While reading both the primary and supplemental text, I found it challenging to understand what exactly Haltman’s purpose was. What was he trying to explain and how exactly was I supposed to understand this. I read it a few times and I completely blanked so I moved on to the supplemental text and I understood the primary text a lot better after doing so. Unlike the Haltman text, Cline’s text was more “youth-friendly” in terms of understanding the main concept. A lot of things were said in layman’s terms as opposed to Haltman’s use of scholarly vocab. Aside from that, both texts helped me understand that in culture, materials are seen differently by everyone. Everyone has their own interpretation of things and there is always a meaning behind an object, some more-so than others.
The supplemental text was based on a story of a man who was arrested for carrying a “full-size” machete during the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay. In the article Cline says,
“But the machete bears an unusual character. It’s possible to conceive of it as a weapon, yes, but it’s also very much a tool—not altogether different from, say, a shovel” which relates back to the primary text’s statement; “When we study an object, formalizing our observations in language, we generate a set of carefully selected nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, and verbs which effectively determine the bounds of possible interpretation.”
The main idea of that article is expressing how there are various interpretations of what a Machete is actually. Some people see it as a tool while others see it as a weapon. Everyone’s view of a particular object is not the same because of cultural differences. I also learned from the primary text that it is important to think about questions that are “most fruitful” to ask for someone’s work and how I might go about asking them because it helps with understanding things more thoroughly especially in research projects.