| This question <92|105> overall <101|103> George: <42|167-10>. |
| Question 187: How does Marx's use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary definition? |
| [102] George: The modern definition of fetishism and Marx's definition seem to be very similar in what they warn against. From Webster's New World, the dictionary describes a fetish as “anything to which a person is devoted in a way that is too strong.” In Cleo's response [92] to this question, there was a similar definition that described an “irrational devotion”. |
| Marx describes fetishism and the fetish-like character throughout section 1.4, but narrows in on the definition of fetishism as a deception created by the fetish-like character, and for the fetish-like character. What he seems to be referencing is that the fetish-like character many times has no direct connection with the actual material objects which are creating wealth, and in the capitalist society, power, for this person. Similarly, the wealth has no actual power beyond what the fetish-like characters perceive it to be. I agreed very much with the description of a fetish-like character not only enjoying that they are above average, but also that they find joy in the fact that they have managed to be a success in this system. This is an interesting concept, in that the fetishism seems to lead a person to feel that their material and monetary accomplishments are a reflection of their actual skill in the production or contribution to society, when in a capitalist society, this is not necessarily the case. Those who feel they are reaping the benefits of the power the material wealth has given them in society can often have no connection in either the process of production of the commodity, or any real influence in the society outside of material wealth. |
| Again, the dictionary definition ties in here, by warning against an “irrational devotion”, and the notes describe this as a “false consciousness”. These warnings seem to be getting at a very important issue, that is, when fetishism runs a society, and the select few who are fortunate enough to gain esteem because of not only their irrational devotion to their material wealth, but also the entire society's irrational devotion to the power this persons material wealth must bring. This brings up the issue of in a society where fetishism is allowed to exist, that what do those who are not fortunate enough to gain material wealth have? I feel Cleo is right that fetishism makes one corrupt and disrupts the even flow of the society. |
| The two definitions seem to stray away from each other slightly, in that as Marx's definition of fetishism seems to say that the fetish of the minority who are materially wealthy results in a perceived fetishism of the majority who are not materially wealthy. In other words, I feel these differences in definition are that the dictionary references the power a fetish makes an individual feel, and Marx's definition seems to say that a fetish of this sort will have the effect of making others believe they can attain that same power. His definition has consequences the society, not just an individual person's false perceptions. |
| Hans: In a gentle manner you are directing the discussion in the right direction. |
|
|
|||||