Search results

A recurring assumption across the social sciences is that non‐commodified work has been increasingly replaced by the commodified sphere in which goods and services are produced and delivered for monetary exchange by capitalist firms for profit‐motivated purposes. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this thesis critically.

A review is conducted of the extent of commodified and non‐commodified work in the advanced economies.

Analyzing the extent of commodified and non‐commodified work in the advanced economies, the commodified sphere is shown to be far from hegemonic and, if anything, to have receded rather than penetrated deeper during the last four decades. This is here explained in terms of both the existence of resistance cultures to market‐ism and the contradictions inherent in the structural shift towards commodification.

The outcome is a call to transcend the representation of commodified work as victorious, all‐powerful and hegemonic, and for greater discussion of the feasibility of, and possibilities for, alternative futures beyond a commodified world.

It contests the dominant narrative that we live in an ever more commodified world.

A widely held supposition is that goods and services are increasingly produced and delivered for monetised exchange by capitalist firms in pursuit of profit. The result of this view of an ongoing encroachment of the market is that there is only one perceived future for work and it is one characterised by an ever more commodified world. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically this discourse. Analysing the balance between commodified and non‐commodified work in the advanced economies, a large non‐commodified sphere is identified that, if anything, is found to be expanding relative to the commodified realm. Rather than reading the future of work as a natural and unstoppable progression towards a victorious, all‐powerful and hegemonic commodity economy, this paper thus opens up the feasibility of alternative futures beyond a commodified world.

Using new empirical data from the UK focused on mutual aid and reciprocity, the purpose of this paper is to offer robust challenges to the logic and dominance of the commodification thesis. In finding mutual aid to be a significant coping strategy to get household tasks completed, in both affluent and deprived communities, the paper addresses the important question as to “why” mutual aid is so pervasive. Using qualitative insights as to “why” respondents engaged in mutual aid and reciprocity a considered response to this question, revolving around the instinctive and social nature of reciprocity, is made.

The research draws on previous Household Work Practice Studies, which have been influential in exploring the geographies of community self‐help. An in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaire, which adapts and develops previous successful approaches focused on mutual aid and volunteering, was employed across 100 households in two neighbouring wards in Leicester, UK.

The research found that the non‐commodified sphere of mutual aid was employed as a central coping strategy within the two communities investigated. The suggestion is that the extent of mutual aid in both deprived neighbourhoods and affluent neighbourhoods has been underestimated in previous research. However, the strength of the methodology resides with its understanding of the rationales being participation in mutual aid. This suggests that the natural and instinctive nature of reciprocity, and the social role that mutual aid plays within kin and non‐kin relations, helps explain its pervasiveness in the advanced economies.

The methodology and methods were designed to explicitly harness a deep qualitative understanding of the relationship and attitudes that households adopt toward their informal coping strategies, and mutual aid in particular. Thus though this approach has uncovered rich qualitative data to inform the key arguments, the quantitative findings must be treated as speculative rather than conclusive.

In undermining the commodification thesis, the paper concludes that alternate and better approaches toward harnessing “the economic” in society must be pursued by policy makers. Crucially economic policy which promotes co‐operation over competition within society should be seen as earning the qualification of “advanced” economic practice.

This is the first paper which explicitly looks at the pervasive nature of mutual aid within the advanced economies, using primary data from Leicester. The value is seen on three levels: first, the original arguments made which highlight the pervasiveness of this informal coping strategy; second, the manner with which these contemporary insights are then contextualised with reference to the wider literature; third, the way in which this research adds to the calls to fundamentally re‐think our dominant attitudes (and policies) toward the commodified and non‐commodified spheres of work in the advanced economies.

In this chapter, I analyze universities’ present context of commodification by suggesting a typology of market universities based on Levín’s three types of capital enterprises: the simple purpose, technological, and enhanced universities. The simple purpose university mainly commodifies teaching. On the contrary, the technological and enhanced universities, even if they may also commodify teaching, are focused on the commodification of research. The main difference between the technological and the enhanced universities is the capacity of the latter to enjoy the profits of its commodified research activity, while the former exchanges research results and sells its research capacity in a subordinated way, losing (at least part of) those benefits. These three proposed types also differ regarding financial autonomy and academic freedom.

In an era of global economic expansion, the harsh underside of capitalism clearly affects human subjectivities and consciousness.¹ Emotions, which both express and structure subjectivity and consciousness, reflect and manifest the social reality of human life in its various globalized dimensions. My argument in this chapter thus concerns the ways in which the contradictions as the harsh underside of capitalism affect the subjectivities of racial minorities. For this reason, the relationship between emotions and commodity capitalism is an especially pressing concern for the formation and expression of racial identity in the United States today. To understand the social reality of race in the U.S. capitalist system is to take seriously the affects that express and constitute the critical social thought of racial minorities. As African Americanist scholars such as Cornel West (1994, p. 42) have argued, the ideology of unregulated capital in corporate consumerism creates market moralities and market mentalities that “erode civil society.” The critical thought of black Americans, West (1992, p. 42) avers, suffers irreparable damage by images that relentlessly commercialize the so-called good life:These seductive images contribute to the predominance of the market-inspired way of life over all others – and thereby edge out nonmarket values – love, care, service to others – handed down by preceding generations. The predominance of this way of life among those living in poverty-ridden conditions, with a limited capacity to ward off self-contempt and self-hatred, results in the possible triumph of the nihilistic threat in black America.Corporations thus capitalize on civil rights gains while commodifying the activist politics of communities and governmental organizations. In effect, the “status quo” of government that promotes economic justice and civil rights protections is fragmented and replaced by corporate domination and the rule of the free market. Instead of turning to non-commercial avenues of civil society to change oppressive relations of power, Americans opt for consuming social change in a laissez-faire economy that equates individualism and free choice with purchasing merchandise. In her powerful critique of class privilege and consumption-based individualism, Bell Hooks (2000, p. 81) explains how the media's use of race to promote a “shared culture of consumerism” vitiates community values and deflects attention from class antagonism. Such consumerism, Hooks maintains, promotes ambitions for lifestyles of conspicuous consumption and celebrity that renders incoherent and undesirable a democratic sensibility that made civil rights gains for women and minorities possible in the first place (Bell Hooks, 2000, p. 77).

Alienation, a legacy of the Marxian Hegelian critique of domination, remains one of the most heuristic yet ambiguous concepts in social thought. Yet there endure questions of its definition, indications, level of analysis, relationships to capitalism or modernity in general. To speak of alienation raises a notion that there was once either a pristine era of bliss or a Utopian promise of universal self‐realization. I cannot enter this debate but only note that throughout most historical eras people have created societies, institutions and beliefs that have benefited the powerful few at the cost of the powerless many. Yet the few have had the power to construct definitions of reality and ideologies of legitimacy that are reproduced in the everday life routines of the many, so that arbitrary power arrangements seem natural and typical. Insofar as these routines are sustained by habits, fear and anxiety and thwart human potential, we can talk of alienated selfhood and interaction.

Extant research shows that individual’s relationship with brand can be structurally similar to both interpersonal love relationship and religious relationship. A stream of consumer research states that individual can love a brand like a person loves another person. Another stream of consumer research postulates that individual can perceive brand equivalent to religion, and even substitute religion with brand. Research is scarce connecting these two different paradigms of brand relationship, given that interpersonal relationship is not necessarily as devotional as religious relationship. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize the psychological process through which an individual can substitute his/her religion with brand. The basic theoretical premise of this substitution behaviour is the proposition that brand meanings can be perceived as equivalent to religious meanings.

This paper has conducted an integrative review of selected extant research related to individual-brand relationships, interpersonal relationships and religiosity.

This paper develops a consumer response hierarchy model showing the inter-related psychological processes through which an individual can substitute his/her religion with brand. The model forms the basis for the discussion of theoretical contributions and managerial implications.

The value of this conceptual paper lies in developing a process model for the first time in the area of consumer-brand relationship domain explaining the stage-wise psychological processes through which individual can move from mere cognitive brand satisfaction towards perceiving brand as substitute of religion.

The paper aims to develop a case for re‐considering the role of schools in education policy. The argument is made that considerable amounts of the variation in pupil performance may in fact derive from factors based on variations in parents' ability to buy‐in support and enrichment of various kinds for their children.

The argument of the paper is developed using secondary sources to make the case for non‐school explanations of variations in pupil performance and then offers a set of illustrations of the variety of types of bought‐in support and enrichment now being used in some families.

The paper concludes with the point that two contradictory education policy discourses are in play under New Labour. One, the discourse of standards/achievement, which works through testing, benchmarks, league‐tables, “coasting” schools, special measures, etc. totalises, individualises and commodifies the student as an “ability” – a cluster of performances. And in turn gives rise to “local economies of student worth” that “value” students differently within the processes of “school choice”. The other, the discourse of choice and active parenting, totalises, individualises and commodifies parents and families as “consumers” of education and investors in cultural capital.

The paper is discursive, exploratory and wide‐ranging. It sets out to make a plausible case that would merit further research rather than to establish at this stage a set of firm conclusions.

If the argument is taken seriously then the focus of education policy would be decisively shifted. There is some evidence of a shift of emphasis towards more intervention and individual attention but achievement differences remain firmly located within schools.

Little attention has been focused on this kind of argument and there has certainly been no attempt to map the variety of and growth in private educational services.

During early childhood, Indians and non-Indians learn a definition of “Indianness” (Merskin, 1998, p. 159). Around 18 months of age, human beings begin to recognize themselves as distinct and separate from their mothers and others (Lacan, 1977). By age 6, most attributes of personality formation are already established (Biber, 1984). The content of the information that consciously and unconsciously reaches children is critical for the formation of a healthy, grounded sense of self and respect for others. Today, in the absence of personal interaction with an indigenous person, non-Indian perceptions inevitably come from other sources. These mental images, the “pictures in our heads” as Lippmann (1922/1961, p. 33) calls them, come from parents, teachers, textbooks, movies, television programs, cartoons, songs, commercials, art, and product logos. American Indian images, music, and names have, since the beginning of the 20th century, been incorporated into many American advertising campaigns and marketing efforts, demarcating and consuming Indian as exotic “Other” in the popular imagination (Merskin, 1998). Whereas a century ago sheet music covers and patent medicine bottles featured “coppery, feather-topped visage of the Indian” (Larson, 1937, p. 338), today's Land O’ Lake's butter boxes display a doe-eyed, buckskin-clad Indian “princess.” The fact that there never were Indian “princesses” (a European concept), and most Indians do not have the kind of European features and social “availability” that trade characters do, goes largely unquestioned. These stereotypes are pervasive, but not necessarily consistent, varying over time and place from the “artificially idealistic” (noble savage) to images of “mystical environmentalists or uneducated, alcoholic bingo-players confined to reservations” (Mihesuah, 1996, p. 9). Today, a trip down the grocery store aisle still reveals ice cream bars, beef jerky, corn meal, baking powder, malt liquor, butter, honey, sugar, sour cream, chewing tobacco packages, and a plethora of other products emblazoned with images of American Indians. To discern how labels on products and brand names reinforce long-held stereotypical beliefs, we must consider embedded ideological beliefs that perpetuate and reinforce this process.