COMMODITY FETISHISM: A CRITIQUE TO MODERN POLITICAL THEORY

By

Keren Keziah L. Galaroza

Professor Brian C. Ventura, Faculty Advisor

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements in Political Science 180

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS

Division of Social Sciences

College of Arts and Sciences

May 2019
I. INTRODUCTION

Commodity Fetishism: Idolatry of Consumption of Goods

Commodity fetishism refers to the way in which the commodity is an article produced for

market exchange rather than for its own immediate consumption. It is in the practice of

homogenizing objects, abolishing their “sensuously varied objectivity as articles of utility” and

diminishes them to equivalent units of exchange (Bennet, 2011). This concept has its origin in

the peculiar social character of the labor that produces them. It is the fetishism which attaches

itself to the products of labor, as soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is

therefore inseparable from the production of commodities (Marx, 1867).

In political theory, commodity fetishism reflects the effects of secularization. The

evolution of political theory spans from the confidence with the divine or natural purposes,

where people stemmed their beliefs and political ideologies to the rules provided by the Ultimate

Being, to the pursuance of modernity, which stems rationality and control. Thus, commodity

fetishism is the product of the death of superstition. Due to the loss of a meaningful moral

universe, people seek other means that will offer them a sense of purpose. According to Karl

Marx (1977), the illusion of commodification can be compared to the mystification carried out

by religions. He stated that the commodities reflect the social characteristics of men’s personal

labor as objective characteristics of the products of labor themselves and then likened to the

misty realm of religion where the human brain appear as independent figures endowed with a life

of their own (Marx et. al, 1977).

Thus, commodity fetishism is an idolatry of goods (Bennett, 2011). It reflects the

irrational self in an era where people exercise empiricism and rationality. The practice of
fetishizing commodity became a proxy for the enchantment and pleasure brought by mysticism.

However, this reflects the existence of primitive practices despite of being a modern society.

Commodity Fetishism is a Critic to Modernity

Modernity brought enlightenment to the society. Yet it is not perfect and is still criticized.

Commodity fetishism is a critique to modernity. How? Critics explained the commodity

fetishism as a critique to modernity in two (2) ways. First, it is modernity’s relapse to

primitivism. The negative impact of the concept “commodity fetishism originated from an image

of repulsive non-European savage. Specifically speaking, the primitive is in line with the negro,

the negro who practices pagan animism, animism with delusion and passivity, passivity with

commodity culture (Bennet, 2011). People of the modern age worship commodity. They labor to

afford the things that they do not use. They put life and importance to inanimate objects.

Possessing commodities induced a feeling of pleasure that was once brought by mysticism.

Second, it objectifies people through the objectification of labor. The objects of private

property stand in for real human relations and so appear to have a power that is their own

whereas the political economists' critique shows that human labor is the essence of private

property and the 'real' value of a commodity is analyzed as a social relation determined by the

amount of labor that has gone into its production - it is nothing to do with the material form of

the commodity (Dant, 1996). Modernity introduced advanced technology that brought upon fast

production of goods. As a necessity, capitalists hired many workers to work in their factories.

The workers became commodified. This objectification of labor is what makes profit possible;

workers are not paid enough in comparison to the labor that they produced. The concealing of

this swindle is the most wicked effect of modernity (Bennet, 2011).

II. BODY

Commodity Fetishism in the Perspective of Chomsky, Foucault, Zizek, and Peterson

In the debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, Chomsky argued that the

just society has something to do with what best meets the requirements of human nature and

needs. Thus, the good society will not simply be any social order but will be one tailored towards

satisfying these objectives (Wilkin, 1999). With regards to commodity fetishism, after the

disenchantment that was brought upon by modernity, the society is simply trying to cope with

the loss. The pleasure that is derived from fetishizing commodity is the substitute to the pleasure

from mysticism and enchantment. Commodity fetishism is a product to relieve oneself from the

insecurities of rationality.

On the other hand, Foucault's nominalist account of justice leaves in the situation where

the just society is an almost inevitable outcome of the seizure of power and the reconstruction of

social order (Wilkin, 1999). In Foucault’s perspective, commodity fetishism is a way of

alleviating ones’ social status and eventually, social power. People with higher socio-economic

status tend to dominate the political arena. Hoarding wealth and commodity is not just for the

sake to indulge oneself with the pleasure it brings but also to flaunt power.

Slovaj Zizek emphasized that people make stories about themselves to gratify and

account themselves. People buy things to create their own stories that reflects socio-economic

standing. With similarity to Foucault, commodity fetishism produces a narrative for the people to

parade. According to him, happiness was never important. The problem is that people don't

know what they really want. What makes them happy is not to get what they want. But to dream

about it. Happiness is for opportunists. He thinks that the only life of deep satisfaction is a life of

eternal struggle, especially struggle with oneself. For a person to remain happy, one must remain
ignorant. Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves. People are slaves

to the constant search for happiness. Through commodity fetishism, people are able to satisfy

themselves with the goods that they acquire. The sense of fulfillment is based on the number of

commodities that the person possesses.

Jordan Peterson claimed that capitalism, despite of being the source of equality, produces

wealth. Even though people were objectified to produce the commodity that the society

fetishized, capitalism alleviates the society’s standard of living. According to Peterson, from

1800 to 2017, the income growth, already adjusted for inflation, grew by 40 times for production

workers and 16 times for unskilled labor. GDP rose by a factor of about 0.5 from 1 AD to 1800,

so from 1 AD to 1800 AD, it was like nothing and then suddenly in the last 217 years, there has

been an upward movement of wealth. Due to commodity fetishism, the demand for goods greatly

increased over the years. Thus, it contributes to the prosper of capitalism, and at the same time,

the society.

Commodity Fetishism in the Perspective of Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Marx

Despite of the criticism faced by the concept; various modern political thinkers wrote a

corresponding argument that reflects its emergence in the society. Baron de Montesquieu

emphasized that the pleasure of consumption replaces religion (Ebestein & Ebenstein 1990 p.

457). The society became mediocre because of technology and trade which led to the fast

circulation of goods and services. The concept of commodity fetishism was reflected in the

excessive consumption of luxury. To support this argument, take the case of vast shopping

centers. People in the modern age do not come to these places to buy items for immediate

consumption but to skim which is called “window shopping”.

 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, sees a direct causal relation between luxury,

constantly expanding needs, and the rise of art and science, after which true courage flags and

virtues disappear (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 1990 p. 496). He cited Rome as an example. He wrote

that as long as Rome was poor and simple, the community was able to command respect and

conquer and empire. Yet, after having developed luxury and accumulate riches, it fell. Rousseau

look at commodity fetishism negatively. Based on his argument, commodity fetishism can be

seen as worshipping goods to experience luxury.

Karl Marx, as the author of commodity fetishism, argued that the fetishism of

commodities leads to the objectification of labor. As a general rule, articles of utility become

commodities, only because they are products of the labor. In other words, the labor of the

individual asserts itself as a part of the labor of society, only by means of the relations which the

act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between

the producers (Marx, 1867). For Marx, the reality of the commodity is its representation of

congealed labor through which it derives its value. In its unreal or fetishized form, the

commodity appears to have intrinsic value resulting from its material character (Dant, 1996).
CONCLUSION

The evolution of ideas coming from different perspectives put the concept of commodity

fetishism as a major critique to modernity. Modern and post-modern political thinkers consider,

if not directly citing, the effects of modernity as something that the society cannot unlearn or

unseen. Commodity fetishism is the reality at the other side of the coin that even though

modernity carried with it the enlightenment and the rationality, modern societies still seek the

satisfaction that religion assured and the pleasure that mysticism provided.

Commodity fetishism requires a rebuff of naturalist depictions of the economy. It shows

just how economic relations influence subjectivity, ideology, discourse, politics, and so on

(Marx, 1977). The products of modernity that the society enjoys have underlying connection

with the objectification of commodity and labor. Its effect can be reflected in all branches of

social discourse which initially, in this case, politics. The political thinkers, for instance, mention

the connection between modernity and commodity fetishism.

With modernity, the late capitalism contained the possibilities for replacement, and thus

repression, in the plethora of information and busyness which characterize everyday life, and

which constantly redirect the attention (Billig, 1999). People are unaware that they are actually

practicing paganism which was masked by modernity to look original. Yet slowly, we revert

back to primitivism.
Bibliography:

Bennett, Jane. 2011. “Modernity and Its Critics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science,

Oxford University Press.

Ebenstein, William, and Alan O. Ebenstein. 1990. Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present.

Fifth. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. .

(2019, May 15). Retrieved May 25, 2019, from https://youtu.be/lsWndfzuOc4

Billig, M. (1999). Commodity Fetishism and Repression. Theory & Psychology, 9(3), 313-329.

doi:10.1177/0959354399093003

Dant, T. (1996). Fetishism and the Social Value of Objects. The Sociological Review, 44(3), 495-

516. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1996.tb00434.x

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Verlag von Otto Meisner.

Marx, K., Engels, F., Mandel, E., Fowkes, B., & Fernbach, D. (1990). Capital: A critique of

political economy. London: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review.

Wilkin, P. (1999). Chomsky and Foucault on Human Nature and Politics. Social Theory and

Practice, 25(2), 177-210. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract199925217