Our World Is Affected By Objects Outside Of Our Own Body

I have picked a famous quotation by Karl Marx to introduce my reflexion paper because of two reasons. First, it depicts how strongly our world is affected by objects outside of our own body, being vehicles of meaning, value, power or religion and as well it refers to the work of Janet Hoskins (2006), who has been inspired by Gell’s work (1998), talks about the shifting “personhood” floating from subject - person (also a such a vehicle) to the object and vice versa. Also it serves as an introduction to the discussion over the dialectics of mind-body, raw-cooked, culture-nature and then, materials versus materiality. Particularly, I will object to the slightly hapless disagreement between Ingold and Tilley, which in fact, perhaps accidentally,

By this I assume, that materials and object lose their value once they lose meaning for their objectors. Would they be in the scope of Franz Boas or would they lay beside? In that respect, we can agree with Tilley, who claims that things, so the objects, being outside of human bodies (conscious minds), may play significant role only if they are placed in the social context (Tilley, 2007, p. 16). Of course he agreed with Ingold in the sense that objects, as well as materials they are made of, do have “agency”, they affect, they mean and they control . But this is not an inherited nature of the objects per se. I may apologize to be vague and simple here, but imagine the dog fetch the stick which has been previously thrown by a human. Sometimes a dog only does it because the conscious mind of human being wants them to do so. A dog chews the stick apparently also for other reasons but it is mainly a social behaviour, which is being appraised by humans towards the dog. We turn to objects of different shapes, qualities and properties (inscribed or ascribed as I am using a parallel with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus) as we expect them to return to us through significances, meanings and substances which are socially constructed, spun by human beings. This dialectics, however we try, hardly can be