Commodity fetishism refers to the Marxian concept of the decontextualization and mystification of the social relations of production in the process of commodification. In consumer culture this concept often highlights the characteristics of advertising brand discourse which tend to overlook the production of commodities especially in large scale productions. They ignore the social and environmental cost and instead focus on creating additional meanings and symbolic agency around brands. In this paper, I would like to analyze commodity fetishism by taking into account the Marxists theory of commodity fetishism and the notion that commodity culture is intricately related with the idea that we construct our identities through our consumption …show more content…
To support his statement, he takes the example of wood and its product – table. The table continues to be that common everyday thing, wood. However, the moment it is presented as a commodity, “it is changed into something transcendent”. The value of human labor completely disappears as soon as the table is presented as a commodity with an exchange value (money). Advertisers further severe the connection of human labor from the commodity by creating mystical characteristics around the commodity. People begin to associate value as per what the advertisers project through ads as though value is inherent in the commodity rather than the actual value associated with the amount of labor spent to produce the commodity. Therefore, commodity fetishism is “the process by which mass produced goods are emptied of the meaning of their production and then filled with new meanings in ways that both mystify the product and turn it into a fetish object” (Marita …show more content…
There are several trends which evolved with time, what were trendy during the 80s and 90s are hitting the market. Media and the internet plays a significant role in promoting and popularizing these trends. Being in trend is to be socially accepted in the society. It has become a factor of identifying and judging one’s personality. Young people are victims, they are easily influenced whilst matured people are not easily swayed by such trends. People are ultimately compelled to keep up with popular trends. Industries and producers employ large scale production to meet the demands of the consumers. This in turn affect the conditions of the labourer. When we buy a commodity, the first thing we check is how well it fits us. We do not think about how or where the product as made and under what conditions. Commodity fetishism blinds us through its mystifying agency and keep up ignorant about the working conditions of such large scale producing companies. Another example is how we associate different profession and occupation with the way people follow a particular dress code. For instance, Air hostess wears skirt and a matching blazer and scarf and headdress. Office worker mostly stick to suits. How we associate identity according to the kind of cloth they
How often does one actually consider where a product originates or under what conditions it was produced? While out shopping a consumers main focus is on obtaining the item needed or wanted not selecting merchandise based on the “made in” tag. It is common knowledge that many products are imported from other countries. However, little thought is given to the substandard conditions that workers endure to eke out a living to maintain a poverty stricken existence. In Mardi Gras: Made in China director David Redmon demonstrates the effect globalization and capitalism have on the lives of the owner and workers of a bead factory in China while contrasting the revelry of partygoers in New Orleans. Underpaid, overworked staff toil and live in an inhuman environment, exploited by a boss who demands much for little compensation while profiting greatly, to support themselves and their families.
Timmerman suggests that “We share little with the people who make our clothes nowadays. We’re divided by oceans, politics, language, culture, and a complex web of economic relationships. It doesn’t affect our daily lives if they are overworked and underpaid as it did during the turn of the twentieth century,” thus demonstrating the inadequacy of outsourcing and the relationships between the corporation, factory workers, and the consumer (180). The dynamic between the corporations, factory workers, factory owners, and middle-men is complicated and tense due to the interactions, communication, and duties differentiating between each group. For the factory workers, they suffer working in hard conditions, though the workers are happy to have a job, they would rather endure the harsh stipulations for the means of production to make money to send to their families than to protest against their factory owners (Timmerman 7).
Ewen, S. (2001). Consumption and Seduction. In Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and The Social Roots of the Consumer Culture. (pp. 177-184). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Scanning the conforming, ephemeral trendy masses, a large percent of the attire donned by the populace is made by cheap labor under horrible conditions. Many of the stores that fill malls and line streets are stocked with morally tainted products. Various popular brand names and stores use sweat shops as a means of production to maintain a low manufacturing cost, and reap a higher profit. Not only do these socially irresponsible conglomerates exist, they thrive on the blinded, and complacent materialistic society. Outfitting popular sports teams, and celebrities, these businesses have immense control, and take a big part in not only the fashion industry, but foreign affairs, as well. Although providing labor to third world countries may at first seem acceptable, the circumstances under which these sweatshops run are not. There are lists of rules by the United Nations, that outline the requirements a corporation must meet to be a socially responsible company. There are many companies that are popular today, however, that don’t meet the criteria stipulated by the UN, and fall in the “sweatshop” category.
While climbing up the social hierarchy through the lavish purchasing of clothing, many Americans are inadvertently promoting inhumane wages and working conditions for millions of garment factory workers. In the Conditioning Center, the elementary class repeats, “We always throw away old clothes”. Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending, ending is better.” (35).
In the New York Times article, The Oppressive Gospel of ‘Minimalism’, millennial Kyle Chayka expresses his disdain towards minimalism’s trend and increasing incorporation in everyday life, deeming it to be, “expensive and exclusively branded by and for the elite.” In other words, Chayka discerns minimalism to only appeal towards millennials who have the financial freedom to rely on instant purchases rather than stocking for emergencies. Nonetheless, his stance does not recognize that minimalism does not aim to throw away everything in possession, but rather concentrate value upon few items to gain clarity in its worth. Hence, minimalism techniques in marketing and product values do not aim to exclude those who can’t afford it, but instead aim for consumers to consider its value in a single product. Value does not stem from price alone, but rarity, material, artistic context, design, and underlying connotations factor into its worth. Therefore, these non-explicit components in minimalist items are not considered by critics such as Kyle Chayka, and are deemed unnecessarily high without any contemplation. Another criticism against minimalism’s use in marketing is that it doesn’t give enough information for audience’s to be on the same page with reality. The point of minimalism is that the lack of information gives audiences full control over their own interpretations, and administering it in advertisements strengthens consumers’ power. Rather than giving deliberate features of an item, a minimalist ad would highlight its strengths, but allow audiences to extract its importance, whether it be personal or objective. Additionally, minimalism is employed to extract a degree of materialism in product advertising, since readers have to extrapolate potential experiences from items rather than worry about the costs. According to sociologist Joel
Jeffcott introduces his argument apprising the readers about the fair trade labeled clothes. Further enlightening them, that fair trade label clothes do not provide a picture of the working conditions of the people sewing the clothes. He then leads to his claim about the need to improve the sweatshop conditions for the people working in the developing countries. I have always been a firm believer in equality for all human beings which makes me inclined towards the article. The author introduces the argument by showing strong appeal to pathos by using vivid language describing the working conditions involving poverty, low wages, and long working hours. Providing examples of the deaths of people in the companies who work under such miserable conditions, he generates sympathy among readers making them persuasive towards the argument. After creating a connection with the audience, he highlights the major reasons for sweatshop abuses. The author argues that the first major reason is the evolution of globalization and free trade. To support his reasons, he then provides various examples of big companies shifting their production offshore to save production costs. He also provides evidence of big companies like Nike and Gap thus making the argument effective for the readers. These examples have a strong emotional appeal inclining towards
Many consumers, myself included, are suckers for fast, cheap, and cute fashion. Most times I will pick up an item and not think twice about the true cost. Where the item was made, and by who, was rarely, if ever a concern of mine. “Inefficient production practices and the exploitation of workers in developing countries with capital-friendly labor laws allow these companies to produce clothing on a mass scale and sell them at
Consumption involves individuals purchasing goods to achieve a meaning or value to the consumer, not simply for the material benefit it offers. Instead, ‘commodities are not just objects of economic exchange, they are goods to think with, goods to speak with’ (Fiske, 1989) (Cited in Bocock, 1993). This suggests that individuals use goods as symbolic props, as a way of creating and moulding their own identities. It is suggested that the individual has the ability to create their own narrative and can rely upon the novelties of consumer goods. However, the individual is still bound by the market and the mass commodities of Capitalism. For example: sports individuals purchase equipment, clothing etc, to encourage the identity they wish to possess. As they see these goods as a connection to their lifestyle.
ideas typically rise and fall in popularity. What is the motivating force behind such changes in fashion? What causes the cycle to move from one phase to the next? These questions cannot be answered simply. Perhaps sheer boredom inspires the continual search for something new.