Connectedness and Worthiness For The Embedded Self: A Material Culture Perspective

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/240240993
Connectedness and Worthiness for the Embedded Self: A

Material Culture Perspective
Article in Consumption Markets and Culture · December 2007

DOI: 10.1080/10253860701566424
CITATIONS READS
30 6,019
2 authors:
Deborah D. Heisley Deborah Cours

California State University, Northridge California State University, Northridge
10 PUBLICATIONS 741 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Deborah D. Heisley on 29 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Deborah Heisley]
On: 29 April 2015, At: 07:24
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Consumption Markets & Culture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmc20
Connectedness and Worthiness for

the Embedded Self: A Material Culture
Perspective
Deborah D. Heisley & Deborah Cours
Published online: 11 Dec 2007.
To cite this article: Deborah D. Heisley & Deborah Cours (2007) Connectedness and Worthiness for
the Embedded Self: A Material Culture Perspective, Consumption Markets & Culture, 10:4, 425-450,
DOI: 10.1080/10253860701566424
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253860701566424
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Consumption, Markets and Culture,
Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 425–450
Connectedness and Worthiness for the

Embedded Self: A Material Culture
Perspective
Deborah D. Heisley & Deborah Cours
40deborah.heisley@csun.edu
Dr
00000December
DeborahHeisley
Consumption,
10.1080/10253860701566424
GCMC_A_256499.sgm
1025-3866
Original
Taylor
2007
10 and
& Article
Francis 2007 and Culture
(print)/1477-223X
Francis
Markets (online)
Downloaded by [Deborah Heisley] at 07:24 29 April 2015
This article is based on a study of intergenerational transfers of contaminated objects, collo-

quially referred to as “heirlooms.” Motivations and processes are described within the
central dialectic of an individual actor seeking positive affect through the pursuit of
connectedness and worthiness and in the context of the larger social order. Object symbol-
ism is examined from the perspectives of the individual actor, society, and culture. The
family is conceptualized as a special case of the “other.” A theoretical framework is devel-
oped that draws extensively on Walter Goldschmidt’s notion of “The Culturally Embedded
Self” in The Human Career: The Self in a Symbolic World (1990) and on Sidney Levy’s
work as presented in Brands, Consumers, Symbols, and Research (1999). This frame-
work is referred to with the acronym MOSES for Motivations, Object Symbolism, and the
Embedded Self.
Keywords: Motivation; Connectedness; Worthiness; Material Culture; Object Symbolism;

Sentiment; Icon; Hegemony; Myth; Ritual; Prestige; Status; Values; Kinship; Family;
Heirlooms; Self and Other; Community
Introduction
This research originated with an exploration of contaminated1 objects, colloquially
referred to as “heirlooms,” that our informants had received from or planned to pass
on to their kin. During the analysis of the data we became absorbed trying to under-
stand the locus of meaning for our informants’ valuation of these objects. The career
Deborah D. Heisley is an Associate Professor of Marketing and Deborah Cours is Professor of Marketing at
California State University, Northridge. Correspondence to: Deborah Heisley and Deborah Cours, Department of
Marketing, College of Business and Economics, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8377, USA; Email:
deborah.heisley@csun.edu; deborah.cours@csun.edu
ISSN 1025–3866 (print)/ISSN 1477–223X (online) © 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10253860701566424
426 D. D. Heisley & D. Cours
works of Levy and Goldschmidt provided a foundation with which to understand our
data. We elaborated and added to this foundation with insights from the literature and
from our data to create an integrative theoretical framework of sociocultural motiva-
tions and material culture. Motivations and processes are described within the central
dialectic of an individual actor seeking positive affect through the pursuit of connect-
edness and worthiness and in the context of the larger social order. The framework
brings individual, societal and cultural perspectives to the traditional dialectic of the
self versus the other in a way that enlightens the processes and symbolic nature of the
possessions.
The “embedded self” concept is derived from Goldschmidt’s “culturally embedded
self” (1990, 104) as “[t]he symbolic self is inevitably embedded in the context of others”
(105). Particular emphasis is on object symbolism as it relates to connectedness and
worthiness of the self and the embedded self. From a material culture perspective, four
types of object symbolism are recognized: sentimental objects, prestige markers, status
symbols, and icons. The theoretical reason for these four types is explained as a matter
of sociocultural motivations and perspective. The motivations, perspectives, and
processes that link object symbolism to meaning for the embedded self are specified.
The framework is referred to with the acronym MOSES for Motivations, Object
Symbolism, and the Embedded Self.
The concept of the “kinship embedded self” presents the family as a special case of
the other, as the kinship system is one of the most powerful “other” contexts in which
people find themselves embedded. By applying the MOSES framework, we present a
rich analysis of the data from our study of heirlooms. We are able to integrate
significant bodies of literature with our data findings and draw connections within the
literature not previously identified. Through examining the heirlooms from this
material culture theory, we are able to address our informants’ motivations for
connectedness and worthiness, how those manifest in object symbolism differently
depending on perspective, and the process by which that occurs. We demonstrate the
importance and value of considering the self as embedded within a social context,
particularly within the family. The concept of the kinship embedded self leads to
powerful insights regarding the meaning of contaminated objects in the family. The
MOSES framework explains how objects (1) provide a sense of connectedness with
personal history or with kin, (2) classify or mark the prestige of one’s own or one’s
ancestors merits or achievements, (3) symbolize status and maintain norms and roles
in social and kinship structures, and (4) serve as icons that, along with myth and ritual,
communicate personal, community, cultural and family values.
MOSES is a theoretical framework and analytical tool that integrates important
concepts and bodies of literature to inform the understanding of consumers’ motiva-
tions and meaning creation. When viewed as part of this larger theoretical structure,
many of the concepts in the social science and consumer behavior literature, and the
relationship among those concepts, are brought to light in a new and powerful way.
This framework should be useful to consumer culture theorists seeking to interpret the
symbolic role of objects as consumers seek connectedness and worthiness for their
embedded selves (see Table 1).
Table 1 Theoretical framework of motivations and object symbolism for the embedded self (MOSES)
Connectedness and Worthiness: A Material Culture Perspective Embedded Self
Sociocultural
Motivation Perspective Object Symbolism Process Self Other Family
Connectedness Individual actor Sentiment Indexical Personal History Relationship Kinship

Worthiness: Prestige Individual actor Prestige marker Classification and Merit/ To be known/respected/judged Ancestor
discrimination achievement worthy/remembered/immortality
Worthiness: Status Society Status symbol Hegemony Norms and roles Social structure Kinship structure
Worthiness: Values Culture Icons and artifacts Myth and ritual Personal values Community or cultural values Family values
Concepts drawn directly from Goldschmidt’s theory are designated in normal text while our additions are designated in italics. The cells are not mutually exclusive.
Consumption, Markets and Culture 427
Literature Review
First the literature on the self and the other is offered with particular focus on the
current consumer behavior literature. Then we review the literature with regard to the
larger MOSES framework regarding sociocultural motivations and material culture as
they relate to the self and the socially embedded self. The major scaffolding for the
theory is the work of two preeminent social science scholars; Walter Goldschmidt and
Sidney Levy. The “post-post-modern” (American Anthropologist 1990) work of
Walter Goldschmidt in The Human Career: The Self in a Symbolic World (1990) is
based upon his career of cultural analysis across many diverse cultures. Seven exem-
plar articles on motivation, symbolism, mythology, the self versus the other, and social
status (1959, 1963, 1966, 1974, 1981a, 1981b, 1996) are drawn from Sidney Levy’s
work as presented in Brands, Consumers, Symbols, and Research (Levy 1999). The
framework is further developed and supported with other major works from the social
science and consumer culture theory (Arnould and Thompson 2005) literatures. Each
cell in the MOSES framework relates to entire bodies of literature, so there is not an
attempt to offer a comprehensive literature review. Instead, one or two seminal pieces
in the various areas are offered, then more recent relevant consumer behavior work in
the area is included. Finally, our empirical study of intergenerational transfers of
contaminated objects is introduced and the data is analyzed using the MOSES
theoretical framework.
The Self and the Other

The psychological notion of the self refers to the conscious construct of one’s unique
characteristics and traits. Modern Western conceptualizations of the self focused on
the individual as separate from others, while recognizing that the self was influenced by
others and the importance placed on social relationships. In postmodern work, the self
came to be seen as more fluid with regard to the individual and others, with recognition
of conflict and ambivalence between societal or social expectations and individual goals
(Bajde 2006; Bouchet 2007; Levy [1996] 1999; Otnes, Lowrey, and Shrum 1997; Price,
Arnould, and Curasi 2000).
From Mauss’s ([1925] 1967) identification of egoism and altruism in gift-giving
to Maslow’s (1970) distinction between ego and social needs to Csikszentmihalyi
and Rochberg-Halton’s (1981) understanding of “cold” (individual) versus “warm”
(other-oriented) materialism, the study of human behavior is replete with models,
scales, and classifications focusing on “self versus other” orientations. Kitayama’s
(2004) review of cross-cultural research on the self finds that, while more likely in
independent cultures, even in interdependent cultures the personal self may at
times be oppositional to the societal orientation. Going beyond Hofstede’s (1980)
cultural orientations of collectivist versus individualist, Singelis (1994) treats
interdependence and independence as separate constructs. Singelis’s individual Self-
Construal Scale consists of two sub-scales: one of interdependence and one of
independence.
Goldschmidt stresses the play of the self versus the other, but his concept of the
“culturally embedded self” recognizes that “[t]he symbolic self is inevitably embedded
in the context of others … This goes to the very heart of the human condition. It lies at
the base of the ambivalence, the conflicts, both open and internal … some
balance between autonomy and identity, between self-assertiveness and acquiescence,
between independence and dependency” (1990, 105). Goldschmidt’s culturally
embedded self is motivated by the “pursuit of prestige in the context of community
values.”
Levy introduced notions of “Symbols, Selves and Others” (1981b) into the market-
ing literature in 1959: “modern goods are recognized as essentially psychological
things which are symbolic of personal attributes and goals and of social patterns and
strivings” ([1959] 1999, 206). Belk (1988) identifies the “core self” as that which is
unique to the individual, as opposed to traits or characteristics that are common
across family, group, nation or culture. Individual motivations and goals are preemi-
nent to the core self, while shared social, familial and cultural meanings inform the
“extended self.” Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) differentiate between possessiveness
and attachment to others as primary sources of meaning of favorite things. Kleine,
Kleine, and Allen (1995) identify affiliation versus autonomy seeking (Kegan 1982) as
an “archetypal theme” in valuation of material objects. Firat and Venkatesh (1995)
argue that the post-modern self has many options for expression and realization and
lacks the need to strive for consistency in the presentation of the self. Psychological
investigations of empathy, altruism and self-interest turn to the “merger of self and
other” (Krebs 1991) or the “oneness” of self and other (Cialdini et al. 1997). Aaker
and her colleagues (Aaker and Lee 2001; Aaker and Williams 1998) demonstrate that
while independent versus interdependent self are preferred by different cultures, each
can be primed in either culture. However, according to Ahuvia (2005) and more
current research he cites (Gould and Lerman 1998; Murray 2002; Thompson and
Hirschman 1995), few examples support the “[abandonment of] the desire for a
coherent identity narrative” (Ahuvia 2005). Indeed, Bajde (2006) presents a cogent
criticism of the dominant view of self-interest as the primary motive of consumer
behavior and the failure to recognize that the self cannot be psychologically separated
from the other.
The opposition of self versus other has been a theme in attempts to understand
human motivation, self-perception and object symbolism. Traditional and early work
tended to see these orientations as alternative ways of being or as opposites on a
continuum. However, Levy recognizes the embedded nature of the self in his 1963
“Symbolism and Life Style”:
They develop the wish to do these things [eat when hungry, sleep when tired, and love
when stimulated] in particular ways regarded as suitable for themselves. And what is
thought suitable rests in who they are, how they grew up, their nationality, the groups they
participate in or seek, and ultimately, in all of this, the individual person they aim to be.
([1963] 1999, 218)
More recent work has edged closer to Goldschmidt’s 1990 concept of the culturally
embedded self and Levy’s “Amphisbaena” (1996) by recognizing that individuals are
simultaneously self and other focused, leading to conflict and ambivalence ([1996]
1999, 5).
Sociocultural Motivation and Perspective

Goldschmidt (1990) presents a “new model of social behavior” (1) that describes the
central motivation of the “human career” as “affect-hunger” (21, 29–31). Affect-hunger
drives the individual to pursue “a sense of self” which means “attachment [and] social
identification: with family, clan, community, tribe, nation, ethnic group, social class—
whatever the significant and central institutions may be” (105) and the “attainment of
social worth—prestige—in the context of community values” (2). Pursuit by the
individual of a sense of “worthiness” manifests differently depending on perspective.
From the perspective of an individual actor, the motivation is the pursuit of “prestige.”
From the perspective of “society,” the motivation is “status.” From the perspective of
“culture,” the motivation is “value.” He explains that:

Prestige, values, and status refer to the same phenomenon from three different perspec-
tives. … prestige looks at social differentiation from the standpoint of the individual actor.
The concept of values looks at the phenomenon of worthiness from the standpoint of
cultural definition. Status looks at the same thing from the standpoint of social structure.
(Goldschmidt 1990, 39)
One of Levy’s areas of emphasis has been a sociocultural perspective on motivations
and object symbolism, especially with regard to society and culture ([1959], [1963],
[1966], [1981a] 1999). He discusses motivations of connectedness, prestige, and status
in “Symbolism in Life Style” (Levy [1963] 1999). He addresses the values held by
various socioeconomic groups (Levy [1966] 1999), touches on values in his discussion
of “Myth and Meaning in Marketing” (Levy [1974] 1999), and focuses on values in his
discussion of consumer mythology (Levy [1981a] 1999).
The motivations of worthiness and connectedness are well known and supported in
the sociocultural, social network and consumer behavior literatures (Bott 1957;
Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Goldschmidt 1990; Levy [1963] 1999; Maslow 1970). Vign-
eron and Johnson (1999) distinguish among consumers who consume prestige brands
for their Veblenian conspicuousness and resulting ostentation from those who choose
those brands for their conforming properties of facilitating group membership (a
“bandwagon effect,” 7). Hill and Stamey (1990) illustrate how homeless persons use
possessions and consumption activities both to earn prestige and to create connec-
tions and community. Holt (1997) finds consumption in a small town setting to
reflect themes of social connections and distinctions. Featherstone (1991, 13)
describes a “strict sociological view” that focuses on products as facilitators of social
bonds and distinctions as one of the major perspectives on consumer culture. The
MOSES view of motivation, object symbolism, and process from different perspec-
tives brings these many sociocultural perspectives together. The specification of the
relationships among the constructs and the relationship of the constructs to issues of
the embedded self contributes valuable additional insights from a comprehensive
theoretical framework.
Object Symbolism and Process
The third and fourth columns of the MOSES framework relate object symbolism to the
process of attaching symbolic meaning to objects from the perspectives of the individ-
ual actors, society, and culture. In this area, our primary source was Levy’s body of
work, as he set the stage for consumer culture theorists’ explorations of the meaning of
things. He addresses “the symbolic nature of consumer objects” (Levy [1963] 1999,
217) with extensive discussion of prestige markers, status symbols, and consumption
based classification and discrimination systems (Levy [1959], [1963], [1966], [1981a]
1999), and brings cultural analysis to the forefront with his analyses of artifacts and
icons, myths, rituals, and their concomitant value systems (Levy [1974], [1981a],
[1996] 1999). In addition, we turned to the anthropology, sociology, and consumer
culture theory literatures.
Based on the literature and our data, we identify four types of objects and processes
that serve the motivations of connectedness and worthiness for the embedded self.
Sentimental indexical objects serve the purpose of connecting actors to their embedded
selves and others. Prestige markers allow actors’ access to classification and discrimina-
tion systems that mark the worthiness of their own and their families’ merits and
achievements. Status symbols mark and communicate actors’ norms and roles as they
participate in the hegemonic processes of the social institutions they are embedded in.
Finally, myth and ritual attach values to icons at the levels of the self, family, community
and culture.
Sentiment and indexicality

One way that individual actors seek connectedness with their embedded selves is
through the indexical properties of objects (Grayson and Shulman 2000; Mick 1986).
Grayson and Shulman draw on Peirce ([1867–1914] 1940) and their own research to
suggest that “irreplaceable objects are indices because they have a factual, spatial
connection with the special events and people they represent” (19). The manifestations
of connectedness are not devoid of feeling; there is “sentiment” attached. Goldschmidt
explains that “Anthropological discourse, when it touches upon feeling at all, generally
refers to it as sentiment” (1990, 22). We suggest that objects which index an individual
actor’s connectedness to the self and others capture that sentiment (e.g. the colloquial
“sentimental objects”).
From an individual actor’s perspective, an object can connect her to, or index, her
“personal history” (Richins 1994, 510). A person may consider a possession valuable
because it stimulates personal memories (Belk 1988; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-
Halton 1981; Grayson and Shulman 2000; Holbrook 1993; Richins 1994). These
personal memories can be transformed into kinship connections through narrative
storytelling (Curasi, Price, and Arnold 2004; Levy [1981a] 1999).
From an individual actor’s perspective, an object can also index relationships with
others (Belk 1988; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Grayson and
Shulman 2000; Richins 1994). The concept of connectedness relates back to Bott’s
(1957) work on families as social networks exhibiting “close-knit” networks with many
connections between members or “loose-knit” networks with fewer connections. An
object can index kinship and strengthen connections to family (Curasi, Price, and
Arnould 2004; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000), and serve as a projective device for a
person’s feelings about kin (Heisley and Cours 2007).
Prestige markers and classification/discrimination, merit/achievement and ancestor status,

to be known/respected/judged worthy/remembered immortality
I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying.
(Woody Allen cited in Pinker 2007, 70)
Veblen (1902) describes the use of “conspicuous consumption” to establish a social

classification and discrimination system. Douglas and Isherwood ([1979] 1982) speak
about the “marking” property of goods; “Treat the goods then as markers, the visible
bit of the iceberg which is the whole social process. Goods are used for marking in the
sense of classifying categories” (74). “Prestige marker,” then, captures the sense of
goods that are used for classification and discrimination. The classification and
discrimination properties of goods are well known and are discussed by such scholars
as Levy ([1959], [1963], [1966], [1981a] 1999), Douglas and Isherwood ([1979] 1982),
Bourdieu ([1979] 1984), and Holt (1998).
Individual merit and achievement can, in the context of others, lead to being known,
respected, judged worthy, remembered and even, in some sense, to being immortal
(Goldschmidt 1990). “Everybody wants prestige and prestige is never better marked
than by having a following” (ibid., 1). Possessions that are markers of “achievement”
hold special value and meaning (Belk et al. 1991; Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993;
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Hill and Stamey 1990; Levy [1963] 1999;
O’Guinn 1991; Richins 1994). In the case of intergenerational transfers: within a
family, if an individual actor can accumulate and distribute objects that index his or her
merit and achievements, he has a chance of the object becoming inalienable wealth
(Curasi, Price, and Arnould 2004), and he can be immortalized as a valued ancestor.
In an Odyssey project interview (Wallendorf and Belk 1988), an older gentleman
pulls out a keepsake box full of medals and awards he received as a youth. He mentions
that he doesn’t know what to do with them, but when probed his eyes tear up and he
mentions that he would like to give them to his granddaughters, but that they probably
wouldn’t want them, that “nobody cares.” This man had gained prestige through his
accomplishments and these objects served as prestige markers, indexing his merit and
achievements. He would like to be judged worthy and remembered as an ancestor; but
he doubts this will happen.
Merit and achievement can also be marked by creating or owning objects that are
expensive (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993), aesthetically pleasing, or
unique, and are therefore desirable and prestigious. When transferred to heirs, an
object may not be valued for its kinship properties as much as for the attributes of the
object itself (Cours et al. 1999). According to Bloch, “Family gifts that offend aesthetic
sensibilities are frequently relegated to attics or basements and only displayed when the
donor visits” (1995, 21).
The funeral industry in China exemplifies prestige markers as they relate to
classification and discrimination for the kinship embedded self. The industry is
“among China’s 10 most profitable, with many urban Chinese spending several years’
worth of disposable income on funerals” driven by “[a] belief system built around filial
piety, ancestor worship and social prestige.” “Atop a hill in the sprawling Dohghe
Cemetery, [Baotou, China] on a spot said to have good feng shui, sits a 10,000-square-
foot semicircular tomb adorned with a pagoda, stone dragons and a massive upended
boulder. Cemetery workers say the plot, bought by a karaoke parlor owner, cost about
$110,000.” (Magnier 2007, A1). The prestige of the family is marked, the family is
judged worthy, and the ancestor achieves some degree of immortality.
Status symbols and hegemony

Goldschmidt discusses the fact that a major goal of social structures is to keep them-
selves intact. Gramsci ([1929–1935] 1971) explicates the hegemonic process by which
this occurs. The acquisition and display of status symbols takes center stage in this
process.
From the societal perspective, a person is motivated to attain status. Status occurs
within the context of a social structure, and status and status symbols are associated
with the roles that individuals play within that structure (Goldschmidt 1990; Levy
[1963], [1966], [1981a] 1999). The structure of status and roles is biased toward main-
taining the current structure, that is, the hegemonic process (Gramsci [1929–1935]
1971). Goldschmidt states that “the essential fact about social institutions is that they
are self-maintenance mechanisms serving to preserve the state of equilibrium in the
society” (1990, 18). Status symbols are used in the hegemonic process of maintaining
the social order.
This process can be considered at the broadest societal level, at the group level
(Wong and Ahuvia 1998), or at the level of the kinship structure (Price, Arnould, and
Curasi 2000). “Each status carries with it a specific role, a pattern of expected behavior.
Kinship systems … are systems of statuses and roles” (Goldschmidt 1990, 40). Social
norms and roles are also expressed and maintained through gift giving (Giesler 2006;
Otnes, Lowrey, and Kim 1993); the classic example being the potlatch.
Icons/artifacts and myths/rituals

Goldschmidt discusses icons as vessels of cultural values, and the necessity of myth and
ritual in attaching values to icons. Myth and ritual serve to “harmonize sentiment” and
can transform artifacts into icons. This focus on icons/artifacts and myths/rituals draws
from archeology and material culture and harks back to such seminal works as Firth’s
(1973) on symbolism, Levi-Strauss’s (1979) on myths, and Turner’s (1969) on ritual.
McCracken notes that “[g]oods are an opportunity to make culture material”
(1986, 73). Holbrook and Grayson (1986) demonstrate the strength of consumption
symbolism by its ability to deliver plot and character development. Icons are artifacts
that become imbued with values through myth and ritual (Goldschmidt 1990).
Common iconic examples include, at a cosmological level, religious texts and at the
national level, flags. O’Guinn and Belk (1989) explore the interplay between consumer
culture and religious iconography. The expression of community values through icons,
ritual, and mythology is captured in consumer culture events such as Burning Man
(Kozinets 2002; Sherry and Kozinets 2007), Farmers’ Markets (McGrath, Sherry, and
Heisley 1993), and Biker Events (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Iconic brands and
their constructed myths and rituals tap cultures’ value structures and serve as vehicles
for the expression of consumers’ values and community (Holt 2004; Muniz and
O’Guinn 2001; Solomon 1983). Nike and Gatorade use celebrities and everyday people
to encourage consumers to use their products to “Just Do It” or “Be Like Mike.” Jones
(1991) identifies the semiotic meaning in [product] design that communicates cultural
value(s).
Myths and rituals also exist at the family and individual levels (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1981; Levy [1974], [1981a], [1996] 1999; Rook 1985). Levy ([1981a],
[1996] 1999) discusses the rituals and “little myths of the family” ([1981a] 1999, 520)
that capture and communicate the values of the family. Autodriving (Heisley and Levy
1991) uses a photoelicitation technique to elicit family myths and stories about food
preparation and consumption. Thanksgiving rituals and mythologies are examined as
a window into the expression of community and family values (Stern 1995; Wallendorf
and Arnould 1991). Finally, from a more psychological perspective, Richins’s (1994)
“self-expression” can be related to an expression of personal values.
Sociocultural Motivations and Object Symbolism for the Self, the Other and the Family (as
a Special Case of the Other)
Eight cells in the MOSES framework address the juxtaposition of the self and the other
with the two sociocultural motivations of connectedness and worthiness from the
perspectives of the individual, society, and culture, (see Table 1, columns 5 and 6 of the
framework). Four of these eight cells are discussed by Richins (1994) from a more
psychological perspective. Two of Richins’s (1994) seven reasons a possession is valued
are identity and interpersonal ties. Identity includes personal history, achievement (our
“merit/achievement”), and self-expression (our similar category is “personal values”).
Her discussion of objects that provide a “representation of interpersonal ties” links
with our “relationship.” She discusses symbols of family history under “interpersonal
ties,” strengthening our discussion of the family as a special case of the other. Fittingly,
she also discusses how the private meanings of possessions are embedded in their
public meanings. Richins’s framework lies nicely upon ours, and we use her work as
exemplars for four of the eight “self” and “other” cells.
Goldschmidt’s conceptualization of the culturally embedded self emphasizes the
extent that the other is present in the self. The preeminent scholars in the area of
family and kinship from a consumer culture theory perspective are Levy and Arnould
(Arnould and Thompson 2005). While Levy initially introduced sociocultural
perspectives on family consumption into the field, Arnould has, along with several of
his colleagues, continued to develop this area from an anthropological perspective.
His work with Curasi and Price (Curasi, Price, and Arnould 2004; Price, Arnould,
and Curasi 2000) on intergenerational transfers touches on the four cells in our
framework related to the family as a special case of the other. The desire for: (1)
connectedness in the family (kinship), (2) prestige in being valued and remembered
by others in the family (ancestor), (3) maintenance of the kinship structure, and (4)
the transmission of family values, is evident in their data. The MOSES theoretical
framework, by conceptualizing the family as a special case of the other, is able to
explain their data from a sociocultural motivational perspective. This demonstrates
that, in the study of material culture, the area of intergenerational transfers of
contaminated objects is a rich arena for study and that the MOSES theoretical frame-
work of object symbolism and the embedded self is a powerful analytical device for
gaining a more in-depth understanding of the motivations and processes underlying
material culture.
The Study
The study provides substantive findings regarding intergenerational transfers of
contaminated objects and illustrates the potential of the MOSES theoretical framework
to inform consumer research. First we describe the methodology of the study. Then we
explain how we developed the MOSES theory. Next we describe our organization of
findings according to the framework. Finally we present verbatims from our study of
intergenerational transfers of contaminated objects and analyze them using the
MOSES framework.
Methodology
Interviews were conducted by trained graduate research assistants at a major West
Coast business school. Three of the graduate students were second year MBA students,
and two of the graduate students were second and third year doctoral students. The
students were intensively trained by the leading author who is experienced and well-
trained at in-depth interviewing and analysis. Interviewers and researchers completed
bracketing exercises and kept detailed journal notes. Weekly meetings were held
between the lead author and the graduate students to discuss the project, gather
impressions, and provide feedback.
The interviewers recruited volunteer informants from among acquaintances, family,
and referrals by the same, deliberately targeting a diverse informant profile. Nineteen
depth interviews were conducted with thirteen women and six men who ranged from
twenty to eighty years old, represented all marital statuses, and were of diverse Judeo-
Christian backgrounds. All were Caucasian. They represented different family
structures, including families with adoptions, stepchildren, various ages of biological
children, and childless adults. Informants’ social class was determined by the primary
researchers, who are expertly trained in social class theory, using informants’ occupa-
tion, education, residence, and wealth/income as well as subjective elements related to
taste and lifestyle that were revealed during the interviews. Although not an intended
focus in our original research question, in several cases, we interviewed multiple
informants from the same family. The opportunity to interpret multiple perspectives
on heirlooms within a family added to the richness of our data. Table 2 provides
demographic information about each informant and describes familial relationships
that existed among the informants.
Interviews lasted from thirty minutes to two hours in length. Informants were
encouraged to share with the interviewer their experiences regarding heirlooms. All
informants discussed the heirlooms they had received; nine of the informants had also
given heirlooms. Some informants conjectured how they would distribute their heir-
looms and when it would be appropriate to do so. The interviews were mostly unstruc-
tured, encouraging the informant and the interviewer to discuss the informant’s
experiences in a conversational manner. Interviews typically started by asking the
informants to provide their own definition (the emic definition) of the term
Table 2 Informant background information

Family Status and Relationship(s) with other
Alias Sex Age Religion Social Class* Informants
Liz B. F 24 Lutheran UM Never married, no children. Daughter of

Ruth and Robert
Sarah F 27 Catholic Raised WC, now Never married, no children
MBA student
Amy B. F 27 Lutheran UM Never married, no children. Daughter of
Ruth and Robert
Kate T. F 30 Jewish MM Married, no children. Wife of Matt
Matt T. M 31 Protestant LM Married, no children. Husband of Kate
Judy F 34 Protestant LM Divorced, 3 children
Brent J. M 35 Mormon UM Never married, no children. Brother of
Norman
Danielle J. F 35 Mormon UM Married, 5 children. Wife of Norman
Norman J. M 36 Mormon UM Married, 5 children. Husband of Danielle,
brother of Brent
Laura F 38 Jewish MM Divorced, no children
Dave M 42 Protestant WC Married, 2 biological children, 1 stepchild
Mindy F 52 Jewish UM Married, 3 stepdaughters
Rose B. F 53 Born Jewish, UM Married, 2 children. Wife of Robert, mother
now Lutheran of Amy and Sarah
Robert B. M 53 Lutheran UM Married, 2 children. Husband of Rose, father
to Amy and Sarah
Deloris F 65 Protestant MM Adopted at birth. Widowed, 3 children
Sam M 59 Protestant MM Married, 3 children. Husband of Deloris.
Betty F 69 Lutheran LM Married, 3 children (2 adopted)
Ralph M 72 Mormon WC Married, 3 children. Raised by mother’s
sister after mother died and father remarried
Florence F 80 Protestant MM Twice divorced, no children
Jennifer F 26 Jewish LU Never married, no children
*U=upper, M=middle, L=lower, WC=working class

“heirloom,” usually through a question such as “What do you consider an heirloom to
be” or “What makes something an heirloom?” The informants were also asked to
describe any heirlooms they had received, and were probed as necessary to provide
details such as the transfer occasion (e.g. upon a wedding or after the donor’s death),
the transfer type (e.g. a personal gift or via a will), the ages of the donor and recipient
at the time of the transfer, and the “genealogical” historical path of the object if the
donor had received it from someone else (e.g. mother’s mother to mother to self).
When possible, photographs were taken of the heirlooms for further documentation.
Informants also described any heirlooms that they had given to others, including gifts
that were intended to or might become heirlooms. A “family tree” of the informant’s
known genealogy including the path of all current and intended heirlooms was
appended to each interview.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim, resulting in hundreds of pages of data.
Each interview was read by both authors. The authors discussed the rich holistic
context of the interviews among themselves, with the interviewers, and in journals. The
interviews were thickly coded by both authors using The Ethnograph software.
Emergent and iterative coding was employed consistent with methods discussed by
Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Thompson (1997).
The Findings
One of the major issues that emerged from our analysis of the heirloom interviews was
how consumers valued existing or potential heirlooms. Initially, we identified two
dimensions. One dimension was whether the locus of the meaning was in the object or
in people. The second dimension was whether the meaning occurred at the level of the
self, the other, or the culture. Within that framework, we identified issues of owner-
ship—later identified as prestige (object/self), nostalgia (people/self), hegemony and
status (object/family), kinship and ancestors (people/family), icon (object/culture) and
ritual (people/culture). However, this was not an elegant or particularly solid theoret-
ical framework and we turned to the literature for guidance. Goldschmidt’s conceptu-
alizations of worthiness as prestige, status, and values (depending on perspective)
provided a breakthrough. After several iterations back and forth between the literature
and our data, we were able to develop the theoretically solid and elegant MOSES frame-
work that explained our data. We can see the seeds of the initial framework in the final
theory, but we also now recognize that initially object symbolism, processes and the
manifestations of meaning with regard to the self and the other were theoretically
confused and underspecified.
With the fully specified MOSES theory put forth in this article, the unique meanings
of the heirlooms are understood in relation to individual, societal, and cultural
perspectives, sociocultural motivations of worthiness and connectedness, and four
different processes. The meanings are understood to differ depending upon whether
the primary focus is on the self or the other. Furthermore, the kinship embedded self
presents a special case of the culturally embedded self with its own theoretical
constructs.
Below we apply our theory to our data. We present our data roughly organized
according to the objects’ meanings as sentimental objects, prestige markers, status
symbols, and icons. We attempt to begin each section with a more “pure” example of
the object symbolism at hand. However, multiple motivations and perspectives are
present in many of the stories about the heirlooms, and we also present these more
complex cases. This analysis demonstrates the analytic power of the MOSES frame-
work and also presents substantive findings regarding the meaning of heirlooms.
Family as a special case of the other: the kinship embedded self

As mentioned earlier, a major insight from our analysis is the conceptualization of
the family as a special case of the other and of the self as embedded in the family. We
struggled with the self versus other dimension that was emerging from our data.
Goldschmidt’s 1990 concept of the culturally embedded self and Levy’s “Amphis-
baena” ([1996] 1999) stress the point that individuals are simultaneously self and
other focused. After investigating the self and the other in our data and in the litera-
ture, there was another distinctive and theoretically unique dimension regarding the
family. The family is a special context in which the “other” is profoundly connected
to the self. By conceptualizing the self as embedded in the family and the family as a
special case of the other, we were able to build a rich theoretical framework that
accounts for our findings regarding the self, the other, and the family. Four distinct
meanings emerge for the kinship embedded self: (1) connectedness in the family
(kinship), (2) prestige in being valued and remembered by others in the family
(ancestor), (3) maintenance of the kinship structure, and (4) the transmission of
family values.
Connectedness
Contaminated possessions hold sentimental associations. The possessions index
personal histories and relationships within the family. Illustrative verbatims illustrate
the feeling of connectedness that these objects provide.
Personal history. Our data illustrate that individual actors are motivated by the
search for positive sentiment through the pursuit of connectedness with their own
personal history, such as nostalgia for childhood and other childhood associations.
Rose: And the chest, here again, it’s something I just grew up with. I just always had that
little chest in my room. I can recall having my dolls in there, and then I would leave
it open and the cat would sleep in there. So that has been with me as long as I can
recall. [F 53]
Sam: Yeah, the high chair still had the seat. You can see where the rungs are worn out,
from putting your feet on it. I sat on it when I was a little kid, as long as I can
remember. [M 69]
Judy: [The ring] has a little tiny bow with a ruby in the middle. It’s very small. And
it has two marks around where the ruby is, that I chewed on when I was little.
[F 34]
The “flaws” in Sam and Judy’s objects only enhance their value because the damage
serves as physical evidence of personal contamination, and that seems to make the
nostalgia more potent (Belk 1988).
Relationship and kinship as a special case of relationship. Kinship recognizes a

dimension of the self that is profoundly embedded in the other and a dimension of the
self connected with the other, or embeddedness and connectedness.
In our study, Ralph’s [M 72] mother died in childbirth, and he was raised by his aunt
and uncle. Ralph had little or no further contact with his biological father. Ultimately,
Ralph received very few of his parents’ things. However, Ralph treasured these few
things because they represented his parents: “The list is so short that I was glad to get
anything that represented possessions of my parents.” In this case, the objects repre-
sented a biological, more than a social, relationship.
Properly administered myth and ritual can transform a kinship article into a family
icon that communicates the values of the family.
Danielle: The bookcases are just examples of things that people I’ve loved made. So we
keep them even if they’re not fancy. They’re useful and Courtney [her daughter]
knows that her grandfather made that and her great grandfather made the other
one. So, she’s aware of that. [F 35]
Applying the framework shows that this data is rich in connectedness and worthi-
ness. The handmade bookcases index Courtney’s grandfather and great grandfather,
and the fact that they were handmade increases their sentimental value through
contamination. At the same time, the merit/achievement of making the bookcases is
judged worthy “even if they are not fancy.” The ancestors’ accomplishment is
respected, and they achieve a certain level of immortality. Finally, the mother’s oral
history and narrative work transforms the simple bookcases into icons that can
represent family values of hard work, craft, functionality, and valuing ancestors and
kinship.
Prestige
An object can have prestige because it is evidence of a specific achievement, as in the
medals of the gentleman in the Odyssey project (see “Prestige Markers and Classifica-
tion/Discrimination” above) or the cane of the ancestor who fought in the war (see
below), or because it is aesthetically pleasing, unique, or expensive. Judy mentions that
she values an heirloom because it is “pretty.”
Interviewer: Why did your grandmother give you the ring?
Judy: I always used to compliment her on it, and I think she gave it to me because
she knew I liked it. [F 34]
In this example, Judy values the ring because she finds it aesthetically appealing. There
is no mention of the value of the kinship of the relationship. At the same time, the
prestige of owning an aesthetically pleasing object has given the grandmother ancestor
status vested in the ring.
In another example, Sarah values an heirloom because of its uniqueness, but
nowhere mentions its sentimental value.
Interviewer: Would this be something that, if you lost it for some reason, would you be
upset?
Sarah: Yeah. Well, yeah. ‘Cause it’s very nice, and I don’t like losing things in
general. I don’t like losing things of value in particular. And it’s not as if I
can go out and buy another one. You know, I can’t. Like I think that having
a dainty little ladies’ knife is a neat thing. [F 27]
Conversely, objects (often, intended heirlooms) may not be aesthetically pleasing (or
“not me”: Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995; Levy [1963] 1999). Instead of experiencing
the pleasure and prestige of aesthetic delight, the recipient feels displeasure and embar-
rassment. Judy [F 34] threw away an object that she did not consider an heirloom
because she “didn’t like it.” If the informant values the kinship aspect of the object, this
can lead to internal conflict. One of the authors inherited some glasses from her father’s
mother whose kinship she valued. However, she felt that the glasses were “hideous” and
“ugly,” and she was embarrassed to have them in her home. She laughs with insight as
she mentions how quickly those glasses seemed to get broken.
Status
We found heirlooms that represented the hegemonic process at both the larger social
structure and the kinship structure levels. Economic value was often mentioned when
informants were discussing status symbols.
Mindy uses the distribution of a status laden platinum and diamond earring set to
reinforce primogeniture and gender norms that are pervasive in United States’ culture.
Mindy: Marcia [eldest step-daughter] gets this platinum and diamond earring [set] and
a matching ring. It is gorgeous, very high quality diamonds in both the ring and
earrings … she is very excited. That’s what she gets, she is the oldest and that’s
the most valuable. [F 52, newly married three stepdaughters]
One informant was particularly focused on prestige markers and status symbols,
almost to the exclusion of concerns about sentiment and kinship. Sarah was a twenty-
seven-year-old female MBA student whose family of origin was working class, but
some of whose extended family was of a higher social class. She is fascinated both with
her family’s place in the larger social structure and with the status structure amongst
her family members. She speaks about her visit to her “wealthy” great-aunt (father’s
father’s sister).
Sarah: I went to visit her in Florida, and she just has the coolest things all over her
house. Like she had this ivory-tipped cane that belonged to like my great-
great-grandfather. And if you looked around her house, there were just tons
of things. Tons of beautiful objects that I was like, “I wish I owned all of
these.” And just like sort of lying about, not showcased or whatever. You’d
walk by and go, “That’s such a beautiful cane,” and then, “Yeah, well, that
was your great-great-grandfather’s, and he used it because his leg was shot off
in the war.” Or something like that. You know, there’d be always a little story
associated with it. [F 27]
Applying the theory to the powerful “little myth of the family” (Levy [1981a] 1999,
520) above, we see that the cane emphasizes kinship with a sentimental object that
indexes the great-great-grandfather and was contaminated with his use. The ancestor
marked his merit and achievement of fighting and sacrificing in the war with the
aesthetically pleasing cane, and he is immortalized with this prestige marker. The
wealthy great-aunt’s house is full of prestige markers and status symbols, and her
casual comfort with their display and use expresses her place in the hegemonic
process. The great-aunt performs the age and gender role of guardian of the family’s
inalienable objects (Curasi, Price, and Arnould 2004). Finally, the great-aunt invokes a
wartime (“or something like that”) mythology to transform the cane artifact into a
family icon, communicating values of kinship, bravery, patriotism, and masculine
sacrifice.
Hegemony can manifest in the relative comfort or discomfort people feel with status
symbols. While impressed by the comfort of her “wealthy aunt” with beautiful objects,
Sarah resents the way her mother distances herself and feels discomfort with status laden
objects. Sarah speaks about her mother who has all the heirlooms stored away in a box.
Sarah: But like, Mom grew up in a really poor family, so she’s sort of led a simple life.
And I know for a fact that people with any kind of money intimidate her. I mean,
she feels that, since neither of my parents went to college—well, my mom went
when I was in college, to a two-year program—but she would think that, say like
a local architect who makes like an okay living, “They’re so rich!” My mom looks
at them and says, really rich, like la-di-dah. And she builds up this image in her
mind, and she gets all uncomfortable with it. And I kind of think it’s the same
thing. She’s like, “These aren’t my things, I don’t need them.” She has a chip on
her shoulder about being poor—like poor and honest about it. If it was a piece of
crystal, she’d be like “I don’t want it! Get it away from me!” [F 27]
Then, Sarah, whose father’s family was wealthy, expresses her outrage that her
parents gave her brother’s wife a beautiful, expensive (hence, heirloom) cut glass
platter. This violates her perception of the worthiness of various members of her family
for receiving status laden heirlooms.
Sarah: I think it’s really wrong that things that should be together are not (i.e. the cut
glass serving platter and plates), and that people who are owning them will never
use them. And never, I don’t think, appreciate the value. I mean, they’ll never be
in a situation where they’d use it. You just have to understand that my whole
family are very backwoods people. Gregory is living in New Jersey, so he’s a little
more metro than the rest of them, but I mean, this sounds so terrible—but, like
my brother who has the crystal platter lives in a trailer! He will live in a trailer his
whole life. I mean, maybe he’ll get a house at some point, but … let’s just say that
I could never live like any of them! I mean, Mary has a nice life, and she could
probably put the stuff to use. Or appreciate it for what it is and just like it. She’s
fine with that. But Gregory is going to live in a little house his whole life, and he’s
never going to do a lot in the way of entertaining. I mean, he’s not! … Which is
fine, but I’m just pointing out that their lives are in such a different direction than
mine that it’s weird that they even have these things. [F 27]
In the next example, Sarah hypothetically values a potential heirloom by virtue of its
economic value.
Interviewer: Do you think when you get your wedding ring; will you think of that as a
future heirloom?
Sarah: Uh, actually, yes I will. I will. Well, unless it’s a small diamond, which it
won’t be. [F 27]
Later, Sarah says that an heirloom is “Something that is very dear to you for whatever
reason. I mean, it could be dear because it was old and valuable and beautiful, or for
other people, I guess, ’cause it’s got an emotional attachment of some kind.”
In another example, Danielle criticizes her father for getting rid of things after her
mother’s death without considering the possible economic value of the objects.
Danielle: When he cleaned out her house, he just wanted to get rid of everything. He
didn’t even consider that things might be worth something and just was taking
things to the dump, and my sister and I tried to save things that we could,
because he regrets now not having looked through things more carefully. [F 35]
Betty [F 69] demonstrates the importance of economic value (now) and aesthetic
value (then) when she describes selling one of the few things she received from her
mother. “She [mother] had very few antiques. She had a beautiful Persian rug like this
one here, which I would have known at the time the value of it … but we just sold it, at
the time I didn’t care for it.” Again, the rug was not aesthetically pleasing to her. Yet
later she regrets not knowing the economic value of the rug.
Status and values often go hand in hand. Status objects can be icons that are used to
reinforce the kinship structure and transmit family values. Family based norms and
rituals emerge around intergenerational transfers to reinforce kinship structure and
values regarding gender, age, and birth order. These include passing heirlooms to a
youngest child of a youngest child of a youngest child, from mother to daughter, or
from father to son. In one example, an informant had received at age nine a ring from
her mother, who had also been given the ring at age nine.
Values
In our data, we found informants concerned with icons that represented community
or cultural values. Brand-name objects (e.g. Hummel, Limoges, and Steinway), reli-
gious objects (including the family Bible, a cross necklace, and objects used to celebrate
Shabbat such as wine chalices, candlesticks, and a sacred tablecloth) and antiques were
mentioned by informants when discussing the intergenerational transfer of posses-
sions. Informants also used foreign-origin or formal names, such as Persian rugs,
Finnish glass, and “Thousand-Eyes vase,” to indicate that society places special value
on the object. Heirlooms that serve as national icons included immigration papers
from Ellis Island and a “crazy quilt.”
Betty: Have you ever heard of a crazy quilt? I have to show it to you. It’s registered with
the [State] … and was displayed down there in the quilt museum in Des Moines …
I wouldn’t take $5000 for it, I’m sure! And all the write-up is in here and everything
(shows a pamphlet made by the museum) … The pieces of the quilt have sayings
… Here’s something from the International Exhibit, 1776–1876 in Philadelphia …
Here’s the flag. Our [US] flag. [F 69]
The iconic status of these items grants them status and prestige and also demonstrates
informants’ connection to the values of the broader culture.
Family icons’ meanings are often tied up with other elements of the framework. Icons
can represent values regarding kinship. The selection of family icons communicates
family values regarding the merits and achievements of ancestors. Also, the icons can
represent family values as participants in the hegemonic process.
Our informants reported valuing heirlooms for their associations with culturally
sanctioned rituals surrounding weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, graduation,
retirement, bar mitzvah, purchase of first home, and birth of first child. Weddings
and anniversaries, as ritual-laden events that essentially create or reinforce the
family, are particularly strong occasions for creating meaning in heirlooms. Robert
[M 53] was asked when he would pass on heirlooms: “A wedding could be appropri-
ate. First child could be appropriate. A significant anniversary could be appropriate.”
Kate [F 30] was asked if she thought her wedding presents would become heirlooms.
“I consider those gifts just because I was getting married. But I talked to my mother
and she said, ‘These are your heirlooms. This is what you’ll be passing down. These
were your wedding gifts.’” Norman [M 36] was asked why he saw a plate as an heir-
loom. He replied “Cause it has some meaning to it, I guess.” When asked what the
meaning was, he explained “It celebrated Grandpa and Grandma’s 60th wedding
anniversary.”
We also find iconic objects in the family and the stories that communicate more
personal values of the family. Often the values and connectedness motivations become
entwined as an important family value of kinship.
Brent: My grandmother’s [mother’s mother] wedding ring was perhaps the only item
that went to the daughters rather than my grandfather [mother’s father] at her
death. This ring is passed from one daughter to another to wear for a year at a
time. [M 35]
The passing ritual, which is most likely mythologized (is it really passed each year for
one year?) is important because it emphasizes the sentimental value of relationships
and connectedness in the family. The ring indexes the family matriarch through
contamination. It also indexes the relationship (marriage) of the grandparents that
provides the scaffolding for the family. The ring represents connectedness and kinship.
At the same time, the myths and rituals surrounding the ring have made it an iconic
representation of the value of kinship in this family.
Judy [F 34] has a pair of earrings that are very special because “This was the last
jewelry that Grandfather gave to Grandmother before he died of cancer. Grandmother
only wears jewelry given to her by Grandfather.” The earrings represent the matriarch
and the connectedness and scaffolding of the grandparents. The mythology regarding
the grandmother only wearing jewelry given by the grandfather facilitates oral history
and narrative and communicates family values surrounding marriage and kinship.
Finally, this being the last piece before death heightens the iconic value of the earrings.
Laura’s felt responsibility about some paintings that she inherited from her parents
reflects the essence of idealized heirlooms.
Laura: Part of my job with the paintings is to inform certain people about them. Say
distant cousins of nieces come here; part of my job is to let them know the
history of the painting. Let them know who painted it, where it comes from,
information about the artist, information about the political situation. You
grow up with parents telling stories. This is part of it; to try to keep their
memory alive, some kind of continuous … I feel who I am from where I come.
I am made up from my history, that’s me. I think some of that should be trea-
sured for my nieces and my nephews. [F 38]
Laura, as a result of her family’s status, is in a position to own original art and to know
the artists and understand the meaning of the art from both artistic and political
perspectives. Participating in this taste culture (Bourdieu [1979] 1984) is participating
in the hegemonic process. Owning, understanding and valuing the paintings are ways
that the family can maintain their position in the social structure. Supporting the
kinship structure consistent with age and gender norms and roles common in the
United States, Laura feels she is responsible as oral historian and guardian of these
inalienable objects. Finally, family values regarding the importance of being knowledge-
able and informed about art and politics and the importance of kinship and relations
are communicated through telling the stories and myths of the paintings.
The dynamic nature of connectedness and worthiness

As is evident in much of the data above, multiple motivations are often at work. People
can differ in their propensity to be motivated by connectedness or worthiness. People
can differ in their motivations across situations and over time. Informants indicate that
their motivations change as they experience life changes, and that these changes affect
how they relate to the heirloom. For example, Kate, at thirty years old, discusses how
her valuation of a ring changed as she experienced significant life events.
Kate: Okay, my other heirloom is a ring my mother gave me when I was nine years old,
and she received it when she was nine years old. [F 30]
Kate’s mother welcomes her daughter into feminine society with an item the culture
has determined to be appropriate feminine body decoration. The mother connects her
daughter to herself and her own mother with a sentimental object that has been
contaminated by the mother’s use. Wearing the feminine ring reinforces her gender
status and its concomitant norms and roles for females. The mother has created an age
and gender based ritual where there was not previously one to indicate the value of the
status of being female, the bond among women, and the transition into adolescence. As
discussed earlier, the sentimental value of the ring is increased as Kate places her own
contamination marks on the ring, and the ring indexes her own personal history,
nostalgia for her childhood, and her connection with her mother and grandmother. At
the current time, prestige and status in terms of economic or aesthetic value are not the
issue.
Interviewer: Does the value of it matter at all?
Kate: No, not at all. It’s purely sentimental. And that’s it. I don’t know if I even like
what it looks like, but it means a lot to me. [F 30]
However, as a younger adult, she did evaluate this heirloom from a prestige and status
perspective.
Kate: I went for a long period of time between the ages of 20 and 29 when I didn’t wear
it. But, I have now worn it every single day since then, and up ’til the point I was
20 years old I wore it every single day. When I received my wedding ring, I felt I had
moved on to bigger and better rings. [F 30]
She expresses pleasure that the aesthetic of the ring has come back into style. From an
etic perspective, this gives the ring more prestige, particularly since it marks an ancestor.
Kate: But, I love it. And I have to say, antique rings have come back into style, so it
doesn’t look out of place on my hand. [F 30]
In her plans for the future transfer of the heirloom, Kate reflects upon the value of the
ring and its ritual transfer as a gender and age marker, as a marker of kinship and
connectedness, and as a link to ancestors, indicating that those ancestors are worthy of
being remembered. This ring has become an iconic representation of the values of the
family; kinship, respect for one’s ancestors, and the importance of the transition from
childhood into the society of women.
Kate: I would give it to a daughter. I wouldn’t give it to a son … I would not give it to an
adult. I would give it to a child … In tradition, there’s a lot more value … oh, it’s
really hard. It means so much to me, I guess, that I would want to pass it on to
somebody that would cherish it, knowing that it was my mother’s and then mine,
carrying on the tradition. It’s really an emotional thing. It’s not something I can
really describe. [F 30]
Conclusion
Our study illuminated sociocultural motivations, object symbolism, symbolic
processes, and the importance of self and other orientations. The traditional dialectic
between the self and the other emerged as profoundly important. However, as post-
modern theory indicates, the self is so enmeshed with the family and society that
explicating the nature of the dialectic is difficult. We turned to the consumer behavior
literature and found that it does not adequately address the special meaning of familial
objects in the self/other dialectic; how the desire for connectedness and worthiness
relates to object symbolism and this dialectic; or how the related theoretical constructs
differ depending upon the perspective of the individual, society or culture. This article
addressed those issues.
The first concept that the article developed was that of the embedded self. The self
versus the other literature was reviewed, and the usefulness of the conceptualization of
the self as embedded in the other was established.
Next we explored object symbolism as it relates to the embedded self. From an
iterative examination of the literature and our data, a theoretical framework based on
the sociocultural motivations of connectedness and worthiness from the perspectives
of the individual actor, society and cultures was developed. Processes that link the
symbolism of the object to the meanings for the embedded self were identified. This
theoretical framework was given the acronym MOSES (Motivations, Object Symbol-
ism, and the Embedded Self). MOSES unifies disparate literatures and theories in a
powerful analytical framework that allowed us to integrate what we know in the
consumer culture theory realm about material culture into a coherent orientation.
The empirical study made a significant contribution to our understanding of the
dynamics motivating heirloom transmission and added nuance and sophistication to
the framework. The search for connectedness and worthiness for the symbolic self
powerfully manifested in objects contaminated by kin. Our analysis of these objects
highlighted the theoretical power of our concept of the kinship embedded self. The
kinship embedded self concept proposed that the family is a special case of the other.
The MOSES framework provided a rich theoretical context from a sociocultural
motivational perspective for understanding symbolism of contaminated objects.
Part of the strength of the MOSES framework is that it draws on the life works of
Goldschmidt and Levy and the broader literature. Yet the fully specified theory was both
generated and validated with this study. Areas of inquiry that might usefully be
undertaken would include investigating other contexts that the self is embedded in. In
his discussion of the culturally embedded self, Goldschmidt (1990, 105) refers to the
“family, clan, community, tribe, nation, ethnic group, social class—whatever the signif-
icant and central institutions may be” as critical to the sense of self. We suggest that the
MOSES framework be applied to these other contexts to validate its analytic usefulness,
accuracy, and completeness.
Acknowledgements
We deeply appreciate the support and encouragement provided by Sidney J. Levy, John
F. Sherry Jr. and Alladi Venkatesh. We would like to thank Professors Levy and Sherry
and the reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments on earlier versions of the
manuscript. We would also like to thank Melanie Wallendorf and Brian Jorgensen for
their involvement with this project in its initial stages, and the interviewers and
informants for their hard work and dedication to this project.
Note
[1] Contamination refers to “the acquisition of possessions of another person that have been inti-
1
mately associated with that person” (Belk 1988, 151).
References
Aaker, Jennifer L., and Angela Y. Lee. 2001. “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-
regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 28
(1): 33–49.
Aaker, Jennifer, and Patti Williams. 1998. Empathy versus pride: The influence of emotional appeals
across cultures. Journal of Consumer Research 25 (3): 241–61.
Ahuvia, Aaron C. 2005. Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives.
Journal of Consumer Research 32 (1): 171–84.
American Anthropologist. 1990.
Arnould, Eric J., and Craig J. Thompson. 2005. Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of
research. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (4): 868–82.
Bajde, Domen. 2006. Other-centered behavior and the dialectics of self and other. Consumption,
Markets, and Culture 9 (4): 301–16.
Belk, Russell W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2): 139–68.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, John F. Sherry Jr., and Morris B. Holbrook. 1991. Collecting
in a consumer culture. In Highways and buyways: Naturalistic research from the consumer
behavior odyssey. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Bloch, Peter. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of
Marketing 59 (3): 16–29.
Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and social network: Roles, norms and external relationships in ordinary
urban families. London: Tavistock Publications.
Bouchet, Dominique. 2007. The ambiguity of the modern conception of autonomy and the paradox
of culture. Thesis Eleven 88 (February): 31–54.
Bourdieu, Pierre. [1979] 1984. A social critique of the judgement of taste. Originally published Paris:
Les Éditions de Miui. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh. 1993. An exploration of high risk leisure
consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1): 1–23.
Cialdini, Robert B, Stephanie L. Brown, Brian P. Lewis, Carol Luce, and Steven L. Neuberg. 1997.
Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (3): 481–94.
Cours, Deborah, Deborah D. Heisley, Melanie Wallendorf, and Dylan Johnson. 1999. Its all in the
family, but I want it. In Advances in Consumer Research 25, edited by Linda Scott and Eric
Arnould. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 253–59.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi. 2000. The costs and benefits of consuming. Journal of Consumer Research
27 (2): 267–72.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi, and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. 1981. The meaning of things: Domestic
symbols and the self. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Curasi, Carolyn Folkman, Linda L. Price, and Eric J. Arnould. 2004. How individuals’ cherished
possessions become families’ inalienable wealth. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (3): 609–22.
Douglas, Mary, and Baron Isherwood. [1979] 1982. The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of
consumption. New York: Basic Books.
Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Consumer culture & postmodernism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Firat, Fuat A., and Alladi Venkatesh. 1995. Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (3): 239–67.
Firth, Raymond. 1973. Symbols: Public and private. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Giesler, Markus. 2006. Consumer gift systems. Journal of Consumer Research 33 (2): 283–90.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goldschmidt, Walter. 1990. The human career: The self in the symbolic world. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Gould, Stephen J., and Dawn B. Lerman. 1998. “Postmodern” versus “long-standing” cultural
narratives in consumer behavior: An empirical study of NetGirl online. European Journal of
Marketing 32 (7/8): 644–54.
Gramsci, Antonio. [1929–1935] 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. Edited and translated by
Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Grayson, Kent, and David Shulman. 2000. Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable
possession: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (1): 17–30.
Heisley, Deborah D., and Deborah Cours. 2007. Ambivalent relationships and projection onto
indexical objects. In Advances in Consumer Research 34, edited by Gavan Fitzsimmons and
Vicki Morowitz. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Heisley, Deborah D., and Sidney J. Levy. 1991. Autodriving: A photo elicitation technique. Journal of
Consumer Research 27 (1): 17–30.
Hill, Ronald Paul, and Mark Stamey. 1990. The homeless in America: An examination of possessions
and consumption behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (3): 303–21.
Hofstede, Geert H. 1980. Culture’s consequences, international differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Holbrook, Morris. 1993. Nostalgia and consumption preferences: Some emerging patterns of
consumer tastes. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (2): 245–56.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Mark W. Grayson. 1986. The semiology of cinematic consumption:
Symbolic consumer behavior in out of Africa. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (3): 374–81.
Holt, Douglas B. 1997. Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 23 (4): 326–50.
———. 1998. Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer Research
25 (1): 1–25.
———. 2004. How brands become icons: The principals of cultural branding. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Jones, Peter. 1991. Taste today. New York: Pergemon Press.

Kegan, Robert. 1982. The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kitayama, Shinobu. 2004. Toward globalizing psychology: A reflection on the Kyoto–Michigan collab-
oration in psychological studies. The Journal of the International Institute 11 (Winter–Spring/
Summer) [accessed September 14, 2007] [online]. Available at http://hd/.handle.net/2027/spo.
4750978.0011.2020.
Kleine, Susan Schultz, Robert Kleine, and Chris T. Allen. 1995. How is a possession “me” or “not
me”? Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of
Kozinets, Robert V. 2002. Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations from
burning man. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 67–88.
Krebs, Dennis L. 1991. Altruism and egoism: A false dichotomy? Psychological Inquiry 2 (2): 137–39.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1979. Myth and meaning. New York: Schocken Books.
Levy, Sidney J. [1959] 1999. Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review 37 (July–August): 117–24.
Reprinted in Levy (1999), 203–12.
———. [1963] 1999. Symbolism and life style. In Proceedings, edited by S. Greyser. American
Marketing Association, Chicago, December: 140–50. Reprinted in Levy (1999), 217–24.
———. [1966] 1999. Social class and consumer behavior. In On knowing the consumer, edited by
Joseph Newman. New York: John Wiley, 146–60. Reprinted in Levy (1999), 297–308.
———. [1974] 1999. Myth and meaning in marketing. In Combined proceedings, Series 36.
American Marketing Association, Chicago, 555–58. Reprinted in Levy (1999), 241–46.
———. [1981a] 1999. Interpreting consumer mythology: A structural approach to consumer
behavior. Journal of Marketing 45 (Summer): 49–61. Reprinted in Levy (1999), 514–29.
———. [1981b] 1999. Symbols, selves, and others. In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by A.
Mitchell. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, Vol. 9: 542–543. Reprinted in Levy
(1999), 247–50.
———. [1996] 1999. Stalking the amphisbaena. Journal of Consumer Research 23 (3): 163–76.
Reprinted in Levy (1999), 3–24.
———. 1999. Brands, consumers, symbols, & research: Sidney J. Levy on marketing. Edited by Dennis
W. Rook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer. 1993. Price perceptions
and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research 30 (2):
234–45.
Magnier, Mark. 2007. Dying large in China. Los Angeles Times, 12 February, A1, column 1.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1970. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mauss, Marcel. [1925] 1967. The gift. New ed. New York: W. W. Norton.
McCracken, Grant. 1986. Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (1):
71–84.
McGrath, Mary Ann, John F. Sherry, Jr., and Deborah D. Heisley. 1993. An ethnographic study of an
urban periodic marketplace: Lessons from the Midville farmers’ market. Journal of Retailing
63 (3): 280–319.
Mick, David Glen. 1986. Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs,
symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (2): 196–213.
Muniz, Albert, and Thomas C. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 27
(4): 412–32.
Murray, Jeff B. 2002. The politics of consumption: A re-inquiry on Thompson and Haytko’s (1997)
“Speaking of Fashion.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (3): 427–40.
O’Guinn, Thomas C. 1991. Touching greatness: The central Midwest Barry Manilow fan club. In
Highways and buyways: Naturalistic research from the consumer behavior odyssey. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 102–11.
O’Guinn, Thomas C., and Russell W. Belk. 1989. Heaven on earth: Consumption at heritage village.

Otnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey, and Young Chan Kim. 1993. Gift selection for easy and difficult
recipients: A social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (2): 229–44.
Otnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey, and L. J. Shrum. 1997. Toward an understanding of consumer
ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (1): 80–93.
Peirce, Charles Saunders. [1867–1914] 1940. Philosophical writings of Peirce. Edited by Justus
Buchler. New York: Dover. Cited in Grayson and Shulman (2000).
Pinker, Steven. 2007. The mystery of consciousness. Time, 29 January, 169 (5): 59–70.
Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn Folkman Curasi. 2000. Older consumers’ disposition of
special possessions. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (2): 179–201.
Richins, Marsha L. 1994. Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of
Rook, Dennis. 1985. The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 12
(3): 251–64.
Schouten, John W., and James H. McAlexander. 1995. Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography
of the new bikers. The Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1): 43–61.
Sherry, John F. Jr., and Robert V. Kozinets. 2007. Comedy of the commons: Nomadic spirituality at
burning man. In Consumer culture theory. Vol. 11 of Research in consumer behavior, edited by
Russell Belk and John Sherry. Oxford: Elsevier.
Singelis, Theodore M. 1994. The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (October): 580–91.
Singer, Milton. 1991. The Human Career: The Self in the Symbolic World Walter Goldschmidt,
American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 93, No. 4. (Dec.): 977–979. Stable URL: http://
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28199112%292%3A93%3A4%3C977%3ATHCTSI%3E
2.0.CO%3B2-T
Solomon, Michael R. 1983. The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (3): 319–29.
Stern, Barbara B. 1995. Consumer myths: Frye’s taxonomy and the structural analysis of consump-
tion text. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (2): 165–85.
Thompson, Craig. 1997. Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for deriving market-
ing insights from the texts of consumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing Research
34 (4): 438–56.
Thompson, Craig J., and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 1995. Understanding the socialized body: A
poststructuralist analysis of consumers’ self-conceptions, body images, and self-care practices.
Turner, Victor. 1969. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine.
Veblen, Thorstein. 1902. The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New York:
Macmillan.
Vigneron, Franck, and Lester W. Johnson. 1999. A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-
seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review 1 [accessed September 14,
2007] [online]. Available at: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/vigneron01–1999.pdf.
Wallendorf, Melanie, and Eric J. Arnould. 1988. “My favorite things”: A cross-cultural inquiry into
object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (4):
531–47.
———. 1991. “We gather together”: Consumption rituals of Thanksgiving Day. Journal of Consumer
Research 18 (1): 13–31.
Wallendorf, Melanie, and Russell W. Belk. 1988. Deep meaning in possessions: Qualitative research from
the consumer behavior odyssey. Produced by Melanie R. Wallendorf, Russell W. Belk, Thomas C.
O’Guinn, Deborah D. Heisley, and Scott Roberts. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Wong, Nancy Y., and Aaron C. Ahuvia. 1998. Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in
Confuscian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing 5 (August): 423–41.
View publication stats

Connectedness and Worthiness For The Embedded Self: A Material Culture Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Connectedness and Worthiness For The Embedded Self: A Material Culture Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Connectedness and Worthiness for the Embedded Self: A

Article in Consumption Markets and Culture · December 2007

Deborah D. Heisley Deborah Cours

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Consumption Markets & Culture

Connectedness and Worthiness for

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253860701566424

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Connectedness and Worthiness for the

This article is based on a study of intergenerational transfers of contaminated objects, collo-

Keywords: Motivation; Connectedness; Worthiness; Material Culture; Object Symbolism;

ISSN 1025–3866 (print)/ISSN 1477–223X (online) © 2007 Taylor & Francis

Connectedness Individual actor Sentiment Indexical Personal History Relationship Kinship

The Self and the Other

Sociocultural Motivation and Perspective

“culture,” the motivation is “value.” He explains that:

Sentiment and indexicality

Prestige markers and classification/discrimination, merit/achievement and ancestor status,

Veblen (1902) describes the use of “conspicuous consumption” to establish a social

Status symbols and hegemony

Icons/artifacts and myths/rituals

Table 2 Informant background information

Liz B. F 24 Lutheran UM Never married, no children. Daughter of

*U=upper, M=middle, L=lower, WC=working class

Family as a special case of the other: the kinship embedded self

Relationship and kinship as a special case of relationship. Kinship recognizes a

The dynamic nature of connectedness and worthiness

mately associated with that person” (Belk 1988, 151).

Jones, Peter. 1991. Taste today. New York: Pergemon Press.

Journal of Consumer Research 16 (2): 227–38.

View publication stats

You might also like