As discussed in our class the value that society places on certain goods varies quite dramatically. For example the Ju/"hoansi of South Africa place emphasis on having enough food to eat, and beyond that point are quite content to relax and consider themselves wealthy as long as that condition is met. This challenges our notion of affluence, which as the text points out, is really just the condition of our perceived needs being met if not surpassed . Thus the notions of poverty and affluence are not fixed, and again as the text mentions, wealth is not an absolute but is a relationship between people . In Meg's case she sees a Prada bag as a need, but is incapable of affording it, and is thus stuck with either an "ugly" bag or getting a job. Since her status in her school is dictated by her present purse, the Prada brand becomes a way of distinguishing between rich and poor, popular and unpopular, and happy or unhappy. .
This helps to illustrate the idea that the meaning of an object in general is created by society. To the Ju/"hoansi certain plants and meat constituted their idea of wealth, and were preferable to other edible items which they only resorted to in the absence of their preferential meals. To them a Prada bag would be ludicrous, as its utility to them would be marginal. Likewise to Meg, the idea that Ju/"hoansi are perfectly content with sustaining their lifestyle, rather than attempting to acquire goods such as Prada bags, would be incomprehensible. Viewing either society through ones own perspective, (Ethnocentrism), would not yield a satisfactory answer to why either culture acts the way they do. Yet viewing each of these two cultures within their own contexts, (Cultural Relativism), provides an explanation and a broader understanding of why a purse is so important to Meg's world, and why it would be irrelevant within the Ju/"hoansi's. .
Crack, Deadbeat's and Skank's: The "World" is Flipped Upside Down and Manipulated for a Bag.