Page 50 - KATE_JOHNSTON_2017
P. 50

well  as  on  the  many  dimensions  with  which  we  can  analyze  them:  labor,  professional,

               material, technological, political, economic, symbolic, textual, bodily, historical, educational’


               (Dumit 2014, p. 350).


                       By following wheat, Head et al. (2012, p. 3) illustrate the importance of exploring

               what  is  beyond  the  reified  product  –	 from  production  through  to  consumption  –  and  pay

               attention  to  the  visible  and  non-visible,  the  material  deconstruction  and  transformation  of


               things on their way to becoming commodities. Such a framing moves away from a Marxist

               focus on the commodity. Karl Marx’s (1983) theories of the commodity in capitalist contexts


               and  certainly  his  ideas  of  exchange  value  and  power  remain  relevant  to  the  capitalist

               conditions  through  which  products  circulate  today,  including  products  with  sustainability


               credentials. Likewise the notion of commodity fetishism is still an important reminder of the

               social relationships that make possible and value, but become obscured in, the commodity.

               However, if we limit our research parameters to the exchange or maybe stretch them as far as


               the labour required to create a commodity, then we miss an important part of a commodity’s

               life  cycle.  Appadurai  offers  a  step  towards  opening  up  the  unit  of  study  to  consider  a


               commodity as a particular situation of a thing where things come in and out of the commodity

               state (1986, p. 13). He proposes that ‘the commodity situation in the social life of any “thing”


               be defined as the situation in which its exchangeability (past, present, or future) for some

               other thing is its socially relevant feature’ (Appadurai 1986, p. 13).


                       Even though products that make environmental claims (e.g. Coles eco tin) enter the

               commodity system, they also challenge a simple commodity analysis. Such products demand


               an evaluation of things –	ecosystems, non-tuna species –	that exist outside of exchange value.

               These  products  urge  us  to  consider  elements  (marine  species  and  ecosystems)  that  might

               never  be  part  of  the  commodity  itself  but  are  nonetheless  implicated  in  the  activities  of










                                                                                                        38
   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55