I like stuff. Every object, no matter how mundane, seems to me to contain a whole world. I think I’ve always been like this. I was raised going to thrift shops and garage sales, learning to find value in history and singularity, and of course in my yearly purchase of one brand new item (though my affairs with Bongo, Benetton, and International News shirts were both hotter and briefer than those I had with many thrifted items). I don’t think I’m unique in that I have intense relationships to objects, just more reflective about it than most.
Most of my early interest in consumption was socio-politically or ecologically driven; later I got excited about signs, spectacle, shifting values, and all the rest of the academic onanism. Do other people engage with objects on so many different levels, thinking about natural resources and production processes, about brands and their emotional value, about standardization, planned obsolescence, about style versus function? I know I’m not the only one.
The fact is, I feel a great affection for objects and I have relationships with them, as I think we all do. Karl Marx argued our relationships with things mask our relationships with people and camouflage our positions in the production process but he has been rightly criticized for ignoring how objects can act of carriers of meaning when they are bought, traded, inherited, or given.
The extraordinary significance of the gift is beaten into the skulls of anthropology graduate students everywhere but that is not entirely a bad thing. It is in large part through gift giving that I have established and developed relationships here, and while my intention is partly instrumental, I like to think it is primarily affective. I love connecting with people through things. A gift always changes relationships (sometimes this is not welcome, as when it reveals someone’s ulterior intentions towards you) and though the symbolic weight of the act of giving is an important part of this, it is the object given that determines the ultimate meaning of how two individuals are now differently linked.
One of my favorite academic works is Peter Stallybrass’ chapter “Marx’s Coat” in the otherwise uninspiring Border Fetishisms, the gist of which is that the concept of commodity fetishism as a practice in modern societies is “one of Marx’s least understood jokes”. Once upon a time those who studied “primitive” peoples used the term “fetish” to refer to [inanimate] objects believed to possess magical powers or to be possessed by a spirit. Stallybrass argues that what these Europeans were observing was instead groups of people who recognized that objects cannot be separated from people, the people that make them, give them, and own them; in this way they are not inanimate. The word fetish, when used by these early Orientalists to claim knowledge about “primitive” peoples, revealed much more about the societies from which they themselves came from. In Stallybrass’ reading, the concept of the fetish
“implied a new definition of what it meant to be European: that is, a subject unhampered by fixation upon objects, a subject who, having recognized the true (i.e. market) value of the object-as-commodity, fixated instead upon the transcendental values that transformed gold into ships, ships into guns, guns into tobacco, tobacco into sugar, sugar into gold, and all into an accountable profit. What was demonized in the concept of the fetish was the possibility that history, memory, and desire might be materialized in objects that are touched and loved and worn” (186).
Marx’s concept of concept of commodity fetishism then, reversed this valuation, “ridcul[ing] a society that thought it had surpassed the “mere” worship of objects supposedly characteristic of “primitive religions” (186). In his estimation, the inability of “modern” Europeans to see the real value (meaning embedded labor, personal sentiment, and natural wealth) revealed another way in which people living in capitalist societies are alienated from objects and from each other.
In my opinion this assessment still holds, but it misses the effects on society resulting from the further development of consumerism. While fetishization recognizes that every object is unique, commoditization (aided by industrialized production) insists that they can be made equivalent. At the same time, economic growth requires continuous consumption, and the marketing and advertising industry broadcast messages insisting that new stuff is unique... at least until the next new stuff comes along.
“Each new consumer product must present itself as sovereign, as absolutely singular and as absolutely desirable. Yet, in order to satisfy the desire of the consumer, the product has to be mass produced, such that, as soon as it enters into our possession we recognize it for what it is: a vulgar, common-place object. Thus, we pass from one object to the next, in pursuit of the promised land of total consumption... If it is difficult for us to know with certainty anything about a given moment in time it’s because our attention is always being directed towards the next moment, the next major product launch, the next year’s holiday, next season’s cultural highlights."
The above, from a book by Douglas Mourret about the French film-maker Jean-Luc Godard, is a summation of situationist Guy Debord's thoughts on consumer culture. Some of Godard’s mid-60s films suggest the influence of these ideas. Characters wander through a vivid landscape of mass produced consumer goods but show little emotion towards things or one other. They embody an alienated modernity: drifting in a world where real meaning has become unmoored from objects and affected people’s relationships with each other.
One line of thought suggests that the only way out of the consumerist trap (i.e. buying for the sake of buying) is to value our objects in a different way, even to fetishize them. This may sound rather abstract, especially in an era when so many of our cherished objects are shiny technological devices. On the one hand, it is easier to see an iphone as potentially animate than to see a pair of socks as such; on the other hand, it is very easy to discard said iphone when the next model comes around, or at the very least to be dissatisfied with what you have when the updated version has SO MANY NEW FEATURES OH MY GOD MY PHONE IS SO SLOW AND OLD AND BORING!!!
I think this is a good illustration of Debord's thoughts. Even when one has the very newest model one is constantly aware that it could be made obsolete next year or next month and this constant dissatisfaction and upgrading is good for almost no one. It is useful for the bottom line, yes, but it is terrible for the environment, bad for poor countries rich in natural resources (see coltan mining in the Congo), deleterious to societies, and difficult for individuals (in this time of economic downturn there is no shortage of personal accounts touching on how people psychically suffer when they lose/can’t buy the stuff their identity relies on).
One day, after a frustrating episode with my still-very-new laptop, I ran down the concrete stairwells of my building out into the sunshine, thinking that if the shiny beast just slept for a few hours maybe it would fix itself. And a charming image appeared in my mind of actually putting it to sleep: giving it a wee pillow and a blanket and tucking it in for a spell.
Ridiculous idea that it was, it made me feel a little more fondness for my machine, which suddenly seemed less a collection of interchangeable drives and cogs and wheels and I don’t know, lasers? and more like a magical creature that I should protect and cherish.
It may not be the way out, but it can’t hurt. Does anybody know where I can get a macbook sized blanket?