Michigan State University
with Lindon Robison
Michigan State University
Abstract
Commodification is a
term that is broadly used in academia. It spans across disciplines and research
topics. It is a framework for studies of varying methodological approaches.
While there are many different definitions of commodification, they are not all
sufficient in certain context. Additionally, they are sometimes incomplete of
contradictory compared to each other. This paper discusses the major
definitions of commodification and synthesizes them toward the pursuit of an
improved conceptualization of the term. The exchange approach to
commodification is proposed as a means of reducing misconceptions and
increasing interdisciplinary collaboration relative to commodification.
Introduction
Commodification is a term that is
broadly used in academia. It spans across disciplines and research topics. It
is a framework for studies of varying methodological approaches. For example, through
a sweeping review of commodification literature, the authors of this study have
identified at least five major definitions of commodification: 1) the process
through which capitalism redefines something in terms of its extrinsic,
measurable characteristics (King & Stewart 1996, Halewood & Hannam 2001,
Suddaby & Greenwood 2001, Heller 2003); 2) the creation or enlargement of a
commodity or consumer culture (Adorno & Horkheimer 1944, Burke 1996, Loader
1999, Cook 2004, Thrift 2006); 3) the process through which something “human”
or “inalienable” becomes valued for its exchangeability in a market (Willmott
1995, Goulding 2000, Salzman & Ruhl 2000, Taft 2000, Bollier 2002, Lawrence
& Sharma 2002, Liverman 2004, Cole 2007); 4) the process through which a
product becomes undifferentiated in a market setting (Oxford University Press
2011, Wiley 2012); and 5) neoliberal globalism (Cameron 2000, Liverman 2004).
Some of these definitions have a
considerable amount of overlap, such as redefining something in terms of
capitalist values and something becoming valued for its exchangeability in the
market. Many people would argue that exchange in a market is a capitalist
value, and thus has the potential to redefine something in terms of capitalism.
Some studies describe buying something as an act that commodifies things.
However, consider the person that buys someone’s freedom—paying to set an
enslaved person free. Did the buyer commodify the slave through purchase?
Additionally, other definitions appear
to be at odds with each other. For example, a business that decommodifies[1] a
product through advertising seeks to associate the product with notions of
humanity and social relationships. However, social advocates describe this in
the opposite way—not as decommodification, but a type of commodification inasmuch as it associates social relationships with
consumer products. Which perspective is correct?
This paper serves as a digest of
literature on commodification in order to fill in gaps in the commodification
literature. Specifically, this paper answers the questions: What are the
unifying threads among the major definitions of commodification that span
across differences in individual perspectives and disciplines? What is the
difference between (de)commodification and (de)commoditization? How can
commodification be identified in practice?
To begin, a brief summary is given of
each major definition. Next, this paper describes tendencies in defining
commodification in academic literature, including a description of the common
threads that run throughout the five major definitions. This analysis reveals
that differences in the use of commodification as an academic notion largely result
from: Researchers being interested in different outcomes (impacts) of
commodification, two different mechanisms through which something may be
commodified (destination vs. transformation),[2]
and disciplinary differences (divided broadly as “Marxist”, “Anthropological”
or “Business” perspectives of commodification). However common it may be for
differences to emerge in an academic concept as a result of these phenomena,
there are many dangers of an inadequately conceptualized such as drawing
incorrect conclusions within a study (Doling 1999) and decreased interdisciplinary
collaboration. Finally, this paper concludes with a description of an exchange
approach to commodification that reduces misconceptions and inconsistencies in
the use of the term within and across disciplines.
Commodification in the literature
As described in the introduction of this
paper, commodification seems to be in demand as an academic term. Its usage
spans disciplines and topics, yet it appears that it is in a sort of identity
crisis as a term. The reason for this assertion is the way it has come to have
so many different definitions. Commodification is a process, yet what defines
this process? The five major definitions show the different answers to this
question. To some, commodification occurs when something has been redefined by
outward, easily measurable traits (King & Stewart 1996, Halewood &
Hannam 2001, Suddaby & Greenwood 2001, Heller 2003). This has roots back to
Marxist literature. For Marx, commodification involved assigning an exchange
value that was an extraction of use value. This suggests that something’s value
is reduced to just certain characteristics conducive to market exchange.
One might note that under this
definition, things can be commodified merely by being defined in terms of efficiency, monetary value or other “capitalist”
notions, even if those things are never exchanged in the market. For example,
Suddaby & Greenwood (2001) described the commodifying effect of reducing an
object to a “routinized and codified product.” Heller (2003) also saw
commodification as a redefinition of something in terms that are externally
(and thus more efficiently)
measurable. These both speak to a sort of “reduction” that does not explicitly
require market exchange but is still said to commodify.
For others, commodification is described
as the creation or enlargement of commodity culture (Adorno & Horkheimer
1944, Burke 1996, Loader 1999, Cook 2004, Thrift 2006). Once again, this sort
of notion about commodification does not necessitate that the things being
commodified actually be exchanged—at least not in the literal sense. When
culture or society are said to be commodified, it often means that there is an
exchange of sorts. For example, society as it was can be exchanged for a new neoliberal type of society (Chomsky
1999). This type of definitions shares considerable overlap with the first
definition just given (commodification be reduction to externally measurable,
capitalist characteristics).
Each can occur without an actual market
exchange, and each speaks to the way something becomes more capitalist.
However, in the case of the former a tangible thing is often the object of
commodification and switches from a non-commodified state, to a commodified
state. In the case of the latter, commodification does not always involve a
switch from a non-commodified to commodified state, but can occur as
commodification is created or grows as a value within society. In
other words, the commodification of society is often described as an increase
in commodity-centered ideals, rather than as a “switch” from one state to
another. This perspective may be more accurate in many ways. For example, it
may be that things are more likely to become “more commodified” than they are
to switch from an absolute non-commodity to an absolute commodity.
The next definition has to do with
market exchange. While it is the case for all definitions, this definition
should especially be viewed as a family of definitions rather than a single
case. Some authors portray commodification as synonymous (or nearly so) with
market exchange; however, this is at odds with other definitions that describe
commodification as possible merely through an object being redefined in
capitalist terms. One of Marx’s central criteria for commodification was that
something be exchanged or assigned an exchange value (Marx 2000). However, does
commodification also mean more than only exchange? Many authors subscribe to
the notion that commodification can occur by paying for something once deemed
unsalable (Ungerson 1997; Cohen 2003; Robertson 2006; Lewis, Campbell &
Huerta 2008, Rodrigues & Carvalho 2010), or that belongs to the commons
(Wagner 2012).
Many such descriptions refer to buying
and selling things that are intangible, like language (Heller 2003) or ideas
(Parry 2004). These notions build on Lukács’s (1923) work on reification in
which he described the way commodified societies turn almost everything (even
intangible things) into something that can be bought and sold.
The common thread that runs through such
a definition is that it is really an extension of the argument that something
is commodified when it is touched by capitalism (Shumar 1997, Gottdiener 2000),
because it is implicit that payment is evidence of something having been
assigned an exchange value, which is a token of capitalism. However, it should
also be noted that there is more to capitalism as well, such as principles of
ownership and efficiency (Marx 2000). In short, this definition should be taken
only as a partial definition, inasmuch as it does not include all the ways that
something can be touched by capitalism, or commodity logic, as it might be
called.[3]
The notion of ownership is of special interest in indigenous studies, because
in many cases, indigenous people do not want land to be owned at all. Therefore,
a gesture of titling certain reserve lands to indigenous tribes might be a
well-meaning gesture on the part of a government, but may be seen as
commodifying the land through an indigenous perspective because “ownership” can
be seen as a capitalist value (Liverman 2004).
The example of someone buying an
enslaved person’s freedom is also supported by the notion of ownership, but not
market exchange. For example, does buying someone to set them free commodify
them (or their freedom)? Even though the person is buying someone’s freedom,
logic dictates that this does not commodify the person or their freedom. However,
if seen through ownership, it seems more consistent with logic—the person was
previously a possession, and through the purchase is no longer a possession (is
no longer owned). While there are many possible ways to look at this example,
it makes clear that many definitions of commodification that are popular in
academic literature may be insufficient in certain circumstances. However, the
description of commodification as something becoming touched by the logic of
capitalism (Shumar 1997, Gottdiener 2000) seems to fit across a broad array of
circumstances.
The business perspective defines commodification
in yet another way—as the extent to which a product is undifferentiated (Oxford
University Press 2011, Wiley 2012). It is this definition which may seem the
most antithetical to the others, and is one which carries an alternative form,
being called “commoditization”.[4]
While some may argue that this definition deserves to be called by a different
name (commoditization) because it is a different thing, that is not entirely
the case. The difference is simply a focus on the product as the outcome or
object of commodification. A product that is more commodified will be mostly an
efficiently produced thing to be sold, consumed or owned and nothing more. Conversely,
a decommodified product is one that is valued for more than that. It is a
product that seems to be more than a mere product, but may also have more of
that which is innately human, natural or intrinsically valuable. Often that
ends up being an association with goods feelings, especially related to
relationships.
This is exactly what businesses intend
to do through advertising—associate a product with more humanizing notions to
make it more than just a product. The difference is intent. Often businesses
seek to decommodify only the product and may do so at the expense of
commodifying other aspects of society like relationships. This will be
discussed in detail later, but the point here is that a common thread runs
through even this type of commodification in the sense that it refers to making
something more of an object of capitalism and nothing more.
Finally, there is a notion that
neoliberal globalization is a form of commodification (Cameron 2000, Liverman
2004). While it may be a form a commodification, it is only that—one form of
commodification. This type of commodification is less popular in literature and
seems to build off of a reverse of the popular Esping-Andersen notion of
competing state and market forces (1988). Curiously, this definition is widely
popular in decommodification literature, in which decommodification is widely
regarded as state power over market power—providing welfare and other public
services that people need to survive (Esping-Andersen 1988).
This raises the point that such
definitions of decommodification represent only one aspect of decommodification,
and there are many other possible notions of decommodification that are the
converse of the definitions of commodification given here: Valuing things for
their intrinsic rather than capitalist worth, the decrease of commodity
culture, making something common or “off-limits” for market exchange (as was
the case with human organs in the United States in the 1980s), or making a
product more than just a product by associating it with humanizing feelings,
relationships and so forth.
In short, the notion of market power
over state power (a rough summary of global neoliberalization)[5]
may be regarded as only one specific example of commodification relative to
other notions.
Perspective as a source of apparent discrepancy
While a common thread among definitions
of commodification is that something becomes increasingly touched by capitalism
in some way, the many different definitions represent many different
perspectives related to commodification. These differences in perspective can
be dissected into three main sources: differences in perspectives about the
process of something being commodified, differences in the perspectives about
the object of commodification (the thing being commodified), and differences in
perspective that stem from disciplinary preferences.
The process: Destination vs. metamorphosis
As observed by Maquette, there are two
kinds of commodification, commodification by destination and by transformation
(Appadurai 1988). In general, commodification by destination maintains that the
process of commodification occurs in the course of an exchange from one person
to another, and commodification by metamorphosis maintains that it occurs by
transformation (for example, a changing perception about a thing often linked
to larger changes in culture or society).
Marx described the role of exchange in
commodification (commodification by destination) when he said: “To become a
commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use
value, by means of an exchange” (Appadurai 1988). This is very overtly
consistent with the commodification by destination approach which emphasizes
the role of exchanges in commodification. For example, selling a person would
commodify them because the exchange for money implies that they had intrinsic
worth as a human, but in their new “destination” they have been “acquired” in a
way that has treated them like a market good.
Commodification by metamorphosis can be
used to describe the way something may be placed into a commodity state whether or not it actual ends up
being exchanged (Harvey 2009). For example, this could refer to instances in
which something comes to be regarded more like a commodity even if no exchange
ever takes place. However, this type of commodification is also described in
the literature as the increase, creation or emergence of commodity culture
(Burke 1996) or of an increase in capitalism that is sometimes termed “the
commodification of society (or culture)” (Harvey 2009). This type of description
is rooted in early commodification thinkers.
For example, Veblen, Lukács and Adorno
& Horkheimer all built on Marx’s ideas about commodification. They each
described the way commodities, consumption and capitalism become deeply
intertwined with society and social life in a way that makes them almost
inseparable. Veblen’s (1899) notion was that people begin to experience their
social life and relationships through the lens of consumption. The implication
is that consumption is sometimes done with a consciousness about the way it
will improve one’s relationships or social status. Lukács wrote about
“commodity-relations”—meaning the way commodities and other market forces
become so real to consumers that "commodity exchange together with its
structural consequences...influence the total outer and inner life of
society" (Lukács 1923). Adorno & Horkheimer (1972 [1944]) similarly
noted that consumerism had become so pervasive in society that every human
thought and action seems to pass through the “filter” of consumerism. This
extends to every dimension of humanity including thoughts and expressions of
human creativity (such as the arts, language, and social behaviors). Polyani
(1944) made a similar observation about the way society as a whole became
completely enmeshed with notions of capitalism in a way that transformed
society into a “market society.” Similarly, in more recent times, Baudrillard
and colleagues (1976) described the penetrating impact advertising has in becoming
an active part of most every aspect of human existence, and Chomsky (1999) saw
neoliberalism as creating new cultures that become pervasive in society.
However, some literature on
commodification terms this the commodification of society itself (Harvey 2009).
Is it really society that is commodified? It may be that these authors are actually
referring to the way an amalgam of smaller commodifying exchanges impacts
society, or the way changes in culture can cause an increase in the frequency
of commodifying exchanges. For example, Peñaloza’s (2000) description of
“commodifying the American West” can be seen as an amalgam of smaller actions
taken by businesses in using the culture of the American West to increase
sales. Chomsky (1999) talked about the way an increase in neoliberal policies
creates a new culture that changes the way people see the world around them,
and can result in regarding and treating things more like commodities. These
two observations represent the way the commodification of society may be seen
as either an amalgam of smaller commodifying “exchanges” or as a change in
culture impacting the way people view and treat the things in their world.
Therefore, one possibility is that the
moniker “commodified society” is a misnomer—at least vis-à-vis the assertion
Marx (2000) made that commodification takes place through exchange. The other
option is that this is not a misnomer, but that society is exchanged—at least in some sense of the word. This paper
proposes that society can be seen, in a sense, as the non-commodity (the thing
being commodified) and that what is meant is that society as it once was, is
being traded away in favor of increasing acceptance for capitalist ideals. In
this sense, the non-commodity can be seen as a “good” of sorts. It can be seen
as something that can be “exchanged” even if it is not in the same way tangible
goods are exchanged in a market. This is in keeping with the notion that there
is a “realm” of needs satisfied by interpersonal, relational “goods” that are
intangible (Harms & Kellner 1991).
Consider another example of
commodification by metamorphosis—someone or something coming to be seen or
treated more like a commodity (Harvey 2009) without ever actually being
exchanged. Even in this case, it could be said that the thing’s essence or intrinsic
worth is exchanged for a
market-centric view of the thing. Consider again the example of the person
buying the freedom of an enslaved person. Now consider the market exchange
definition of commodification—the process of purchasing something in a market
that was not previously regarded as salable (or that was in the commons). Under
this definition, buying an enslaved person’s freedom sounds like
“commodification”, although this does not seem consistent with the essence of
commodification. Therefore, while a commodification by destination perspective
seems inadequate to explain this scenario, the commodification by metamorphosis
perspective seems to provide an accurate portrayal inasmuch as the person’s
worth has been shifted from something like a possession to a human being of
intrinsic worth.
The difference is that it may be more
likely to be a highly transparent, physical exchange of goods in
commodification by destination, and a more figurative and intangible exchange
in commodification by metamorphosis. Additionally, it is apparent that some of
the major definitions of commodification given in this paper fall more in line
with commodification by metamorphosis and others more with commodification by
destination; however, they are not all neatly confined within one or the other.
For example, “the process through which capitalism redefines something in terms
of its extrinsic, measurable characteristics” and “the creation or enlargement
of a commodity or consumer culture” seem highly related to the notion of
commodification by metamorphosis.
However, something can become “valued for its exchangeability in a
market” either by actually being exchanged (commodification by destination) or
simply by being regarded as something
that could be exchanged in a market (commodification by metamorphosis).
The major impact of this difference in
perspective occurs in practice and is highly related to what Appadurai (1988)
described as essentialist versus more analytical approaches. For example,
commodification by destination makes it easy to identify acts of
commodification, to collect relevant data on those acts, and to engage in
quantitative analysis of that data in order to draw conclusions. Therefore,
while there are obvious benefits to commodification by destination oriented
definitions, they are limited for reasons already given. Specifically, they are
inadequate to describe changes in which people become objectified in other
people’s minds, when society is described as more commodified (though this can be
approximated by a collective of
actual exchanges within a society), or in cases in which purchase or exchange
actually decommodifies (as with the
person buying a slave’s freedom).
While these are still possible to
identify, measure, and analyze, these cases are less readily apparent in
practice. For example, what is the exact act or moment in which a person is
said to be commodified because someone else regards them as an object? When the
exact moment and what was the specific act that commodified a society? In these
cases, the extent to which something appears to be commodified is the default
alternative. For example, it is possible to measure the number of people that
say society is too commercial, or that extent to which someone things they are
treated like an object by certain others. These methods make measurement
possible in cases of commodification by metamorphosis, but they are less
readily identifiable, less exact and, in practice, these studies are often
written through a more analytical/theoretical approach than an empirical
approach.
The object of commodification
Another point of divergence has to do
with the object of commodification. There are nearly innumerable examples of
how the thing being commodified alters the definition being used. For example,
studies about tourism often speak of the commodification of authentic life
experiences (Cole 2007). Studies about intangible objects (language,
intellectual property) being commodified often define commodification as
purchasing those things (Heller 2003, Parry 2004). However, the most stark
example can be seen in comparing the business notion of (de)commodification
with other definitions. As previously noted, businesses often refer to
(de)commoditization rather than (de)commodification. At first glance there
appear to be major differences between the business notion and others; however,
as already noted in this paper, the major difference has to do with staged or
strategic decommodification (Cohen 1988). This means that the business is often
concerned primarily with the product as the object of commodification.
Goldman, Papson and Kersey (2003) noted:
It turns out that people are most sensitive to the
effects of commodification in the cultural arena. Paradoxically, advertising
promotes commodification while simultaneously denying it. Advertising blankets
the cash nexus with narratives and signifiers that position the meaning of the
commodity within non-commodified relations. For example, ads often place
commodities at the center of idyllic familial relations. Just think of the many
McDonald's commercials in which dad shares a moment of quality time with his
son over a Happy Meal that includes a plastic promo from the latest Disney
movie. Imagery of exchange is replaced by a representation of a caring moment
between father and child.
This quote shows the business perspective in
conflict with the social advocate perspective. The authors note that the
business is intermixing relationships with consumerism—“commodifying
relationships” in a sense. Thus, the argument may be that business advertising
commodifies relationships. However, from the business perspective, the concern
may simply be to provide a better product or customer experience. One need only
picture a warehouse full of uniform packages labeled “hamburger” to see that
there is a difference between the “happy” McDonald’s experience, and a generic
(“commodified”) experience.
In other
words, the business thinks they are decommodifying a product to create a better
customer experience and the social advocate thinks the business is commodifying
relationships and perhaps destroying the authenticity of them. The point is
that both may be right. There is often a certain quid pro quo of (de)commodification
in which decommodifying X through Y, commodifies Y. In other words, associating
more “humanity” with a product also associates more “product” with humanity.
Therefore,
what is the difference between commodification and commoditization (the business
notion of commodification)? In both cases decommodification is seen as more
desirable (businesses like decommodified products and social advocates like
decommodified societies); however, they are looking at different objects of
the process. Because of the quid pro quo of commodification, one
person’s decommodification is another’s commodification, inasmuch as the object
of the second’s interest was used to decommodify the object of the first
person’s interest.
Lest this be
interpreted as a complete exoneration of business activity, it should be noted
that there are several instances in which a business may intentionally
commodify or at least fail to prevent commodification of some aspect of
society. These reasons are: staged decommodification, negative externalities
and exploitation of the “invaluable” non-commodity.
Businesses
are primarily motivated by profit maximization and the key to this is often
differentiation (decommoditization) of a product. However, the profit motive
often destroys the attempt at decommodification. Picture a business with the
motto “this is the most wonderful place on earth…because we want your money!”
The second part of the slogan seems to diminish the first. Therefore,
businesses often “stage” (Cohen 1988) decommodified experiences. For
example, within the tourism literature, businesses are often described as
destroying authenticity (Cole 2007); however, few businesses are likely to have
the intention or goal of “destroying human authenticity”. Such a strategy would
not be a very profitable business strategy. Rather the business is most likely
trying to create the most authentic experience it can to create a good customer
experience (even if the underlying motive is profit). Nevertheless, many
businesses knowingly or negligently are so interested in improving customer
experiences that they do it at the expense of other parts of social life. The
example already given about how advertising commodifies social relationships
illustrates the way businesses are often so focused on the product that they
either knowingly or unintentionally commodify relationships in the course of
endeavoring to improve customer experiences.
Additionally, negative externalities can
cause businesses to commodify certain aspects of social life. Even though it is
in a business’s best interest to garner a certain amount of good will (a
business that pollutes the world, destroys relationships and gives nothing back
to the community will likely have few customers and not remain profitable for
very long) most are also disinterested in internalizing negative externalities
or unable (financially) to do so and still remain competitive. In other words,
inasmuch as businesses can maintain sufficient goodwill without internalizing
the negative outcomes they create (like pollution), they will often allow those
negative consequences.
Perhaps this is best summarized by
Kleinbach’s (1999) notion that neoliberalism is at odds with sustainability
(business that is friendly to quality of life in the long term). Negative externalities are a form of
commodification because they devalue the natural environment, and quality of
human and other life in exchange for making a profit (a capitalist value). This
might best be illustrated by Cohen’s (2003) notion of two worlds: There is a
sphere of humanity and a sphere of commodities. Valuing one over the other can
be seen as a form of commodification or decommodification respectively.
Therefore, failing to internalize negative externalities on the part of a
business is an expression of valuing the commodity sphere over the sphere of
humanity (a point equally well made by Kleinbach (1999)).
Finally, there is the notion that
exploitation of the “invaluable” or of the commons. Consider the process of
decommodification as the reverse of commodification. This would mean that
something that has been touched by the logic of capitalism (Shumar 1997,
Gottdiener 2000) becomes removed from that sphere. In practice, museums are a
good example. When once-common objects come to have elevated non-commodity
worth, they become labeled as “priceless”, “unsalable” or part of the commons
(should not be owned by any one person). These are often once-common objects
that had a significant role in history or the life of a historical figure and
thus become revered in some way. Once they are deemed priceless, unsalable or
part of the commons they come to have extreme commodity worth if they can
become sold. This is in part because they are widely esteemed, but also because
they are extremely scarce. These factors mean that they can command a very high
price in a market.
Another example of decommodification
occurs through state regulation. In the 1980s the United States government made
it illegal to sell human organs. As a result, a kidney currently commands over
$250,000 in the black market. Similarly, when alcohol was deemed unsalable by
legislation during the prohibition, prices skyrocketed up to 700% in some cases
(Thornton
1991).
These price-hikes, whether caused by
social consensus that an item is invaluable or in the commons, or whether
caused by official state legislation give incentive to black market
opportunists to make a great deal of money by commodifying the non-commodities
in question.
Discipline-centric differences
Another source of difference of
perspectives in defining commodification is discipline related. While there are
too many discipline-specific differences to address, it is widely agreed that
there are three major camps or schools of thought on commodification. These
are: Marxist economics, anthropology and business theory (Tauxe in Rathje &
Zimring 2012). Studies of commodification date at least back to Karl Marx
(Patico 2013), and have risen in prominence since the 1970s for the Marxist
camp (Tauxe in Rathje & Zimring 2012), the 1980s for the anthropological
camp (Patico 2013), and the 1990s for the business camp.
Marxist camp
The Marxist camp sees commodification in
a highly analytical way (especially as opposed to those of the business camp)
(Appadurai 1988). For the Marxist camp, commodification is intertwined with
notions about something becoming “objectified” through redefinition only in
term of that thing’s exchange value or a certain set of outwardly
standardizable characteristics, rather than being defined as a subject—not a
means to an end, but an end per se. A
favorite Marxist term associated with commodification is alienation. In other
words, defining something only in terms of the outward characteristics that
make it exchangeable in a market alienates that thing from the rest of its
characteristics (including its internal, non-observable characteristics). In
this way, objects are detached from their full meaning, and come to be seen
only as objects of the market (Tauxe in Rathje & Zimring 2012).
Marx saw “the commodity” as a central
point of analysis—not as something with a hard and fast definition as is the
case in the business notion of commodification where “commodity” simply means a
largely undifferentiated primary good. However, discussions of the Marxist
notion of commodification are often highly analytical vis-à-vis the social
meaning and implications of commodification rather than seeing it through an
essentialist perspective as is often the case in business literature. Marx’s
original writings on commodification were often incomplete, unclear and even
contradictory. However, Marx left several foundational ideas that have been
expanded upon over the years and have laid the foundation for discussions of
commodification ever since.
Marx used certain key terms that seemed
to define whether or not something was a commodity. For example, when referring
to something as commodified, Marx often referred to the thing as an object
rather than a subject, or as something that had become defined or valued
primarily for its externally measurable characteristics rather than its
intrinsic worth. For Marx, it seems that these notions were directly related to
the terms “exchange value” and “use value”. As scholars use the terms today,
use value refers to something that has not been commodified and comprises all
the possible inherent or intrinsic characteristics of that thing. Exchange
value refers to something that has been commodified. Exchange value is an
extraction of use value (as Marx put it) and means (at least to more recent
Marxist scholars) that the use value of a thing—all of its possible internal
and external characteristics—are reduced only to the market worth of the thing
based on conveniently measurable or standardizable external characteristics.
In Marxist terms, reducing an object to
definition only in terms of exchange value has an alienating impact. Marx’s
notion of alienation of labor may be one of the most familiar notions related
to commodification. However, alienation is also said to occur when any object
is reduced to definition only by its exchange value, because the thing loses
its full identity, supplanted by only its exchange value. In this way it
becomes a new thing—an “object” of the market and a means to an end, rather
than a subject that is an end in and of itself.
Broadly speaking, studies that focus on
destruction of authenticity or intrinsic worth, alienation, objectification or
use vs. exchange value likely have leanings toward this camp. While
sociologists and other behavioral scientists may be more prone to fall in this
camp, there is no hard and fast boundary. Additionally, this type of thought
may mesh well with notions of commodification by destination or by metamorphosis.
Anthropology camp
Anthropologists largely regard
commodities as “goods that are subject to market exchange” but expand,
problematize and relativize discussions of commodification in more extensive
ways than the other camps (Patico 2013). Notably, the anthropological camp not
only describes commodification “analytically” (meaning non-essentialist) as do
Marxists, but also as socially dynamic (meaning dependent on historical
context). The anthropological perspective tends to be concerned with “the
broader camp of consumer practices” (Patico 2013) whereas the Marxist
perspective tends to focus on the negative impact of capitalism on society, and
the business perspective focuses on how products are impacted by the way they
are viewed as a commodity.
Compared to the other two perspectives,
anthropological perspectives on commodification tend to be more
interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, intertwined with globalization (Patico 2013)
as well as more dynamic in terms of describing commodification as subject to
change based on social context (Appadurai 1988) rather than simply discussing a
“snap shot” of commodification in time and space.
The anthropological camp of
commodification has attempted to make some interdisciplinary headway with the
notion of commodification. Anthropological perspectives draw insight from many
different disciplines such as economics and sociology (Patico 2013).
Additionally, the anthropological camp
is largely interested in the interaction between commodities and the cultures
and societies that interact with and shape them (Patico 2013). Anthropological
studies are also increasingly concerned with cross-cultural influences,
globalization and expressions of cross-cultural transformations (Patico 2013). In
this perspective, there is often a focus on the way commodities are socially
constructed and have a social impact, and that commodification is dynamic as a
product of historical context within a given society (Appadurai 1988). The
growing influence of the anthropological perspective of commodification has
made (and is making) an invaluable contribution in unifying studies of
commodification across disciplines.
Finding commonalities across the major
definitions of commodification is a first step in creating an inclusive and interdisciplinary
conceptualization that will allow for greater comparison across studies of
commodification. This is a big contribution of the anthropological camp.
Additionally, anthropological definitions add depth to analyses of
commodification in that commodities are socially defined but also can define
society (Appadurai 1988). These are notions that are not really foreign to
Marxist definitions, but made more explicit in anthropology. Additionally, the
anthropological definitions do not really expressly contradict either the
Marxist or business perspectives, but attempts to unite them. As described
earlier in this paper, perhaps the best common thread across all definitions is
that commodification is the process through which something becomes touched by
the logic of capitalism (Shumar 1997, Gottdiener 2000).
Business camp
As described throughout this paper, the
business camp sees commodities as products that are undifferentiated and, as a
result largely fungible. They are standardized in the sense that every unit of
commodity is substitutable for every other unit (just like one dollar can
substitute for another) (Tauxe in Rathje & Zimring 2012).
As has been described, the “business”
camp is more essentialist in nature than the Marxist camp. The business camp
tends to see “commodity” as having a fixed definition—as a subset of primary
goods that are largely undifferentiated. Additionally, the business camp often
uses the terms “commoditization” and “decommoditization”, (rather than
commodification and decommodification) which simply mean that something has
become more or less differentiated (less or more commodity-like).
The caveat is that business scholars
themselves are not limited to this definition, but may tend to build upon it or
rely heavily on it. Additionally, scholars from other disciplines may “borrow”
elements from this camp such as essentialist over “analytical” methodology. A
number of the definitions given above have a thread of the business definition
woven through them. The notions that commodification means selling something
that was previously not for sale (Ungerson 1997; Lewis, Campbell & Huerta
2008) or the creation of a new market that did not exist previously (Lohmann
2005) carry elements of essentialism that is valued within the business camp.
Exchange approach to commodification
Many of the apparent conflicts in
defining commodification stem from only considering one side to an exchange (or
human interaction). For example, business scholarship often analyzes only the
way advertising decommoditizes a product and makes it better, while ignoring
the position of social advocates that that advertising may also commodify
social relationships through the suggestion that all things (even relationships
themselves) are for sale (Gottdiener 2000). The exchange perspective requires
consideration of all parties to an exchange, or human interaction. In this
case, the exchange perspective considers both the business perspective of
improving a product through advertising and the (potentially negative) message
that it sends that relationships are for sale.
The basis of an exchange-based approach
to understanding commodification is that there are two spheres of goods—one is the
commodity sphere, and the other is the sphere of everything else, including relationships,
nature and things that are inherently “human” or “humanizing” (Cohen 2007).
Each sphere has its own set of goods—commodities in the commodity sphere and
humanistic goods in the other. Elsewhere, the terms “commodities” and
“relational goods” have been respectively applied to these sets of goods (Robison, Schmid and Siles 2002, Gui and Stanca 2010). As described by these authors, commodity
goods are tangible and fill physical needs, while relational goods are
intangible and fill socio-emotional needs.
In this framework, commodification
can be described as an increase of commodity goods relative to relational goods
in an exchange (exchange being defined broadly as human
interactions/transactions). Conversely, decommodification is defined under this
perspective as a decrease in commodity goods compared to relational goods in a
transaction. (Note that commodification can take place through an increase in
commodities relative to relational goods or a decrease in relational goods
relative to commodities).
The utility of this framework
relates to the way it draws in multiple parties to the exchange, while the
majority of scholars largely take the perspective of only one party in regards
to commodification. For example, social
advocates are known to refer to commodification as destructive to society,
culture and relationships, often implicating business people as profit-driven
and unconcerned about society. However, the business perspective is that
commodification is almost always less desirable, and results in lower profit
margins. Therefore, both the business and the non-business perspectives portray
commodification as negative, and decommodification as positive, yet
non-business scholars paint a picture of business as seeking out
commodification and consequently destroying relationships, culture, society and
authentic human experiences (King & Stewart 1996, Mitchell 1998, Lawrence
& Sharma 2002, Cole 2007). This is a
major point of divergence between the business perspective and other
perspectives that must be resolved if there is to be full interdisciplinary
cooperation in scholarship on commodification.
The exchange perspective helps make the
commodification transparent through a holistic perspective. For example,
business advertising can be seen as an exchange of commodity and relational
goods between the business and society. The business takes relational goods and
attaches them to commodity products in order to increase their market value.
Society, as the other party to this exchange, allows the business to use
relational goods in that way in order to make the product more appealing
(people are free to buy only generic or undifferentiated products, but often
prefer the alternative). Therefore, advertising can be seen as a form of
exchange in which the product is decommodified by an increase in relational
goods, and society is commodified by a decrease in relational goods. This is
the quid pro quo of commodification
that was described earlier in this paper.
Another example is tourism. within the
tourism literature, businesses are often described as destroying authenticity
(Cole 2007); however, few businesses are likely to have the intention or goal
of “destroying human authenticity”. Such a strategy would not be a very
profitable business strategy. Rather the business is most likely trying to
create the most authentic experience it can to create a good customer
experience (even if the underlying motive is profit).
An exchange perspective would require a
discussion of the exchange as the central unit of analysis (the thing of
research interest). An exchange perspective would describe the business as
decommoditizing (strategically creating) the tourist experience in order to
create a better consumer experience, but also examines what the community gives
(or gives up) in order for that to happen. In many cases, the community is
giving up its natural way of life in order to accommodate an influx of
tourists. The community may also lose its authentic experiences as society
comes to see the business’ manufactured experiences as “the real thing”, thus
no longer recognizing the original authentic experiences for what they are.
This makes the twin processes of
commodification and decommodification more transparent. Many business scholars
would simply describe this process as “decommoditization” of a product, and
many social advocates would simply describe it as “commodification” of society.
Under the exchange approach, it is clear that both are correct. The
commodification of society through the decommoditization of a product is an
example of commodification by metamorphosis. The exchanges taking place in a
process of commodification by metamorphosis are sometimes less obvious than
those taking place in commodification by destination.
For example, if a parent begins to exact
a monthly room and board payment from an adult child, it can be said that the
living arrangement has been commodified. This is because the child once secured
room and board through relational means, and now those relational goods are
being replaced with commodities.[6]
Admittedly, the goods being exchanged are often manifestations of a deeper
social process and may be more evidence of
commodification than constitutive of
commodification. For example, consider prostitution. Prostitution could be
described as cash payment for what “should” be a relational good (human
intimacy). Scholars have attempted to essentialize the barrier between
identifying something as is in the commodity sphere vs. is in the non-commodity
sphere. This is admittedly a formidable task that involves value judgements.
For example, some may say that prostitution is a profession that is as old as
time, and thus might not be considered a form of commodification. This is a
fascinating realm of future theoretical research. However, the observation that
“commodification is in the eye of the beholder” seems to be the extent of the
boundary as it currently stands in academia. In other words, “commodification”
inherently means that someone (or some group of people) feel that humanizing or
relational aspects of an exchange have become supplanted with commodities.
Paying for a rent-a-friend, a
rent-a-son, or an “apologizer” seem to be ready examples of commodification, as
many people might consider friendship, kinship and interpersonal expressions of
affect to be relational. However, there can be different ideas from one person
to the next and one society to the next about what “should” be a relational
exchange. This can also vary across time. For example, there was a time when
childcare was largely a relational duty (of the mother) in the United States,
but ideas about work in the home as a relational duty have shifted into the
commodity realm (Ungerson 1997).
Conversely, decommodification can be
seen as relational goods supplanting commodities (or at least increasing in
relationship to commodities). For example, as discussed earlier in this paper,
museum are filled with objects whose commodity value has been supplanted by
relational or humanizing value, making them (in effect) “priceless”. Additionally,
there are many implications for decommodification in environmental, religious
and altruism studies. For example, the study of why people might donate their
time, volunteer or help a stranger all involve a process of people giving their
time or possessions in return for humanizing or relational goods.
Conclusion
In summary, the differences in
definitions of commodification appear to be highly varied or even
contradictory. There are a number of differences due to different perspectives
related to the nature of the process of commodification, the object of
commodification, and discipline-specific differences.
Despite these differences, there is a
common thread throughout the most common definitions of commodification and
that is that it is a process through which things become touched by the logic
of capitalism. In the case of commodification by metamorphosis, it may be that
societies or people come to be regarded through consumer experiences. However,
in the case of commodification by destination, it may be that something is
touched by the logic of capitalism by being sold or exchanged in a market.
Additionally, there are certain
tendencies among different disciplines. Sociologists and other behavioral
scientists may be likely to favor the Marxist camp, which is highly theoretical
and builds on notions of objectification, alienation, use vs. exchange value.
The anthropological camp is highly interdisciplinary and has potential to
better unite studies of commodification through more interdisciplinary
approaches and conceptualizations. This camp is similar in its theoretical
nature to the Marxist camp; however, it is also highly dynamic, with a focus on
socio-historical context, broader society and international issues. While the
business camp may appear to be at odds with the other two (and in many ways it
is), there is even a common thread that ties it to the other camps—that
commodification is an increase in the capitalist nature of something. The main
difference is that the business camp focuses on the product rather than society
or quality of life. This can even result in an action the business regards as
“decommodification” being seen as commodification by social advocates. This is
because of the quid pro quo of commodification:
if X is decommodified through Y, then Y can be commodified in the process. This
is the case when businesses attempt to decommodify their products by
associating them with social relationships, but in the course of so doing can
commodify relationships.
Finally, we note that many of the
apparent contradictions between different conceptualizations of commodification
are a matter of perspective. The most prominent example of this is the apparent
contradiction between businesses and social advocates. At times these two seem
directly at odds with each other, with businesses promoting decommoditization
as the most desirable outcome for a product (which often involves
differentiation through advertising), and social advocates declaring that
businesses are commodifying the humanizing aspects of society. We propose that
such conflicts can be resolved through an exchange paradigm of commodification.
An exchange paradigm of commodification requires considering the position of
all parties to a human interaction rather than just one side. For example, in
the apparent business/social advocate conflict, the exchange paradigm is not
interested in only one side, but considers that the business decommodifies
their product through associating it with different aspects of society, such as
promises of improved relationships, but that this can also commodify those
relationships. In other words, focusing on the whole exchange (or interaction)
rather than just one side reveals the quid
pro quo that often takes place in matters of commodification—decommodifying
this commodifies that.
In short, defining commodification as a
process that redefines something in terms of some limited number of outward
characteristics related to market worth rather than intrinsic value, and using
an exchange paradigm to better understand all parties to commodification are
promising first steps toward improved conceptualizations of commodification.
This promises to improve interdisciplinary collaboration (such as that which
has been attempted by the anthropological approach), to lead to more sound
conclusions within studies, and greater comparison between studies.
Works Consulted
Appadurai, A. (1988) The Social Life of Things: commodities
in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Baudrillard, J., Lovitt, C. R., & Klopsch, D. (1976).
Toward a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. SubStance,
111-116.
Becker, G. S. (2010). The economics of discrimination.
University of Chicago press.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the
geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3),
349-379.
Bruni, L., & Stanca, L. (2008). Watching alone:
Relational goods, television and happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 65(3), 506-528.
Burke, T. (1996). Lifebuoy Men, Lux Women: commodification,
consumption, and cleanliness in modern Zimbabwe. Duke University Press.
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
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.
Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: Neoliberalism
and global order. Seven Stories Press.
Cohen, I. G. (2003). The price of everything, the value of
nothing: Reframing the commodification debate. Harvard Law
Review, 117(689).
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.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1988). Decommodification and work
absence in the welfare state. International Journal of Sociology, 77-111.
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.
Gui, B., & Sugden, R. (Eds.). (2005). Economics
and Social Interaction: accounting for interpersonal relations. Cambridge
University Press.
Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritage
tourism: authenticity and commodification. Annals of tourism research, 28(3),
565-580.
Harms, J., & Kellner, D. (1991). Toward a critical
theory of advertising. Current perspectives in social theory, 11, 41-67.
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. Sharp, L. A. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 287-328.
Henderson, S., & Petersen, A. R. (Eds.). (2002).
Consuming health: The commodification of health care. Psychology Press.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1972). Dialectic of
Enlightenment. 1944.Trans. John Cumming. New York: Herder.
King, D. A., & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Ecotourism and
commodification: protecting people and places. Biodiversity & Conservation,
5(3), 293-305.
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.
Lohmann, L. (2005). Marketing and making carbon dumps:
Commodification, calculation and counterfactuals in climate change mitigation.
Science as culture, 14(3), 203-235.
Lukács, G. (2010). “Reification and the Consciousness of
the Proletariat”(1923).Cultural Theory: An Anthology, 172-87.
Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx: selected writings. Oxford
University Press.
Mitchell, C. J. (1998). Entrepreneurialism, commodification
and creative destruction: a model of post-modern community development. Journal
of Rural Studies, 14(3), 273-286.
Parry, B. (2004). Trading the genome: Investigating the
commodification of bio-information. Columbia University Press.
Patico, J. (2013). Commodities. Oxford Bibliographies in Anthropology. Online resource.
Patico, J. (2013). Commodities. Oxford Bibliographies in Anthropology. Online resource.
Pellegrino, E. D. (1999). The commodification of medical
and health care: the moral consequences of a paradigm shift from a professional
to a market ethic. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24(3), 243-266.
Peñaloza, L. (2000). The commodification of the American
West: Marketers’ production of cultural meanings at the trade show. Journal of
Marketing, 64(4), 82-109.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political
and economic origins of our time. Beacon 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.
Robison, L. J., & Flora, J. L. (2003). The social
capital paradigm: bridging across disciplines. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1187-1193.
Robison, L. J., Myers, R. J., & Siles, M. E. (2002).
Social capital and the terms of trade for farmland. Review of Agricultural
Economics, 24(1), 44-58.
Robison, L.J. & A.A. Schmid (1989). Interpersonal relationships
and preferences: Evidences and implications.” In R. Frantz and H. Singh
(Eds), Handbook of Behavioral
Economics. Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 347-358.
Robison, L.J. Oliver, J.R. and Just, D. (forthcoming).
Explaining economic anomalies through relational goods.
Rushkoff, D. (2005). Commodified vs. commoditized. Online
at http://www. rushkoff. com/blog/2005/9/4/commodifiedvscommoditized.html. Last
accessed 3/8/2016.
Salzman, J., & Ruhl, J. B. (2000). Currencies and the
commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Review, 607-694.
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can't buy: the moral
limits of markets. Macmillan.
Shepherd, R. (2002). Commodification, culture and tourism.
Tourist studies, 2(2), 183-201.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2001). Colonizing
knowledge: Commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in
professional service firms. Human relations, 54(7), 933-953.
Thrift, N. (2006). Re-inventing invention: new tendencies
in capitalist commodification. Economy and Society, 35(02), 279-306.
Ungerson, C. (1997). Social politics and the
commodification of care. Social Politics, 4(3), 362-381.
Ursell, G. (2000). Television production: issues of
exploitation, commodification and subjectivity in UK television labour markets.
Media, culture & society, 22(6), 805-825.
Veblen, T. (1965 [1899]). The Theory of the Leisure Class. AM
Kelley, bookseller.
Weber, M., & Kalberg, S. (2009). The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism, with Other Writings on the Rise of the West.
Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the Academics:
Commodification and Control in the Development of University Education in the
UK. Human Relations, 48(9), 993-1027.
Zaman, H. (2006). Breaking the iron wall: Decommodification
and immigrant women's labor in Canada. Lexington Books.
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.
[1]
The business term is decommoditization. Decommoditization is a form of
decommodification (specifically, staged or strategic decommodification) that
will be discussed hereafter.
[2]
This observation was made by Arjun Appadurai’s (1988) review of Maquette’s
writings.
[3]
Another
way to think of market exchange as an incomplete definition is in the sense
that the other definitions contain market exchange within them, but market
exchange definitions do not encompass some other definitions.
[4]
This will be discussed in detail in the section on disciplinary differences.
[5] It
is not parsimonious to take on an in-depth conversation on global
neoliberalization, thought the interested reader would do well to refer to
Brenner, Theodore and Peck (2010), Ong (2006) and Chomsky (1999) as a
beginning.
[6] We
consider cash payments to be a stand-in for commodity exchange.
No comments:
Post a Comment