What is a Fetish?
F
etish is a word often associated with deviation from societal norms, and the occult. It is however, a term used in various disciplines to describe the irrational and excessive investment of value, power or importance to an inanimate object or idea. The concept of fetish is most
prevalent in the fields of sexual psychology though use of Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex, anthropology of primitive religion in Africa, and Marxist economic theory of commodity fetish. Despite the disparity between religious, economic and sexology theories, the fetish is evident in all three spheres, and in each of these the fetish is formed by an individual providing a thing irrationally disproportionate attention or reverence. These three permutations of fetish will be discussed in detail throughout the following paper.
The term “fetishism” was coined by French philosopher Charles de Bosses, in 1757. At this time it was a term that was used to critique primitive religious superstition surrounding objects found in Africa. Fetish objects, were categorized by Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, as possessions that African inhabitants where not willing to trade. Viewed with the objectivity of the European explorers, these objects had no intrinsic utility, however to their owners; these objects were of the upmost importance. African fetishism, also referred to as totemism, in its anthropological definition any object endowed with an occult value or and autonomous power of its own often construed as a magical or divine force which it logically does not possess.
Through the combination of culturally specific aesthetic attributes, semiotics, and the owners unwavering belief, these material possessions were seen by their owners as having magical or spiritual powers. In his writings de Bosses describes fetishism as, “the direct worship of particular earthy material objects as themselves endowed with quasi-personal intentionally divine powers capable of gratifying mundane
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
1
desires.”1 The investment of magical value to these objects throughout African culture however irrational, met the needs of the user. By worshiping such an object, in a certain sense the individual was released from fear and doubt about the future. By owning an object that was seen by them as the embodiment of a potent spirit, they felt that they could through with the assistance of the object influence their own future, and bring about their desires.
An example of religious fetish is found in Comte description of the ‘maraca’ or Brazilian ceremonial rattle, and its ambiguous relationship with its user. “He tells us that the fetish was a calabash with a handle and hole for a mouth, and stones inside; yet to its votaries it seemed no mere rattle, but a receptacle for a spirit that spoke to them when it was shaken; therefore the Indians set up their maracas, talked to them, set food and drink and burned incense before them, held annual feasts in their honour, and would go to war with their neighbours to satisfy the rattle spirits’ demand for human victims.”2
In regards to economic iteration of fetish, the term “commodity fetish” was established by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. Familiar with the writings of de Bosses, Marx drew comparison between primitive religious fetish and the fetish of modern society in the political economy. “If primitives irrationally overvalued the desiregratifying powers of mistakenly divinized material objects, so moderns falsely looked to capitalized economic objects as the magical source of wealth and value.”3
In order to define commodity fetish, we must first define a commodity in the Marxist sense. According to Marx, a commodity is something that is usually manufactured or subject to some kind of productive labor and made primarily for consumption by someone other than the producer. Commodities have the attribute of being able to be exchanged for other commodities or money, in the process creating a relationship (or hierarchy) between commodities that is not dissimilar to the relationship between things. One point in Marx’s writings on commodity fetish is that once a value is assigned to a commodity during exchange,
1
W. Piertz, ‘Fetish’, in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. R. S. Nelson and R. Shiff. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 306317. R. Ellen, ‘Fetishism’ in Man, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 2. (Jun., 1988), pp. 213-235. 3 W. Piertz, ‘Fetish’, in Critical Terms for Art History, p. 310. 2
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
2
“relations between people start to become treated like relationships between things”4. What this addresses is the split of subordination that is formulated upon the exchange of commodities, and the value attributed to the process of production and producers according to the commodity they produce.
Marx also discusses the division of worker and buyer in capitalist production. He believes that disconnection from the producer and the consumer leads us as a society to forget how the commodity was made. This in turn leads the buyers (who no longer interact with the producer of the commodity) to over value, and therefore, fetishise the commodity. Once the use value of the commodity is detached from the exchange value or the exchange takes pace with no account for the amount of labor the commodity is said to undergo fetishism.
Once the process of commodity fetishism has begun, it is alleged that “In brief, the commodity becomes a power in society. Rather than use value for people it assumes a power over people, becoming a kind of god to be worshiped, sought after, and possessed. And in reverse movement, as the commodity, the thing, becomes personified, so relations between people become objectified and thinglike”5
On some level Marx argues that if in capitalism the commodity is fetishised than the whole system of society is founded on irrational thoughts and values. Alienated from the production process of the commodity, consumers are more likely to imbue the commodity with a power. One case for commodity fetish in western society today, is the use of products as a form of creating personal identity. Fashion has been a central participant in commodity fetish throughout history and even today, the way we dress is a way of defining us as individuals.
Clothing can through our investment of meaning, be used to define self-identity to others, the clothing we choose will in most cases reflect our interests, personality, roles, membership in groups, age, gender and socioeconomic status, to name a few. Initially it is the wearer that invests meaning into clothing, and once 4 K. Marx, ‘The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Threreof [1887]’, Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, trans. S Moore and E. Aveling. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970, pp.76-87 5 P. Wood, ‘Commodity’, in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. R. S. Nelson and R. Shiff. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), pp. 389
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
3
there is meaning associated with the clothing and it is transformed from its basic materials of cloth and thread into a fetish object. Once the irrational belief that one’s clothing can define a person’s identity is applied, to the commodity of clothing, it is given power by its wearer, one which it would not have if it had not been fetishised.
In a workplace scenario, appearances and image have grown evermore important. For that reason clothing and business attire have become fetish objects. Not only do items like business suits ensure membership of workers into an organizational identity and hierarchy, but for many workers wearing a suit boosts confidence and therefore sense of self empowerment. Wearing appropriate dress like a suit, has been found to add to the wearers psychological comfort within the workplace, giving the wearer a sense of being “in face” or allowing tem to respond to tasks “with feelings of confidence or assurance”6, that the individuals believed that they would not feel if dressed otherwise if dressed inappropriately. So just like in previous cases of fetish, the suit or item of clothing gives an irrational power and emotional comfort to its user. And just as in previous scenarios the user may begin to attribute external events with their clothing, associating it to luck or success, and in the process forming a great attachment to it. Consequently the loss of such a fetishised item of clothing may incur an illogical emotional response, revealing what Marx believed, that instead of empowering the user it the commodity fetish enslaved the individual, making them feel inadequate and insecure without it.
Branded objects are a great example of the fetishised commodity, in current western society, once brandings, and concurrent marketing campaigns are involved with a product, the link between exchange value and use value becomes almost negligible to the consumer. This is because once branding images alone are being sold to consumers, the object is more susceptible than ever to undergo commodity fetish. “What is being sold is not just direct use value of a product itself, but symbolic significance as a buildingblock of a particular cohesive lifestyle- as its indispensable ingredient”7 It can said that as the association between the product and the producer diminished, the ability of the object to be sold as an image
6
Rafaeli, A et al. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1. (Feb., 1997), pp. 9-45. Z. Bauman, quoted in A. Warde, ‘Consumers, identity and belonging: refections on some of these Zygmunt Bauman’, The Authority of the Consumer, ed. R. Keat et al., (London and New York: Routledge, 1994.)
7
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
4
increased, allowing it to be used by consumers to create an identity or comfort insecurity though the purchase of a positive product image.
Although Marx was the first to theorise the strange relationship between people and certain objects, that he called commodity fetish, such a relationship has been evident all throughout the history of human civilization. It is not a recent phenomenon, and it could be argued that humans have an innate ability to experience emotional transference or irrational attachments to objects.
According to a research paper published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, a majority of children (60%) developed attachments to a soft object in their early development. In fact various studies on the subject have shown that “attachments to soft objects such as blankets and soft toys have been viewed as a normal event in child development Their importance has been theoretically linked to the development of ego structure the separation-individuation process; the capacity for symbolization, libidinal object constancy, and the development of memory; self-regulation and self-soothing; and the capacity for creative activity.” 8 Therefore, it may be argued, that even in young children the ability to create a fetish-like relationship is not only possible but natural.
The blanket or soft toy is often assumed by psychologists to be a transitional object for the infant, and, in various aspects the child’s soft object is simular to the fetishised object associated with primitive religion. Firstly the child associates the soft toy or blanket with its mother or parent, just like primitive religions associated statues and other objects with their gods. Secondly the child may even suppose that the soft object has a direct connection with fulfilling its desires or needs. But most importantly the object in itself, in both cases, despite it purely materialistic nature, provides an unfounded level of comfort and security both groups. So to that extent, it can be said that from an early age humans are capable of having irrational relationships with objects, and transference of emotion from people to things.
8 ‘Attachment to Transitional Objects: Role of Maternal Personality and Mother-Toddler Interaction’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 70(3):340-350, July 2000.
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
5
Transference of emotion and the relationship of a child with its parents are fundamental to Freud’s theory of sexual fetish. Throughout the theory Freud draws heavily on the Greek legend of Oedipus, who in the simplest terms, is a boy who unknowingly murders his father in order to marry his mother, and subsequently blinds himself as a symbolic act of self castration. “According to Freud, the myth is an expression of a universal desire to have sexual relations with the parent of the opposite sex…This involves identification with the parent of the same sex, a renunciation of incestuous desires… and the acceptance of sexual difference”9. Freud’s theory of sexual fetish concentrates on the young boys discovery that his mother has no penis and his fear associated with her and potentially his “castration”. What this is believed to lead to is a need for individuals to invest in external fetish objects in order to compensate for their mothers lack of penis, working on the basis of alleviating fear of castration, while empowering them to fulfil their sexual desires.
Freud states within his text on fetishism that “probably no male human has been spared the fright of castration at the sight of the female genital”10, and concludes with Adler’s insistence on organ inferiority “that the normal prototype for inferior [sexual] organs is a woman’s real small penis, the clitoris”. Which makes it extremely evident why Freud has many critics amongst feminist circles, and his writings on the topic of fetishism are seen highly phallocentric and patriarchal.
In conclusion fetishism in its various forms is perhaps a trait of being human. It is seen in infants with transference of relationships from caregivers to soft objects. It is evident in both primitive religious customs and modern consumer culture. Fetish is also prevalent within various sexual relationships and encounters. Fetish empowers, and comforts it user or owner, allowing them to feel secure about either themselves as individuals or their future. It creates an irrational and highly emotional level of engagement with its user, and, despite the fact that it is in its entirety a basic, material object it makes the participant feel as though through the object they can fulfil their desires. Finally the loss of a fetish object can result in great feelings of grief or emptiness, making individuals feel helpless without it. This shows the strong
9
Chris Murray, ed. ‘Sigmund Freud’, Key writers on Art: The Twentieth Century, (London and New York: Routledge, 2003.) S. Freud, ‘Fetishism [1930]’, On Sexuality: Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and Other Works, Penguin Freud Library VII, trans. J. Strachey. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977, pp. 351-57. 10
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
6
interdependence that can emerge between the fetish object and its user through their disproportionate belief invested in the object.
Bibliography Apter, Emily and William Pertz, eds. Fetishism as Cultural Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Baudrillard, Jean. The System of Objects, trans. James Benedict. London and New York: Verso 1996. Bauman, Zygmunt quoted in A. Warde, ‘Consumers, identity and belonging: reflections on some of these Zygmunt Bauman’, The Authority of the Consumer, ed. R. Keat et al., (London and New York: Routledge, 1994.) Ellen, Roy. ‘Fetishism’ in Man, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 2. (Jun., 1988), pp. 213-235. Freud, Sigmund ‘Fetishism [1930]’, On Sexuality: Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and Other Works, Penguin Freud Library VII, trans. J. Strachey. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977, pp. 351-57. Klein, Naomi. No Logo. London : Flamingo, 2000. Koolhaas, Rem et al. Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping. Koln: Tauschen, 2001. Marx, Karl. ‘The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Threreof [1887]’, Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, trans. S Moore and E. Aveling. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970, pp.76-87 Murray,Chris ed. ‘Sigmund Freud’, Key writers on Art: The Twentieth Century, London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Nelson, Robert S. and Shiff, Richard ,eds. Critical Terms for Art History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003 Rafaeli, Anat et al.The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1. (Feb., 1997), pp. 9-45. Sparke, Penny. An Introduction to Design Culture-1900 to the Present. London and New York, 2004. Attachment to Transitional Objects: Role of Maternal Personality and Mother-Toddler Interaction’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 70(3):340-350, July 2000.
Text written by Joanna Szczepanska
7