I think
that Schivelbusch's Tastes of Paradise is not a commodity
history. At the very base, it is clearly a social history, as indicated by his
preface. He is more interested in the impact that a particular commodity
has on people – Europeans – to be more specific. He also swings back and forth
between social and economic history. So it’s not about the commodity itself,
nor is it about the entire lifespan/path of that commodity. For example, he mentions the route that spices
take from Asia to Europe, but he is more interested in the face that the search
for spices leads to European exploration. Once the spices have left Asia, he is
not interested in Asians any more, nor is he interested in talking about the
impact that the accelerated spice trade has on them.
His discussion of coffee is also more about the impact of coffee on the people of Europe (focusing mostly on England) and less on the coffee itself. His discussion on the public versus private sphere of coffee is an interesting one, but doesn’t really seem to add to what our class definition of commodities is.
I wonder
actually, if our class definition may need to be altered to take this into
account. So far, it seems like the books we’ve looked at so far haven’t really satisfied
our definition of what a commodity history should be.
The Stages and Evolution of a Commodity
ReplyDeleteOne of the several themes we have discussed in class thus far has been the idea of the “commodity chain approach” introduced by the Topik, Frank and Marichal chapter. This idea of the evolution of a “thing” (for lack of a better word) into a “commodity” was a
theme I continuously thought about while reading Schivelbusch’s Taste of Paradise. In the commodity chain approach, a commodity is seen as having stages that change the elemental definition of the commodity as different factors become involved and change and effect how it is defined. Some of the angles and approaches taken by Schivelbusch seem to lend credence to this idea that a commodity is built or developed over time and by the effect of many different factors. The evolution and then, in a way, devolution of now illicit drugs and narcotics due to laws, regulations and social disapproval is an example of this growth curve of the commodity chain. Some of the social elements that Schivelbusch introduced, such as the idea of rituals, religion and traditions effecting the consumption or use of commodities is also an interesting effect on the seemingly fluid definition of whether something can be defined as a true commodity. Also, Mintz’s ideas in Sweetness and Power regarding intensification and extensification play factor into the evolution of the defining of a commodity, and these ideas pop up in Tastes of Paradise. Religious leanings, approval, and condemnation of certain things I think is an example of intensification, where people are being influenced not necessarily on the desire to emulate, but rather be accepted by a larger whole. Extensification can be seen in people using stimulants for their utilitarian effects and in some cases as Mintz says in reference to Arabic-Islamic coffee consumption, simply for “the logic of coffee drinking” due to societal constraints (17). A whole another blog entry can be written on the evolutionary aspects of the human body, addiction and withdraw, which Mintz touched on too last week.
Also, this is my first post and I cannot figure out how to post a normal entry so I am putting this is the comments...sorry if this takes away at all from your post Jessica!