passively in the network of meanings constructed by consumers. Emphasizing that things have biographies, which can be more or less fully reconstructed and recounted, is useful not only for understanding the role that material objects perform in determining social phenomena independently from the intentions of their producers, but also for demonstrating the mutable character of their social presence. Objects, therefore, should be considered, not as commodities, but as materials for the social construction of reality, as provisional and negotiable meanings. It is precisely the provisional and negotiable nature of objects that makes them ontologically ambiguous things which communicate their own values, points of view, and so on.
机构地区 University of Milan
出处 《Journalism and Mass Communication》 2013年第6期375-383,共9页 新闻与大众传媒(英文版)
关键词 CONSUMERS AMBIGUITY material/immaterial objects MEANINGS 商品 不稳定 社团 社会现象 对象表示 消费观念 人物传记 社会存在
  • 相关文献

参考文献30

  • 1Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things." Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 2Barry, A., & Slater, D. (2002). Introduction: The technological economy. Economy and Society, 3(82), 175-193.
  • 3Baudrillard, J. (1972). Pour une critique de l'economie politique du signe ( A critique of signe value economy). Gallimard: Paris.
  • 4Belk, R. W. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 6(11), 126-14.
  • 5Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. The Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1 ), 1-38.
  • 6Bell, D. (1973). The coming ofpost-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.
  • 7Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination (pp.132-165). London: Routledge.
  • 8Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. The Information Age. Economy, Society, and Culture (Vol. I). Cambridge, M.A.; Oxford: Blackwell.
  • 9De-Certeau, M. (1990). L'Invention du quotidian (The Practice of everyday life). Arts defaire (Vol. 1). Paris, Gallimard.
  • 10Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger." An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部