Commodity Fetishism, Neoliberalism, and the Public Square

Post Reply New Topic

Commodity fetishism is a concept derived from Marxist theory (stay with me, conservatives) and relates to how we view commercial transactions; the consequence of this fetishization is that markets seem to be things that function solely of their own accord. Now other societies may have fetishized other things, but we're a capitalist society, so the market ideology is what's prevalent: Most relations are coordinated through money and commercial transaction. This brings me to neoliberalism/privatization and the shrinking of the public square.

Neoliberalism is the ideology of globalization, free trade, privatization, and an international policy consensus driven by the needs of corporations and an emphasis on economic growth. It is called neoliberalism to note its break from the old period of liberal global trade under the British Empire in the 19th century and up to World War II. Under neoliberalism, human behavior is seen through the model of Homo economicus—the goal of the individual is assumed to be the accumulation of wealth. This dictates policy; this trickles down into our culture, which is (ironically or "authentically") consumed in the market as a commercial trade (generally).

What this ideology depletes is the public square (not equating with government services or public property necessarily). By public square, I mean those interactions that occur outside the paradigm of the market: the personal (without anything material to gain or lose), the intellectual, a sense of community, the aesthetic, etc. All of these things can be regimented under the market, but it seems to come at a price. A personal example: Romance seems to be lost when most of our interactions are regimented inside a commercial interaction (customer to cashier, diner to waitress, coworker to coworker, etc.); is the waitress being friendly because she's just friendly, because she likes me, or because she's hoping for a better tip (the commercial, cheapening element)? The pursuit of knowledge and other nobler goals is lost in a society that values the cheap commercial.

P.S.: The writing is a little tangential and disorganized, and I apologize for that; I wanted to get this topic out while I was still thinking about it even though I've gotten quite tired.

Awwwwwwwwwwww, I thought you meant the fun kind of fetishes.

Nope, look one subforum down for that.

All joking aside, it is a very interesting subject, and one that I personally believe American society in particular would do well to discuss more. As a lifelong artist, I have a very personal connection to this subject. One of the biggest difficulties for many Western artists is coming to terms with the capitalist structure, and finding a place within it that strikes a balance between survival and integrity. The system in place in most Western countries (but the U.S. in particular) places such an emphasis on material, tangible, quantifiable "product", that those who seek occupations that aren't product-based (or occupations where it is undesirable to frame tangible results as "product") are often seen as lower in status. For example, I personally don't view my artwork as "product", in the sense that implies that it is an expendable commodity; I view it as a conduit for personal growth, self-expression, and experimentation. I mean, I'm not advocating socialism, but admittedly, it is something of a hinderance to the development of the theoretical aspects of my work to be forced to view it as "merchandise". While I embrace moderated capitalism, the ideal atmosphere for my subsistence would be one where money and material goods are not worshipped so much as they are. In that respect, I find Canada slightly more tolerable than the U.S.-- while I appreciate the correllation between money and survival, I personally don't place supreme importance on accumulation of wealth. I think there are many things in life much more significant than cash, things which I feel American society devalues as a result of its material fetishism.

I don't see this as that big of a deal. All societies have been organized around issues of power. Art for art's sake has never really been how things have actually worked, and that reality can just be recognized with the existence of the patronage system in earlier times. Back in the patronage system, you didn't do art for your sake, or even for the sake of any potential buyer, you had a patron and all art was based upon what he would have wanted/admired and what he could have shown off. As crude as it is, the world has always been centered around either power-relations or production.

I suppose it is true that some societies place more of an emphasis than others, but... I dunno, I am not likely to be bothered as I always have been an economizing individual, so talking about an economistic view of reality as a problem is hard for me to grasp. Economizing is a world MORE like me, and I really value that because I think most individuals are too "romantic" or whatever emotion you have, rather than keen on reducing everything to the core issues.

I am also an artist and the unfortunate thing is that our work (regardless of our intention) is used as class signifers for classes I don't particularly like.
I do not think the uncoupling of money and survial would lead to an ethical morrass.
ethics are cultural.

-Jake

This is clearly false to fact. The basic urges of mankind are to eat regularly, get laid regularly and have fun regularly.

ruveyn

True for the most part. However, at issue is the idea that accumulating wealth is a worthy and fulfilling end in-and-of-itself. To a lot of people money may just be a means to survival, personal comfort, and happiness. To others it is just a by-product of a career that is fulfilling for other reasons (a sense of personal duty, relating to others, making a difference, engaging intellectual curiosity, providing a creative outlet). The problem is these latter sources of fulfillment can become jeopardized when society becomes so that the sole meaningful purpose of work/employment is to generate a profit for a corporation. Commoditization can actually stifle personal motivation, creativity, and progress in some instances because everything must bend and sacrifice in order to fulfill the need to maximize profit.

Last edited by marshall on 16 Mar 2011, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

It approaches that level in some of the more extreme Randites.

That's right, and the free market is stopping no one from working for this purpose.

If I understand the OP correctly, the objection is that our culture tends to promote accumulating wealth as an end in itself, rather than promoting the motives you bolded there. It's not that people can not work for those purposes, it is that those motives are downplayed, discouraged, or denigrated within the prevailing culture.

Well, the problem with the OP is that either he does not understand the economic model of homo economicus, or he is misrepresenting it. No economist believes that people are wealth maximizers. They believe FIRMS are wealth maximizers. However, it is explicit in econ 101 that people are UTILITY maximizers, which only means that it is assumed people do that which they desire most.

Conspicuous consumption is a cultural issue rather than a systematic one. And it's the culture of entitlement as well as the self esteem movement which lead to the rampant douchebaggery we have in society these days.

Actually it often does. These days when an investor buys stock they only care about one number. They want that number to go up rather than down. It is too easy for anyone to put their money into a corporation without giving any thought into whether the growth of said corporation is benefiting or hurting society in the bigger picture. A small business or privately owned company might put a lot of thought and effort into certain ideals out of motives other than profit but a corporation is generally a slave to it's share-holders who may or may not care about anything other than the stock-price.

Yeah but they're no fun. Too much sadism.

I'm well aware of this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking what I do have in my favor for granted. Art has virtually always involved some level of sycophantism. But that isn't really what I was addressing in my last post.

To clarify: I've got no qualms in promoting and taking money for my work. The problem for me is trying to transcend the primary societal view, that what I create is my "product", and the purpose of my "product" is to look good over somebody's fireplace. One major point of me being a fine artist in the first place (in addition to gaining much enjoyment from it) is creating work with deep conceptual underpinnings, with the hopes that I will engage viewers and facilitate discourse. I put a lot of effort into making societal commentary. I often find, however, that the meaning is lost on people, because they focus primarily on my paintings as "objects" (in the sense of something that could be used as living room decor) rather than vessels of concept or expression. This could be due to a failing of mine as an artist-- perhaps my work doesn't "read" well-- but I also believe that the culture of which we're a part, this Western culture that prizes "stuff" so much, promotes a mentality that sees mainly in terms of the physical and gives much less credence to abstracts like ideas, concepts, and emotions. In these conditions, I am somewhat hindered in the pursuit of my interests, because my interests (promoting discussion) run counter to the predominant game of buying, making and selling goods, no thought required.

In short, my objection to the all-consuming marketplace is, it is not conducive to deep reflection among consumers. It's no secret that vendors and advertisers have for years made restriction of thought (by means of sensory bombardment and applying pressure) one of their key strategies in winning over consumers, because appealing to a customer's impulses to buy is far more fruitful than allowing him time to think it over. Personally, though, I gain a significant portion of my fulfillment as an artist from making others think.



Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I'm likely more on that "romantic" side of the spectrum, at least when discussing my artwork. I deal in ideas, theories and dreams.



Yeah, that's another thing. It doesn't bother me quite as much as the things I mentioned above, but it's always in the back of my mind. I'm not a big fan of the upper class, save for a few individuals (like Bill Gates) who've been very philanthropic with their wealth. But they do seem to be the only ones who have the luxury of being art connoisseurs and collectors.