| This question <125|116> overall <111|113> Deborah: <43|193>. |
| Question 256: How does Marx's use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary definition? |
| [112] Deborah: Unquestioning Reverence or Disposable? Fetish: an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency; any object, idea, etc, eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion; a fixation. -- dictionary.com |
| Fetishism: excessive attachment or regard; blind devotion. -- dictionary.com |
| “There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.” -Marx (pg 165) |
| There are some similarities in the way that Marx uses fetishism and its modern dictionary definition. Marx notes that commodities are endowed with a life of their own, which enter into the relations both with each other and with the human race. This corresponds with the dictionary definition that objects are regarded as being the embodiment of a potent spirit or having a magical potency. Thinking of commodities as having a life of their own is equivalent with endowing and object with a spirit. |
| Regarding the unquestioning reverence, respect or devotion, or a sense of fixation, I am not convinced that Marx's use of the word coincides with this part of the definition. There is no indication that these commodities/objects are raised to a level in which they are revered or respected. While there may be a driven in our culture (especially in regards to consumerism) to acquire commodities, I do not think that we raise the commodities up to a level beyond what they really are -- objects. |
| As is pointed out in the Annotations, there are exceptions to this idea, in that there are minority sections of the community in which material possessions may become so important because they are an individual's link to society and give those individuals a sense of power to own these objects. For the most part, while as a society we are driven to consume more, we do not have an unquestioning reverence for these commodities. In fact, the consumerism aspect of our society almost has the opposite effect in that there is no devotion or reverence for any specific commodity -- we have a disposable culture in which if something is broken do not fix it, just get a new one. |
| Hans: Your last paragraph has a very good observation: the disposable culture means that the objects themselves are not really important. Perhaps one can say that what matters is the demonstrated ability to afford these objects. |
|
|
|||||