Readings Entwined: Object Biographies v. Object Life Cycles

This week, I read Helen Shumaker’s Love Entwined: The Curious History of Hairwork in America along with supplementary articles by Kenneth Ames and Karin Dannehl. Together, these pieces further inform my classmates (featured on the new blog roll to the left) and my own journey through material culture.

In first reading Shumaker, followed by Ames, I admit that I initially wondered about the connection between the pieces. On the one hand, Shumaker provides a wide spanning look at the hairwork’s emotive injection into material culture. Together, the reader and Shumaker journey to the peak of production to the eventual decline. Ames, however, focuses on a specific historic period in a specific region in a specific style of house while examining three specific furniture items in said house. Dannehl, my third reading, tied this all together in discussing how researchers negotiate a balance between object biography and life cycle (depending, of course, on the object). Upon completing this reading, one could argue that Ames and Shumaker serve as good examples of object biography and object life cycle, respectively. This isn’t to say that each exclusively relies on one method more than the other, however, it seems that, to one reader (me), Ames examines a “tightly defined finite time frame,” while employing research techniques that highlight object usage during that time (Dannehl, p. 124). Further, Shumaker’s more ecological look at hairwork as a part and influencer of a larger environment exemplifies Dannehl’s description of object life cycle examination.

To me, each method is appropriate for the different objects examined in each study, which further drives home a point we’ve been discussing during our American Material Culture class meetings: object methodologies should be malleable in order that each method best applies to a specific object. For example, if Shumaker employed a more focused object biography, some of the interesting themes (sentimentality v. sensibility, fashion, grief, love, mass mediated influence, etc.) may’ve been sacrificed.

Personally, these readings raise a few questions about biography, life cycle, and my object. Although Shumaker and Ames’ respective focus is on specific items (hairwork and hall objects, respectively), each examines different varieties of these objects. For the purposes of our class, each student has one specific object for examination this semester. Would it be helpful to research the general use of an object (e.g. waistcoat) during a specific time (e.g. late 18^th century) in a specific place (e.g. Philadelphia)? On the other hand, would it be more helpful to use the information already possessed, like the owner’s name, in order to find out more about the person who owned the object. Essentially, I wonder if it’s better to start with general information before moving to a more specific examples. Any suggestions would be very welcome. Thanks for reading!