Interpreting Marx, Essay Example

Abstract

In the offered essay, the book “Glass, Paper, Beans: Revelations On The Nature And Value of Ordinary Things” by Leah Hager Cohen is analyzed. The main aim is to find out whether Cohen’s interpretation of Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism was its practical embodiment, or it served as a theoretical basis for the further development new thinking in the framework of the modern capitalist society. The offered method is content analysis of the book – how certain concepts and examples used in the book correspond to Marx’s theory and its classic interpretation. The main common points in Cohen’s and Marx’s approaches to the commodity fetishism were outlined. The differences and additions applied by Cohen in her book were discussed in details. Contribution of Cohen’s interpretation of Marx to the modern study of society and culture were also mentioned. Appropriate conclusions were given at the end.

Key words: commodity fetishism, human labor, use-value, money-value, consumption

Interpreting Marx

The book “Glass, Paper, Beans: Revelations On The Nature And Value of Ordinary Things” by Leah Hager Cohen is an example of everyday economics writing. In her work, Cohen concentrates on the research of what is behind the existing commodities and their consumption, what is behind a regular cup of coffee and a newspaper in one’s morning routine. Although Cohen does not represent any new theoretical concepts, in her exploration of capitalist reality of the modern world she uses various classic theories of sociology and economics. Marxist concepts of alienation, use-value and commodity fetishism; the functional interconnectedness of labor division and sacred divide of Durkheim; routinization, production rationalization and status groups of Weber; central role of money in the modern society and culture suggested by Simmel are all present in the work of Cohen. Each concept had its practical implementation in the book and exemplar expression. In the offered essay, it is suggested to concentrate on one of the theories, meaning commodity fetishism by Marx. The central thesis is to investigate whether Cohen’s interpretation of Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism was just practical embodiment of the theory, or it is just based on it, but develops different perspective of thinking in the framework of the modern capitalist society. In other words, the book is analyzed from its correspondence to the classic postulates of Marx’s commodity fetishism theory and its contribution to the understanding of the modern tendencies in the social culture of the capitalist economy. The main method offered for this research is content analysis of the book – how certain concepts and examples used in the book correspond to Marx’s theory and its classic interpretation.

The first aspect to analyze, in the context of the central thesis, is the notion of commodity fetishism and its expression in the capitalist society. According to Marx, the nature of commodities is not derived from the fact that they are produced by people. There is a distinction between a product/item produced with the use of labor force and an object as commodity. The produced object has use-value which is connected to its material use. Its meaning for the users is in the practical application of the object. For instance, the wood used to make a chairs with application of human labor, is use-valued by its material use. On the other hand, when this exact chair “emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends sensuousness” (Marx, 2001, p. 423). Any produced item becomes a commodity the moment it is exchanged for money. People of the capitalist societies begin to treat commodities in the framework of their money value rather than an amount of labor used in its production and material specifics of the object. Further on, Marx suggest that “commodity reflects the social characteristics of men’s own labor as objective characteristics of the products of labor themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things” (Marx, 2001, p. 4234-35). In the framework of these considerations, the essence of commodity fetishism is in evaluation and social interpretation of commodities without their natural link to human labor process of manufacture at all. Commodities gain “spirit” through their evaluation by money; therefore, commodities become a fetish and embodiment of what money can buy. Through the money, capitalist society evaluates everything (Aldridge, 2003, p. 76).   It may seem that since Marx had introduced this concept and gave notion to all aspects nothing can be added, but Cohen manages to make a different emphasis in her book:

“The truth beyond the fetish’s glimmering mirage is the relationship of laborer to product; it is the social account of how that object came to be. In this view every commodity, beneath the mantle of its pricetag, is a hieroglyph ripe for deciphering, a riddle whose solution lies in the story of the worker who made it and the conditions under which it was made” (Cohen, 1997, p. 189).

From the first glance, it may seem that Cohen’s interpretation of Marx’s concept is only a simplified rephrasing aimed to make the concept more comprehensible for audience. In fact, the symbolic and colorful narration makes the meaning of her ideas and interpretations more comprehensible. On the other hand, Cohen does not only simplify Marx’s concept she puts an entirely different emphasis on the whole concept and its meaning. While Marx concentrated on the meaning of commodities in the socioeconomic relations and emphasized the alienation of the human labor, he referred to the human labor as a faceless economic category. For Marx, everything had categorical meaning. Although he emphasized the negative phenomenon of alienation and dehumanization of commodities in socioeconomic relations, he also treated human labor and labor class as categories and abstract terms in his theoretical concept (Marx, 2001, p. 448). On the other hand, in her notion of commodity fetishism and the book as a whole, Cohen places emphasis on individuality and personification of labor force. She even uses the term “worker” instead of “human labor”, “labor force” or “working class” usually appliedby Marx.

In order to make her narration more convincing and practically vivid, Cohen does not make mere theoretical suggestions on the topic, but narrates the theoretical concepts through the real lives of her characters. Thus, to show that there is more behind the “pricetag” Cohen describes the interconnection and complexity of social, political, personal, cultural and religious background of workers who are behind the commodities, but used to be their embodiments. Unlike Marx, Cohen investigates the individual dimension of the commodity fetishism in the framework of cultural and social aspects, which were secondary for Marx after economic and political (De Angelis, 1996, p. 14). Marx, in order to make his theory comprehensible, used two examples – literary work and political regime. On the example of Robinson Crusoe, he showed that items remain their use-value because money does not exist and as well as capitalist society that require it. In the feudal regime, commodity is useless since all classes of society are involved in the process of production and products circulation and are interdependent, private property does not interfere into the process – peasants depend on their vassals just as vassals depends on them (Sassatelli, 2007, p. 86). Cohen makes examples from various cultural backgrounds, describing different people in their everyday life.  She writes about Ruth, a woman working at the Anchor Hocking glass factory, Brent; a lumber-man in New Brunswick; Basilio, a coffee grower from Mexico.   She makes her examples not just more practical, vivid and comprehensible; she makes them alive and sensual. By giving workers their sensuality and cultural identity, Cohen establishes the natural link between producer and his product. She reveals the truth: “The truth beyond the fetish’s mirage is the relationship of laborer to product” (Cohen, 1997, p. 209). The relationship between labor force and item produced Marx called “natural relationship”. He considered that social relationships between people were substituted by the social relationships between things (De Angelis, 1996, p. 19). Thus, commodities gain spirit of the previous social relations. While Marx concentrates on the transition of social meaning and characteristic from human relations to the realm of things, Cohen continues to pay attention to the essence of objects used in the everyday life. Unlike Marx, she does not try to prove that this transition happened or not, Cohen starts from the point that it indeed occurred and that something should be done about it. In this context, she suggests that truth behind the fetishist imagery should be found, and people should look into the depth of phenomenon.

Another essential feature that shows Cohen’s theoretical development on the basis of Marx’s concept and not its mere practical implementation is that, unlike Marx, she does not concentrate on the commodities themselves and as a core of the capitalist economic system, but goes further. Cohen refers to the commodification of the modern society. It is no longer that objects gain life of their own and become actors of social relations. People as human beings become objects themselves. In other words, the process of commodification reached its final stage – it turneda human being into commodity (Parnis, 1998). Nowadays, if one has enough money one can buy anything – a girlfriend from Central Europe or Philippines, adopt a child, gain various sexual services (both legal or illegal), human sperm or eggs, body organs even new born babies. In the modern world, everything even human beings had become commodities: “In that regard, we, like all the products we gather and clutch to us, wear masks . . . trapped in our grotesque fetish mask” (Cohen, 1997, p. 219). If Marx concentrated his critics of capitalist economyon dehumanization of objects and alienation of labor force, Cohen went further andcondemned the objectification of human beings in the system of market relations where people no longer favor their individuality and sacredness as living creatures. Subsequently, she is unfolding further Marx’s concept in accordance to the tendencies of the modern western civilization development conditioned by technological evolution and disruption of religious beliefs and morality.  From Cohen’s interpretation of Marx’s theory and description of the modern life style, it becomes clear that spiritualization and fetishization of objects would inevitably lead to the dehumanization and spiritual degradation of human beings. Marx could not imagine the nowadays situation and social tendencies, but he thought something similar might happen. On the example of labor force’s alienation from the product produced, Marx showed the abstraction of human spirituality embodied in the object from the object itself (Aldridge, 2003, p. 81). The sense of alienation and the abstraction of labor are conditioned by the social constraints in the forms of no direct accession to means of livelihood, cultural patterns shaping consumption and insecurity in laborers’ minds (De Angelis,1996, p. 12).  On the ground of social restraints, developed by Marx, Cohen unfolds the conditionality of the modern commodification of a human being by the specifics of consumption culture.

In her book, Cohen uses the concept of commodity fetishism as a basis for further investigation of the nature and interconnection of the culture of production with the culture of consumption (Parnis, 1998).  In the exploration of the consumer culture in the modern world, Cohen concludes that classical means of sensuality expression are now used to spread and establish new cult of commodity fetishism. Language, visual and sound effects used in the advertisementattract customers to new commodities, proclaim the vital necessity to consume, use and spend money. Through the artificial imagery, the seeming identity is developed and sold. Cohen proves this statement on the example of the Mexican coffee marketing by Basilio’s farmer cooperative. In order to give his product brandish imagery which would be consciously recognizable and comprehensible for people out of the local community, Basilio is forced to change the original name Zapotecs into Aztecs Harvests. Further, Cohen outlines that famous ice-cream producer Ben &Jerry’s named one of their coffees by this brandish name of Basilio not mainly due to the incredible taste of coffee beans but to their seeming social meaning (Cohen, 1997).  That social meaning was depicted in the company’s literature stressing:

 “the fact that its shareholders are the farmer-members of the cooperatives; that the farmers are largely indigenous people, practicing traditional methods of growing and processing beans; and that the coffee is organic. Gradually, the invented name Aztec Harvests is growing to signify something, to rouse an image, an identity” (Cohen, 1997, p. 55)

This example shows the substitution of real use-value of product, not by the money value of the commodity, but by its brandish imagery and invented identity. Through the depiction of interconnection between commodities’ meaning and economic interests, Cohen manages to show Marx’s concept in the new dimension of the modern life. If Marx was still alive, he would develop his theory to the levels of branding, re-fashioning and advertising techniques, as well as he would contribute to the cultural dimensions of both consumption and production (De Angelis, 1996, p 20).

An essential difference between Cohen’s and Marx’s approaches to the commodity fetishism is the scope their views cover. In case of Marx, he referred to the capitalist society in a certain country; he had no intention to speak of the global economy, mainly because he could not. At his time, globalization was not as vivid and economies of countries not as interdependent, as they are today (Sassatelli, 2007). On the other hand, Cohen discussed the issue of commodity fetishism in  the global context. She put differences in respect to production and consumption not between classes in capitalist societies, but between different countries in the global economy (Parnis, 1998). In this context, she described manufacturers to be from different countries, which effected their production culture and manufacture methodology. She also showed the prevailing difference between developed countries as main consumers and lower-developed ones as producers of commodities. Through such correlation, Cohen managed to show that the more society or western civilization becomes commodified, the more it forgets who are behind the brands which girlsfrom the “Sex in the City” wear, that developed countries depend and stand on the backs of the lower-developed ones and their resources availability. In other words, if Marx spoke of the abstraction of labor force in the capitalist society of a certain country, Cohen managed to discuss the global workers from various countries who become unseen and whose production culture becomes incomprehensible in the modern consumption culture of the commodified Western civilization.

Characteristic feature of Cohen’s narration and practical explanation of classic theories is in application of symbolism and interpreting of reality through the historical and cultural images. This makes comprehension and interpretation of the book multidimensional and multicultural. Unlike any regular scholar book or theoretical treatise, Cohen’s book is created to make people reconsider surrounding world and search for more in it. Due to the symbolism and interpretive narration of the book, Cohen manages not only to explain the essence of Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism, but to accommodate it to the modern tendencies of the globalised world and entirely commodified society. In other words, Cohen takes Marx’s concept and uses it in cultural interactions of production and consumption. Cohen gives a classical concept new life in the context of new tendencies and challenges of the globalised consumption civilization.

Overall, both Cohen uses Marx’s notion for commodity fetishism. In the process of commodification, objects gain spirituality, money value, which is independent of their use-value. Both scholars agree that commodity fetishism leads to the alienation of the labor force. The difference between two approaches is that Cohen pays more attention to manufacture culture and individuality of the workers, while Marx emphasized social classes and their place in the socialist struggle. Both Marx and Cohen suggested that truth behind commodities’ false imageries is a relationship between laborer and his object produced. In this context, Marx concentrated on the transition of social meaning and characteristic from human beings to the material objects. On the other hand, Cohen emphasized the essence of objects used in everyday life. She suggests that comprehension of object’s true nature is possible if fetishist mask is taken off. Having Marx’s classical commodity fetishism concept as a basis of her work, Cohen developed its modern interpretation in the framework of correlation between production and consumption cultures. She suggests that the process of commodification had reached its final stage – treating a human being as an object for sale. Cohen also discusses the phenomenon of branding and meaning of the advertisement in the modern consumption culture. Visual and sound effects of advertisement attract customers to new commodities, proclaim the vital necessity to consume, use and spend money. Through a simple explanation of Marx’s classic concept and its modern interpretation, Cohen managed to give the audience a comprehensible description of concepts embodiment on the everyday examples and outline how this concept explains the modern consumption society.  This contributes to the comprehension of modern society, production and consumption cultures and classical theories in the field.

References

Aldridge, A.E. (2003). Consumption. Cambridge, CB: Polity Press.

Cohen, L.H. (1997). Glass, Paper, Beans: Revelations On The Nature And Value of Ordinary Things.  New York, NY: Doubleday.

De Angelis, M. (1996). “Social Relations, Commodity-Fetishism and Marx’s Critique of Political Economy”, Review of Radical Political Economics, December 1996 vol. 28, no.4, p 1-29. doi: 10.1177/048661349602800401.

Marx, K. (2001). Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Ed. McLellan, D. Oxford, OX: Oxford University Press.

Parnis, D. (1998). Review of the Book Glass, Paper, Beans: Revelations On The Nature And Value of Ordinary Things by L.H. Cohen. Discourse of Sociological Practice. Retrieved from http://omega.cc.umb.edu/~sociology/journal/volume4_5.htm

Sassatelli, R. (2007). Consumer Culture: History, Theory and Politics. Ney York, NY: SAGE Publications.