In
truth, we as a society commodify everyone. We have defined
commodification in this class as essentially turning a person into a
product. In learning about the chattel principle, we have identified
complete commodification of slaves as a way that American slavery of
Africans was different than many other examples of slavery.
American slaves were commodified in and of themselves, not really on
an individual basis or for their skill sets, as they had been in
other areas. As we discussed in class, slaves in other parts of the
world often had their occupations, and, despite being owned, were
valued for their skills and allowed a sense of humanity through that
occupation and through a virtually free private life. Discussing
these separate brands of slavery left me with a huge confusion. Each
of these situations is truly slavery, but why do I feel that one is
wronger than the other if they each commodify and if they each strip
a person of their freedom? It seems difficult to say that one type
of slavery is or feels better or worse than another. Slavery in
general is against the moral code of our current society. However,
the feeling I get regarding which is better or worse, I find myself
drawing the line at free will and humanity. American chattel
slavery made a human a number: an economic value.
Just
as objects each serve functions, many times in society we see people
as serving functions. And, technically, we do. Each of us fills
some societal role or roles. We each have occupations and skill
sets. I often value the skill sets of a person , and might seek that
person if I need his or her skills in a specific situation. I, or
any of you, would go to a tattoo artist expecting their skill to be
tattoo art. If that person were indeed skilled at tattoo art, we
might appreciate that skill, and we might pay that person for his or
her skill and service. Commodification is turning something a person
cannot “own” into just that: a marketable product. A reasonable
conclusion is that this is as wrong as slavery. So where do we draw
the line? Personal will? Humanity? These are the aspects of
chattel slavery that differ it from other instances of slavery in
such a horrible way. Shouldn't we stop commodifying people's
admirable or marketable characteristics? Can we? If we can find a
line between admiring people's skills and admiring people only as a
function of their skills, would we be able to justly employ those
people?
Aubrey Kearney
Aubrey, I enjoyed reading your post and getting the opportunity to view commodification and the chattel principle through a slightly different lens. In the second paragraph, you say that "commodification is turning something a person cannot "own" into just that: a marketable product". I agree with this definition, however I have a question: do you believe that others turn people in to a marketable product, or do we choose to present ourselves as a marketable (or unmarketable) products. In Soul by Soul, Walter Johnson presents ways in which slaves chose to alter the way in which they were being marketed: by changing their stories or inflicting self-harm. Are these examples of commodification, or the tangible affects of it?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your comment, I definitely must admit that people market themselves and their skills as commodities. I am not sure that people should or can avoid commodifying their skills. Understanding and bettering oneself and one's skills is crucial in attaining and maintaining a career. I am sure you are right in that people commodify themselves, but I do not think that takes away from how wrong it can be for someone to commodify another person and his or her skills. If a person claims a skill and wants to commodify it, that is not wrong. Frankly, it is beneficial to that person. The line is drawn, I think, at the point between what people want or perceive that person's skills to be versus what the person wants or perceives as his or her actual skills. In response to your final question, I would say that, in the case of slaves on the market, those behaviors of storytelling and self-harm are effects of their commodification. These slaves understand what is attractive in a slave to a slaveowner. They fear purchase and new ownership, so they take what power they have by making themselves unattractive products.
DeleteAubrey, again, I appreciated your thoughtful response. Are you suggesting that commodification is a process deeply unjust, therefor the examples in which slaves chose to present themselves in certain ways as specific commodities was a byproduct of this injustice? If so, I agree. However I find the subject particularly perplexing because in the job industry today, I think that individuals HAVE to turn themselves into commodities: to present themselves as a product that can help a specific company have more financial gains or become more efficient.
DeleteI definitely agree that commodification is unjust, and I also agree that today it is impossible to enter any job market without commodifying oneself. Our relationship with commodification is very confusing. I know it is wrong, but I feel at the same time that in my daily life it is almost necessary to know who is good at what just to navigate society and the workplace.
DeleteAubrey, I enjoyed reading your post because I think it is very interesting how concepts of the past play such a significant role in our lives. In your second paragraph, you addressed commodification of the American slaves versus commodification of people in our society today. I think that the difference between the two is that the commodification of slaves was not simply of their skill; rather, it was of the slaves themselves. Today, people can sell their skills but they (typically) do not sell their actual bodies. During the times of slavery, the slaves themselves were being put on the marketplace, rather than just what they produced. Thus, I would not say that people today are commodifying themselves; rather, they are commercializing their services, which is the basic definition of commodification.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to address your comments about where to draw the line in terms of commodification. Last year, I took a class about Adam Smith and his principles, and we discussed what type of moral line should exist in economics. Essentially, we concluded that there has to be a moral line that cannot be crossed in economics, regardless of the financial outcome it may produce. This "moral line" was clearly crossed in the institution of slavery. I definitely agree that there has to be this moral line, but without marketing and commercializing our skills, I do not see a functioning capitalist economy, or at least not a strong one.
I think that you are very correct in suggesting that even today we continue to commodify ourselves. If someone asks you to describe yourself, our first response is to say something that reflects our profession or skills (i.e. I’m a doctor, or I’m a basketball player.) These things do not however reflect who we are as people, but what we contribute to society. The commodification of labor seems to be a long standing tradition in the U.S., and across the world, and I don’t think that as long as we follow the principles of capitalism this will change. Companies continue to relocate factories because they keep finding cheaper sources of labor. Unjust work conditions are a reality in most of the factories, and I think it is largely in part because the humanity of the workers is not recognized. Workers are treated as disposable and valued only for what they can do, not for who they are as people. To answer your question, I think that recognizing one’s humanity is crucial because without it workers become skill sets that can be easily replaced. Capitalism has created a “reserve army” to use Marx’s term meaning that when it comes to low skilled, low paid jobs, there is always a line of people waiting to take over for you if you are no longer able to perform your job. I think that during slavery and now we still operate under the assumption that one’s value is based on what they can contribute to society, which is why our identity is based what we do and not just based on who we are as humans.
ReplyDelete