PROJECT: THE NEED TO DEFINE COMMODIFICATION

THIS PAGE IS A ONE-STOP FOR ALL THE POSTS RELATED TO "THE NEED TO DEFINE COMMODIFICATION" PROJECT. 

(SORTED BY MOST RECENT POST FIRST)

EDIT: The finished report is now available here.

The need to define commodification

Use of commodification as an academic concept

After scouring over many different academic articles that employ the notion of commodification the following is becoming clear to me:

In academic literature commodification is used in many disciplines and as a framework to describe many different subjects across those disciplines.

Describing rather than defining

However, these academic pieces often describe the causes and effects of commodificiation rather than defining commodification itself. This leads to statements and assumptions that are not necessarily incorrect, but may lead to misunderstandings about what commodification is (and is not).

Increasing importance of commodities in society (commodity culture, consumerism, culture industry)

Specifically, commodification has been said to be caused by increasing the importance of consumer culture (as is the case with neoliberalism), paying for things that were not previously commodities, and decreasing the role of the state (decentralization). However, none of these things define commodification, rather they are descriptions of things that cause commodification.

Destruction of authenticity, objectification, dehumanization

Similarly, commodification has been said to destroy authenticity and to cause objectification and dehumanization. Although these may be accurate observations, once again, they are not definitions of commodification but descriptions of mechanism related thereunto.

Possible negative outcomes due to lack of conceptualization

Commodification will be more efficiently and more clearly employed in academic literature if it is better defined. The way academic sources describe rather than define commodification may be a result of a lack of a clear definition of it in the literature. It may also be the result of something else such as an incomplete or inaccurate understanding about what commodification is. If the latter is the case, all the more urgent is the need to better define commodification. Finally, commodification is used in a wide range of disciplines including business, sociology, anthropology, geography, tourism, economics and linguistics. This may be part of the reason commodification has not been clearly definied, as each discipline sees its nuances in a litte different way. However, this is, yet again, all the more reason to solidify a definition.

Lack of clear, concise, accurate, comprehensive yet accessible definition of commodification

All these things taken together, one thing is apparent: that there is a lack of a clear, concise, accurate, comprehensive yet accessible and applicable definition of commodification. It is a topic that piques the interest of many different academics studying many different topics and deserves to be understood in a way that is commensurate with the interest people have in it.

What is commodification?

Executive summary*

Although commodification is a frequent topic of interest across many disciplines as diverse as linguistics, sociology, economics, law and business, the term is highly contested and underdeveloped (Zaman 2006). The notion of commodification has been immensely useful in describing the ways an increasing emphasis on capitalism in societies has caused various transformations in the way people exchange and think about various things in their world such as material objects, tourism, labor, relationships, even people themselves and their body parts. Through a comprehensive and systematic review of academic literature related to commodification, we observe that, when used as an explanatory framework, the notion of commodification is more often described than defined. This has resulted in misunderstandings about what commodification is as the causes and effects of commodification are presented in place of actual definitions far more often than not, resulting in myopic understandings of commodification at best, and inaccuracies at worst. The trend to describe instead of define may be a product of the way commodification is used in so many different disciplines and to provide a framework for so many different topics within each discipline because it is harder to contradict specific observations than broad, universally applicable assertions (the former provides only a single case that is added to rather than refuted by the emergence of additional evidence, but in the case of the latter, one need only find one contradictory example to refute it). However, this strategy has proven problematic in that current uses of the term are frequently myopic, often inconsistent, and at times inaccurate. We outline the major camps of those using the term, including an explanation of major differences by discipline. We then described limitations of the current descriptions of commodification (including contradictions between usages), followed by a discussion of commonalities among the current usages. Finally, we provide suggestions for the first steps in working toward an inclusive, clear definition that is broadly accessible.  

1.       Introduction

2.       Describing causes and effects in place of definitions

3.       Method and current uses of the term (major camps, including Marxist v. business definitions)

4.       Contradictions among current usages of commodification

5.       Finding consensus among current usages of commodification

6.       Toward an inclusive, clear and broadly accessible definition of commodification

7.       Conclusions

Introduction

Commodification is a frequently employed, yet highly contested topic in academic literature (Zaman 2006). For sociologists, it has roots in Marxists thought and is related to concepts such as commodity fetishism, alienation, dehumanization and capitalism. For scholars of business, it means that something becomes more “raw”, undifferentiated, standardized or mass produced. In other words, in the case of the former, Marxian ideas are employed as the basis for what is meant by commodification, and in the case of the latter, the word means to make something more of a commodity, or more commodity like—even though this term itself is highly contested (see here for example).

This distinction between Marxist, social science oriented definitions and business definitions is widely recognized by scholars of commodification (here for example). In systematically reviewing the literature on commodification, I observe that the use of the term “commodification” in academic literature has burgeoned since the 1990s and has become highly divergent. This paper discusses the way this may be attributed to three main phenomena. First, the term is highly complex both in terms of its Marxist origins, and in terms of its “dictionary” definitions (there are several distinct definition of just the word “commodity”). Because the term is, at its core, highly complex, it is easy for scholars to inaccurately depict commodification, to conflate it with other highly related terms or to outright misuse it. Second, scholars find the term broadly applicable which is both a strength and challenge for such a term. It seems to find a place into all kinds of literature from sociology to business to law, and in all kinds of topics from selling body parts to evaluations of authenticity of the arts to marketing. While it is good that the term is so flexible and so widely applicable, it is beginning to be coopted by different disciplines in ways that alter its meaning (or at least its usage) from one application to the next. In short, it has been used in so many ways and altered little by little as it moves from one discipline to the next, and one research topic to the next that it is becoming highly fractured as a concept. Finally, scholars have taken a preference for describing rather than defining the term “commodification”. While this is not necessarily inappropriate, and the many descriptions are not necessarily inaccurate, they can lead to confusion as, over time, any concrete conceptualization of the term seems overshadowed or even replaced by descriptions of commodification—what it does and how it comes about—rather than what it means.

This paper presents an overview of the major definitions, theories and usages of the term “commodification”, as well as the results of a systematic review of 200 articles about commodification—100 from a search of Google Scholar using the search term “commodification” and 100 from Proquest using the search term “commodification”. The analysis supports the three notions described above: 1) That commodification is a highly contested term with many different definitions and usages, 2) that there are several different definitions and usages of the term commodification which appear to be increasingly divergent from the origins of the term, and 3) that scholars of commodification more often describe than define the term “commodification” even when using it as a major framework in their studies.

Clear conceptualizations are the foundation of sound methodology. In the case of commodification, there is a need to better conceptualize the term, especially in a cross disciplinary way. Commodification serves as a framework for studies in sociology, linguistics, economics, tourism, human resources, marketing, urban planning, law, anthropology, geography and even fields such as biochemistry. The way it is able to be used across such a diverse number of disciplines is a reflection of the term’s flexibility and broad appeal. However, without a clear conceptualization, using the term will likely only creating increasingly greater confusion or lack of interest. On the other hand, if the term is more clearly understood and better conceptualized, scholars will be better able to build upon the existing body of commodification literature.

Currently, there are at least five major camps of commodification theories: the Frankfurt School (including Marxist, Culture of Industry, and capitalist), the trade and commerce perspective, the business and marketing approach, the state-vs-market perspective and the neoliberal globalization camp.

These distinctions all have social importance within their spheres. However, the danger is twofold: 1) There is a risk that a lack of communication between commodification theorists across these disciplines (caused by a lack of consensus in the conceptualization of the term “commodification”) will lead to greater divergence in the definition and use of the term. 2) In many cases, the way the term “commodification” is being used inappropriately coopts other related but distinct notions such as dehumanization, objectification, commercialization, neoliberalism, capitalism, fungibility, standardization and decentralization. While these terms are certainly highly related concepts, none is commodification per se and should be kept distinct from the notion of commodification for the purposes of conceptualization.

Building upon the careful and systematic analysis of articles undertaken in this study, recommendations are made for how to take the first steps towards an improved conceptualization of the term commodification. 

Table: The need to define commodification--Marx, business and the third school?

INTRODUCTION TO TABLE:

Although there are concrete, established (dictionary) definitions of commodification, most of them rely on the meaning of the term "commodity". The definition of a commodity includes a family of notions: The ability of something to be exchange or exploited in a market, a basic (raw) material, a mass-produced and unspecialized object, a valuable human attribute or even convenience/advantage. Additionally, the Marxist notion of commodification has its own distinct meaning--not found in "mainstream" dictionaries, but popular among social scientists. This problematizes the mission to find a definition of commodification that works for everybody.

Two major schools of thought?

Additionally, there are said to be two major schools of thought: Marxist and business. While these two schools of though take in most notions of commodification (or commoditization as it is called in business literature) there seems to be an emergent third school: a hybrid approach.

Marxist school of thought

The Marxist notion of commodification refers to the way commodities are seen symbolically and socially, and the impact of social structures on those perceptions (specifically capitalism and class structures). These social structures are also said to alienate human qualities from individuals. Expansions of the Marxist school maintain that certain commodity cultures can emerge in a society and become pervasive in all aspects of human life (Adorno & Horkheimer 1994 and the notion of culture of industry being the seminal example).

Business school of thought

The business notion is centered on the way things being exchanged (usually in markets) become mass produced, unspecialized, and undifferentiated. Consumers differentiate commodities mostly on the basis of price alone, rather than some other characteristics.

Third school of thought?

Ironically, however, many studies seem to employ a notion that is not limited to one school of thought or the other. These theories describe the way market exchange, in the business sense, becomes culturally pervasive or the way people and their humanizing traits (symbols, thoughts, language, knowledge) become marketed or exchanged like commodities. These theories play off of both schools in a way that makes them not able to be categorized in one or the other.

The emergence of this third category of "hybrid" theories illustrates both a phenomenon in progress and an emergent need. In one sense, they illustrate the desire within academic circles to have a conceptualization of commodification that is not "one or the other" (Marxist or business). Instead, they seem to see commodification in a broader sense that acknowledges any transformation that creates a shift toward commodities and their place in society. Equally, Marxist notions and business notions really describe just that--a shift toward commodities and their place in society--even if business theories focus on products being exchanged on the market and Marxists focus on the relationship with people and social structures.

In the second sense, the emergence of this third category represents a need--the need to created just such a conceptualization that can be used in studies that are not interested in a framework that captures only the business conception or the Marxist conception. To date, hybrid studies have largely focused on the causes and effects of commodification in lieu of creating a conceptualization that would satisfy the full range of notions from the Marxist, to the business sense and everything in between. Many of the posts on this site are dedicated to offering the first steps in creating such a conceptualization.

(NB: there is sometimes a distinction made between the two major schools and anthropology in which commodification and commoditization seem to be used interchangeable. This also seems to strengthen the argument for the way scholars desire to use the notion in a way that does not fit neatly with commodification or commoditization only. Additionally, this note should not be construed to mean that anthropologists are the only scholars that see commodification is this way. There is abundant evidence that this is beginning to happen in a variety of disciplines.)

Broad interest in commodification

When people use the term "commodification", they are, broadly speaking, interested in processes, transitions or transformations that create a shift toward commodity-ness[1] of things, people, societies, cultures, governments or other phenomena. A universal conceptualization, therefore, would take this into account.

The table below illustrates the two major schools of thought (Marxist and business) as well as other notions that seem to hybridize the two schools--or at least that do not fit perfectly within them. It should be noted that the camps in the Hybrid section may seem like they are describing something related to but distinct from commodification. However, they are all supported by actual academic articles that define what they are seeing as commodification. In other words, there is at least one article with the main topic of commodification, that describes it in the way enumerated in the table for each of the "Hybrid" camps in the table. (Detailed analysis making this point is forthcoming.)

Table: MAJOR COMMODIFICATION SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.

This table (and the analysis that precedes it) is the product of an extensive and ongoing review of literature as part of a project called "The need to define commodification".

---

[1] I am not the first to employ this term. For just a few examples, see Timberlake (1964), Matsuoka, Nikami & Ogawa (1997), Willis (1999), Mann (2006), Morris (2010) and Goodman (2013).

History of commodification

Etymology of the term "commodity" from Online Etymology Dictionary.

Click to follow link.

commodity (n.) 

early 15c., "benefit, profit, welfare;" later "a convenient or useful product," from Middle French commodité "benefit, profit," from Latin commoditatem (nominative commoditas) "fitness, adaptation, convenience, advantage," from commodus "suitable, convenient" (see commode). General sense "property possession" is from c.1500.

History of commodification

Going back to the origins of the word "commodity" proves to be a very useful exercise in defining commodification. Commodification is an expansion of the term commodity--specifically, at its roots, it means a process of making something a commodity. In application, it may be rare to observe "pure and complete commodification" (Robison, Oliver & Frank 2015) but often we see the process in progress as we refer to things "becoming commodified". In this sense, defining commodification as something becoming more commodity centric or more like a commodity may be a more practical definition.

Early notions of commodification at odds with today's notions?

However, at a glance, the earliest notions of commodification seem at odds with notions that are more popular today. Today's dictionary definitions delineate a commodity as an economic good, a raw material, an article of commerce, a mass produced and mostly unspecialized product, a good that is widely available and one that has low profit margins (Merriam-Webster). These characterizations seem a far cry from notions of benefit, welfare and convenience as noted above.

In practice, however, modern notions may not be as different from the early notions of the word as they first appear. In fact, going back to the earliest meanings of the term "commodity" seems to be useful in uniting the two major divisions within the usage of the term "commodification" in academic literature today: Marxist vs. business notions (discussed elsewhere in this blog).

Description of Marxist and Frankfurt school notions of commodification

It is perhaps an oversimplification, but let us summarize Marxist notions of commodification as rooted in capitalism (and especially capitalist exploitation), commodity fetishism and alienation of labor. A whole essay could be devoted to Marx and commodification. However, the present piece focuses on the way the aforementioned notions of capitalism, commodity fetishism and alienation have been expanded in a way that has given rise to theories of commodification in use today. In other words, the present discussion is concerned with theories that rose our of Marxist thinking instead of focusing on the way Marx himself described commodification (his main direct focus on the term commodification was the way labor was commodified under the capitalist system through alienating the laborer from the product of their labor). However, Marxists writings related to "commodification" were expanded on early on and continue to the present. This is illustrated by Veblen's (1899) notion of conspicuous consumption, György Lukács' (1923) notion of reification that emphasized the almost inseparable relationship between capitalism and what he called "commodity-relations", Adorno's and Horkheimer's (1944) theory of cultural industry, and even Perelman's (2003) notion that intellectual property becomes commodified as it becomes alienated from its producers. A brief summary of each of these theories follows.

 VEBLEN (1899)

For Veblen (1899), the consumption of commodities sends messages about one's position in society. Commodities either have an honorific or humilific impact--creating belonging with or rejection from certain social classes in society. In this way, it is not the intrinsic worth of a human being for which they are judged and accepted into certain social classes, but the commodities they consume (their standard of living).

Lukács (1923)

Lukács (1923) built his theory of reification on Marx's notion of commodity fetishism. Lukács emphasized that commodities take on a sort of "phantom objectivity" that seems to conceal their relationship with people. In this way, commodification could be interpreted as the objectification of commodities by a society in which they are almost given life beyond their relationship with people. As Lukács points out, the relationship between people and commodities has a long history--although they have been seen as subjective (as a human creation) and objective (independent of human creation). For Lukács, the issue was the extent to which "commodity exchange together with its structural consequences...influence(s) the total outer and inner life of society".

Adorno and Horkheimer (1944)

Additionally, Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) asserted that "the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry". By this, they meant that consumerism is structured in such a way as to be so pervasive that everywhere a person goes, everything they do and even everything they think about is controlled by or at least filtered through it. This is not limit to purchasing or consuming raw or material goods but extends to every dimension of humanity including thoughts and expressions of human creativity (such as the arts, language, and social behaviors). They called product of filtering these things through consumerism "cultural commodities". Furthermore, they described these things filtered expressions as not authentic (or "false"). This could apply to everything from advertisements that target consumers by appeals to human traits (like friendship or belonging) to actions that are really products of the culture industry (like the person who speaks a certain way because it will get more business). Adorno's and Horkheimer's treatment of commodification brought with it a notion of authenticity that has persisted in commodification literature to the present day.

Pereleman (2003)

Finally, Pereleman (2003) expanded the Marxist notion of commodification by observing that "intellectual property" (a term of growing interest since the 1990s, especially with the rise of information technology) has an alienating effect as people ideas and creation become something that can be purchased and owned by another.

Summary of Marxist/Frankfurt notions

In short, the Marxist notion (and expansions thereof) hinge upon notions of humanity and intrinsic worth and the relationship of those things to capitalism. Either humanizing traits are intrinsically valuable and should not be alienated from the individual, or they are "things" that can be objectified, owned or exchanged to get gain.

Business theory notions of commodification

In business theory, commodification is usually called commoditization, and refers to transformations resulting in more mass produced, highly standardized, and undifferentiated products (Zimring & Rathje 2012, 135). Zimring & Rathje (2012) assert that commoditization has been in use since the 1990s. However, even this version seems to have roots in Marxist thought--or more accurately a critique of Marxist thought.

Connection between Marxist and business notions?

In Marx's Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (2005 [1858]) Marx observes that production fills human needs, and that consumption has both an objective and subjective component. He associates this with the idea of use and exchange value, as objects have exchange value, but use value is subjective in relation to the consumer. Baudrillard (1981) "critiqued" the Marxist notion of the political economy, arguing that Marx was not explicit enough.

Baudrillard expanded the Marxist notion that consumption has objective and subjectivecomponents. In short, Baudrillard noted that exchange is not only a matter of the exchange value of the thing being consumed but the symbolic value and the sign value as well. Baudrillard observed that people may consume objects because of the message that consumption of that thing sends to others or the personal meaning it has for the person consuming the thing. This has implications for business and advertising because a commodity product can be decommoditized through advertising which suggests that the object being sold will also make the consumer belong with certain groups or feel a certain way by consuming the thing. 

Baudrillard: Influence on or origin of commoditization?

While it is unclear how much influence Marx's notion of the political economy and Baudrillard's critique (perhaps better called an expansion) of that theory influenced the notion of commoditization that is now extant in business theory. Additionally, it may be that business theories of commoditization are more concerned with market exchange while Marxist theories are more oriented toward commodity-related symbols, the position of people relative to those symbols and the role of structures in society. However, these theories have more in common than may be apparent at first glance.

Possible commonalities between Marxist/Frankfurt and business conceptions

Two major observations drive this assertion:

1) The historical link between the two major schools of thought. Marx observed, and Baudrillard expanded the notion that commodities have a symbolic component as well as an objective component. This historical observation is highly related to the way commoditization and decommoditization are discussed in business theory today--as the major concern is how products can be differentiated in markets to yield higher sales margins than would be the case for a commodity (to "differentiate" things being sold). This is done through the subjective aspect described by Marx and made explicit by Baudrillard. Current theories of commoditization may have evolved out of this notion, may have spontaneously appeared, or some combination of the two. No matter the origin, there is actually a direct link between Marxist thought and current theories of commoditization as used in the business literature.

2) There is overlap in current theories of commodification (commoditization). While there are many academic works that are clearly Marxist oriented and others that are clearly business oriented, there are many that seem to be a hybrid of sorts. These theories describe the way culture, history, ideas, and even human body parts are treated like commodities in the business sense: they are commercialized, exchanged in markets or assigned standardized values that alienate them from the people with whom they originate. This will be discussed in detail in the "Findings" section of this paper. However, at present, the reader is well served to realize that the fine line between "Marxist" and "business" theories of commodification are often blurred. Descriptions of people and their humanizing characteristics being standardized, fungible, and salable is becoming increasingly relevant with the increase of information and bio-technologies This may be an expression of the many similarities that the two schools of thought have that are made less accessible by keeping them separate. Therefore, a conceptualization of commodification that applies to both schools of thought will allow for research to be done "in between" the two schools of thought (specific examples of studies that fall between the Marxist and business schools of thought will be discussed in greater detail in the "Findings" section of this paper). Additionally, it will allow scholars to collaborate across the schools of thought both to accomplish successful studies both "between" and across the two schools of thought.

Commonalities with origin of "commodity", Marx and business?

As stated at the beginning, going back to the origins of the word "commodity" may be a way to unite the many notions of commodification that are extant today. For example, even if there is a consensus that commodification, generically, is "a process of increasing commodity-ness", this results only in a new question: What is a commodity? As mentioned above, the word commodity is defined in dictionaries as an economic good, a raw material, an article of commerce, a mass produced and mostly unspecialized product, a good that is widely available and one that has low profit margins (Merriam-Webster). It is also defined as something that is readily exploitable in a market, something of use or value, and as convenience or advantage (Merriam-Webster). Which of all these things should be taken as the meaning of commodity? Looking back at the roots of the word, the answer may be "all of the above", as all seem related to the idea of benefit, profit, welfare and convenience--the original meanings of the word.

Commodities (in the original sense) were objects through which one might derive benefit, profit, welfare or convenience. What, then, are non-commodities? Perhaps we might say that non-commodities are "subjects", and commodities are "objects". This fits with the original Marxist notion, and also aligns with the business notion. For Marxists, commodification alienates or objectifies people--removes their humanity (or at least humanizing characteristics) from them. For business scholars, who often refer to products as commoditized in a market, those things which are "mere objects" can be seen as commodities, whereas those things which are made to have a subjective element (through association with human or humanizing feelings or symbols) are "decommoditized". To me, this is what the terms benefit, profit, welfare and convenience have in common--they refer to objects to be used to get gain of some kind (more money, convenience, better way of life).

By reviewing a history of "commodification" it is clear that the two major schools of thought, Marxist and business, may have more in common than is sometimes portrayed.

First, they seem to have possible common origins through the Marxist notion of object and subject which Baudrillard expanded to explain differentiation of products through advertising (advertising adds a subjective element to objects being marketed). Even if this was not the original source (or not the only original sources) through which the business conception was derived, it still shows commonality among the origins of the two notions, as the subject/object application to advertising very much aligns with the earliest writings on commoditization in business literature.

Second, many scholarly articles today do not seem to fall under one school of thought or the other, but fall somewhere in the middle (discussed here). This illustrates the utility of embracing the commonalities rather than the differences between the two schools, as many scholars seem to be finding that the notion of commodification that best serves their research does not have to be firmly in one school of thought or the other, but falls somewhere in between.

Third, a possible unifying definition between and across the schools of thought may be to say that commodification (and commoditization) is "an increase in commodity-ness".

Finally, even if we accept this definition, there is a final complication to resolve--the fact that the term "commodity" has so many definitions. Looking to the origins of the term seems a useful exercise in making a cohesive definition. At its heart, a commodity is something that is "used" like an object to get some kind of gain, be it financial, in quality of life or otherwise. Therefore the notion of object vs. subject (from which both schools seem to have originated) seems one of the best ways to think of commodification.

 Object used/exploited for gain of some kind

Of course this is only a first step as the notion of "object" cannot be thought of as synonymous with commodification. Perhaps for now the best definition of commodification is: "An increase in commodity-ness, with a commodity being understood as an object to be used or exploited for gain (esp. in a capitalist system)". (This definition also discussed here).

Project overview: The need to define commodification

COMMODIFICATION-WIDELY USED, POORLY DEFINED: 

This project examines the assertion that commodification is a term that is widely used but under-conceptualized (Shepherd 2002, Zaman 2006) through a broad and systematic review of literature.

(Related posts: Defining commodification in social exchange, The need to define commodification)

ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF COMMODIFICATION INTO TWO SCHOOLS:

The origins and evolution of the concept over time are discussed with special emphasis on the way two major schools of thought have emerged related to commodification: the Marxist/Frankfurt school and the business school. 

(Related posts: Defining commodification in social exchange, History of commodification, What is commodification? An introduction, Marx, business and the third school? What is commodification?)

METHOD:

The search term “commodification” was entered on Google Scholar and Proquest, to produce 200 articles (100 from each search engine). The articles were chosen based on relevance as determined by the search engines (this largely means number of views/citations). The articles were coded for five things: 1) the definition each assigned to the notion of commodification, 2) the clarity of the definition, 3) the field of study of the article, 4) the thing being described as the object of commodification, 5) the school of thought to which the article seems to subscribe (Marxist/Frankfurt, business, neither, or some combination of the two). 

(Related posts: What is commodification? An introduction, Table: The need to define commodification)

FINDINGS:

1. A third school of thought: the hybrid view

We find that, in recent times, most articles that use commodification as a major framework seem to be positioned not in one major school of thought or the other, but either in between the two or in some new space. 

(Related posts: Marx, business and the third school?)

2. Broad application within and across disciplines

Additionally, commodification was employed broadly across disciplines and research topics in fields as diverse as tourism, geography, anthropology, sociology, business, economics, bio-medicine and even technology.

(Related posts: What is commodification?, The need to define commodification)

3. Support for commodification as a largely “unarticulated” notion

 Finally, we find support for Shepherd’s (2002) notion that commodification is largely “unarticulated” as most authors resorted to describing causes and effects of commodification in lieu of providing straightforward definitions.

This is likely due to at least three things:

 1) The evolution of the term historically into two distinct schools and the way those two distinctions rarely fully capture what the author is looking to describe (as most types of commodification in practice are likely somewhere in between the Marxist/Frankfurt and business schools of thought rather than exclusively in one or the other).

2) The meaning of the root word “commodity” is so complex and variegated.

3) Commodification is being used in such a broad range of disciplines that it is formidable to produce a definition that will appease everyone (therefore it is easier to describe what is happening than to state definitively what commodification is).

(Related posts: Defining commodification in social exchange, What is commodification? An introduction)

Conclusions and discussion:

1. The need to define commodification

These observations demonstrate the need to better conceptualize the term commodification in a way that is broadly accessible, and unifying (meaning it is useful in facilitating descriptions of phenomena that do not fit squarely in just the Marxist/Frankfurt school or in just the business paradigm). Such a conceptualization will facilitate the use of the term in broad and unifying ways. It may even better unite the study of commodification across disciplines, which may in turn further the study of commodification in general due to increased collaboration across disciplines.

2. Synthesizing definition of commodification

In conclusion, we offer suggestions regarding the first steps toward defining commodification and offer a definition that works across all of the different usages that were observed in our study of articles. Specifically, commodification is:

 “An increase in the way some thing (be it a person, culture, material object or so forth) is esteemed, valued or represented vis-à-vis commodities, which are defined broadly as anything used, seen, or represented as an object for exploitation or gain (of any kind) rather than as a subject of intrinsic worth.”

We proffer this definition due to the way it fits with all of the ways commodification was described in our study, and we describe in detail the way current studies and definitions all fit within this definition.  Additionally, as with all scientific inquiry, we mean for this to be a first step in a collaborative effort to define commodification in a way that is broadly accessible and conducive to collaboration between scholars of commodification across all disciplines and topics.

Commodification, decommoditization and value judgments

Commodification is described, defined and used in many different ways. One major difference can be attributed to the way commodification is described in business settings vs. in social settings.

In the business world, we often hear of decommoditization. 

Decommoditization in the business sense usually means differentiating a product on the basis of more than price. You may know a common instance of this as 'branding'. The business tries to have its 'commodity' products (which are differentiated largely only on the basis of price and nothing else) seen as something more. This is often done by associating the product with 'humanizing' messages of belonging, validation, nostalgia and so forth.

Who hasn't seen a commercial in which we are told a product will make us look better, be accepted, or remind us of the 'good old days'?

This is an attempt to associate a commodity product (that cannot compete with similar products in any way other than by lowering the price) with something more (usually more humanizing or interpersonal) in order to generate higher profits. 

But in social sciences and other settings, this is called 'commodification'. Isn't that the opposite?

It is true that in business literature, this practice of decommoditizing products is portrayed as a good way to maximize profits. Commoditization, on the other hand is usually bad for profits, because it usually means you can only gain a competitive advantage by lowering your price. 

So why do so many social scientists portray businesses and capitalist societies as bent on the destructive practice of commodifying--commodifying people, labor, relationships, even thoughts, feelings and artistic expression? Aren't most businesses trying to decommoditize instead of commoditize?

Why does the business world so often describe decommoditization as a better way to make money, yet social scientists insist that the business world is out to 'commodify' everything? 

Well, I have given two reasons before: 1) businesses are sensitive to negative externalities and will often only engage in decommodification to the extent that it does not involve paying to reduce negative externalities (because that can cut into profits--or at least that is the argument). 2) Businesses often engage in what I have called 'unilateral' decommodification--the attempt to 'manufacture' or give the appearance of decommodification rather than actually decommodifying. It is the attempt to give the appearance of decommodification to the consumer. Cohen (1988) called this "staged authenticity". 

So, why all the apparent contradiction?

Businesses describe decommoditization as a better way to make money, yet social scientists often portray businesses as being out to commodify things in ways that have outcomes that are destructive to human feelings and intrinsic worth. Why the apparent contradiction?

THE ANSWER IS THAT COMMODIFICATION INVOLVES VALUE JUDGMENTS, AND ALSO HINGES ON PERSPECTIVE.

Here is a clear cut example:

"It turns out that people are most sensitive to the effects of commodification in the cultural arena. Paradoxically, advertising promotes commodification while simultaneously denying it. Advertising blankets the cash nexus with narratives and signifiers that position the meaning of the commodity within non-commodified relations. For example, ads often place commodities at the center of idyllic familial relations. Just think of the many McDonald's commercials in which dad shares a moment of quality time with his son over a Happy Meal that includes a plastic promo from the latest Disney movie. Imagery of exchange is replaced by a representation of a caring moment between father and child" (from stlawu.edu course on global capital).

So, in this example, the assertion is made that businesses try to replace images of a commodity product with humanizing, social, and relational images--that is a good summary. Businesses aretrying to replace images of commodities with more decommodified images of the thing being sold--because it's better business. And, let's be honest, many of us do prefer to buy things we feel good about over things we don't. Granted some people will do anything to save a dollar, but many (most?) people prefer to buy products we trust, feel confident in and feel good about (look at the literature that has already discussed the social implications of consuming commodities: Veblen's 'conspicuous consumption' [1899], Baudrillard [1972]).

So far so good. But the quote above also states "Paradoxically, advertising promotes commodification while simultaneously denying it". This is my (repeated) point about what I call 'unilateral' decommodification. The issue is not that businesses prefer to sell decommodified products, the issue is not even that they try to embed commodities with relational or humanizing elements--because many people prefer to feel good about the products they are buying. 

The issue really involves value judgments about what 'should' or 'should not' be done. 

The real question is: 'Is it OK for business to try to associate their products with relational, interpersonal and humanizing elements, and if so, to what extent?' Most people would probably agree that businesses should be able to present their products in the best light possible--that is one end of the decommoditization spectrum. On the other end, some businesses sometimes destroy things that by human consensus have been deemed invaluable, and do so through blatant dishonesty and intrigue. For example, most people would likely say that businesses should not be allowed to destroy all the rain forests by lying about how many trees they are cutting down there, or that they should be able to mine on indigenous lands by 'paying off' local governments. 

So the question is: Where do we draw the line?

It is a bigger question than is parsimonious for the current project. However, it should be noted that 'unilateral' decommoditization (the attempt to present a humanizing or affective side of a product being sold) is not inherently bad. It is a matter of what limits should be imposed on those attempts. Additionally, how will those limits be enforced? (These decisions are usually made by social consensus and enforced through the state.) Some people feel that businesses should not be allowed to advertise at all, and others may feel like businesses should be allowed to decide hos to market their product without any kind of outside intervention. But most people probably fall between those two extremes. 

Incidentally, a classic case occurred in the 2000s and check cashing establishments would successfully write loans with APRs well into the 100s (200-300% or higher) to unsuspecting customers. On one hand, some might say, 'If the business is able to convince the consumer that it is good for them, and the customer signs on the dotted line then it should be legit.' However, others argued that the businesses were creating a false sense of security through sales tactics and luring people into bad situations. On way of seeing it, in other words, is to ask if businesses should any be able to sell a product that is bad for the customer if they are persuasive enough to get the customer to agree. The decision was that these businesses had passed the bounds of propriety, and new laws about disclosing APRs was put into place. Now it had to be made very clear to the customer how much they would be paying over time. (You may have noticed on your own credit card bills that your bank occasionally discloses how much your payoff over different time periods will be). 

Think of the quote above. In McDonalds' mind, it may not be a bad thing to make customers feel better about their product--even many of the customers may like that better. Would you rather eat in a bright colored place with happy images, or would you rather eat your burger in a warehouse on plain tables and chairs? In a way, we like this sort of manufactured decommodification. For example, think of all the people that go to Disney Land each year to have good and happy experiences, even if they know they are all manufactured experiences (a kind of 'unilateral' decommodification). There is nothing wrong with businesses creating manufactured experiences or with people consuming them. 

So, really, it is a matter of perspective. 

The author of the quote above says that businesses promote commodification while denying it at the same time. But is that really what businesses are doing. 

I argue that it is not!

Businesses have a right (within limits) to create more enjoyable customer experiences--and most of us like that to some degree. So it is not 'unilateral' or 'manufactured' decommodification that is bad per se, it is a question about the limits within which it should be done--and that comes down to a value judgment as described above. 

Now, the issue of perspective:

Perspective has a direct tie-in with value judgments in that your perspective tells you whether or not something is ok to do. However, there is more to perspective than that. 

For the author of the quote given above, businesses are trying to promote commodification while hiding it, yet I do not believe most business would say that they are doing that. Here, the perspective relates to the unit of analysis!

Perspective and unit of analysis

The unit of analysis can make it so that two parties, talking about the same phenomenon see it in two totally different ways. One sees it as destructive practices of commodification and the other as positive practices of decommodification. The point is, in the quote above, the business is talking about the product, and they say that the product is being decommoditized to give a better customer experience--and that may be true. The social scientist often says that this is commodification and is destructive because they are looking, not at the product, but at social relationships in general! To me, the quote given above takes the side of a social scientist and the author would probably say that McDonald's is embedding commodities into relationships while businesses would probably say they are embedding relationships into commodities. So, yes, from the business perspective, they are making a product (their unit of analysis) better, while for social scientists it is making relationships (their unit of analysis) worse. 

Conclusion:

The same phenomenon can be seen by party 1 as negative, destructive commodification and by party 2 as positive and helpful decommodification. It is a matter of moral judgment (what is right and wrong) and of perspective--not just the perspective related to what any given person thinks is OK, but perspective related to the unit of analysis (or in less formal settings the unit of interest). 

For businesses, they improve experiences by decommoditizing the product by embedding it with relationships and other humanizing phenomena, but social scientists often describe the way the relationships and other humanizing elements are degraded or reduced to the commodity images that business or market practices embed in them. 

This explains why businesses often talk about profit maximization and improvement in terms of decommoditization and social scientists discuss profit motives in terms of commodification. The business person is referring to the product being decommodified, and the social scientist is observing how relationships or other humanizing elements are being paired with (or 'reduced to') commodities. 

In a sentence: By attaching more 'humanity' to a product, we also attach more 'product' to humanity!

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of tourism research, 15(3), 371-386.

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 9:16 AM No comments: 

TABLE: Major usages of commodification

SUMMARY OF DEFINITIONS

Definition	Shortened definition
Redefining something in terms of its measurable and extrinsic characteristics instead of its intrinsic and inalienable characteristics (something becomes “object” vs. “subject”)	Object vs. subject
Reducing something to a “routinized, codified product”	Routinized and codified
Creating or expanding a “commodity culture”	Commodity culture
Something becomes valued for its potential to be exchanged in a market	Market exchange
Paying for something that used to not be paid for	Payment
Something becomes an object of capitalism or becomes subject to a capitalist system (neoliberalism)	Object in capitalist system
Market power increases compared to state power	Market vs. state power

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 12:19 PM No comments: 

Preliminary results of study

As part of the project called "The need to define commodification", an analysis of 100 articles about commodification is taking place.

Some preliminary results are displayed HERE.

These results support the assertions made about the three schools of thought: sociologists (and closely related fields) largely favor the commodity culture, object vs. subject and object in capitalist system definitions. (For a summary of definitions, click HERE). In the business disciplines, the market exchange definition is almost universally employed. Anthropologists use a mix of definitions that includes Marxist and business related definitions. Finally, there are other disciplines that appear to be carving out a "hybrid space" (similar to what is done in anthropology). For example, in tourism and geography, a mixture of Marxist and business definitions are employed including commodity culture, object vs. subject and market exchange.

As discussed elsewhere in this blog, this may be a reflection of the desire to use commodification in a way that is not restricted only to business definitions or only to Marxist definitions. It may be that they are using the "anthropological" approach to commodification (as some call it). Or, it may be that they are carving out a new space, uninformed by the approach taken in anthropology.

Either way, it reflects to the need to re-conceptualize the term commodification to meet this demand for a definition that is accurate, but broadly applicable and not limited just to Marxist or just to business ideas about the term. 

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 12:19 PM No comments: 

BY DISCIPLINE

Here is a summary of definitions of commodification.

CLICK TO SORT: BY DEFINITION | BY UNIT OF ANALYSIS | BY DISCIPLINE

Discipline(s):	What is commodified? (percent within row):	Definition (percent within row):	Percentage of total articles **
Sociology	Society and culture (66.7%), police and security (33.3%)	Commodity culture (100%)	11.1%
Sociolinguistics	Language (100%)	Object vs. subject (50%), Object in capitalist system (50%)	7.4%
Economic sociology	Society and culture (100%)	Commodity culture (100%)	3.7%
Socio-politics	Care/nurture (100%)	Paying for something that used to not be paid for (100%)	7.4%
Social science of health and medicine	Biochemical information (100%)	Object in capitalist system (100%)	3.4%
Science and culture	Nature (100%)	Market exchange (100%)	3.4%
Anthropology  (Includes 1 geography and anthropology** and 1 cultural anthropology)	Body parts (33.3%), society and culture (33.3%), education (33.3%)	Object vs. subject (33.3%), commodity culture (33.3%), market exchange (33.3%)	11.1%
Geography  (Includes 1 geography and anthropology-double counted)**	Nature (100%)	Market exchange (50%), capitalist (50%), Commodity culture (50%)*	7.4%
Childhood studies	Childhood (100%)	Commodity culture (100%)	3.7%
History	Society and culture (100%)	Commodity culture (100%)	3.7%
Tourism	Tourism (100%)	Market exchange (100%), Commodity culture (50%), Object vs. subject (50%)*	7.4%
Rural studies	Nature (100%)	Market exchange (100%)	3.4%
Environment and planning	Nature (100%)	Market exchange (100%)	3.4%
Urban research	Housing in China (100%)	Market power increases compared to state power (100%)	3.4%
Human resources	Knowledge (100%)	Routinized and codified (100%)	3.4%
Accounting	Education (100%)	Market exchange (100%)	3.4%
Human relations	Education (100%)	Market exchange (100%)	3.4%
Marketing	The past (100%)	Market exchange (100%)	3.4%
Law	Apologies (50%), nature (50%)	Market exchange (100%)	7.4%

*Does not add up to 100% because some articles employed multiple definitions

**Does not add up to 100% because one study is classified as “anthropology and geography” and is counted twice: once in anthropology and once in geography

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 12:01 PM No comments: 

BY UNIT OF ANALYSIS

Here is a summary of definitions of commodification.

CLICK TO SORT: BY DEFINITION | BY UNIT OF ANALYSIS | BY DISCIPLINE

What is commodified? (unit of analysis)	Definition (percent within row):	Discipline(s) (percent within row):	Percentage of total articles*
Language	Object vs. subject (50%), Object in capitalist system (50%)	Sociolinguistics (100%)	7.4%
Body parts	Object vs. subject (100%)	Anthropology (100%)	3.7%
Knowledge (includes biochemical information)	Routinized and codified (50%), Object in capitalist system (50%)	Human resources (50%), social science of health and medicine(50%)	7.4%
Society and culture	Commodity culture (100%)	Economic sociology (20%), sociology (40%), history (20%), geography and anthropology (20%)	18.5%
Tourism	Market exchange (100%), Commodity culture (50%), Object vs. subject (50%)*	Tourism (100%)	7.4%
Education	Market exchange (100%)	Human relations (33.3%), accounting (33.3%), cultural anthropology (33.3%)	11.1%
Apologies	Market exchange (100%)	Law	3.7%
The past	Market exchange (100%)	Marketing	3.7%
Nature	Market exchange (100%), capitalist (20%)*	Law (20%), geography (20%), rural studies (20%), environment and planning (20%), science and culture (20%)	18.5%
Care/nurture	Paying for something that used to not be paid for (100%)	Socio-politics (100%)	7.4%
Police and security	Commodity culture (100%)	Sociology (100%)	3.7%
Housing in China	Market power increases compared to state power (100%)	Urban research (100%)	3.7%
Childhood	Commodity culture (100%)	Childhood studies (100%)	3.7%

*Does not add up to 100% because some articles employed multiple definitions

MAJOR DEFINITIONS OF COMMODIFICATION

General definitions:

"Any process that increases the commodity aspect of an object relative to the humanizing or relational aspect."

Commodity: Any object that is esteemed, valued, used or exploited as an object for gain (usually in a market), or as an object of capitalism. 

Specific ways comodification has been defined in academic literature:

1) Any process through which an object becomes more highly associated with the principles, values and ideals of capitalism.

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

3) An increase in "commodity culture" (valuing things and seeing the world in terms of "objects" that can be used or exploited for gain)

4) The process through which something becomes valued primarily for its ability to be exchanged in a market

5) The process through which a product in a market becomes less differentiated

6) An increase in the way nations promote capitalism, market power or the place of commodities through the policies they enact (Dueling forces: Market v. State).                                                                                                                          

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 1:01 PM No comments: 

Thursday, May 7, 2015

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 ofquid 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.

TYPOLOGY OF COMMODIFICATION AND DECOMMODIFICATION

* Derived from Robison, Oliver & Frank 2015 and review of:

Achtenberg, E. P., & Marcuse, P. (1986). Toward the decommodification of housing. Critical perspectives on housing, 474-483.

Bambra, C. (2005). Cash versus services:‘worlds of welfare’and the decommodification of cash benefits and health care services. Journal of social policy, 34(02), 195-213.

Bambra, C. (2006). Research Note: Decommodification and the worlds of welfare revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 73-80.

Batton, C., & Jensen, G. (2002). Decommodification and homicide rates in the 20th-century United States. Homicide Studies, 6(1), 6-38.

Bond, P. (2002). An answer to marketization: decommodification and the assertion of rights to essential services. Multinational Monitor, 23(7/8), 14-17.

Bond, P. (2004). Water commodification and decommodification narratives: Pricing and policy debates from Johannesburg to Kyoto to Cancun and back.Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(1), 7-25.

Bond, P. (2005). Globalisation/commodification or deglobalisation/decommodification in urban South Africa. Policy Studies, 26(3-4), 337-358.

Clasen, J., & Siegel, N. A. (Eds.). (2007). Investigating welfare state change: the'dependent variable problem'in comparative analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cook, D. T. (2004). The commodification of childhood: The children’s clothing industry and the rise of the child consumer. Duke University Press.

Dale, G. (2010). Social democracy, embeddedness and decommodification: on the conceptual innovations and intellectual affiliations of Karl Polanyi. New political economy, 15(3), 369-393.

Dickens, P. (1985). Housing, states, and localities. Taylor & Francis.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1987). Citizenship and socialism: decommodification and solidarity in the welfare state. Stagnation and Renewal in Social Policy: The Rise and Fall of Policy Regimes, London: Sharpe.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1988). Decommodification and work absence in the welfare state.

Gal, J. (2004). Decommodification and beyond: a comparative analysis of work-injury programmes. Journal of European Social Policy, 14(1), 55-69.

Gaukroger, S. (1986). Romanticism and decommodification: Marx's conception of socialism. Economy and Society, 15(3), 287-333.

Gran, B. (1997). Three worlds of old-age decommodification?: A comparative analysis of old-age support using the Luxembourg income study. Journal of Aging Studies, 11(1), 63-79.

Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritage tourism: authenticity and commodification. Annals of tourism research, 28(3), 565-580.

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

Henderson, G. (2004). 'Free' food, the local production of worth, and the circuit of decommodification: a value theory of the surplus. Environment and Planning D, 22(4), 485-512.

Holden, C. (2003). Decommodification and the workfare state. Political Studies Review, 1(3), 303-316.

Huo, J., Nelson, M., & Stephens, J. D. (2008). Decommodification and activation in social democratic policy: resolving the paradox. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), 5-20.

Hyman, R. (2007). Labour, markets and the future of" decommodification". Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.

Kaiser, C. P. (1998). Dimensions of culture, distributive principles, and decommodification: Implications for employee absence behavior. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(5), 551-564.

La Grange, A., & Pretorius, F. (2005). Shifts along the decommodification-commodification continuum: Housing delivery and state accumulation in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 42(13), 2471-2488.

Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European social policy, 2(3), 159-173.

Murie, A. (2005). The dynamics of social exclusion and neighborhood decline: welfare regimes, decommodification, housing, and urban inequality. Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion, 151-169.

Ray, R., Gornick, J. C., & Schmitt, J. (2010). Who cares? Assessing generosity and gender equality in parental leave policy designs in 21 countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(3), 196-216.

Robison, L., Oliver, J., & Frank, K. (2015). Commodity and Relational Good Exchanges: Commodification and Decommodification. In 2015 Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts (No. 189690). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Room, G. (2000). Commodification and decommodification: a developmental critique. Policy & Politics, 28(3), 331-351.

Salzman, J., & Ruhl, J. B. (2000). Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Review, 607-694.

Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2003, August). Trends in welfare state decommodification in eighteen advanced industrial democracies, 1972-2000. In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2004). Welfare state decommodification and poverty in advanced industrial democracies. In Trabalho apresentado na 14a International Conference of Europeanists, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL (pp. 11-13).

Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2006). Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 55-72.

Sesia, P. (2003). Repeasantization and decommodification of indigenous agriculture: Coffee, corn, and food security in Oaxaca. The social relations of Mexican commodities: Power, production, and place, 81-126.

Sharp, L. A. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 287-328.

Soron, D., & Laxer, G. (2006). Thematic Introduction Decommodification, Democracy and the Battle for the Commons. Not For Sale Decommodifying Public Life, 1, 15-35.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2001). Colonizing knowledge: Commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. Human relations, 54(7), 933-953.

Thrift, N. (2006). Re-inventing invention: new tendencies in capitalist commodification. Economy and Society, 35(02), 279-306.

Timothy Burke. (1996). Lifebuoy Men, Lux Women: commodification, consumption, and cleanliness in modern Zimbabwe. Duke University Press.

Ungerson, Clare (1997) Social politics and the commodification of care. Social Politics, 4, (3), 362-381.

Vail, J. (2010). Decommodification and egalitarian political economy. Politics & Society, 38(3), 310-346.

Walby, S. (2001). From gendered welfare state to gender regimes: national differences, convergence, or restructuring?. Gender and Society Group, Stockholm University, 17.

Western, B. (1989). Decommodification and the Transformation of Capitalism: welfare state development in seventeen OECD countries. Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 200-221.

Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the Academics: Commodification and Control in the Development of University Education in the UK. Human Relations, 48(9), 993-1027.

Zaman, H. (2006). Breaking the iron wall: Decommodification and immigrant women's labor in Canada. Lexington Books.

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 9:17 AM No comments: 

Monday, February 23, 2015

Globalization, globalism and decommodification

By Jeff Oliver

What is the connection between globalization, globalism and decommodification? In 2006, Zaman captured the essentials of these connections quite well. The book is worth reading for anyone that is interested in the intersection between social rights and globalism, social rights and immigration or globalism and immigration. I am interested in all such intersections. For several months I have been seeing the treatment of migrants as a product of commodification and neoliberalism. 

Commodification as an emphasis on markets/market value

Zaman ties these things all together quite nicely. It is hard to do justice to the entire book in a few sentences, but if I were to make that attempt, I would first borrow a sentence from Zaman: "globalism can be described as neo-liberal globalism" (Zaman 2006, 4 see also Otero & Jugenitz 2006). In other words, globalism is about increasingly enlarging the place of markets and market value in a society which has the (unintended?) side-effect of decreasing the intrinsic or non-market value of things in society. There is a vast discussion debating and developing this idea (Room 2000, Holden 2003, Bond 2004, 2005, Scruggs & Allan 2006, Vail 2010).

While globalism and commodification certainly are not synonymous (I fear that some are beginning to make this mistake...), globalism, especially as defined by those like Zaman, tends to bring commodification with it wherever it goes. With neoliberalism as the prime political-economic agenda of globalism, the market (and as an extension market-value) come to occupy a larger place in globalized societies. If we define commodification as an increase in the centrality of markets and market value in society (Holden 2003, Bond 2004, 2005, Vail 2010) then commodification would seem to naturally follow globalism almost like its shadow. This is because of the difficulty in increasing the emphasis on markets without becoming commodified (at least by the definition that commodification is an increasing emphasis on the market and market value!). 

Other definitions of commodification

There are other definitions of commodification, however. Although these will not be discussed in depth at this time (see the post in this blog on "Straightening out definitions of commodification and decommodification), I would argue that all of these definitions stem out of the broader idea (and more inclusive definition of the term "commodification"): any process that increases the commodity component of an object (be it a society, a person, an exchange or a material or immaterial object). Consequently, Zaman's (2006) assertion seems to be supported--globalism brings with it an increased focus on things that have worth in a market (commodities). We must therefore only make the tiny leap from that idea to the idea that the esteem of non-commodities is simultaneously reduced in society (it is theoretically possible for the value of both to increase, although one might question how often that actually occurs in practice...). 

Intersections of commodification and migration

If commodification and globalism are so tightly joined, then it becomes easy to see how these might intersect with migration. Migrants generally feel low status in society and generally struggle to find a place and a space in their new countries (Gold 2010). In the wake of globalism, migrants are often expected (whether it is done consciously or unconsciously) to justify their presence in a new country based on their market value. In this way, migrants are commodified. Some countries (without doing extensive research New Zealand comes to mind...) have a system down that "quantifies" the market worth of a potential migrant down to every last detail and this is the system used to determine admission to the country. Likewise, we hear stories even in the US of the "high worth" migrants that get moved to the front of the line because of "who they are" meaning how wealthy they are or how valuable their services will be (STEM educated PhDs for example...). 

Finally, there is a great paradox in this commodification of migrants as migrants often seem to fall on a "double edged sword of commodification"--be lazy and unproductive if they do not succeed economically and a threat to native born jobs if they do succeed economically (see Gold 2010). 

Summary observations

In the wake of globalism, migrants are asked to navigate their new country vis-à-vis their market value. However, this often exacerbates their low status as they are seen either as a threat if they succeed economically or as lazy and a drain on society if they do not succeed economically. Additionally, other definitions of commodification (described in the blog post, "Straightening out definitions of commodification and decommodification") imply that migrants become objectified, dehumanized or alienated from their intrinsic worth as a person. Zaman (2006) has partially undertaken a study of what it means for migrants to become decommodified in a world of neoliberal globalism. This book is a great read for those interested in the intersections of migration, globalism and commodification. Additionally, there is room to expand, think through and further push on Zaman's ideas. 

Specifically, definitions of commodification and decommodification are still largely under-developed and often applied almost exclusively to the idea of state intervention and welfare. While decommodification can be linked to the state's actions in reducing the emphasis on the market, there are many applications to discuss decommodification and migrants outside of that context. For example, the way migrants are admitted to a country can either commodify or decommodify them, the way they are treated by the native born segment, or the way they are portrayed in the media can all "objectify" migrants or emphasize the value they have based on their intrinsic human worth. 

Works cited

Bond, P. (2004). Water commodification and decommodification narratives: Pricing and policy debates from Johannesburg to Kyoto to Cancun and back.Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(1), 7-25.

Bond, P. (2005). Globalisation/commodification or deglobalisation/decommodification in urban South Africa. Policy Studies, 26(3-4), 337-358.

Gold, S. J. (2010). The store in the hood: A century of ethnic business and conflict. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Holden, C. (2003). Decommodification and the workfare state. Political Studies Review, 1(3), 303-316.

Otero, G. and H. Jugenitz (2006). "Forging New Democracies: Indigenous Struggles for Autonomy" in Laxer, G. and D. Soron (eds.) Not for Sale: Decommodifying Public Life, University of Toronto Press, Higher Education Division.
Room, G. (2000). Commodification and decommodification: a developmental critique. Policy & Politics, 28(3), 331-351.

Vail, J. (2010). Decommodification and egalitarian political economy. Politics & Society, 38(3), 310-346.

Zaman, H. (2006). Breaking the iron wall: Decommodification and immigrant women's labor in Canada. Lexington Books.

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 8:28 AM No comments: 

Friday, February 20, 2015

Commodification, decommodification and social rights

Should we be free to enjoy our life in a way that we do not depend on market forces? In the seminal work The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Espling-Anderson (1990) provided a definition of “decommodification” that is very popular in academia to the present (Bambra 2005, 2006; Scruggs & Allan 2006; Huo, Nelson & Stephens 2008). Because this definition focuses on the way market forces can impede social rights, it may be tempting to say that commodification (the opposite of decommodification) should be seen as a sort of “enemy” to social rights, and should consequently be minimized, but to what extent?

Decommodification –freedom to enjoy social rights without bowing to the market

At its heart, Espling-Anderson’s argument is that social rights and social stratification “are shaped by nexus of state and market in the distribution system" (Esping-Anderson 1990, 4). The reason this can be called “decommodification” is because social rights diminish a person’s status as a “commodity”—and the state and the market are the two major forces that can impact that status.

Hou, Nelson & Stephens (2008) paraphrase Espling-Anderson by saying that decommodification means "exit from the labour market with little or no loss of income" (2008). This may seem incomplete or contradictory, but it is right on target with the point Espling-Anderson (1990) seems to be making: that “outstanding criterion for social rights must be the degree to which they permit people to make their living standard independent of market forces”. Perhaps it is Espling-Anderson’s point, or maybe it is an extension of it to say that the fundamental consideration in balancing the market and the state is the degree to which human beings are able to enjoy some basic standard of living without having to bow to powerful market forces.

At first, this conjures to mind ideas about the “neoliberal project” –a sort of “market über alles” political economy. As Espling-Anderson (1990) points out, contemporary neoliberalism is little more than the political economic project of favoring and enacting neoclassical economic principles in a country. Many have written about neoliberalism as a project of conquest—a sort of neo-colonialism—that ends up benefitting wealthy elites in the name of “trickle-down economics” (Szirmai 2005, Harvey 2007, Duménil & Levy 2011). While this cannot be undertaken in full in this article, those familiar with this literature may see a connection between Espling-Anderso’s (1990) notion of decommodification and the way that state deregulation of the market can decrease social rights—specifically for the poor or underprivileged.

In short, “commodifying” people—allowing the market to become so important in society that people are only “worth” what they can produce or exchange in the market—has the potential to almost destroy social rights for non-elites in society. Therefore, are we to conclude that commodification is dehumanizing and should be extinguished?

The paradox of commodification as “undesirable”

While it may seem easy to argue against commodification as it is an enemy to social rights, I am reminded of a statement I once heard from Dr. Lawrence Bush (University Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University) referring to bureaucracy that seems to apply equally well to commodification.  We all like it! Commodification moves exchanges into regulated, efficient and predictable markets. We like that we can have our labor “monetized” based on certain standards, precedents or conventions. It is easy and predictable to know and compare prices and use money—the monetized “version” or “substitute” of our labor—to buy products. We like that we can see real estate listings with prices when buying a home. Markets can be very efficient and it seems unlikely that any of us would sign up to have markets completely banned. So as much as we do not want markets to get “out of control” or take over our lives, we must not forget that we all look to them for their redeeming qualities of transparency and efficiency.

Conclusion—what should the balance be?

Do not misunderstand that I am arguing in favor of markets. Rather, I am making the point that what most of us are really looking for is a balance between state power and market power. Espling-Anderson (1990) provided the theoretical foundation for conversations that center around finding that balance. Favoring the market in a society can lead to the undesirable outcome of commodification of human beings. My own research on the neoliberal project in Colombia in the 1990s supports the idea that favoring the market can commodify people.

Many indigenous people in Colombia have had their “inalienable” lands sold off to transnational corporations. For many of these individuals, land is not a commodity, but a part of who they are—a part of their identity. Even putting a price tag on land is a commodifying process in the eyes of many of these indigenous people. The question then remains, what is the role of government—or what should it be—in regulating the reach and influence of markets. In 1984, the United States government made it illegal to sell your own organs (National Organ Transplant Act). This is an expression of the way governments can override market forces in favor of the “decommodification” of people. In other words, governments can and have stepped in to situations that will make people lose their “humanity” and become more like a commodity. One might argue that prostitution laws have the same desired outcome—the keep people from selling themselves like a commodity. Where and how this line must be drawn is largely a matter of perception and culture that must be decided by stake holders in any given context.

Works Cited

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2006). Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 55-72.

Bambra, C. (2006). Research Note: Decommodification and the worlds of welfare revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 73-80.

Bambra, C. (2005). Cash versus services:‘worlds of welfare’and the decommodification of cash benefits and health care services. Journal of social policy, 34(02), 195-213.

Huo, J., Nelson, M., & Stephens, J. D. (2008). Decommodification and activation in social democratic policy: resolving the paradox. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), 5-20.

Szirmai, A. (2005).The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610. 22-44.

Duménil, G. and Levy, D. (2011). The crisis of neoliberalism. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass

 

Posted by Jeff Oliver at 8:04 AM No comments: 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Straightening out definitions of commodification and decommodification

Introduction

Commodification and decommodification have been observed to be terms whose definitions are “frequently contested but not contradictory” (Zaman 2006, 8). Yet, can there be little argument that in practice commodification and decommodification are used in many different ways. (Even Zaman (2006, ix) notes that commodification needs further exploration and that decommodification is an "under-developed" concept). For example, does commodification mean that something has been standardized, objectified vs. regarded primarily in terms of its intrinsic worth as suggested by scholars such as Suddaby & Greenwood (2001) and Heller (2003)? Or is commodification a cultural increase in the place commodities have in a given society (Burke 1996, Cook 2004, Thrift 2006)? Does commodification mean that something is exchanged in a market (vs. non-market) setting (Willmott 1995, Halewood & Hannam 2001)? Or does commodification mean payment for informal services (Ungerson 1997, Williams & Windebank 2003)?

If the diversity of those definitions is problematic, discussions of decommodification become even more problematic as they are often not the opposite of commodification (as logic would argue they should be). For example, decommodification is often seen as exchanges taking place in informal settings or as state regulation. In the case of the latter, there is an abundance of literature on decommodification and the welfare state ( Orloff 1993, Savolainen 2000, Scruggs & Allan 2006). Ironically, unless one defines commodification as “state deregulation,” this definition (decommodification as state regulation) becomes somewhat illogical—or at least somewhat logically inconsistent.

What should the definition of decommodification be?

This is difficult to posit without first having a well-established definition of commodification (of which decommodification should logically be the opposite). First, however, it should be noted that many scholars writing about decommodification and the welfare state are careful to use wording that does not conflate state regulation with decommodification. For example, Huber, Ragin and Stephens (1993) describe the “decommodifying effect of (the) welfare state…” (emphasis added). Brady, Beckfield & Seeleib-Kaiser (2005) denote decommodification as one of three measures of the welfare state (rather than asserting that decommodification is synonymous with the welfare state or state regulation).

Certainly state regulation is a highly related topic to decommodification. However, to say that state regulation is decommodification misses the underlap that occurs between state deregulation and decommodification. For example, think of the way commodification has been described as objectification of something. An object can become regarded primarily vis-à-vis its measurableworth vs. its intrinsic value (some scholars would say that commodification is when something’s use value is displaced by its market value [Willmott 1995]). This objectification can exist in a way that is completely independent of state regulation or deregulation. This is not to say that state regulation cannot impact conceptions of commodification or decommodification, but commodification and decommodification are largely social (Sharp 2000). Markets are socially constructed, and commodities are only deemed so to be based on social perceptions. Consequently, commodification is a social construct, and whether or not something is seen as a commodity may be influenced by a host of factors, of which state intervention is only one aspect.

In partial support of Zaman’s point, the many definitions of commodification, as described in the first paragraph, are not completely contradictory. However, they are often imprecise, creating confusion in their usage. Consider defining commodification in a way that is consistent with the term “commodity” (Robison, Oliver & Frank 2015). In fact, even Karl Marx, the "father" of commodification declared that because the commodity is the most basic unit in capitalist societies, "Our investigation must...begin with the analysis of a commodity" (Marx 1967). If a commodity is something that is generally mass produced, exchanged in a market, and valued largely for its form, quality and function rather than the specific individuals that produce or consume it, then what is commodification? Simply put, it is any process that converts something into an object that is exchanged in a market and primarily valued for its form, quality and function rather than the specific individuals involved in the production or consumption of that object.

Consequently, it becomes apparent that the definitions given in the introduction are not all inaccurate, but often imprecise or not all inclusive. For example, the definition of commodification as “objectification” is not incorrect, but only takes in part of the definition (converting something into an object with measurable values rather than intrinsic worth). The definition of commodification as a cultural increase in the preoccupation with commodities in a society certainly is useful as it employs commodities in the definition. In this case the “thing” that is commodified is societal preoccupations. In general, things in society are given more worth or are more highly esteemed if they are seen as commodities. Additionally, saying that commodification is a conversion to market (vs. non-market) exchange is at least partially correct as commodities are exchanged in markets.  However, it has been noted that certain special cases of decommodification can take place in market settings as well—a point that will not be thoroughly undertaken in this piece but can has been taken up in Robison, Oliver & Frank (2015).

The last definition of commodification implies that payment for informal services can be seen as commodification. While this can be true, it is certainly not necessarily the case. The exchange of money corresponds highly to the purchase of commodities, but money can be exchanged for non-commodities. If one purchases friendship or sexual intimacy it is said to “commodify” those objects. In other words, buying something with money tends to commodify things that were not previously commodities. However, consider the caring friend or family member that buys your freedom with money. This has the opposite effect of restoring your value as a human being rather than an object that could be owned like a commodity (personal conversation with Lindon Robison December 2014). 

Additionally, definitions of decommodification (or commodification) will have different a different focus based on the unit of analysis. For example, "commodifying" a person might mean to treat them like a commodity, while commodification of culture or society might focus on the way commodity exchange is emphasized or valued in a society (as well as possible discussions of reasons why they are valued). 

Conclusion

While it can be argued that the current definitions of commodification are “frequently contested but not contradictory” (Zaman 2006, 8), it should be noted that the current definitions are often incomplete. This is very academically precarious as notions of commodification appear to be conflated with other things such as dehumanization and state deregulation. While these are related terms, it is very risky to confuse them with the basic definition of commodification as any process that increase the position of commodities in human exchanges or perceptions. Additionally, the many varying definitions of commodification appear to be spilling over into the logical opposite of commodification—decommodification. If the definition of commodification is being contested, how can we agree on the definition of its opposite? Returning to the basic definition of a commodity in finding a definition for commodification (as suggested in Robison, Oliver & Frank [2015]) is recommended in order to have inclusive definitions of commodification that will not create further confusion in academic studies.

Works cited

Brady, D., Beckfield, J., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2005). Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975–2001. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 921-948.

Huber, E., Ragin, C., & Stephens, J. D. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state. American journal of Sociology, 711-749.

Marx, 1967 Capital, Volume 1 New York: International Publishers

Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American sociological review, 303-328.

Robison, L., Oliver, J., & Frank, K. (2015). Commodity and Relational Good Exchanges: Commodification and Decommodification. In 2015 Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts (No. 189690). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2006). Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 55-72.

Zaman, H. (2006). Breaking the iron wall: Decommodification and immigrant women's labor in Canada. Lexington Books.