More Notes on Fetishism and Reification.

Another in my continuing series of jottings on why reification and fetishism should not be conflated. This one is triggered by the productive brain storming session I had on the train and by conversations I had last night with some promising MA students.

I would argue that in terms of a theory of domination,  how I interpret fetishism has a more coherent explanation, than how reification represents fetishism.  Rather than reducing people to things it seems to me that fetishism accounts for a movement wherein the personification of things causes the personification of individuals. (This is sort of dealt with by Lefebvre and outlined in my chapter on Lefebvre in which he argues people are not reduced to things by capital but to animated abstractions.) But I think I can bring out by saying that rather than an account of dehumanization–people being turned into things– which can back up humanist accounts and feed into the normativity problem, a theory of fetishism qua personification moves to account for how and why and what compels individuals behaviour, not as things but as the personification of economic categories they are forced into behaving as in order to survive.

Advertisements

About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s