Kid A In Alphabet Land

Kid A In Alphabet Land Conquers Another Curious Curmudgeon - The Catty Commodity-Fetish!

Q: Wherefore Do Ye Spend Money For That Which Is Not Bread? And Your Labour For That Which Satisfieth Not? A: Gentlemen Prefer Relations Between Things! Can't Get No Satisfaction? Charge It Against Your Symbolic Debt! How Many Barred Subjects Is That? Need An Intro To Lacan? Try The 4 Fun Cons Of Psycho Analysis!

Kid A In Alphabet Land
Act · Blot · Commodity-fetish · Death Drive · Ego-ideal · Father · Gaze · Hysteric · Imaginary · Jouissance · Kapital · Letter · Mirror Stage · Name · Other · Phallus · Qua · Real · Super Signifier · Thing · Unheimlich · Voice · Woman · Xenophobe · Yew · Z-man

COMMODITY FETISHISM

Commodity fetishism (also commodity fetish) refers to the perception of social relations involved in production as inherent properties of commodities themselves, obscuring the human labor and social relations that produce them. In psychoanalytic theory, the concept bridges Marxist political economy with Freudian-Lacanian understandings of fetishism, disavowal, and the symptom, serving as a crucial site for understanding the intersection of subjectivity, desire, and capitalist social relations.

The term originates in Karl Marx's Capital (1867) but has been substantially reconceptualized through psychoanalytic frameworks, particularly by Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Žižek, who identify commodity fetishism as a fundamental structure of ideology and subjectivity under capitalism.

Marxist Origins

Marx's Formulation in Capital

Karl Marx introduced the concept of commodity fetishism in the first volume of Capital (1867), specifically in the section "The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof". Marx argued that under capitalism, commodities appear to possess intrinsic value independent of the social labor that produces them. This constitutes a fundamental misrecognition: what are actually social relations between people appear as material relations between things.

Marx wrote that commodities acquire a "mystical character" and "fantastic form" whereby the products of human labor become autonomous figures endowed with life. The value of commodities appears to arise from their physical properties rather than from the historically specific social relations of capitalist production. This inversion obscures the reality that commodity value derives from abstract human labor congealed within the commodity.

The Structure of Misrecognition

According to Lacan's reading, Marx's discovery was that capitalism involves a symptomatic repression of earlier social relations. The visible master-slave dialectic of feudalism becomes hidden in capitalism, where domination appears as the neutral operation of market forces. As the nosubject.com entry explains: "Something is repressed in the passage from feudalism to capitalism: the dimension of domination/servitude, the master is repressed and returns in the Real as the commodity fetish".

This structure operates not through individual false consciousness but through the objective social form itself. Workers may understand intellectually that their labor creates value, yet the commodity form itself structures social reality in ways that make this understanding practically inoperative.

Religious Fetishism as Analogy

Marx drew an explicit analogy between commodity fetishism and religious fetishism, particularly the worship of objects believed to possess supernatural powers. Just as religious believers project human qualities onto divine objects, participants in capitalist exchange project social properties onto commodities themselves. However, Marx emphasized that commodity fetishism is not merely a subjective illusion but an objective social relation that structures everyday practice.

Freudian Foundations of Fetishism

Sexual Fetishism and Perversion

Sigmund Freud developed the concept of fetishism in the domain of sexuality, defining it as a perversion in which sexual excitement depends absolutely on the presence of a specific object—the fetish. Freud argued that fetishism originates in the male child's horror at discovering female castration. The fetish object serves as a symbolic substitute for the mother's missing penis, simultaneously acknowledging and denying the reality of sexual difference.

The Mechanism of Disavowal (Verleugnung)

Central to Freudian fetishism is the mechanism of disavowal (Verleugnung), which Freud distinguished from repression (Verdrängung). In disavowal, the subject simultaneously knows and refuses to know an unbearable reality. The fetishist both recognizes that the mother lacks a penis and maintains the belief that she possesses one.

Freud's 1927 essay "Fetishism" identified disavowal as producing a split in the ego: "The fetish is a substitute for the woman's (the mother's) penis that the little boy once believed in...he has retained that belief, but he has also given it up". This contradictory attitude becomes institutionalized in the psychic structure, with the fetish object serving to manage the traumatic knowledge of castration.

Clinical Structure of Perversion

Lacan elaborated Freud's insights by situating fetishism within the broader structure of perversion. Unlike neurosis (which operates through repression) or psychosis (which operates through foreclosure), perversion is characterized by disavowal of symbolic castration. The pervert attempts to overcome the loss of jouissance inherent in entry into the symbolic order by constructing an alternative law centered on jouissance itself.

As Lacan formulated it, the pervert makes himself "the instrument of the Other's jouissance," deriving satisfaction from ensuring the enjoyment of the Other rather than from avoiding it (as in neurosis). This involves a perversion of the neurotic law that "jouissance is forbidden to him who speaks".

Lacanian Developments

Lacan's Reading of Marx

The Symptom as Marx's Discovery

Lacan credited Marx with discovering the fundamental concept of the symptom before Freud. In a 1975 lecture, Lacan stated: "Marx based his theory of surplus value, which implies the whole theory of capital, on a symptom...it's interesting to note that a political revolutionary can base himself on a symptom".

For Lacan, Marx's analysis of commodity fetishism revealed how capitalism operates symptomatically—through a form of social knowledge that doesn't know itself. The commodity form functions as a social symptom, a formation that simultaneously expresses and conceals the fundamental antagonism of capitalist relations.

Commodity Fetishism and the Mirror Stage

Lacan drew structural parallels between commodity fetishism and the mirror stage. Just as the infant misrecognizes itself in the specular image, constructing an illusory unity that belies its fundamental fragmentation, capitalist subjects misrecognize social relations in the commodity form. Both involve imaginary identifications that structure the subject's relationship to reality while occluding constitutive lack.

Das Ding and Commodity Structure

The Thing as Void and Impossible Object

In Seminar VII, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (1959-60), Lacan introduced the concept of das Ding (the Thing) as the absolute Other, the prehistoric, unfound object around which the entire symbolic network is structured. Das Ding represents the void at the heart of the symbolic order, the impossible Real that the subject endlessly circles without ever grasping.

Contemporary scholars have connected das Ding to questions of commodity fetishism and capitalism. As one contributor to the volume Studying Lacan's Seminar VII asks: "What can Lacan's ideas on courtly love teach us about racism or the concept of das Ding help us understand about our investment in commodity fetishism?".

Sublimation and the Dignity of the Thing

Lacan argued that sublimation involves "raising an object to the dignity of the Thing". Art and cultural production can elevate ordinary objects to occupy the place of das Ding, offering access to jouissance while maintaining the necessary distance from the traumatic Real.

Capitalism's relationship to sublimation is profoundly ambiguous. On one hand, commodity production multiplies substitute objects, each promising to fill the void of das Ding. On the other hand, the commodity form itself works against sublimation by reducing objects to exchange-value, stripping them of the unique qualities that would allow them to occupy the place of the Thing.

Capitalism and the Anti-Fetish Character of Das Ding

Todd McGowan's contribution to Studying Lacan's Seminar VII, titled "Ethics Amid Commodities: Das Ding and the Origin of Value," explores how das Ding relates to commodity fetishism. The chapter examines "the origin of value" in relationship to Lacan's Thing, suggesting that capitalism involves a fundamental transformation in how subjects relate to das Ding.

The Symbolic, Imaginary, and Real Dimensions

The Symbolic Order and Exchange Value

In Lacanian terms, exchange-value belongs to the symbolic register—it operates through differential relations within a signifying system. Money functions as the master-signifier of this system, the point de capiton that quilts together the entire network of commodity values. The symbolic dimension of capitalism involves the reduction of qualitative differences to quantitative equivalences mediated by abstract labor.

Imaginary Misrecognition

The imaginary dimension manifests in the specular fascination with commodities, the narcissistic identification with brand images, and the illusion of commodity autonomy. Advertising operates primarily at the imaginary level, constructing mirror identifications between consumers and commodity-images.

The Real of Jouissance and Surplus-Value

Lacan explicitly connected Marx's concept of surplus-value to his own concept of surplus-enjoyment (plus-de-jouir). In Seminar XVII, The Reverse of Psychoanalysis, Lacan argued that capitalism succeeds in making surplus-enjoyment "calculable, could be counted, totalized".

The Real dimension of commodity fetishism involves the jouissance that remains inaccessible yet constitutive—the void around which the entire circuit of desire circulates. Commodities promise access to this lost jouissance while simultaneously demonstrating its impossibility.

Žižekian Synthesis

Fetishistic Disavowal Revisited

"They Know Very Well, But Still..."

Slavoj Žižek radically reconceptualized commodity fetishism by inverting the relationship between knowledge and practice. Against the traditional Marxist formula of "false consciousness" (they don't know what they do), Žižek argued that contemporary ideology operates through cynical distance: "they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it".

This formulation draws on the structure of fetishistic disavowal: je sais bien, mais quand même ("I know very well, but even so..."). Subjects under late capitalism are perfectly aware of exploitation, environmental destruction, and the arbitrary nature of commodity value, yet this knowledge doesn't prevent their continued participation in commodity exchange.

The Objective Status of Misrecognition

Žižek emphasizes that fetishistic misrecognition is not located in subjective belief but in objective social practice. As he writes: "The place of fetishistic inversion is not in what people think they are doing, but in their social activity itself". People may consciously disavow any belief in the intrinsic value of commodities, yet their actions embody this belief.

This represents an inversion of the "primitive" fetishist who publicly believes but privately maintains skeptical distance. The contemporary subject publicly maintains ironic distance while privately (unconsciously, in their practice) believing.

Ideology and the Symptom

Commodity Fetishism as Master-Signifier

In Žižek's reading, commodity fetishism functions as a master-signifier that structures the entire field of capitalist ideology. The master-signifier is the privileged signifier that quilts together (capitonne) a signifying chain, fixing its meaning. Under capitalism, the commodity form serves this quilting function, organizing all social relations around the logic of exchange.

The Relationship Between Ideology and Jouissance

Žižek argues that ideology cannot be understood solely at the level of knowledge or representation—it must be grasped in its relationship to jouissance. Ideology is not merely a system of beliefs but "a form or a pool in which all the aspects of human thoughts are liquidated into circulating signifiers".

Crucially, subjects are attached to ideology through enjoyment: "We are living inside a false consciousness and we are enjoying this ideological false consciousness". This enjoyment explains why rational critique often fails to dislodge ideological formations—the subject has a libidinal investment in maintaining the fantasy structure.

Fetishistic Disavowal in Late Capitalism

Contemporary examples of fetishistic disavowal abound in consumer capitalism. Žižek cites the example of Starbucks creating "independent" coffee shops that disguise their corporate origin, or the marketing of "ethical consumption" that allows consumers to maintain their purchasing habits while disavowing complicity in exploitation.

The film Kung Fu Panda exemplifies this structure: "I know very well there is no special ingredient, but I nonetheless believe in it and act accordingly". Cynical knowledge at the rational level is counteracted by irrational belief embodied in practice.

The Subject and the Commodity

Subjectivity Commodified Under Capitalism

Žižek extends Marx's analysis to show how subjectivity itself becomes commodified under late capitalism. The subject is not merely a consumer of commodities but is constituted as a commodity within circuits of exchange. Identity, personal qualities, even emotions become marketable products in what some theorists call "affective capitalism".

Drive, Desire, and Capitalist Circulation

The commodity form structures desire by channeling it through an endless metonymic displacement from object to object. Each commodity promises satisfaction yet inevitably disappoints, propelling desire toward the next purchase. This aligns with Lacan's distinction between desire (oriented toward specific objects) and drive (satisfied through the circuit itself).

Capitalism doesn't frustrate desire but rather sustains it through perpetual deferral. The system requires that subjects continue desiring without ever achieving complete satisfaction—jouissance must remain both promised and prohibited.

Key Theoretical Distinctions

Commodity Fetishism vs. Sexual Fetishism

While both forms share the mechanism of disavowal, they differ significantly in structure and function:

Sexual fetishism involves a substitute object for the maternal phallus, managing castration anxiety at the individual psychic level. The fetish object is typically highly specific and idiosyncratic to the individual subject.

Commodity fetishism operates as an objective social form rather than an individual psychic mechanism. It structures collective relations and doesn't depend on any individual's subjective belief. As Žižek notes, the fetishistic inversion occurs "in their social activity itself" regardless of conscious attitudes.

Fetishism vs. Repression (Neurosis)

Lacan distinguished fetishism from neurotic repression:

Repression (characteristic of neurosis) involves the exclusion of incompatible ideas from consciousness, which return in symptom formation. The repressed content remains within the symbolic order but inaccessible to conscious knowledge.

Disavowal (characteristic of perversion/fetishism) involves simultaneous acknowledgment and denial of reality. The disavowed element is not repressed into the unconscious but split off, allowing contradictory attitudes to coexist.

In neurosis, jouissance is fundamentally avoided; in perversion, it is actively pursued through transgression of the symbolic law.

Fetishism vs. Foreclosure (Psychosis)

Lacan also distinguished fetishism from psychotic foreclosure:

Foreclosure (Verwerfung) involves the radical exclusion of a fundamental signifier (the Name-of-the-Father) from the symbolic order. What is foreclosed returns in the Real as hallucination or delusion.

Disavowal maintains the subject within the symbolic order while constructing an alternative relationship to the law. The pervert/fetishist acknowledges symbolic castration while attempting to circumvent its effects.

Marx's Fetishism vs. Freud's Fetishism: Complementarity or Tension?

Scholars debate whether Marxian and Freudian concepts of fetishism are genuinely compatible:

Complementary reading: Both involve misrecognition of origins—sexual fetishism misrecognizes the source of libidinal investment, commodity fetishism misrecognizes the source of value. Both employ disavowal of an uncomfortable reality (castration/exploitation).

Tension reading: Marx's fetishism is an objective social structure, while Freud's is an individual psychopathology. Applying psychoanalytic categories to political economy risks psychologizing structural contradictions.

Žižek's synthesis attempts to resolve this by showing that ideology itself has a libidinal structure—fetishism operates simultaneously as social form and psychic mechanism.

Contemporary Applications and Debates

Commodity Fetishism in Consumer Society

Late capitalism intensifies commodity fetishism through several mechanisms:

Brand fetishism: The commodity acquires value not from use or labor but from symbolic associations (Nike swoosh, Apple logo). Consumers pay enormous premiums for branded objects functionally identical to unbranded equivalents.

Experience economy: Services and experiences become commodified, promising authentic selfhood through consumption. The fetish extends beyond objects to moments, feelings, and identities.

Commodity narcissism: Subjects identify with commodities as extensions of the self, investing them with fantasies of ideal identity.

Digital/Virtual Commodities and Dematerialization

Digital commodities (software, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, data) pose new questions for theories of commodity fetishism. The immaterial nature of digital products seems to intensify the mystification of value—there is no physical object at all, only code and symbolic tokens.

Cryptocurrency exemplifies pure commodity fetishism: value appears to arise spontaneously from algorithmic processes rather than from any human labor or social relations. The blockchain becomes a fetishized guarantor of value, obscuring the massive expenditure of energy and computational labor required.

Critique of "Ethical Consumption"

"Ethical consumption" movements (fair trade, organic, sustainable products) exemplify contemporary fetishistic disavowal. Consumers "know very well" that capitalism involves exploitation and environmental destruction, but purchasing certified products allows them to continue consuming while disavowing complicity.

This represents what Žižek calls "cultural capitalism"—the system incorporates its own critique, selling transgression and ethical awareness as commodities. Starbucks exemplifies this by marketing "local" coffee shop aesthetics while remaining fully corporate.

Post-Political Implications

The structure of commodity fetishism contributes to what some theorists call the "post-political" condition—the foreclosure of genuine political antagonism. If all social relations appear as neutral commodity exchanges, class struggle and exploitation become invisible. Political questions get reformulated as technical problems of distribution and management rather than fundamental conflicts over production and power.

Clinical and Practical Dimensions

Relevance to Psychoanalytic Practice

While commodity fetishism is primarily a social-structural phenomenon, it has implications for clinical practice:

Consumer subjectivity: Analysands increasingly present with complaints structured by consumer logic—dissatisfaction with the "products" (relationships, careers, selves) they've acquired, perpetual searching for better "options."

Therapeutic commodity fetishism: Therapy itself can become commodified, with treatment conceived as a product that should deliver satisfaction. This contradicts the psychoanalytic principle that the cure works through traversing (not satisfying) fantasy.

Perverse transference: Some patients relate to the analyst as an instrument for their jouissance rather than as a supposed subject of knowing, paralleling the perverse structure.

Social Symptoms and Collective Formations

Lacanian analysis extends beyond individual pathology to social symptoms—collective formations that express fundamental antagonisms. Commodity fetishism itself functions as a social symptom, simultaneously revealing and concealing the contradictions of capitalism.

Analysts working with social symptoms must recognize that interpretation alone cannot dissolve them—they are sustained by objective structures, not merely subjective beliefs.

The Analyst's Position Vis-à-Vis Capitalist Discourse

In Seminar XVII, Lacan formalized four discourses: master, university, hysteric, and analyst. The capitalist discourse, which Lacan addressed later, represents a perversion of the master's discourse where knowledge is placed in service of surplus-value production.

The analyst must maintain a position outside capitalist discourse while recognizing its pervasive effects. This involves refusing the commodity logic that would reduce analysis to a service industry and the analysand to a consumer.

Related Concepts

Alienation – Estrangement of the worker from labor, product, species-being
Disavowal (Verleugung) – Defense mechanism of simultaneous knowing and refusing to know
Ideology – System of representations securing social relations
Master-Signifier – Privileged signifier quilting the symbolic order
Objet petit a – Object-cause of desire, surplus remainder
Reification – Treatment of abstractions as concrete things
Sublimation – Elevation of object to dignity of the Thing
Surplus-Enjoyment (plus-de-jouir) – Excess jouissance beyond need satisfaction
Symptom – Return of the repressed; social-symbolic formation
The Thing (das Ding) – Impossible Real object beyond symbolization

References

Primary Sources

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. 1867.

Freud, Sigmund. "Fetishism" (1927). Standard Edition 21:152–157.

Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (1959–60).

Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: The Reverse of Psychoanalysis (1969–70).

Žižek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso, 1989.

Secondary Literature

Copjec, Joan. Read My Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.

Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 1996.

McGowan, Todd. "Ethics Amid Commodities: Das Ding and the Origin of Value." In Studying Lacan's Seminar VII, ed. Carol Owens, 2024.

Žižek, Slavoj. "Marx." In The Žižek Dictionary, ed. Rex Butler. Durham: Acumen, 2014.

External Links

Commodity-fetish