anillos (economias XI; comunicaciones V)
"y a través de la sortija /ella lo convirtió / en un caballo que gira y gira a su alrededor./ tanto girar, girar es un efecto/ tanto esperar, esperando que se haga realidad / el se pasa girando sin parar. / nada es perfecto." (Ch.Garcia)
(Citas de: Entangled Obects. Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. N. Thomas. 1991, Harvard University Press)
"a ring may be initially a commodity produced in a factory or by a craftsman for sale. in the shop, it is likely to be an alienated thing divorced from its producer, but some high-class or 'craft' jewelry is regarded, like art, as the output of a creative master. in this case the association may be mentioned or paraded when the article is shown off; a signature or mark may express the things' origin and the fact that it is an objectification of the creator's work and intellect. (the same applies to a greater degree to antique pieces which have histories: associations not only with the producer but also with illustrious former owners may be celebrated.) if the ring becomes a wedding ring, it acquires the character of a highly specific kind of gift which cannot move beyond one context withouth becoming something else. this gift is performative in the sense that its transmission, when accompanied by the right words in the right context, is constitutive of the conjugal relationship which it subsequently stand for. it is important that it is something which can be worn on the person virtually continuously, since this manifests the (notionally) essential, noncontingent character of the married state. in the case of engagement rings, the signifier and the signified are so closely connected that the breaking of the engagemente can be effected- and in strict sense can only be effected- by the handing back of the ring. more intrincate aspects of relations and their distortions can also be signified by the situations of rings or remarks upon them. as Tony Tanner has noted with respect to Madame Bovary, the ring is an 'exemplary sign' such taht confusions between Charles and Emma over a 'false engagement ring' as opposed to a token of love in the opera at Rouen connote a larger deprivation of meaning produced by the disorder and transgression of adultery"
"hence the artifact is not simply a valuable object of exchange or even a gift that creates relations of one sort of another but also a crucial index of the extent to which those relations are sustained or disfigured. the failure to recognize the distinctions that artifacts stand for suggests a succession of other failures: 'to the extent that a recognition of meaning is withheld from the sign [the ring], so too it is withheld from the relationships and bonds it is supposed to signify'"
"neither particular signification nor types of relations signified are stable in the lives of particular rings. it is frequently the case that both engagement and wedding rings are bequeathed or otherwise transmitted from grandmothers or mothers to daugthers. it might be argued that this is often an empty ritual, but in many cases, ans especially where transmission across alternate generations is involved, it probably genuinely reflects the sustaining of an intergenerational female link in a context where patrinily is dominant, and, more significantly, the formation of immediate nuclear families tends to diminish other kingships ties. the fact that the thing has become inalienable has a significant impact upon the contexts in which it is exchangeable. in this case, these are reduced virtually to one: the handing down of the thing to a female descendent. it would be unusual for a ring to be given away to a friend or a woman related affinally, and it would bestrange to lend such an article in any context- not because it is valuable and unique, since it may not be valuable-but because of its particular character and association with one's personal history. but an owner may be force by poverty to dispose of her jewelry: under these circumstances the absent article may retain associations for the former holder, who experiences some loss precisely because it was an inalienable thing entlangled with her life history. for other people, however, it is a detached commodity, stripped of associations and just like any other in the shop" (19-20)
(Citas de: Entangled Obects. Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. N. Thomas. 1991, Harvard University Press)"a ring may be initially a commodity produced in a factory or by a craftsman for sale. in the shop, it is likely to be an alienated thing divorced from its producer, but some high-class or 'craft' jewelry is regarded, like art, as the output of a creative master. in this case the association may be mentioned or paraded when the article is shown off; a signature or mark may express the things' origin and the fact that it is an objectification of the creator's work and intellect. (the same applies to a greater degree to antique pieces which have histories: associations not only with the producer but also with illustrious former owners may be celebrated.) if the ring becomes a wedding ring, it acquires the character of a highly specific kind of gift which cannot move beyond one context withouth becoming something else. this gift is performative in the sense that its transmission, when accompanied by the right words in the right context, is constitutive of the conjugal relationship which it subsequently stand for. it is important that it is something which can be worn on the person virtually continuously, since this manifests the (notionally) essential, noncontingent character of the married state. in the case of engagement rings, the signifier and the signified are so closely connected that the breaking of the engagemente can be effected- and in strict sense can only be effected- by the handing back of the ring. more intrincate aspects of relations and their distortions can also be signified by the situations of rings or remarks upon them. as Tony Tanner has noted with respect to Madame Bovary, the ring is an 'exemplary sign' such taht confusions between Charles and Emma over a 'false engagement ring' as opposed to a token of love in the opera at Rouen connote a larger deprivation of meaning produced by the disorder and transgression of adultery"
"Emma tires to explain, but when he still cannot understand the function of these deceptive props in the story she says impatiently, 'Qu'importe?'...if you cannot distinguish-eiother for the purposes of narrative interpretation or those of social identification- a false engagement ring from a real one, or a deceitful sign from a gift of love, then you are bound to encounter very serious problems of meaning and value...at one stage she explain (to herself) the difference between marriage and adultery, between what she saw as a meaningless contract and what she felt to be the extreme significance of passionate love, but she is entering the stage when these distinctions are confounding and equivalizing themselves, and her final response is, in effect-'Qu'importe?' [Tanner 1979, Adultery in Novel: Contract and Transgression]"
"hence the artifact is not simply a valuable object of exchange or even a gift that creates relations of one sort of another but also a crucial index of the extent to which those relations are sustained or disfigured. the failure to recognize the distinctions that artifacts stand for suggests a succession of other failures: 'to the extent that a recognition of meaning is withheld from the sign [the ring], so too it is withheld from the relationships and bonds it is supposed to signify'"
"neither particular signification nor types of relations signified are stable in the lives of particular rings. it is frequently the case that both engagement and wedding rings are bequeathed or otherwise transmitted from grandmothers or mothers to daugthers. it might be argued that this is often an empty ritual, but in many cases, ans especially where transmission across alternate generations is involved, it probably genuinely reflects the sustaining of an intergenerational female link in a context where patrinily is dominant, and, more significantly, the formation of immediate nuclear families tends to diminish other kingships ties. the fact that the thing has become inalienable has a significant impact upon the contexts in which it is exchangeable. in this case, these are reduced virtually to one: the handing down of the thing to a female descendent. it would be unusual for a ring to be given away to a friend or a woman related affinally, and it would bestrange to lend such an article in any context- not because it is valuable and unique, since it may not be valuable-but because of its particular character and association with one's personal history. but an owner may be force by poverty to dispose of her jewelry: under these circumstances the absent article may retain associations for the former holder, who experiences some loss precisely because it was an inalienable thing entlangled with her life history. for other people, however, it is a detached commodity, stripped of associations and just like any other in the shop" (19-20)
Labels: economías
posted by jose.ossandón at
2:22 PM
|
0 Comments
