Material Culture is a product of Henry Glassie, a prominent folklorist who inoculated technology in the study of the past cultural artifacts. As argued by Cj in his review of Glassie’s book, Glassie incorporates thoughts and work developed over his career in writing his book. Although in his writing the word technology does not appear in any contest, the book’s main objective is to associate technology in the study of the past. In his writing, Glassie tries as much as possible to change the past thinking of the cultural practices. In his writing, Glassie disagrees with modern understanding of the past that relies greatly on theory; he prefers straightforward expression to imaginary exercises used by different individuals. He argues that it is crucial for an individual to pay attention to both (Glassie p. 1) observable artifacts and behavioral characteristics of an organism or material to be studied.
In addition to Glassie extensively expounding on theories, he also inputs much effort in presenting case studies to enable him achieve his goal. For instance, he synthesizes his ideas from cultural anthropology and folklore and eventually comes up with convincing theories. Glassie’s great attention and expertise in the field of folk culture greatly appears in his presentation of the book and the examples he uses.
Glassie’s book is made up of five chapters. In the first chapter he emphasizes the history. In his view, history is all about the stories about the past, presented in the present with aim of modifying the future (Glassie p. 6). In narrating tales, an individual ought to incorporate nonacademic concepts that prove to be essential. He argues that in using only technological words, the non-literate individuals are discriminated against in one way or the other. He also expresses the essence of inclusion of the ignored types of success. For instance, according to him, the hand-made creation by women, and the poor need to be attended. Glassie further argues that all persons regardless of color have the responsibility of shaping their lives against any kind of circumstance (Glassie p. 32). Glassie uses this chapter to express his concern in promoting material cultures and folk histories that have been ignored for long, and prone to disappearance if not given attention. Through his writing, Glassie believes in improving cultural material and folk histories. By looking at the present occurrences in various areas, in one way or the other, Glassie’s book has managed to achieve its goals. Through the book, many historians have managed to gain information about past cultures that used to exist and link them with the current events today.
In chapter two, Glassie expresses his quest for adjusting studies of material culture; he defines material culture as the tangible product of human behavior (Glassie p. 41). Through it, he enlightens us on the manner various persons leave their remarks on earth. In this chapter, Glassie argues that most people, both past and the present leave their identity only on tangible objects and documents. Thus, according to Glassie relative and general studies of humankind ought to start with everyday relics. He emphasizes on the use of life-history layout in examining creation, communication, and consumption as main elemental objects in studying artifacts. To emphasize his points on material culture, Glassie incorporates a diversity of diagrams and photographs, materials that play great roles providing clarity to the readers.
In chapter three, Glassie expresses his concern in inoculating the understanding of cultural material as tangible products of human activities. For instance, in this chapter, Glassie writes about one of the handcraft people who take much of his time in making carpets. The chapter is all about the life history of Hagop Barin, a Turkish from Armenia. The story is expressed in both the words of the crafter, Hagop, and commentary words from Glassie. For instance, in his writing, Glassie realizes that the Turkish use one word to define both art and craft. Barin’s life is all about his trading activity in socio-cultural situations. Thus, according to Cj in his article, for a scholar to be successive, he or she has to link text contents with moves.
With the aid of the art of pottery, art has been understood greatly compared to other modes of expressing or utilizing art. For instance, pottery plays a significant role in understanding art compared to painting. In chapter four of his book, Glassie manages to bring together all types of potters from countries such as Bangladesh, Japan and Turkey. In chapter four, Glassie also involves potters from the United States and Sweden. Glassie further argues that potters, regardless of their respective cultures, unite artistic and useful values in manufacturing their products. By courtesy of these incorporated values, pots aid in ordering their makers and users in relation to not only natural and supernatural worlds, but also with social worlds. According to Glassie, pottery pattern is universal, as from the skill and passion inputted by the artisans in their daily chores.
The last chapter in Glassie’s book is all about dialect structures, a field reflecting the specialty of Glassie. The main goal of the chapter is that buildings act as cultural facts. In addition, he expresses on the consequences that may be experienced in having disagreements between intentions and conditions (Glassie p.230).
In his book, Glassie focuses mainly on creation, utilization, and communication but he also partly touches on assimilation and preservation of cultural concepts. He emphasizes on the inoculation of objective things in gaining knowledge and coexistence of the past neglected cultural practices. However, Glassie seems to pay more attention to folk cultures and material cultures at the cost of technological advancement. For instance, he claims that it is influential to have the incorporation of technology in study of the past whereas in his writing and narrating the story about Brain and his arts he incorporates no technology.
Glassie also does not give detailed information on how technology can be incorporated in advancing and restoring the neglected past cultures. He seems to be a traditionalist, who believes in nothing but only the past. However, despite negligence of technology as on way of advancement, Glassie plays a crucial role in rebuilding of the past cultures that were neglected.
In conclusion, the study of both material and folk culture provides broad information to historians and anthropologists. For instance, the study of architecture and cultural materials in the field of history provide significant and broad information to historians. In his book, Glassie has provided many crucial materials about cultural practices and folks that provide influential reasons as to why scholars have to incorporate material cultures, as well as majoring in the field of studying material history.
Works cited
Glassie, B. Material Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Print.