The Uncommon Life of Common Objects

As the title suggests, this text concerns the significance and value of everyday objects. That is the basic premise of the text. The question asks how the writer, Akiko Busch, suggests what gives objects values. In the text she spoke many things to answer this, one I find most significant is people's sentiment towards the objects. She believes that personal history plays a large role in developing a value in an object. She gave the examples of a wedding ring, a mother's quilt and an old fountain pen to describe objects of value as a result of sentiment or symbolism. While she makes further arguments, it basically surrounds this same idea of sentiment and symbolism.Going to her story about the FBI agents taking inanimate objects from the rubble left from the 911 attack, this similar talks about the emotions placed upon the objects. For the families of the victims, the things taken by the agents were more than evidence, more than rubble; to them it was the memories of their loved ones who passed away.

I feel what Busch is trying to convey in the text is that ordinary objects are priceless. That statement I just made is left intentionally ambiguous. By that I mean it could be priceless in the sense that it means nothing, it is not of value and at the same time it could be the polar opposite; the value can be so high, it cannot be bought. In the end, inanimate objects's most valuable thing is the story behind it.