After reading past posts about the importance we put on the authenticity of objects such as signatures and items used by specific people, something we have discussed in sociology caught my eye. Flipping through my pages of notes I came across our lecture on ritual solidarity and the importance of objects within ritual solidarity.
The Durkheim theory of ritual solidarity states that a heightened sense of solidarity between people is created when taking part in a ceremony of sort that contains lots of people close together, doing a predictable and ritualized activity and all focusing on the same thing. Ritual solidarity is seen in everything from fans at a sporting event to a religious service. We, as humans, gain a certain emotional high from this ritual solidarity. This “enhanced emotional state” is very, very enticing to humans and it is what causes us to return daily, weekly or annually to the same place for the same ritual.
As Randall Collins points out, the most important reason for why we return to such rituals is because of symbols. During rituals, certain symbols are “charged” with the emotion of the people. This symbol is then taken by people back into their ordinary lives and continuously reminds them, or “re-charges” their memory, of the ritual. An example of these kinds of symbols is a crucifix necklace. By being brought to a ceremony and by being a main focus during an individual’s experience, it will remind people of their “emotional high”.
I think that this is important, because it is what causes us to put extreme importance on the historicity or authenticity of objects such as a persons autograph or an object that person once used. These objects are more important than “fakes”, because they hold and are “charged” with the emotion of the circumstances surrounding the object during a certain point in its existence. Objects that are deemed “fake”, in our eyes, don’t hold the same kind of charged up energy that their authentic brothers have. This is what opens the door to how easily we are fooled by “fakes”. If we believe an object has this charge emotion, then we can believe that any object is authentic.
I completely agree with this "charged" emotion felt by obtaining an authentic object. Without reading Kurt's post before I wrote mine above, I had a similar perspective. The only determining factor of the real and the fake is the confidence had in the owner by truly feeling to them like it is the real thing.
ReplyDeleteI channel surfing the other night and I landed on the show pawn stars because it can be staged, real, fake, interesting. But ignoring the staged perspective, it is amazing what people believe. Common citizens having a signed document from a former president, a singer, any important figure can rake in large sums of money for these "authentic" objects. The people that bring in fakes to sell are fooled because they have a "charged" emotion for a fake object convincing them it is real.
Interesting concept on "charged" objects. I definitely agree; from my other posts it is probably clear that I am a believer in the idea that whatever we think is authentic, is authentic to us and therefore has meaning. I also believe that for an object to have "historicity" to a person, it needs to be "charged" by some event or belief that has meaning to that individual. A autograph from your favorite athlete may mean absolutely nothing to me if I don't even know who that person is. The autograph would not be "charged" for me although it would be for you.
ReplyDelete