Talbot Hardman
English 395
Prof. Strickland
11 February 1997
Days after our discussion of commodity fetishism I find myself puzzling over the various implicit points of concern suggested in the earlier classroom conversation. After our discussion of the fetishization of diamonds, and other "luxury" or "status" items, I was intrigued--not so much by the question of whether or not these items constitute examples of
commodity fetishism (I am operating under the assumption that the fetishization of diamonds and Lexus cars is obvious and beyond scrutiny)--but rather, my interest lies in assessing the source of creation of this fetishization in contemporary culture. What economic powers are operating which bring about an inflation of value being imposed on to various commodities in our capitalist culture? Michael Franti (singer of The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy) expresses an insightful critique on the illusory effects of television advertising in "Television, the Drug of a Nation": T.V. is the place where the pursuit of happiness has become the pursuit of trivia, Where toothpaste and cars have become sex objects.
I think it might be interesting to take a look at the way advertising exists as a nuance of the creation of commodity fetishism and to consider the various implications of the existence of this economic nuance. I must admit that my interest in the operation of advertising was
instigated in our class discussion's questioning the "harm" in fetishizing the value of a watch given to her by a friend. It seems to me that the subtleties of advertising have created a surreal vision--entrenched by the fictionalized narratives of advertising--of our existence which often
controls our own abilities to witness exploitation, or other economic wrongdoing. This "control" over our potential for insight creates the possibility of an illusory social transaction taking place on a solely superficial level. As an example consider the way in which urbanization led to the illusion of meat's "journey" from the source to our kitchen
tables.
The appearance of meat markets, delicatessens (the French film by the same title offers an interesting critique on this same topic), and, ultimately, supermarkets created a locus of transaction far removed from the unpleasantries of killing, skinning and butchering barnyard animals. The repeated scenario of Joe City walking to the corner market for a pound
of ground beef eventually leads to a habitualization which removes the acts of the slaughterhouse from our social consciousness. Once supermarkets abound, an interesting capitalist phenomenon appears in which the meats of Butcher X, Butcher Y, and Butcher Z sit side-by-side on the sterile shelving of the supermarket. Now, to distinguish the product from their competitors, the butchers begin to use aggressive advertising to move their own products off of the shelves. The most telling example of the removal of the realities of the barnyard and the slaughterhouse from our social consciousness may be observed in advertising's ability to use an image like "Jimmie Dean"--a good ol' country boy--to sell sausage. Advertising has come full circle by implanting a fictionalized narrative into the social
consciousness in the place of the preexisting unpleasantry of the butcher block. If an inquisitive individual chooses to consider how their smoky link got to the supermarket then their interrogation becomes muddled by confusing images of Jimmie Dean sitting around a quaint country table for a Sunday dinner.
It is these fictionalized narratives developed by ad agencies which prove to be so intriguing to me. Marx's words ring prophetic, concerning the effects of advertising, when he explains that "this fetishism of commodities has its origin . . . in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them" (447). Can we call advertising the labour that produces fetishism of commodities or the peculiar social character of the labour? It seems that both elements are at work: the product of advertising (commercial, logo, superstar) is a product of an advertiser's labour, but doesn't the culture's "willing suspension of disbelief," in accepting the fictionalized narrative of advertising, add the "peculiar social character" to the formula of fetishism? Various advertisers, photographers, writers, producers, etc. use their labour to produce an ad depicting a beautiful heterosexual couple gawking at the huge diamond which symbolizes the ensuing success of their marriage to each other; however, doesn't our willingness to buy into this fictionalized narrative play a part in the fetishization of diamonds?
I think this two-fold element of the creation of fetishism begins to point to the complexity of the illusory aura of advertising. The social transaction of producing and believing the fictionalized narratives employed in advertising habitualizes our social consciousness into
believing that the capitalist mode of production is much simpler than it really is. Alas! Romance abounds!
