Introduction
Commodity fetishism is a special kind of financial relation developed by Karl Marx. The main aspects of commodity fetishism are cognitive error, ideological illusion, and capitalist subjectivity (Skotnicki, 2020). The main characteristic of products that have been fetishized is its cost. Thus, the commodity is not considered a physical object but only the money it costs. According to Fischer (2011), the relationship between goods and their consumption was detailed in the theory of Karl Marx. In order to understand how relevant the concepts of commodity fetishism are today, it is important to study this phenomenon.
It is worth referring to the origins of the word fetishism, which is associated with something pre-modern and, as a result, not entirely accurate. This term may well be used as a definition of an inherently erroneous concept or process (Roper, 2021). At the same time, Marx did not introduce this term and was not the one who invented it. The term was coined and introduced into literature by De Brosse in 1759 (Ryan, 2018). The original concept of this term was associated with the primitiveness of the human mentality and its religious connections. One of the main questions in commodity fetishism is to find out what process accompanies the production.
Origins of Product Fetishism
For a better understanding and analysis of the concept of commodity fetishism, one should understand the concept of a commodity that Marx uses. The commodity is the central figure in Marx’s concept of market economic relations between people (Graf, 2021). Each commodity, according to Marx, has both a use value and an exchange value. At the same time, consumer value is the measure with which consumers are willing to give money for a particular product or service. At the same time, the exchange value is the ratio of a particular product to the rest and its value in such a comparison. If a product has an exchange value, it is valuable to other goods on the market, and it can be sold and become a commodity (Rowlands, 2022). Proceeding from this, any product’s production is aimed at the exchange. At the same time, the primary measure of the value of the final product is the labor spent on it, which has a dual character. Accordingly, it can be divided into actual and abstract labor (Garegnani, 2018). These types are ranked depending on which category of goods for exchange or sale should be made.
At the same time, the production of any product requires workers to have special skills depending on its properties and purpose. The culture of commodity fetishism and its different types of products brings additional complexity to all segments of the population and tries to divide them (Donaldson, 1999). When considering goods for purchase, people pay attention only to their actual price without comparing it with the market price. The theory of commodity fetishism is critical in the relationship between labor, goods, and means of production (Redini, 2018). Buyers do not delve into the abilities that the workers who made the goods must have and are often unaware of the entire production process.
Marx’s theory of exploitation plays a vital role in understanding the concept of commodity fetishism. According to Kaplan (2006), a culture of product fetishism does not benefit either workers or consumers. The work, the workers perform does not make them better but takes away their humanity. Thus, the labor force makes efforts only to ensure that the goods they produce satisfy the needs of buyers and owners of the means of production. Marx calls this process the alienation of workers responsible for the production processes from the product obtained in the end (Holborow, 2018). Thus, the worker is alienated from his human aspect because the transformation of natural objects into useful ones is an integral part of human existence. Hired workers also experience false consciousness because they think they are empowered in their work, which is not true (Musto, 2018). This happens for several reasons, which together form the above factors.
Workers do not receive wages in the amount that correlates with the work they have done. Because of the dynamic relationship between manufacturer and customer, the worker in production is ultimately the victim of more and more demands (Miller, 1988). Secondly, the opinions of workers that they are improving and expanding their capabilities by producing something are erroneous. In the first case, a product can be sold at a price set by the business owner and if the price goes up, the workers will not be paid extra (Goddard, 2000). Thus, the people cannot see the objective picture and understand that they are being oppressed and exploited.
Varieties of Commodity Fetishism
In modern times, it can be many examples of people fetishizing certain goods and making them indicators of success and status. Goods act as an intermediary between the positive emotions of the buyer received from them and the dissatisfaction of the worker (Webster, 2016). Such goods can be luxury cars by buying, which people increase their social status in the eyes of others. Cars were made by workers who could not afford to buy them. Therefore, giving their abilities did not receive anything in return. The fetishization of things is also well seen when expensive clothes are considered an indicator of prestige (Luvaas, 2010). As already mentioned, in the concept of Marx, the commodity is based on two types of value – exchange and consumer. To become a commodity, this item must have a certain level of utility for people.
It is possible to divide all products fetishized into several groups (Mezzadri, 2021). Fetish symbols are objects that symbolize belonging to a specific social group or, in other words, demonstrate a person’s passion for others. Fetish talismans can be of two types, the first of which is fetish talismans associated with particular events, and the second type is fetish talismans of frequent use. Self-fetishes are goods perceived as an integral extension of oneself or as a best friend. For example, a mobile phone for some has become not an accessory but an extension of itself. Anchor fetishes are things associated with the memory of a pleasant event or person. It can be little things donated by a loved one or things reminiscent of an important event. Fetish attributes are goods designed to accredit something, often high wealth or style. Fetish brands are goods of a specific company to which an individual attributes super-meanings and super-opportunities. At the same time, consumer society is increasingly concentrating on things as a way of self-expression (Mills, 1997). A person not only highly appreciates the goods of a particular brand but also almost worships them.
Conclusion
This study determined the reasons for forming a fetishized thing: market, religious and personal components. The rapid development of the market gives rise to more goods, technology, and fashion innovations, creating a cult of consumption and things. The primary negative meaning of fetishes is that excessive attachment to things sometimes replaces relationships with people: a person measures friendship, love, and other relationships with people through their material carriers. Taking into account many of the factors studied in this paper, it can be argued that commodity fetishism is relevant today.
References
Donaldson, L.E., 1999. On medicine women and white shame-ans: New Age Native Americanism and commodity fetishism as pop culture feminism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 24(3), pp.677-696. Web.
Fischer, J. (2011). Proper Islamic Consumption: Shopping among the Malays in Modern Malaysia (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2008). Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 98 (2011), Pp. 243-5.
Garegnani, P. (2018). On the labour theory of value in Marx and in the Marxist tradition. Review of Political Economy, 30(4), 618-642. Web.
Goddard, M. (2000). Of cabbages and kin the value of an analytic distinction between gifts and commodities. Critique of Anthropology, 20(2), 137-151. Web.
Graf, J. (2021). Clean Capitalism? Ambiguities in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy from a Global Perspective. From Marx to Global Marxism: Eurocentrism, Resistance, Postcolonial Criticism, 6, 41.
Holborow, M. (2018). Language, commodification and labour: The relevance of Marx. Language Sciences, 70, 58-67. Web.
Kaplan, L.J. (2006). Cultures of Fetishism. In: Cultures of Fetishism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Web.
Luvaas, B. (2010). Designer Vandalism: Indonesian Indie Fashion and the Cultural Practice of Cut “n” Paste. Visual Anthropology Review, 26(1), 1–16. Web.
Mezzadri, A. (2021). A value theory of inclusion: Informal labour, the homeworker, and the social reproduction of value. Antipode, 53(4), 1186-1205. Web.
Miller, D. (1988). Appropriating the State on the Council Estate. Man, 23(2), 353–372. Web.
Mills, M. B. (1997). Contesting the Margins of Modernity: Women, Migration, and Consumption in Thailand. American Ethnologist, 24(1), 37–61. Web.
Musto, M. (2018). Another Marx: early manuscripts to the International. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Redini, V. (2018). Commodity Fetishism Again. Labour, Subjectivity and Commodities in “Supply Chains Capitalism”. Open Cultural Studies, 2(1), 353-362. Web.
Roper, M. (2021). Yesterday’s Model: Product fetishism and the British company man, 1945–85. In: Manful Assertions. Routledge, p. 190-211. Web.
Rowlands, M. (2022). VALUE AND THE ARTICULATION OF MODES OF RE-PRODUCTION. Trade before Civilization: Long Distance Exchange and the Rise of Social Complexity, 289.
Ryan, T. (2018). ‘Le Président des Terres Australes’ Charles de Brosses and the French Enlightenment Beginnings of Oceanic Anthropology. In Science, Empire and the European Exploration of the Pacific (pp. 247-276). Routledge. Web.
Skotnicki, T. (2020). Commodity Fetishism as Semblance. Sociological Theory, 38(4), 362-377. Web.
Webster, S. S. (2016). Māori Indigeneity and Commodity Fetishism. Sites: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies, 13(2), 1–18. Web.