| material culture research | |
| [
home ] [
the objects ] [ textile
manufacture ] [ missionary context ] [ inmates ] [ clothing in museum collections ] [ material culture research ] [ conclusion ] [ bibliography ] |
|
|
This
study has loosely followed E. McClung Fleming’s model for the study
of artefacts, which addresses the history, material, construction, design
and function of an object, and performs identification, evaluation,
cultural analysis and interpretation on it.[1]
This holistic framework attempts to span the divide between so-called
‘hard’ and ‘soft’ approaches to material culture research. Material
culture theorists often fall into one of these two camps, or at least
engage in the methodological debate.
The dichotomy Jules D. Prown perceives among scholars interested in material culture is that some are primarily interested in material others primarily interested in culture.[2] He labels the former ‘hard’ practitioners or ‘farmers,’ and the latter, ‘soft’ or ‘cowmen’.[3] A ‘hard’ material culturalist would argue that the object should be the primary focus of study – in its material culture context of technology, manufacture, structure-function, and change over time. Brooke Hindle tends to the ‘hard’ side, and considers the tendency to use objects to ‘illustrate historic syntheses derived from the written record alone’ demeans objects and collections of objects.[4] Gaynor Kavanagh, on the other hand, values objects as metonyms which indicate social structures and ideologies.[5] This is particularly relevant to the current study of fabric samples. Much work on personal objects focuses on the choice of the individual to self-express. This silences the material experiences of marginalised groups who suffer imposed material conditions caused by poverty and coercion. Kavanagh addresses this, claiming material culture can offer evidence of the ‘means through which people were able or obliged to express themselves, their views, their experiences’.[6] He continues: ‘[t]his is especially so when access to literacy, authority or power was prevented or denied. Objects (or their absence) can thus be physical indicators of ideological forces and social conditions’.[7] Material culture studies can provide a unique perspective on history: focussing on objects is like ‘walking though the back door of history, you don’t necessarily end up at the front door of the same house’.[8] As David Hutchison suggests, ‘there may be questions about the past which historians have not asked because they may not be answerable from written and oral sources only’.[9] While the power of objects to inspire research is undeniable, the role the ‘object as impetus’ should have in directing the subsequent inquiry is more contentious. Kavanagh shows that objects might best indicate, rather than determine, the direction of enquiry.[10] Comparing the use as evidence of objects and documents, Kavanagh argues ‘it is not the form and content of a source but its location and relationships’ that are important.[11] The ‘object in contexts, both as content and symbol’ needs to be studied.[12]
|
|
|
[ home
] [ the objects ] [ textile
manufacture ] [ missionary context ] |
|
| [1] E. McClung Fleming, "'Artifact Study: A Proposed Model'," in Material Culture Studies in America, ed. Thomas J. Schlereth (Nashville, Tenn.: American Association for State and Local History, 1982). [2] Jules D. Prown, "Material/Culture: Can the Farmer and the Cowman Still Be Friends?," in Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies, ed. W. David Kingery (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996), 19. [3] Ibid., 19-20. [4] Brooke Hindle, "How Much Is a Piece of the True Cross Worth?," in Material Culture and the Study of American Life, ed. Ian M. G. Quimby (New York: 1984), 19. [5] Gaynor Kavanagh, "Objects as Evidence, or Not?," in Museum Studies in Material Culture, ed. Susan M. Pearce and University of Leicester. Dept. of Museum Studies. (London ; New York: Leicester University Press, 1989), 128. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Delia Falconer, "Cods and Nutmegs," The Australian review of Books, no. November (1999): 11. [9] David Hutchison, "Material Culture and the Study of Australian Life," Museums Australia, no. December (1983): 18. [10] Gaynor Kavanagh, "Objects as Evidence, or Not?, 130. [11] Gaynor Kavanagh, "Objects as Evidence, or Not?, 128. [12] Ibid.
|