Commodity When, rather than Commodity What

The problem with defining a commodity, as confronted both in class last week and in the readings, seems to be primarily a problem of a multiplicity of definitions. To begin with, as a starting point there are many historical definitions to take in, including Marx and others, and there are also the current definitions used in subjects such as economics. Economics presents an especially difficult puzzle, as commodities can be used with multiple meanings even within the discipline. The one that I personally am most familiar with, and which shaped (shapes?) how my original definition of the idea was formed, was of the commodity as a product with a low level of internal division (ie, one batch from supplier A has little to differentiate it from a batch from supplier B) and so is traded based on other factors (primarily in bulk). These products, such as grains, coal, oil or steel, are one definition of the term commodities. Reading the introduction to From Silver to Cocaine gives the impression that it adopts this general definition of commodities in its focus on specific products like silver, henequen, rubber, cacao, coca, coffee, sugar, and tobacco (Topik 10).

At the other end of the definition spectrum so far are the definitions provided by Appadurai and Kopytoff. I actually have to disagree with Ben: I think that Appadurai’s discussion of the nature of commodities was extremely useful in defining what I suspect will be my future definition of the term. Specifically, I think that the two step definition of 1: Is it something (an object, labor, a concept) with a value that can be traded for some other thing with a value? 2: Is its nature as something with a value (past, present, or future) the primary element of its identity at the moment? (Appadurai 13) If both answers are yes, it is a commodity. Both Appadurai and Kopytoff use this sort of conditional definition that means that things are commodities only part of the time, and can move in and out of that definition depending on social conditions.

I also found fascinating how Appadurai turned the usual perception of the relationship between consumption culture and industrialization on its head. He says, essentially that material culture and consumption of goods from areas across the world was a prerequisite of industrialized capitalism. (Appadurai 37) This is a fascinating inversion of the usual blame placed on industrialized production for the culture of consumption and materialism found in the modern world.