Click to follow link.
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment