Two concepts of the fetish: Donham’s application of Marx’s concept of the fetish Essay Example

perceived to dictate the relationships between them. This perception relies on the mistaken belief that commodities possess inherent defining powers that determine how men should interact. However, this perception is only possible within this economic system due to the fragmentation of the production process. With many procedures carried out by different individuals, no single worker can identify personally with their product.

According to McLellan (1977: 437), it is the worker who produces the product, but they become alienated from it during the production process. While it should be noted that in other passages, Marx defines fetishism slightly differently, stating that it is the belief that commodities have value in the same way as weight and color. Nonetheless, the commodity's fetishization stems from how it is exchanged and presented in a capitalist society. As a result of being exchanged for money, a commodity acquires an inherent property that the physical product does not possess.

Although people tend to believe that a commodity's value is an inherent property, such as weight or color, in reality, all value comes from the labor invested by the producer. In addition to its use value, a commodity also has exchange value, which is determined by the socially necessary labor required for production under normal conditions. As a result, people are responsible for giving a commodity its value. However, the original relationship between value and labor is often forgotten due to the fetishization of the commodity. Marx's conception of the fetish emphasizes the importance of the mode of production, which is essential to consider in comparison with Donham.

The development of commodity fetishism is found in the capitalist mode of production. While definitions of the

fetish may identify it as existing within the commodity, they tend to overlook the relational nature of monadic predicates in commodity-producing societies. Marx elaborates on this concept in the following section, comparing it to the misty realm of religion where human creations take on a life of their own and interact with both each other and humanity.

According to Marx, the Fetishism that is associated with commodities is inseparable from their production. McLellan (1977: 436) considers this passage to be crucial in understanding the fetish. It informs us that the fetish is rooted in the superstructure, similar to religion. Therefore, it can be categorized as an ideology, which helps us further comprehend how the fetish is impacted by the mode of production. This highlights the significance of the production mode in forming the fetish.

Marx highlights the connection between Feuerbach's criticism of religion and the phenomenon of inversion present in both religion and commodity fetishism. This mechanism transforms real subjects into the predicates of their own predicates, thereby forming ideologies. In the production of commodities, Marx observes this same phenomenon as in religion, where man is governed by the products of his own brain, and in capitalist production, he is governed by the products of his own hand [McLellan 1977: 441; Elster 1987: 477].

The concept of fetishism and religion share a common theme where man becomes enslaved by their own creation [Elster 1987: 479]. Donham expands on Marx's idea of commodity fetishism, stating that capital investments make workers' labor more productive but the discourse that separates labor from productivity and money-making is an illusion. Capital, as a product of past labor, does not produce anything and only

labor remains as the active element in the production process.

Despite the fact that capital is a creation of humans, in social discourse it appears to have a life of its own. This irony is highlighted by Donham, who focuses on Marx's static definition of inherent powers within a commodity. According to Donham, Maale society differs from this concept as they do not assign creative power to things but rather to individuals in specific social relationships. Therefore, Donham's definition of the fetish aligns with the underlying definition of the fetish. This is evident as individuals who do not participate in the production or biological reproduction are still seen as having a significant role in the process. [1999:103-104]

However, Donham offers a new perspective on the fetishization of a vital component in non-capitalist societies. He redefines the concept of the fetish in Maale discourse, stating that fertility is often fetishized. Donham argues that the accumulation of wealth and ability to bear children relied on one's productive and procreative abilities, rather than simply the adornment of commodities. This illustrates a contrast between the Marxian understanding of commodity fetishization and the Maale's fetishization of fertility. [Donham, 1999: 104].

The commodity and fertility are different concepts, as the former is a tangible object whereas the latter is deduced from the effects it produces such as children and crops. This makes the comparison between Marx and Donham more complex. While Marx's analysis of society is based on observable material properties, fertility cannot be excluded but its measurement is culturally grounded.

According to Donham, the arrangement of labor in Maale created the impression that the community's prosperity relied on the fertility of others. This

belief is crucial to various Maale ideas regarding ownership and gender relationships. Donham's statement is cited as: "[1999: 104]."

Donham's analysis of Maale society centers on the concept of fertility fetishism. It is unclear at first whether he considers this fetishism to be the foundation of the entire Maale social organization, which would contradict Marx's approach. However, Donham clarifies that fertility fetishism is based on the hierarchical order of Maale horticulture and hunting, specifically in relation to the king and chiefs. This statement affirms Donham's commitment to the Marxist approach, as he argues that the Maale fetish is grounded in their mode of production. [1999: 104]

Within the text enclosed in the

tags, it is explained that the formation of a fetish in Maale is related to the mode of production and various institutions. The author describes how the conceptual framework of the Maale mode of production shapes not only the concept of ownership, but also the idea of personhood. This connection between ownership and personhood is integral to the creation of a fetish. The text further elaborates on this point by stating that possession is often referred to in terms of parenthood. These ideas are captured in the following quote: "The conceptual scheme behind [the Maale mode of production] ... conditioned the very notion of "ownership" of things and, indeed, the concept of "persons" who did the owning" (1999: 105).

The idea of becoming a parent was prominent.

It appeared that the property was initially the result of the fertility and generative power of the fathers.

The concept of procreation implied a sense of entitlement to oversee. The Maale's belief in fertility fetishism contrasted

with capitalism's commodity fetishism where objects purportedly dominate individuals. In the Maale's cultural context, people were perceived as the creators rather than being subject to the power of things. Donham (1999:105) further integrates his analysis by outlining Maale's approach to constructing fetishism, which includes additional elements.

It is crucial to understand that the concept of fertility can be equated with parenthood, more specifically with maleness. In Maale culture, men are associated with reproduction and are considered the owners of children, crops, and objects. This ownership is based on a non-individualized understanding of personhood, where a child or crop can have multiple owners in different degrees of hierarchy. However, since only men can be considered parents due to their role in sexual and social generation, the ownership of these things ultimately falls to them. This understanding is explained by Donham (1999:106).

According to [1999: 106], men were expected to create while women's reproductive role was contingent upon men.

According to Donham, the concept of parenthood and fertility can be substituted by maleness, as evidenced by the fact that in Maale, there were more than two genders.

The ritual king, chiefs, subchiefs, and others below them exhibited a gradual range of male attributes.

According to Donham, the chiefs were perceived as more feminine than the king [1999: 112], which is significant given that the Maale culture idolizes fertility, potentially interpreting it as a manifestation of masculinity. This perspective may help in distinguishing Donham's and Marx's concept of the fetish. However, if the fetish is interpreted as a glorification of masculinity, it does not add to our comprehension of the commodity's significance.

According to Donham, the concept of maleness is predominantly

a cultural construct and is clearly part of the superstructure. Interestingly, he describes the fetish as the foundation for a system of ideas and notes that it is primarily produced in households, creating a resonant base for the discussed ideas [emphasis added] (Donham, 1999: 106).

Donham's work highlights a shift in emphasis from Marx's focus on the modes of production that give rise to material entities such as commodities towards a focus on the fetish as a means of developing systems of ownership and personhood. While the mode of production is still relevant and discussed at length in Donham's writing, he does not establish a clear link between it and the development of these ideas. Rather, he sees the fetish as the main point of entry for understanding other Maale conceptions. This stands in contrast to Marx's approach of explaining ideas from the material base, without deducing everything from one grand idea like the fetish, which would be contradictory to his ideology. This difference in emphasis is due to the contrast between commodity fetishism and fertility fetishism in Donham's work.

When comparing the mechanisms of religion to the two definitions of the fetish, a discrepancy can be observed. Marx's definition involves turning real subjects into the predicates of their predicates, which can be likened to the functioning of religion. However, this comparison cannot be applied to Donham's explanation of the fetish because giving credit to ancestors and hierarchical elders for production and procreation does not turn real subjects into predicates. These individuals are just as real as those producing crops and children. Furthermore, it is impossible to relate Donham's understanding of the fetish to the common result

of both religion and the fetish.

Religion and fetishism can lead to people becoming slaves to their own creations, but this is not the case in Maale. Unlike in other societies, the elders in Maale are not products of the people they govern. Marx and Donham have different understandings of the fetish and its mechanism, which results in different consequences. Because of these differences, the two concepts cannot be compared. This is evident in the construction of the figures above, as they are structured differently. In Figure One, all concepts related to the fetish originate from the material base, while most of Donham's concepts originate from the ideological plane or superstructure.

The emphasis on relations of production and social relations among men in general is central to Marx's explanation, but these aspects are lacking in figure 2 of Donham's interpretation, which places greater emphasis on fertility as a culturally perceived concept that interconnects all other aspects. In contrast, figure 1 emphasizes the mode of production as the base of all relations. While figure 2 only formally confirms this emphasis, the main points of relations actually stem from the concept of fertility. Therefore, the two figures have little structural similarity and the concepts of fetish in Marx's and Donham's explanations are incomparable. However, Donham's definition highlights the problem of applying Marx's concepts to a non-capitalist society.

It is acknowledged that Marx did not spend much time attempting to redefine his basic concepts, resulting in a requirement for some redefinitions. The extent to which Donham's alterations deviate from Marx's original ideas is open for debate, however, it is clear that Donham does so purposefully, causing us to reconsider Marx's notions

of the relationships between the base and superstructure and their relevance to societies that are non-capitalist.