Definition of commodification

“Commodification is an increase in the way something (be it a person, culture, material object or anything else) is used, intended to be used, represented by or perceived as an object for exploitation or gain (of any kind, though often in a market) rather than as a subject of interpersonal, affective or intrinsic worth.”

Reflections on Arjun Appadurai's "The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective"

The anthropological perspective on commodification

Review of the Marxist school

Before discussing the anthropological perspective, let us review the Marxist and business theories of commodification so as to later compare the anthropological perspective. Is it a separate third perspective or is it a sort of "hybrid" of the two dominant schools?

There are two major schools of thought when it comes to commodification. One is often called the "Marxist" school of thought and the other is called the business school of thought. The Marxist school is somewhat liberally referred to by this name given the way it appears to also have evolved from the Frankfurt school (Adorno & Horkheimer for example) as well as other scholars such as Lukács and Veblen.

Lukács

For example, Lukács was in a dialectic with Marx when he wrote about reification and provided a foundation for later "Marxist" notions about commodification: commodification as subject vs. object, turning anything (including culture) into something that can be bought or sold, and he even seemed to provided the basis for commodification of intellectual property with his idea that intangible objects or even ideas could be turned into actual "things" to be bought and sold.

Veblen

Veblen set up the idea of conspicuous consumption--meaning commodities are often used to convey messages about social belonging or class. (A notion related to our own work in the paper "Mixed exchange: Commodification and decommodification").

Review of the business theory

Business theories of commoditization (as commodification is usually called in business disciplines) became popularized in the 1990s to mean that products become largely undifferentiated (on all counts except for price), mass produced, uniform, and fungible. While the Marxist term commodification can (and often does) speak to issues of ethics and morality, the business focus is on preference, gain, advantage, or convenience--things that can be extrinsically measured based on certain standards. These standards are necessarily subjective to a degree, but the key is that any subjectivity be, as Simmel noted, "only provisional and actually not very essential" (1978, Appadurai also employed this definition by Simmel 1988, 4).

Appadurai's approach

As is usual for Appadurai, he produced a work that was decades ahead of its time in his 1988 piece "The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective." A summary of his work deserves more than one sentence, but allow me to try to reduce it to just that: Appadurai took a "provisional" definition of commodities (as "objects of economic value") and then observed that these commodities' value and the way they are exchanged has political underpinnings. 

In my mind, Appadurai noted the connection between the social and cultural aspects of commodities (as described in the Marxist school) and the relationship between commodification as it would come to be defined in business theory over the coming decade (Appadurai wrote this in 1988 and commoditization became popular in business theory over the 1990s). 

• Appadurai notes that "things" (commodities) have economic value rooted in the (potential for) exchange of those things in an economic sense, but he notes that those values are socially created based on socio-historical context and social perceptions of demand for those objects.
• Objects of economic value also having social meanings inscribed in their forms, uses and trajectories. 
• The study of commodities are of broad "independent" interest across several kinds of anthropology:
• Economic anthropology because commodities are the basic unit of economic value
• Cultural and other anthropologists because commodities are the stuff of material culture
• Social anthropologists and social exchange theorists because commodities are at the heart of not only economic value, but of gifting (we took this approach to discuss how commodities can be described as decommodified when given as gifts)
• The study of commodities are of broad "independent" interest across several kinds of disciplines outside of anthropology.
• Appadurai also writes about how complex the notion of commodity has been historically (especially in Marxist writing)
• Are commodities to simply be defined as "primary goods" (as in the neoclassical economic sense) and not open to further analysis?
• Or are commodities something else and open to further analysis (as is the case in Marxist approaches)?
• Goods associated with the capitalist mode of production (material representations of capitalism)?
• An extrinsic object that satisfies wants (Marx argued for this in Capital)
• Or are commodities defined by their use and exchange value, by exchange (in markets), or by being purchased with money (also ideas Marx seemed to explore in Capital. As Appadurai notes, Marx's discussion of commodities in Capital was one of the most "difficult, contradictory and ambiguous" among Marx's writings. This is pretty telling in my opinion, given the way that most of Marx's writings were difficult, contradictory and ambiguous.)
• Marx wrote: "To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use-value, by means of an exchange" 
• For Marx, commodities were intricately tied to money in an impersonal market (again, something we explore in another paper--the way impersonalization often has a commodifying effect, and personalization a decommodifying effect.)

After discussing these Marxian ideas about commodities at some length, he offers a revised definition of commodities: "any thing intended for exchange." 

Conclusions

As I have discussed throughout this blog, that might not be enough due to the way many articles in the project "The need to define commodification" use commodification in a way that transcends that, but does align with the Marxist/Lukácsian notion of object/subject. Being "objectified" is highly related to the idea that the thing is intended for exchange, but it could also simply describe viewing the thing as an object of exchange (whether or not one intends to actually exchange it). 

Additionally, some exchanges, such as relational exchanges, have the opposite outcome of objectification--they make something more "subject" and more humanized. They make the person (or thing being exchanged) less of a commodity. Exchanging friendship or confidence in someone humanizes (makes subject) a person rather than objectifying them. This broader definition of exchange (which transcends simply market or commodity exchanges, or exchanges of tangible/material objects) is offered within the framework social exchange theory(ies). (We also discuss it at length here).  

A major challenge in the commodification literature is to define it based only on the unit of analysis of the given study. But, the current definitions for commodification of a material object do not work for definitions of commodification of a society, or of a person. (See here for a quick summary in table form.) I have argued for this definition as one that works with any unit of analysis observed in our project on "The need to define commodification" (this contains some modifications over the previous versions):

“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, represented or intended to be used as an object for exploitation or gain (of any kind, though often in a market) rather than as a subject of intrinsic worth.”

Highly germane to the current project are the ideas that:

• "Commodity" is a very complex notion, 
• although neoclassical economists would like to limit it to something like "primary goods", it does not fulfill the desired use for sociologist, anthropologists and most other scholars.
• Anthropologists (based solely on this piece by Appadurai, however seminal it may be) would like to use commodification in a way that recognizes the economic value of commodities, but also in a way that recognizes their social nature:
• They are socially defined (however, "provisional" and "unessential" [Simmel 1978])
• Linked to politics and political systems
• Appear and are exchanged and interpreted based on socio-historical context
• (Here it would be nice to add Veblen[1899] to Appadurai and say that commodities are used in intentionally and unintentionally in ways that convey messages about social position)
• Commodification has a broad appeal from economic to social anthropology and a broad appeal across disciplines outside of anthropology. 

Applicable to another project we call "Mixed exchange: commodification and decommodification"

• Commodification can be explored in terms of what is being exchanged or why things are exchanged (we took the latter approach, while Appadurai took the former)
• Appadurai suggests that there is a broad appeal across disciplines to employ notions of commodification. We used social exchange theory, which has already attempted to build such a bridge, as a foundation for discussing commodification in a cross-disciplinary way.  
• In Capital Marx noted that commodification and impersonalization are related. This connects nicely with the way we employed social exchange theory in an effort to bridge disciplinary conversations about the connection between exchange and commodification. Every exchange has a personal (relational) and an impersonal (commodity) component, and increasing one of those either commodifies or decommodifies an exchange. 

In a single sentence, if we take Appadurai's piece as representative of the anthropologists position, they have taken a position somewhere between business and Marxist theories of commodification even before there was a solidified business theory of commodification. 

This may be a good position to be in given that there is historical evidence that the business and Marxist schools have common origins and only became divided starting in the 1990s, and that many articles today show evidence that they would favor (or at least derive greater utility out of) a broadly accessible conceptualization. 

There is evidence that it has only been recently that the business and Marxist theories drifted apart (discussed elsewhere in the History of Commodification). This gives more evidence to that observation as Appadurai, even before the 1990s when commoditization began to be conceptualized in business theory, put anthropology on a course that is more all encompassing (and not limited to one school of the other) in terms of the way to conceptualize of commodification. So, there is historical evidence (including, I suppose, this piece by Appadurai) that the commodification was once united rather than divided into distinct schools of thought that are rather inaccessible to one another.

Additionally, we find that many articles on commodification do not adhere strictly to the Marxist or business theory of commodification, but have "carved out" new space somewhere in between. The difficulty is that there has not been a solid conceptualization of commodification that works in this way. Current conceptualizations are either exclusive to the Marxist or business definitions or to just one unit of analysis (material objects, culture, society, people, labor). Therefore, the definitions often do not work for other units of analysis or in the "middle space" between Marxist and business definitions. 

Finally, I am being very liberal to use the term "definitions" in the paragraph above, as we find that the "workaround" for not having a proper conceptualization of commodification is to describe rather than define it. Scholars often cite similar works to their own which have described commodification in certain ways, in lieu of defining it in a clear way. Consequently, there are rarely clear conceptualizations. This is resulting in greater fragmentation of the term commodification as it seems to be developing one meaning for scholars of globalization, another for scholars of tourism, another for those who study intellectual property and so on. 

The following definition (already cited above) applies to all units of analysis and fields of study:

“Commodification is an increase in the way something (be it a person, culture, material object or so forth) is represented or intended to be used as an object for exploitation or gain (of any kind, though often in a market) rather than as a subject of interpersonal, affective or intrinsic worth.”

Disecting definition of commodification by Carvalho and Rodrigues

Definition of commodification by Carvalho & Rodrigues

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

Their definition is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

CITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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.

                

Defining commodification in social exchange

Commodification: Widely used, yet rarely fully defined

In 2002, Robert Shepherd wrote an influential article about commodification and tourism. He notes (as have I in several blog posts--for example: [this one] and [this one]-- related to the project called "The need to define commodification") that commodification is a "generalized yet largely unarticulated notion". In my words: Lots of people want to (and do) use it, and few know exactly what is meant by it (see this post on the need to define commodification).

Why is commodification under-defined if it is so widely used?

This is due to the way researchers often describe the causes and effects of commodification in place of definitions. It is also due to the historical complexity of definitions of the term and of its root word: commodity.

Commodities have been defined as everything from human values or characteristics to mass produced undifferentiated goods traded on a market (this has been discussed elsewhere in this blog). Additionally, commodification has become divided into two schools of thought: 1) a sort of social version of the term having roots in Marxist thought and the Frankfurt school, and 2) the business conceptualization (often termed commoditization). However, an extensive review of articles (see this post) indicates that many studies use commodification in a sort of middle ground between the Marxist and business notions.

Shepherd (2002) seems to acknowledge all of this, first in his description of commodification as a "generalized yet largely unarticulated notion", and second, "Given the social fact that everything, including ‘culture’, is a potential commodity, it would be useful for research to focus on how individuals and groups in host societies gain access to new forms of exchange rather than simply on the fact of commodification." 

This has not been discussed directly in the pages of this blog. However, it is exactly what we have discussed elsewhere (Robison, Oiver & Frank 2015)--that the way nearly everything can be commodified is made more accessible through a study of the types of exchanges people engage in, rather than to simply speak of the causes and effects of commodification, or to recognize and describe that it exists. 

Double discourse of value: Extrinsic and intrinsic valuation coexist

One might also say that our project ("The need to define commodification") builds upon the notion that Shepherd describes (as originally posited by Barbara Herrrnstein Smith) of "double discourse of value". Specifically, I agree with Shepherd that we need not keep the sphere in which things are valued based on that which is sacred, intrinsic or cultural separate from the sphere in which things are valued for their "economic" (or I would add measurable or standardized) worth, because so doing often leads to misunderstanding. The sphere of intrinsic value and that of "extrinsic" value coexist in practice much more often then not. (And, as a side note, so do human exchanges--what we have called "mixed exchanges" elsewhere). Current conceptualizations of commodification tend to divide the concept in a way that is parallel to those two spheres. However, there is overwhelming evidence that researchers often acknowledge the middle ground where those two spheres coexist. Conceptualizations of commodification are in need of revision in order to accommodate the fact that commodification, in practice, takes place where those two spheres coexist far more often than it takes place exclusively in only a world of intrinsic or only a world of extrinsic valuation. 

Rey Mysterio, Hijo del Perro Aguayo and commodification as a matter of interpretation

Complex nature of commodification--How do we know if something has been commodified?

Although defining commodification is a sizable task, it is not the end. After defining commodification (let us suppose we define it as "converting something into more of a commodity--more of something to be used for gain rather than valued for its intrinsic worth"), it is still not clear whether it has occurred (or is occurring). For example, appearing recently in the news is the death of Mexican professional wrestler Hijo del Perro Aguayo. He died after suffering a kick to the neck from the wrestler called Rey Mysterio. Was Aguayo's life commodified? It would be easy in a moment of tragedy to cry out that it was. People made money of off these wrestling matches. In fact, lucha libre (as wrestling is called in Mexico) is known for its flair--including flashy advertising and creative and at times extravagant costumes.

Was Hijo del Perro Aguayo's life commodified?

At the end of the day, wasn't Aguayo just treated like an object used to make more money? Don't dangerous sports allow people to be injured just because of how profitable they are? Before concluding definitively that this is the case, consider the other side. Aguayo himself entered the profession (one his father had made a successful career out of) and also profited from such a career. Even if we conclude that he commodified his own life, do not we all do the same in many cases when we make money? Very few of us are artisans, expressing our inner self through our trade.

Do most people commodify themselves at work?

Most of us probably feel like we give up some part of ourselves when we go to work everyday. In fact, Marx first defined commodification in this way--labor under a capitalist system that alienates the individual (and the things that make them unique and human) from their labor. So perhaps a few artists and artisans may say that their labor is not commodified, but many of us feel like "replaceable cogs in a machine". We are just objects that are part of a system in order for someone to get gain (even if we also profit from our work financially).

EDIT: Given the definition of commodification as “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”, it seems almost impossible to not commodify ourselves through paid employment. This is because payment suggests that our labor can be represented, used or exploited as an object for gain of some kind (financial gain in this case). 

How to tell if commodification has happened

So how can we tell when commodification has happened? Is describing the extent to which something is commodified the best we can do? In the case of the latter, I think of prostitution. In academia, there are those who say that those who turn to prostitution usually do not have better options and they sell off their bodies as one of the only alternatives they have for making money. Their humanity and their intimate relationships become dehumanized and commodified. Others have argued that most sex workers want to be there and choose to be there. According to this group, many sex workers are a lot like everyone else who chooses their desired profession and does what they have to do to make a living. Perhaps this group may argue that it does not alienate the workers from their humanity as much as those in the first group would say it does. I would definitely side with the former rather than the latter group, but that makes the point--the same phenomenon can be seen and described as commodified to a different extent from one person to the next.

 COMMODIFICATION IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

Commodification, then, is "in the eye of the beholder", as is the extent to which something has been commodified. Let us return to the recent new stories about Rey Mysterio and Hijo del Perro Aguayo. Whether or not competing in a dangerous sport commodifies the life of the individuals who compete--people are making money off of the unfortunate and untimely death of this athlete. Should his death be a way for the media to increase consumerism and make more money? Is not human life (and death) something that should not be used like a commodity--as an object employed to get gain?

COMMODFIED TO WHAT EXTENT? Two hypothetical examples of different levels of commodification

To answer that question, let us consider two hypothetical examples. Imagine first a news outlet that makes enough profit to stay in business and for its owners and employees to make a decent living, but its primary mission is to get honest and timely news out to people. Perhaps the owners built up the business thinking of the value of providing honest news to people everywhere. (After all, many entrepreneurs go into business to do something they feel is worthwhile, rather than commodifying themselves working for someone else). Such a company may air the Rey Mysterio story to raise awareness about the dangers of many contact professional sports to prevent further disasters. However, a second example would be a news company that airs the most sensational news it can drum up in order to make the most money. Which of these two is the best example of commodification? This speaks to the idea of intention. It would be easy to say the second, except that the motive may not always be completely transparent. In other words, the second news company may be motivated by exploitation for financial gain but someone reading the story may think that the story was motivated by the desire to raise awareness. This may be especially true if the news company does an especially good job at putting off the image that this is their true motivation!

 Commodification is always a judgement call of some kind.

Therefore descriptions of commodification involve judgments on the part of the person using the term. This judgment may hinge around the intention of the person, people, process or institution that does the commodifying, but ultimately, commodification is in the eye of the beholder--or at least the person using the term!

Updated table: The need to define commodification

The table on the different schools of thought related to commodification (and associated commentary) has been updated. To be directed to the updated table, click here.

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 subjective components. 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).

What is commodification? An introduction

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. This would be in opposition to the findings of this study that many academic works seem to be founded in an overlap of the different schools of thought (an indication that in many instances the academic community would be better served by allowing them to work together rather than remain distinct or fractured approaches). 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. 

OUTLINE:
1. Introduction
2. Background: What is known about commodification and what is lacking
3. History of the term "commodification"
4. Juxtaposition of current usages in academic literature
     A. Overview of major and minor definitions
     B. Diversity of disciplines and topics
     C. Usages by discipline
     D. Usages by unit of analysis
5. Discussion
     A. Commonalities among different notions
     B. Major differences
     C. First steps for moving toward an improved conceptualization
6. Conclusions

*Draft. This post also appears as an extension of the post "What is commodification", posted March 17, 2015.

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).

LITERATURE: 

Cameron, D. (2000), Styling the worker: Gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4: 323–347. doi: 10.1111/1467-9481.0011

Cole, S. (2007). Beyond authenticity and commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 943-960.

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

Goodman, M. (2013). Celebritus politicus, neo-liberal sustainabilities and the terrains of care. Age of icons, Toronto, University of Toronto.

Gotham, K. F. (2002). Marketing Mardi Gras: Commodification, spectacle and the political economy of tourism in New Orleans. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1735-1756.

Gottdiener, M. (Ed.). (2000). New forms of consumption: Consumers, culture, and commodification. Rowman & Littlefield.

Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 835-853.

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

Harvey, D. (2009). The art of rent: globalisation, monopoly and the commodification of culture. Socialist Register, 38(38).

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

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1972). Dialectic of Enlightenment. 1944.Trans. John Cumming. New York: Herder.

Lawrence, S., & Sharma, U. (2002). Commodification of education and academic labour—using the balanced scorecard in a university setting. Critical perspectives on accounting, 13(5), 661-677.

Lewis, J., Campbell, M., & Huerta, C. (2008). Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), 21-37.

Liverman, D. (2004). Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 734-738.

Loader, I. (1999). Consumer culture and the commodification of policing and security. Sociology, 33(2), 373-392.

Lukács, G. (2010). “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat”(1923).Cultural Theory: An Anthology, 172-87.

Mann, G. (2006). Reflections on Scott Prudham's Knock on Wood: Is Labor‐Power a Fictitious Commodity?. Antipode, 38(5), 1069-1072.

Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx: selected writings. Oxford University Press.

Matsuoka, S., Nikami, A., Ogawa, H., & Ishikawa, Y. (1997, January). Towards a parallel C++ programming language based on commodity object-oriented technologies. In Scientific Computing in Object-Oriented Parallel Environments(pp. 81-88). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Mitchell, C. J. (1998). Entrepreneurialism, commodification and creative destruction: a model of post-modern community development. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(3), 273-286.

Morris, J. W. (2010). Understanding the digital music commodity (Doctoral dissertation, McGill University).

Parry, B. (2004). Trading the genome: Investigating the commodification of bio-information. Columbia University Press.

Robertson, M. M. (2006). The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D, 24(3), 367.

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

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

Shumar, W. (1997). College for sale: A critique of the commodification of higher education. Psychology Press.

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

Taft, L. (2000). Apology subverted: The commodification of apology. Yale Law Journal, 1135-1160.

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

Timberlake, R. H. (1964). The stock of money and money substitutes.Southern Economic Journal, 253-260.

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.

Veblen, T. (1965). The Theory of the Leisure Class. 1899. AM Kelley, bookseller.

Willis, P. (1999). Labor power, culture, and the cultural commodity. Critical education in the new information age, 139-169.

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

Zhou, M., & Logan, J. R. (1996). Market Transition and the Commodification of Housing in Urban China*. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20(3), 400-421.