World markets theory (was Re:Forgetting)

Matthew S. Tomaso (Tomaso@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU)
Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:24:11 -0600

John McCreery nicely clarifies relations concerning objectification and
commodification. When I stated that ideas were 'commodified...objectified'
in John's version of late capitalism, I suppose I should have marked where I
was speaking representationally (re: the market and its people commodify)
and where I was speaking of the analysis of the commodity itself (this is
one of a broader class of objectifications utilized in the analytic mode, as
John pointed out). I thought these ideas would have been clear from their
syntactical arrangement. In any case, I wonder whether commodities must
always be objectified (in the sense of 'value made sharable') as such. Or
whether it is the need to bound and control the commodity in order to be
able to market it which produces the objectification. The thread evolves
in interesting ways through minor miscommunications. My next task, I feel,
is to ask John whether commodification is just one species of
objectification and not the reverse? If not, could we call this
world-markets theory? What if the commodity is perceived differently by all
who encounter it (certain religious icons might qualify as examples)?


ps. I deeply regret that I will not be going to the AAAs this year, and
will, consequently, not be able to meet y'all face to face for at least a
little while. But, all the same, I hope that some of you will indulge on my
behalf, and I wish you all good luck and good fun.

Matt Tomaso.
Anthropology. University of Texas at Austin.
Phone/Fax 512-453-6256