Material culture

Mehta's article focuses on the difference between material possessions of Indians living in India and those who have immigrated to the western United States. There are some interesting observations including that "50 percent . . . cited their family shrine, a family idol, or their guru's photo as a favorite possession" (Mehta, 1991, p. 404), while in the United States, the number of immigrants citing religious items as the most important was significantly lower (Mehta, 1991). However, while he mentions some interesting identifiers of Indian immigrants, including the caste system, sense of a collective Indian identity, constant remittances sent back home, and the "myth of return" (1991, p. 402) to the homeland (which is also seen in other immigrant populations such as Tibetans in exile), he fails to spend much time developing these themes and how they relate to material culture and the accrual of objects.

In general, I would argue that much of what Mehta uses as proof of differences between Indians in their homeland and those who have immigrated is actually common to anyone who has left home and needs to reconstruct their sense of place. Theories of place attachment (as defined by Low & Altman) include the use of identifiers to restore or reinforce one's sense of place; in this case, when an individual's sense of place is distorted, they use material objects to replace what is missing (i.e., photographs of people as a substitute for the actual presence of those people). Mehta even gives this idea some consideration, as he references George Carlin who referred to the suitcases of travelers as "'identity kits,'" boxes that contain some materials from their home while they are on their "temporary pilgrimages as tourists." (Mehta, 1991, p. 400). In this case, much of what Mehta focuses on is too general for me to consider it specific to the Indian population.

Interestingly, our class discussion led itself to questioning aesthetics verses cultural meanings – could it be that much of these possessions or the way that people adorn and decorate their houses is due simply to aesthetic preferences? Clearly, certain preferences infiltrate into our subconscious through pure exposure to them (i.e. by living at home we are influenced by the preferences imposed on us by our parents' aesthetics); however, many of us mentioned a full rejection of such family-based preferences. This makes me conjecture that while aesthetics can easily transfer, their development over time may be related to choice: the more choices or options you have, the more you can incorporate your own aesthetics into cultural and material objects. I think this question would be worth further exploring, although the definition of aesthetics and the explanation of how such is formed and developed seems like a daunting task to say the least.


Reference:
Mehta, R., & Belk, R.W. (1991). Artifacts, identity, and transition: Favorite possessions of Indians and Indian immigrants to the United States. The Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 398-411.