Capitalism’s Social Fetish

1. Capitalism’s Social Fetish

2. Questions • What can fetishism tell us about ideological interpellation in light of the recent interventions by post-structuralism? • What is the relationship between capitalism and fetishism in the contemporary world?

3. Thesis Ideological Interpellation depends on and is formed through the contingent establishment of hegemonic fetishistic fantasies. The capitalist mode of production relies specifically on the fetishistic “social” fantasies of the family and Liberal “rights” to self-identity and political representation.

4. Contents Marx: Fetishism and Hegemony Lacan: Fetishism and Fantasy Capitalism and Fetishism Revealing the Capitalist “Real”

5. Marx: Fetishism and Hegemony

6. Fetishism: A Definition Reification of an object Charles de Brosses (1775): First discussed fetishism in terms of religion. Referred to objectification of material objects, such as tribal god symbols.

7. Marx and Fetishism Wrote of capitalism’s fetishism of commodities in Capital Vol. 1. Commodities have objectified and ultimately reified status as objects of value. The personal material relationship with the object becomes an abstract one defined by the assumed objective character of the thing Abstract principals become “truth” and thus are posited outside the scope of human determination.

8. Marx and Fetishism “The recent scientific discovery, that the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production marks indeed an epoch in the history of the development of the human race but not, by no means dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the product itself.” (Marx 1992: 79).

9. Fetishism and the Ideological Subject The process of fetishism produces the ideological subject From Material to Social From Social to Law From Law to Universality Universal Law as formative basis of the subject’s ideological interpellation

10. Marxism and Fetishism “Political Economy has indeed analyzed, however incompletely, value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour-time by the magnitude of this value. These formula, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that proceeded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same ways as the Fathers of the church treated pre-Christian religion.” (Marx: 83-84).

11. Fetishism as Discourse Fetishism is discursive-meaningfully structuring human relationships with objects. “Value therefore does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic…for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language.” (Marx: 79).

12. Fetishism as hegemony Fetishism is not merely a discourse but one which seeks to dominate any and all social meanings attributed to an object or human relationships. Fetishism naturalizes historically contingent human understanding as inherent and universal, an understanding reproduced through repetition. “The constant repetition of exchange makes it a normal social act.” (Marx: 91). The hegemonic assumption of these discourses as inherent and objective is reinforced through their enshrinement in the law. The incompleteness of this ideological interpellation is revealed in the reliance on the law’s authority to deal with questioning of its truth. “Since the standard of money is on the one hand purely conventional, and must on the other hand find general acceptance, it is in the end regulated by law.” (Marx: 102).

13. Lacan: Fetishism, and Fantasy

14. Fetishism: Form and Force Hegemony serves as the form of ideological interpellation, not the force behind such phenomena. Marx himself admits that he is showing the consequences of “desires” not their causes. “A commodity is in the first place an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants. The nature of such wants, whether for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy makes no difference.” (Marx: 43).

15. The Phsychological Alternative Freud (1927): Freud provides a more psychological account of Fetishism. At its most basic level it is the placing of desire into an object. It is the transference of desire from person to object.

16. Lacan and Fantasy Literal objectification of desire symbolizes desire for lost fullness. The fetish serves as the object petite a for the lacking subject. “Thus the fetishist identifies the Other’s lack (e.g. the castration of the woman) with an ‘object a’: bits of clothing, cast off shoes, whatever.” (Benvenuto and Kennedy: 181).

17. Ideology and Fetishism: Hegemonic Form and the force of Fantasy Social relationships are legitimized as hegemonic fetishes (non-contingent, objectified forces determining human relations). This form of social interpellation is based on the necessary construction of fantasies aimed at fulfilling the lacking subject. Social arrangements are formed by and legitimized through the hegemonic entrenchment of specific fetishistic fantasies.

18. Capitalism and Fetishism

19. Capitalism and Fetishism What hegemonic fetishistic fantasies currently act to sustain and reproduce modern capitalist modes of production?

20. Contemporary Capitalist Fetishes Commodities remain fetishistic objects in modern capitalist societies. This fetish legitimizes directly capitalist relationships through providing fantasies of fulfillment. In terms of exchange one places his or her desire into consumerism Regarding labour one attempts to find fulfillment in his or her job. However, these social fetishes are incomplete as they serve a supplementary role to other social fantasies containing greater fetishized qualities

21. Zizek and the “Fetish of the Party” Zizek (1996): Soviet Communist Party serves as all encompassing discourse, incorporating all individual desires within its phantasmatic grip. Fetish here is explicitly a social relationship Analyzes a fantasy specifically against capitalism-the question remains as to what fetishistic fantasies serve to reinforce capitalism.

22. The “Logic” of Capitalism Zizek describes capitalism as logic of the hysteric Capitalist subject thus becomes “symptom” of the lack. Marx implicitly refers to this condition as he notes that capitalist produces its “gravedigger” in the form of the proletariat

23. Capitalism, Lack, and Reproduction Capitalism necessarily relies on the constant lacking subject for its own reproduction. In order for capitalism to reproduce itself it requires a subject who constantly him or herself needs to be reproduced via its existence. Capitalism not as a singular social fantasy in its own right but as a principal for social operation. Requires supplemental fantasies to distract from its own incomplete character while maintaining the permanent presence of a lacking subject.

24. Revealing the Capitalist “Real””

25. Capitalism and its “other” Capitalism directs desires for fulfillment away from itself into other spheres of human relationships to avoid producing its own destruction. The presence of additional social fantasies, alongside capitalism, as family and Liberal rights illuminates this reality. Their fetishistic character permanently directs the lacking subject away from itself. The “real” of capitalism, its inability to completely ideologically interpolate the subject within its meaningful field, is oriented towards historically contingent social relationships which taken on an necessary objectified status for this purpose.

26. Constructing Fetishized Social Relationships Capitalism historically has been combined with supplemental discourses further legitimizing its dominant social position. Specifically ideas of the “family”, Liberal “rights” to self-identification, and Liberal “rights” to politics have a symbiotic relationship with capitalism. These discourses were framed as inherent social identities for individuals, thus taking on from their inception a fetishistic status. These reified hegemonic discourses serve to maintain capitalist relation through permanently inscribing individuals within particular and unchangeable forms of social organization and desire.

27. Masking the “real” These discourses of the family and Liberal “rights” firstly mask the lacking character of capitalism through providing a seeming opportunity for fulfillment outside of one’s economic condition. Thus despite the incomplete qualities of capitalism one is urged to find completeness in family, or in expressions of self-identity, or through political representation.

28. Displacing the “real” This masking mechanism though is ultimately insufficient for the purposes of capitalist consolidation as it opens these discourses to questioning when one remains lacking. These fetishistic discourses displace desires for fulfillment into social relationships, thus simultaneously providing for a permanently lacking subject yet one which always seeks fulfillment in “social” fantasies external to capitalist relations.

29. Crafting the Capitalist Cynic Recent research has revealed the role of cynicism in reinforcing dominant ideologies, especially in regard to capitalist modes of production. (Zizek, Spicer and Fleming 2003). Zizek has linked this cynicism to fetishism as the “fetishist disavowal” or the process where one realizes that he or she should not believe in a given fantasy yet nonetheless continues to do so Capitalism’s use of social fetishes helps in part to explain this phenomena. Even when one feels dissatisfied at his or her job and realizes its absurdity, and even its ultimate contingent nature, he or she remains invested in this capitalist relationship to obtain fulfillment in other areas outside of capitalism such as family, social life, or politics. The objectified status of these “social” relationships further entrenches their phantasmatic saliency as individuals see such desires not as social constructions but as natural conditions for human existence.

30. The Law, Fantasy, and Fetishism The Law is by nature universal, that which incorporates everyone equally and homogenously within itself. The Fantasy in contrast is always particular to the individual, existing as a “pathological” way each person attempts to come to terms with the “real” Zizek argues that the fantasy is always a surplus, or exceeding the law. (1996: 90). However, here it is the universal law which sets the boundaries for individual fantasy. One individually pursues one’s particular fantasies as according to the fetishistic social law. Accordingly, one can be a democrat or republican, a committed family man or single, a fashionista or musician in accordance to the reified discourses of finding fulfillment in politics, family, or self-identity

31. Universalism and Fetishism Zizek explicitly warns against seeing human rights as only “reified fetishes” and instead as the manifestation for the ever-present human desire for the universal. (Zizek, “A Plea for ‘Passive Aggressivity’”, 2006). These historically concrete social fetishes however act to permanently entrench these universal desires within its ideological grip, therefore reinforcing existing configurations of power.

32. Conclusion

33. Fetishism, Ideology, and Capitalism • The aims of this paper were two fold. • First to more greatly illuminate the relationship between fetishism and ideological interpellation • Secondly to reveal current uses of fetishism for sustaining capitalist relations. • Discourses become hegemonic as fetishes , a process driven by the need to shape and direct the phantasmatic desires of the lacking subject toward particular social ends. • Capitalism both historically and presently depends on supplemental fetishistic social discourses, most notably discourses of the family and Liberal rights, to reproduce itself.