Definitions of commodification

Commodification is already defined. Isn't it?

Of course commodification is already defined. In fact, it is already defined in many ways. But in the project in which we are engaged, we conducted a sweeping review of academic literature that employs the term in a central way. We found that commodification is frequently and broadly used, but under-defined. We are not the first to make this observation (Shepherd 2002, Zaman 2006); however, we are the first (as far as we have been able to observe) that proffer suggested first steps in seriously moving toward a more unified, mutually applicable conceptualization of the term "commodification".

Business definitions, sociological definitions, anthropological definitions

The difficulty in this is that "commodification" is such a highly sought after term that it has been sort of commandeered or coopted by many different disciplines that have gone on to reinvent it for their own purposes. Business scholars like to use it to describe the way a product in a market becomes less branded or differentiated. It becomes sort of a "generic" product, if you will, differentiated only by price and nothing else.

Sociologists like to describe the socio-political processes and impacts of capitalist systems, societies and ways of life. They describe commodification as a sort of dehumanizing process that alienates people from the traits that make them human. Under this process, people become less human--less valued for their intrinsic worth--and valued more for their objectively quantifiable productivity in capitalist processes.

Anthropolgists commonly take yet another angle on it, preferring to describe the way markets and ideas about commodity worth are tied up in socio-political meaning. In this way, objects may enter into and later exit commodity status depending on the way different forces within society interact to create such labels. On the other hand, placing the label of "commodity" on something can in turn have social and political implications. For example, the idea of "consumerism" is, roughly stated, rooted in the idea that the commodities one consumes can alter how they feel about themselves or how they are treated by others belonging to certain groups in society.

Despite the relative consensus of these three major definitions (or usages) of commodification, what is lacking in the literature on commodification is a description of how they are alike and different.

Similarities and differences of major definitions...

On the one hand, immediate contrasts can be seen in the way commodification is used from one definition to the next. For example, in business literature, commodification usually means lower price, and lower profit margins. In sociological literature, commodification is spoken of in relation to profit-motivated action (tourist businesses are said to destroy authentic human experiences by commodifying them, for example). Anthropologists tend to "stand back" and describe the interactions between business endeavors and the societies in which they operate. These are three very different angles, and often seem to have almost contradictory meanings.

At times it seems that sociologists claim that businesses and their profit seeking motives are at the heart of destructive and dehumanizing commodification. But businesses seem to be saying that commodification is often the worst way to make a profit, because decommodifying products and services makes them sell for more. 

So which is it? Is commodification the less desirable process through which businesses make less money? Or is commodification the plague of dehumanizing, destructive profiteering that often seems to be described in sociological literature?

Unit of analysis, conflating profit motives with (de)commodification

The answer can be found in the unit of analysis of the studies in question, and in separating notions of profit motivation from (de)commodification.

UNIT OF ANALYSIS

To the business scholar, the unit of interest is often the product being sold in the market. To the sociologist, the unit of analysis is often marginalized individuals in society.

Interestingly, commodification is usually negative or undesirable under both definitions and decommodification is positive or more desirable. 

This is not apparent however, until the unit of analysis is clearly recognized.

If your unit of interest is a product in a market, then commodifying that product can clearly be seen as an undesirable  outcome for the product (the unit of interest). Commodification makes the product plain, unappealing and dehumanized. Consequently it is worth less (though not worthless!) in a market setting. The product is made worse off by being commodified. Conversely, decommodifying the product means to imbue it with humanizing characteristics, or to make it convey or instill positive human feelings and ideas (often about relationships). Decommodification puts humanity into a product by associating it with humanizing feelings and ideas. This makes the product more appealing, more interesting and worth more in a market setting. It is a better outcome for the product than commodification is. So this is naturally often the position of business literature, as they are more likely to be interested in products in a market as their unit of analysis.

However, if your unit of interest is human relationships, commodification is still seen as undesirable and negative as was the case for a product as the unit of analysis, but it is for a different reason. In this case, human relationships start off as decommodified--they are build on human feelings and interactions. Therefore, commodification has the effect of reducing them to their worth as a market (or marketable) "product"of sorts. Making them less relational, and less of what they were originally, or less of what they are "meant" to be.

In a sentence, we might say that, in society, associating more humanity with a product, also results in associating more "product" with humanity. The processes tend to be related. The more a society sees commodities as able to supply every need, the more relationships "must" be seen through a commodity lens. It seems that the two are inextricably tied to one another. It is a sort of quid pro quo relationship in which it seems impossible to humanize products by associating them with relationships without at the same time dehumanizing relationships because they are now associated with market products thereby "diluting" their intrinsic relational value.

Anthropologists perhaps see this all happening in a way, because they tend to observe commodification "from afar"--not dialed in so tightly on just relationships or just market products, but the relationship market products have with the societies in which they are embedded, and vice versa.

Associating humanizing feelings with a product can change it from a commodity to a non-commodity. In this Bobby Casto cartoon, turkeys attempt to humanize themselves and change the way they are seen as just another food item, in hopes of avoiding eminent demise.

PROFIT MOTIVES

It often looks like sociologists associate commodification with profit motive. This is not surprising given that the sociological perspective of commodification has roots in Marxist thought related to the way the ownership class dehumanizes (my word) those of the working class. Therefore, there are undertones of profiteering as destructive to human kind. 

However, to propose to a business scholar that commodification is about profit seeking would be perhaps laughable at best. Commodification is often not the best way to maximize profit. In fact, the art of decommodifying products is one of the central arts of marketing (if not the central art of marketing). 

This sounds confusing to the person interested in understanding how profit seeking fits with commodification, as it appears to be the opposite from one discipline to the next. Is commodification about profit seeking? Or is decommodification actually about profit seeking? 

The short answer is that profit motives are not inextricably tied to either commodification or decommodification, but depends instead on circumstance. 

For example, in an ideal business world, a firm is able to differentiate their products--probably through decommodifying them through association with positive human thoughts and feelings or ideas about the impact the product will have on human relationships. So decommodification is highly connected to profit seeking in that case. However, a couple of real world (ontological) challenges arise, and it turns out not to be that easy. 

QUID PRO QUO: DECOMMODIFYING THIS, COMMODIFIES THAT

As described above, decommodifying a product tends to commodify relationships and humanity. Ergo, acts of strategic decommodification have the potential to commodify the humanizing thoughts, feelings or relationships used in the process of decommodification. In short, when someone speaks of decommodification, it may be that the result of that decommodifying process is to commodify something else. In terms of profit motives, the business is usually more motivated to decommodify a product, but that same process would be described as "commodification" by scholars interested in culture, relationships and human affect. This is because the exploitation of "humanity" in the decommodification of products commodifies humanity. So, depending on the unit of analysis, the same process can be termed commodification or decommodification, even though the process is about profit seeking from both perspectives. 

REASONS FOR OPTING TO COMMODIFY INSTEAD OF DECOMMODIFY

In practice, governments, firms and individuals do opt to commodify rather than decommodify at times. There may be several reasons, but allow us at present to consider three: negative externalities, unilateral (or "strategic") decommodification and exploitation of the "invaluable". 

Negative externalities that degrade humanity

It may be that business operations result in negative externalities related to social well-being. Negative externalities related to social life (relationships and human well-being for example) commodify, because they effectively "sell-off" those humanizing traits in the course of business operations. They suggest that making money matters more to the business than the good of humanity. 

I suppose generically, the famous negative externality of pollution that is the result of business operations could even be described as commodification because businesses allow the degradation of human life in order to make money. Therefore, negative externalities related to the degradation of humanity are one time when businesses may commodify rather than decommodify--not because commodification is their ideal business strategy, but because the costs of curbing the externality would be seen as too large (or the benefits from doing so seen as too small).

 Strategic decommodification

Another reason businesses are said to commodify humanity in the course of business operations is due to what I have been calling "unilateral decommodification". In other words, decommodification is perceived as happening for one party but not the others. When businesses say they are engaging in decommodification (which they often term "decommoditization") they often really mean "decommodifying in the minds of the potential consumer". 

This is because businesses can be held accountable for failures in the commodity promises of a product, but not the decommodified promises of the product. If a cola company produces cola that makes people sick, of does not contain the ingredients it is said to contain, the company can be held liable (such as for false advertising, or failure to comply with health codes and laws). If the company fails on its decommodified promises nothing happens. If Coca Cola does not really end up making me part of a new generation, I am without recourse. If the designer cologne does not make more women attracted to you, you similarly are without grounds to hold the company liable. 

Because of this, companies often decommodify with guile in some ways. In other words, they know that their product may not be (or probably is not) what it claims to be. In tourism literature, commodification is often described as the way businesses destroy authentic experiences by commercializing them. The business would not make much money in tourism if the tourists believe they are not having an authentic experience. 

For example, would you fly to Europe just to spend time in a staged "European Villa" created and run by Americans who just want your money? Or would you rather have an authentic European experience? Let us assume for the time that you prefer the latter. However, if the American company can succeed in truly convincing you that you are having an authentic European experience in their villa, you may go, pay, enjoy your "authentic" European experience and never be any wiser. However, tourism scholars often call that commodification. Even though the business "successfully" decommodified the experience for the consumer, it is one-sided. The business knows (even if the customer never finds out) that the experience is not truly authentic. 

In this way, a business may be attempting to decommodify, but really they are taking away from authentic human experience, and those who know better (even if that's not the customer) may cry out against it as a form of commodification. 

EXPLOITATION OF THE "INVALUABLE"

A final reason why commodification may be chosen by a firm or individual is the "opportunity" to exploit that which has been designated as intouchable, non-market or invaluable. Many black markets emerge in this way. For example, if a product is outlawed, it can often be sold at a premium because it is harder to get a hold of. 

In societies, certain things are deemed "not for sale" by social consensus or law. These things can often be sold at large premiums due to their scarcity that came about as a result of social consensus or law--though often the latter over the former, as the former is often associated with lower demand as well as lower scarcity. 

A classic example is organs. In the 1980s the United States government passed a law that human organs cannot be sold. Note that human organs can and are still exchanged, donated and used, but they cannot be sold. In other words, human organs are a non-commodity. They are not to be exploited like objects in a capitalist system. Therefore, those opting to sell human organs can make a big profit. In other words, while decommodification is generally a more profitable strategy for businesses, when something has been put "off limits", large profits can often be made. Selling human organs is not the only example. Things like human trafficking and prostitution also come to mind as things that have been deemed as things that should not be for sale, but are sold for profit. This has been explored in detail elsewhere. 

SUMMARY OF PROFIT MOTIVES AND DECOMMODIFICATION

To summarize all of this, business attempts at decommoditization really are only concerned with decommodification in the mind of the consumer for the minimum amount of time and with the minimum amount of effort required to maximize profit. This a major part of the reason why commodification and decommodification are both described at times as profit motivated, because from the proper perspective either can be so described.

Definitions of commodification

Consequently, as a result of the project we call, "The Need to Define Commodification", it now seems apparent that attempts to provide a single, comprehensive definition of commodification must be limited to:

"Any process that increases the commodity aspect of something (anything) relative to the humanizing or relational aspect". 

This is because commodification is used with such a broad range of units of analysis. Defining commodification as: "the process through which products in a market become less differentiated" works when the unit of analysis is a product, but not a relationship. Likewise, defining it as "Increasing the importance of commodities in society" works when society or culture are the unit of analysis, but not when products are.

Therefore, let us now explore the differences from one definition to the next. These definitions are our own and are the result of the sweeping search of academic literature that is part of the project called, "The Need to Define Commodification".

1) "Any process that increases the commodity aspect of something (anything) relative to the humanizing or relational aspect". 

This definition seems to work in nearly every context, although it is not very instructive in any context. For example, it works when culture or society is the unit of analysis because these process involve the commodity aspect within society becoming more valued, or more frequently used as the basis for valuation than humanizing or relational characteristics.

It also works for market products because when the commodity aspect of a product becomes greater than the humanizing or relational aspects of it (at least as perceived by society), the product is said to be more commodified.

These are just two examples among many possible, but they may make it apparent to the reader that while this definition "does the job" for both, it is not a very precise definition for either.

We will now explore definitions that are specific to ways that commodification is frequently used in the literature. It should be noted that many academic pieces employing commodification as a central theme do not explicitly define the term (perhaps due to the difficulty in doing so, as has been describe elsewhere in this blog). Consequently, these definitions are influenced by many academic pieces, but specific to none.

2) The way capitalism redefines something in terms of its measurable and extrinsic characteristics instead of its intrinsic, inalienable characteristics. 

This definition is often used in sociological literature and has "Marxist" origins related to his notions of "object" and "subject" that were later further defined by those of the Frankfurt School. We can see the way definition 1 ties into this definition: Under a capitalist system, efficiency becomes valued more while humanity becomes valued less. Notice how Marx described "alienation of labor" as the way people are stripped of (alienated from) their humanizing and self-fulfilling characteristics in favor of being treated like cogs in a machine--because cogs in a machine are seen as more efficient under a capitalist system.

So in a way, this definition has definition 1 embedded within it because capitalism brings with it an increased valuation of (or on the basis of) commodities, which displaces, alienates or dilutes the value of intrinsic, inalienable human qualities. Just as an example, people used to trade with those they knew well, but now, people walk into a mass merchandiser or buy a product online and rarely think about the specific people involved in the production of those commodities. On the flip side, those involved in the production of the commodities rarely think of the specific people who will consume them (I am not talking about "target markets" here, but specific people--"my good friend Bill Jones").

3) Creating (or enlarging) a "commodity culture"

This definition is also popular among sociologist and anthropologists as well. Definition 1 is identifiable within this definition also. In fact, this definition is basically "increasing the commodity component of society at large". Commodities come to be more central in individuals' way of life (the way they act and think for example). People also come to see every exchange as a commodity exchange or of having an equivalent in the world of commodity exchange.

The difficulty here is that the root word "commodity" is used in the definition--rendering it somewhat unclear still. In many of these studies, "commodity" is never defined or is inadequately defined. Often it seems that the author sees "commodity" as meaning: "something that can be exchanged in a market".

4) Something becomes valued for its ability to be exchanged in a market

This definition, like the others, still retains the idea of increasing the commodity component of something relative to the relational component.

However, this definition does what many do not and actually defines what is meant by "commodity". In this case, exchange in a market seems to mark something as a commodity.

This definition makes another very useful addition that is not had in other definitions--"the ability to be exchanged in a market." While some have gone as far as to equate (conflate, I would say) commodification with payment for things that "should not" or have not historically been paid for, I would argue with the majority of those who use a definition similar to this one--it is not actual payment, but seeing or treating something as a commodity that commodifies (though payment surely can be and often is an indication that the process of commodification has taken place).

In other words, something need not be actually exchanged in a market, but could be commodified simply by: putting a price on something that "should not" or does not usually have a price, describing or treating something in a similar way to how one would describe or treat a commodity (treating a person like a possession for example), or simply thinking that something that has not historically been exchanged in a market could or should be exchanged in a market.

The idea that commodification can occur by seeing something as "marketable" or "commodity-like"even if that thing is never exchanged in a market occurs repeatedly in the literature and should be accounted for, or at least allowed for by one major definition. This definition does that.


5) A product in a market becomes less differentiated

Products are commodified as they become less differentiated until they are eventually only differentiated by price (fully commodified).

This retains the meaning of definition 1 as well, as products that are less differentiated experience an increase in the commodity component of the product relative to the relational (or perceived relational) component.

Other definitions

It should be noted that these are the major definitions we observed in the project we call "The Need to Define Commodification". However, there are other definitions in use. Some combine definitions given above, but there are also other less common definitions as well that define it in a way not completely capture by the definitions given above.

6) Global neoliberalism

Some have identified global neoliberalism or neoliberal globalism as commodification. This is not inaccurate as it can be described as a combination of definitions 2, 3 and 4, with nations as the unit of analysis. It is useful definition in the sense that no other definitions seems to be specific to nations as the unit of analysis.

Neoliberal globalism, inasmuch as it is defined as the socio-political implementation of increasing free market policy is well described as a form of commodification using definition 1, because nations, through political action, "set the ball rolling" for greater emphasis on the free market, which in turn emphasizes the importance of commodities and market exchange within the country. However, neoliberalism also recognizes the impact of such policies on individuals, and culture.

In other words, neoliberal policy increases capitalism in a given country, which lends itself to the social redefinition of value in a way that aligns with capitalism (definition 2). The institution of capitalism, after redefining value in capitalist terms lends itself to an increased commodity culture (definition 3), and may cause things to be increasingly valued for their ability to be exchanged in a market, as market exchange becomes a more dominant part in society (definition 4).

The reason I do not see this as a major definition is because it really uses other definitions to describe the way neoliberalism can result in commodification under a number of extant definitions. In this way, it is not really a way to define commodification, but a separate paradigm that is highly related to many already existing definitions of commodification at a world-level.

However, the reason I address it here is because, many other definitions fail to provide to provide specifics related to countries as the unit of analysis.

Another related (though relatively uncommon) paradigm defines commodification as:

7) an increase in market power compared to state power.

Again, this is not really a definition of commodification, but a description of changes that are likely to commodify.

However, both of these uses of the term commodification suggest that there is a need to create a definition of commodification that is better suited to nations or world systems as the unit of anlaysis. It may simply be enough to state (in keeping with definition 1):

An increase in the way nations promote capitalism, market power or the place of commodities through the policies they enact.

And it seems like that is what these definitions are really trying to get at. 

By discipline:

Roughly speaking, definition 2 most aligns with the sociological (or "Marxist") school of thought. Definition 3 is mostly anthropological in nature, but is often used by sociologists and others that are interested in culture, and has roots in Frankfurt School of thought. It should be noted, however, that sociologists and anthropologists may tend to use this definition in subtly different (discipline-centric) ways. Definition 4 has wide application and is used in several different ways, but is mostly favored by those who are interested in the intersection of business and culture. While it could have applications for behavioral economists, none were observed to employ this framework in our review of the literature. Definition 5 most aligns with the business school of thought, and seems to be exclusively used by business scholars as it was not observed to be used by those in any other discipline in our review. Additionally, we observed 2 other uses that seem to still be coming into their own. At the center of these seems to be the idea that commodification can be described with nations as the unit of analysis, and may best be defined as: "an increase in the way nations promote capitalism, market power or the place of commodities in society through the policies they enact."

Definition 1 draws out the commonality across definitions and may be the best single definition if only 1 may be chosen:

 "Any process that increases the commodity aspect of something (anything) relative to the humanizing or relational aspect". 

Conclusion

So at the end of the day, it may be best not to define commodification in a single way only, but to all seek for a better understanding of the major definitions, and then to recognize what is common across them all.

Our broad survey of literature indicates that these are the major definitions currently in use:


1) "Any process that increases the commodity aspect of something (anything) relative to the humanizing or relational aspect". 


2) The way capitalism redefines something in terms of its measurable and extrinsic characteristics instead of its intrinsic, inalienable characteristics. 

3) Creating (or enlarging) a "commodity culture"

4) Something becomes valued for its ability to be exchanged in a market

5) A product in a market becomes less differentiated

6) Nascent: An increase in the way nations promote capitalism, market power or the place of commodities through the policies they enact.

After an extensive review of commodification literature, we propose that definition 1 is the best single way to conceptualize commodification and is the basis for the other definitions that are used in the literature.

Additionally, the best way to move toward an improved conceptualization of commodification is for scholars of commodification in all disciplines is to familiarize themselves with all of the major definitions, as well as to recognize the commonality across them that is captured in definition 1.