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. 

*Draft