Kris Lane’s Colour of Paradise represents, in my
opinion, one of the best “world economy” books we have looked at some far in terms of the global reach of the commodity. The
actors on all sides of the chain were truly represented as being members of a
global network, all contributing in one way or another to the emerald trade.
This was exciting for me because my final paper focuses on the economic
importance of all commodity histories, and with the argument surrounding the
possibility of “commodity history” being a sub-history of the greater “economic
histories”. However, this book also reflects, as have others we have read, the
importance of economic trends and the actors of change, manipulate,
enhance, or detract from the flow of economic development and destruction on a
global scale.
In
many of the books we have read, we have discussed the importance of how
societal and cultural changes over time have effected the commodity chain and
product definition of their given histories. I think we have looked too narrowly
at the importance of economics, due in fact possibly to the idea of the
development and stages of capitalism being the main topic. There is something
greater than capitalism however being shown in this book, despite it being a
great example of the development of state-controlled economy to the evolution
of early modern capitalism there is something more involved as well in terms of
“human economics.” Everything that these emeralds have been traded for
throughout there history reflect an element of capital, in the loosest sense of
the term. Instead of just focusing on hard currency, we need to take into
account that for example a form of “spiritual currency” is being spent to further the goals and
livelihood of those who can afford it. Whether you trade for something for the
reasons of spiritual/religious upward mobility, power or social status, or
simply to make another buck, you are expending some form of capital or
currency to get that. Those who have access to whatever form of currency that is being used
are almost always major actors in how they effect the commodity development and chain
of trade. Those who have the agency to effect the commodity itself, do so in
order to gain this currency from those who are willing to trade it. It is all
some form of a greater economic scheme. I realize that this is off-topic from
the Lane book, and I know that I used a great deal of poetic licensing as well
as using generally accepted terms with hard definitions very loosely, but in
the last few weeks of this class as I try and connect all of our readings, I am
coming to a conclusion along the lines above. If come tomorrow I get to class
and one of you completely blows up this argument or theory, I will freely admit
it is way out there in some ways and not really grounded in much fact right
now.
No comments:
Post a Comment