{"id":7314,"date":"2011-03-14T16:43:26","date_gmt":"2011-03-14T21:43:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=7314"},"modified":"2011-03-14T20:40:16","modified_gmt":"2011-03-15T01:40:16","slug":"7314","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2011\/03\/14\/7314\/","title":{"rendered":"commodity fetishism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Boyle, Kirk. \u201cThe Four Fundamental Concepts of Slavoj \u017di\u017eek\u2019s Psychoanalytic Marxism.\u201d\u00a0 International Journal of \u017di\u017eek Studies<\/em> Vol 2.1 (2008) 1-21.<\/p>\n

To this example, \u017di\u017eek adds the emergence of labor as a commodity which represents \u201cthe internal negation of the universal principle of equivalent exchange of commodities,\u201d and, in
\nhis most extended illustration of the social symptom, \u017di\u017eek follows Lacan\u2019s claim that Marx discovered the symptom when he conceived of the structural shift in fetishism that occurred in
\n\u201cthe passage from feudalism to capitalism\u201d (\u017di\u017eek 1989: 23, 26).<\/p>\n

Whereas in feudalism fetishism takes place in a \u201crelation between men,\u201d in capitalism it occurs in a \u201crelation between things.\u201d In a feudal society, \u201crelations of domination and servitude\u201d are immediately transparent (the king rules over his subjects because they recognize him as king, and vice versa), while in a capitalist society these power relations are repressed by the institution of commodity fetishism (the capitalist, despite his conspicuous consumption, is hidden by the fact that he or she enjoys the same formal rights as the rest of us). Although these fetishistic structures are mutually exclusive, they follow the same logic.<\/p>\n

Fetishism: consists of a certain misrecognition which concerns the relation between a structured network and one of its elements: what is really a structural effect, an effect of the network of relations between elements, appears as an immediate property of one of the elements, as if this property also belongs to it outside its relation with other elements. (\u017di\u017eek 1989: 24)<\/p>\n

Rephrased in Hegelian terms, this misrecognition concerns the relation between the Universal and the Particular. The Universal is really a structural effect, an effect of the network of relations between particularities, but in fetishism the Universal appears as an immediate property of a particularity, as if this property also belongs to it outside its relation with other particularities.\u00a0 For example, the abstract, universal exchange-value appears as the immediate property of, say, a $50,000 luxury sedan or a $1 loaf of bread.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

the social symptom<\/strong>, \u201cthe point of emergence of the truth about social relations,\u201d shifts from being a case of ideological misrecognition or \u201cfalse consciousness\u201d<\/strong> that we can dissolve through the traditional form of Marxist ideology criticism, to become embodied in the reified (the \u201cobjectively subjective\u201d) social reality of the world of commodities (\u017di\u017eek 1989: 26). \u201cIt is this world,\u201d \u017di\u017eek writes, \u201cwhich behaves \u2018idealistically\u2019\u201d (\u017di\u017eek 1989: 32).<\/p>\n

We no longer have to believe in the magical aura emanating from luxury sedans, the cars themselves believe in their thaumaturgy [a miricle, magic] for us.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The ontological status of the social symptom entails that, as Jameson writes apropos of Althusser, \u201cideology is institutional first and foremost and only later on to be considered a matter of consciousness\u201d (Jameson 2001: xii). Such an admission does not amount to an irreconcilable divorce of … theory from practice. It simply means that when it comes to ideology, doing \u201cspeaks louder\u201d than knowing.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lacan coined the term sinthome<\/span> to conceptually account for patients whose symptom persisted beyond interpretation<\/strong>. The sinthome<\/span> is \u201cliterally our only substance, the only positive support of our being, the only point that gives consistency to the subject\u201d (\u017di\u017eek 1989: 75). What would it mean to identify with a social kernel of enjoyment that absolutely resists interpretation?<\/p>\n

\u017di\u017eek has used the example of single black mothers<\/strong> to represent the social mean to identify with a social kernel of enjoyment that absolutely resists interpretation<\/strong>? \u017di\u017eek has used the example of single black mothers<\/strong> to represent the social sinthome<\/span>, \u201ca knot, a point at which all the lines of the predominant ideological argumentation (the return to family values, the rejection of the welfare state and its \u2018uncontrolled\u2019 spending, etc.) meet\u201d (\u017di\u017eek 2000: 176).<\/p>\n

This example strikes me as perspicacious if we consider the jouissance structuring the predominant ideology, but it seems to remain at the level of a social symptom from a progressive perspective. In other words, the example of the single black mother is still interpretable<\/strong>, we can identify with how she interrupts the \u201cservice of goods.\u201d<\/p>\n

What about a social sinthome<\/span> that provides the substance that gives consistency to our \u201ccollective\u201d<\/strong> subjectivity?<\/p>\n

What about commodity fetishism<\/span> as the definitive social sinthome<\/span> of capitalist society? As \u017di\u017eek reminds us, for Marx:<\/p>\n

“there is one exceptional \u201cpathological,\u201d innerworldly particular content in which the very universal form of reflexivity is grounded, to which it is attached by a kind of umbilical cord, by which the frame of this form itself is enframed; for Marx, of course, the particular content is the social universe of commodity exchange” (\u017di\u017eek 2000: 278).<\/p>\n

The enjoyment derived from commodity fetishism persists beyond interpretation.<\/span> Unlike the symptom which loses its enjoyment factor when we gain knowledge of it, the sinthome<\/span>, as the fully acknowledged \u201cframe\u201d of our existence, maintains its libidinal position.<\/p>\n

The particular knot of the \u201csocial relations between things\u201d confronts us with the impotence of our critico-political activity. We identify with the pathological point of the social universe of commodity exchange simply by selling our labor power, not to mention the innumerable ways we enjoy this social sinthome<\/span> . In a topsy-turvy world where not just wooden tables but direct experiences stand on their head, are not the commodities themselves\u2014like \u017di\u017eek\u2019s celebrated example of canned laughter in television shows\u2014enjoying for us?<\/strong> Do they not function as the \u201cquanta of enjoyment\u201d in late capitalist society, to paraphrase \u017di\u017eek\u2019s recent analogy that sinthomes<\/span> are the \u201cFreudian equivalent of superstrings\u201d (\u017di\u017eek 2006a: 78)?<\/p>\n

How do we cut the umbilical cord that attaches us to the social universe of commodity exchange despite our conscious resistance?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u017di\u017eek\u2019s recent work displays an acute awareness of this predicament. He frames the problem by drawing an analogy to the psychoanalytic process. He writes, \u201cJust as the unconscious and not the patient must be brought to the truth, the real task is to convince not the subject, but the [commodities]: not to change the way we talk about commodities, but to change the way commodities talk among themselves\u201d<\/span> (\u017di\u017eek 2006b:352).<\/p>\n

As in the example of the chicken and the man who believes himself to be a grain of seed, we must convince not ourselves but the chicken-commodities that we are not grains of seed in order to defetishize the social universe of commodity exchange.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Boyle, Kirk. \u201cThe Four Fundamental Concepts of Slavoj \u017di\u017eek\u2019s Psychoanalytic Marxism.\u201d\u00a0 International Journal of \u017di\u017eek Studies Vol 2.1 (2008) 1-21. To this example, \u017di\u017eek adds the emergence of labor as a commodity which represents \u201cthe internal negation of the universal principle of equivalent exchange of commodities,\u201d and, in his most extended illustration of the social … Continue reading “commodity fetishism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[125,39,21,24,72,123,118,41,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drive","category-ideology","category-jouissance","category-lacan","category-objet-a","category-sinthome","category-symbolic","category-the-real","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7314"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7359,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7314\/revisions\/7359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}