No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Products that Age with Us: Carpet in the Turkish Household
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 May 2022
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
This paper explores carpet, an intergenerational product, that lives and ages with its users. An ethnographic study was conducted through participant observation and in-depth interviews to understand why carpet matters in Turkish homes. Exploring material culture of carpet unfolds its meaning as a signifier of culture in second-order semiological systems. Study finds carpet has socializing traits, is the maker of home, needs maintenance and can be an artwork or object. Examining a product's importance and emotional durability can enable new understandings of product meaning and sustainability.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2022.
References
Appadurai, A. (1986), “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value”, In: Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press, VIC: Melbourne, pp. 3–63.Google Scholar
Bilgin, N. (1986), Sosyo-Kültürel Gruplarda Eşya Sistemleri ve İnsan Eşya İlişkileri, Teknografik Matbaas, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, California.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. (2005), Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, Earthscan, London, England.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981), The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation. Blackwell, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture”, In: Geertz, C. (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, NY: New York, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
Kopytoff, I. (1986), “The cultural biography of things: commoditization as a process”, In: Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press, VIC: Melbourne, pp. 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (1998). Why Some Things Matter Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pink, S. (2007), Doing Visual Ethnography: Images, Media and Representation in Research, Sage, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spradley, J. P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. (2001), “Ethnography and material culture”, In: Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., and Lofland, L. (Ed.), Handbook of Ethnography, Sage, London, pp. 258-72.Google Scholar
Woodward, I. (2001), “Domestic objects and the taste of epiphany”, Journal of Material Culture, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access