Disecting definition of commodification by Carvalho and Rodrigues

Definition of commodification by Carvalho & Rodrigues

In the 2010 Elgar companion to social economics, Carvalho & Rodrigues offered a very strong definition of commodification. Their attempt was to offer a definition that would apply to "heterodox economics (as well as) other fields of inquiry". This is the first attempt I have located that 1) observes the need to conceptualize commodification in a way that works across disciplines (I have discussed these reasons elsewhere in this blog) and 2) offers a proposed definition that would fill that need.

Their definition is as follows:

"We define commodification as the process whereby an object (in the widest sense of the term, meaning a thing, an idea, a creature, etc.) comes to be provided through, and/or represented in terms of, a market transaction"

Based on the ongoing extensive review of literature taking place as part of a project called, "The need to define commodification", I find this definition to be very helpful, but in need of slight revision as well.

Analysis of definition based on "The need to define commodification" project

One of the insights emerging from the project mentioned above ("The need to define commodification") is that commodification is used broadly--in many disciplines, and for many different topics.

The unit of analysis is equally varied in studies of commodification and includes people, cities, institutions, human traits, cultures, governments, societies, tangible objects, concepts and so on. Ergo, it is quite appropriate that Carvalho & Rodrigues have chosen the phrase "an object in the widest sense of the term".

Many definitions neglect to recognize that commodification does not apply only to tangible objects, people, cultures or societies but can apply to all of those things. Certainly the majority of these studies do not mean to limit the scope or application of the term, however, the definitions they use are often crafted to apply to just the unit of analysis in the study at hand.

Improper conceptualizations of this kind may lead to confusion about what a term means, or may divide disciplines. For example, currently there is a schism between the business notion of commodification (usually called commoditization) and the Marxist version often used in other contexts. The business versions puts commodification forth as applying to material objects being exchanged in markets and the extent to which they are undifferentiated. Marxist versions are often applied people and are often defined as processes that alienate people from the traits that make them human.

The definition offered by Carvalho & Rodrigues covers the fact that studies of commodification do not limit their units of analysis to material objects--but could even be information, ideas, cultures or whatever else.

Their phrasing "provided through, and/or represented in terms of" is similarly broad, recognizing that, in many studies, commodification does not mean that the object in question becomes a sort of commodity, but, as is the case in studies of cultural commodification, may also come to represent, embody or encourage the importance of commodities, rather than actually become the commodities. Culture itself may never be purchased on a market, but may come to encourage or embody the place of commodities in a given culture.

We are indebted to Carvalho & Rodrigues for this careful and useful wording in their attempt to define commodification. As they propose, they tie in a broad range of conceptualizations of the term in their definition that will greatly move studies of commodification forward if adapted. However, they fail to move beyond the scope of business and economics in the way they perhaps had hoped in their use of the term "market transaction".

While commodities are tightly associated with market exchange (even we have described elsewhere the way commodity exchanges can be seen as market exchanges--Robison, Oliver & Frank 2015) they may not be perfectly synonymous in the minds of many who seek to define it. For example, David Evans (Southerton 2011) asserted that commodity exchange can take place even in non-market societies and took place in pre-market societies.

This seems to detach the notions of "commodification" and "market". Even if one objects to the notion that commodity exchange can take place outside of markets as Evans asserts, the wording "market transaction" remains problematic as commodification has frequently been described in other ways like redefining something's value in terms of measurable, broadly applicable standards instead of intrinsic worth (for example see Sharp 2000, Suddaby & Greenwood 2001, Heller 2003). In other words for some non-business, non-economics scholars, commodification seems to be able to occur is something becomes "object" vs. "subject" in a very broad sense. This is very much in keeping with early writings by Marx and Lukács which defined commodification in this way.

Conclusion

Consequently, the definition posited by Carvalho & Rodrigues is strong in the sense that it would be adequate for a number of studies of commodification.

However, it seems to fall short in its ability to fully accommodate Marxist interpretations of commodification as a sort of broader "objectification" (beyond just being treated as an object to be exchanged in a market) that takes place in capitalist societies.

Additionally, there is the question of what is meant by a commodity as David Evans (and maybe others) would argue that commodity exchange can exist in pre- and non-market societies. I am not sure I like that definition myself, but if some substantial group of scholars accept it, it calls into question whether "market exchange" and "commodity exchange" are even synonymous (which would weaken the word choice "market transaction" employed by Carvalho & Rodrigues to describe commodification).

CITATIONS

Carvalho, L. & Rodrigues, J. "Are markets everywhere? Understanding contemporary processes of commodification" in Davis, J. B., & Dolfsma, W. (Eds.). (2010). The Elgar companion to social economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473-492.

Lukács, G. (1923). “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat,” in History and Class Consciousness, Rodney Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 83–222.

Southerton, D. (2011). Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture.