What is reification?

Reification is a society-wide process where one person assumes something is real that isn’t. Like you say about nature, we think about “the market”. The market wants this, the market wants that, but it’s bigger than that.

To reify something is like to cast it into law, to make it permanent, almost like you’re taking ephemeral, concepty air and turning it into rock. It’s like to make something real. It’s important to note that when reification isn’t a solitary activity; so using a famous example from Althusser, when you’re walking down the street and you hear a police siren and a man yell “Hey you!”, when you turn around, you are reifying the policeman’s right to yell at you.

But how would I explain this to a small child with a concussion? I would say that the adult world is no more delusional than the children’s world. We still have invisible friends, we just call them commodities.

In response to an article claiming the new Star Wars movie was pro-capitalist and should be boycotted

Articles like this appear around the internet every time a new movie becomes big. Critical theorist bloggers preach to not be swayed by the new movie, don’t go to see it, don’t enjoy it, it is actually a piece of capitalist media aiming to subvert your anti-capitalist spirit with false messages. The Interview is about the impotency of communism, American Sniper overflows with imperialist sentiment, Django Unchained is a world where collective revolution is impossible, false consciousness abounds. The remedy for this, the bloggers remind the reader, is a different ending where revolution, properly executed according to a specific theoretical outlook, resolves the conflict of the film. I don’t know what these writers are expecting, it seems like none of these bloggers can enjoy a movie without it ending in revolution or class struggle done specifically as they would like it, because as soon as they hit publish other bloggers pile on in to take cracks at it and to accuse the author of false consciousness themselves, because apparently being anti-empire for the wrong reasons is as bad as being a stormtrooper. This is what happens with false consciousness arguments: everyone who’s not you must be brainwashed. And these types of articles ignore the actual sentiments the movie is trying to appeal to. Would you really see a version of Star Wars spent in the countryside teaching the countryfolk revolutionary theory? (Wait, wrong crowd, I mean, I know WE would but how about normal people? Who want to see explosions and something exciting?) And then the author writes back arguing the specifics of their point until I’ve lost interest and then the whole thing repeats itself in a couple of months, while the movie makes millions at the box office. I think we need better tactics.

My take on Commodity Fetishism

Marx’s concept of Commodity Fetishism has to be one of the most spectacular mindfucks I’ve ever experienced in my life, simply because of how basic and  everyday commodities (or in basic terms, shit that’s for sale) are. It’s always nice to discover something new, and it’s especially nice to realize you’ve been thinking a certain way without even realizing it. It’s like what Zizek says about unknown-knowns: it’s the things that you don’t know that you do know that keep you trapped. When understood, you walk away with this inverted understanding of daily capitalist life, as all of your upbringing under capitalist society is put on its head. It’s one of my favorite mindfucks.

Let’s say you need a new pair of shoes, and you go to the shoemaker. The shoemaker knows you. He knows you, your personal tastes, your whole family, your family’s personal tastes, what you’ll need the shoes for, what the latest trends are, the way that you walk, what other people will think about your shoes, etc. And not only does he know all of those things, but he knows how each of those things will influence the other things he knows, for example how the use of a certain type of material will influence the way that you walk, what your parents will think about the style of shoe, you get the point. He is an absolute master of his trade. He promises you to take all of these things into consideration when making your shoes, and he does. He gives you the best damn shoes you’ve ever seen. In order to make sure that he can continue to do this type of work in the future, what do you give him?

That type of scene could have happened under any social system, but let’s now shift over to a capitalist universe. The shoemaker is still there, you’re still there, and you’re just about to give him something so that he can continue to do this work for other people. What do you give him? Cash. Simple answer, cash. And then you walk away. Does this seem strange to you at all? If the answer is no, then we need to explain the process of creation better.

In order to make the shoes, the shoemaker draws inspiration from his years of experience living in society, resources from the environment, and assembles the resources in a culturally appealing way, and hands them to you. By giving him money you’re not returning any of those things to him, not directly at least. The money isn’t inspiration, the money isn’t the years it took get his trade down. It’s entirely unconnected and unrelated from the process of creation itself. He could buy the leather and rubber with the money you gave him. That would mean he would have to go to another leather and rubber master, give them more of these slips of paper that are also disconnected from their work in order to get what he needs. And here we come across one profound realization of Karl Marx: everywhere where man takes cash, man experiences alienation from life itself. Cash is like a finger pointing at the moon, but is not the moon itself.

And just to bring the alienation point home, I’d like to engage in an exercise with you and ask you to look around and try to guess the price value of the objects around you as if they were suddenly sold in a tag sale. You can imagine it. That bowl will go for a dollar each, that pair of shoes for five dollars, you get the idea. But there’s nothing “one-like” about a bowl, or “five-like” about about a pair of shoes. The shoes and the bowls just exist, and we imagine “one” or “five” and then implant our ideas of what they might be worth onto those items. They have physical properties, sure. But they don’t have a kind of number-spirit about them. Again, there’s nothing one-like or five-like about these items.

Y’all ready for this? This is where Marx tells you that capitalist society is just as insane and strange as all of those “primitive” people of the world capitalist society takes a dump on. Marx says where else in the world do we see behavior like this, where man puts value onto an object and suddenly that object really does appear to have those values? The Third World! He cites an example of a tribe who, when their child gets sick, they put them in front of a totem pole, and by the belief that they actually put the child in front of a god and asked the god for forgiveness, the child becomes healed. Just as blocks of inanimate wood become gods, green slips of paper and cotton becomes an invisible life force that unites all objects. And that’s why it’s called commodity fetishism, because ordinary objects are taking on religious qualities.

And after all of this, you can nice and neatly wrap up this whole system of thought into two words: false consciousness. As long as we genuinely believe that objects have numerical value and that money is the holder of that value, we are not thinking freely.