How Capitalism Commodifies the Self

When beginning to analyze this question, we must look back to the 70s and 80s, a time when cultural analysis of increased individualization and studying of cultural value was at a relative high, and psychologists and sociologists were releasing numerous studies, detailing the matter. “In the 1970s and 1980s a body of literature appeared discussing and documenting a modal shift in the way that Americans conceive of and express themselves. Compared with the 1950s and before, scholars argued, people now put less emphasis on institutional roles in their self-definitions and more weight on internal criteria or ‘impulse.’” (Joseph Davis). What Davis is outlining here is a shift in how individuals in society viewed the idea of “self” and how one found it. Said understanding of “self” on a societal level shifted from institutional, structured values, to a hyper-individualist one. On a very broad level, we can say this shift was fueled by ongoing social and cultural changes of the time on individualization and whatnot. To look closer, we can turn to Ralph Turner, a sociologist who in 1976, found a shift in the locus of the spectrum of “self”, and what it meant to be yourself — the feelings, actions that we identify as expressions of our real self — as movement along a line of institution on one end to impulse on the other. “At the institutional pole, one recognizes the real self in the pursuit of institutionalized goals. Self-control, volition, and exacting standards within institutional frameworks are paramount. At the impulse pole, by contrast, ‘institutional motivations are external, artificial constraints and superimpositions that bridle manifestations of the real self.’”, Turner argued the conception of self on a societal level was getting closer and closer to the impulse point of the line. His findings weren’t unique either, as multiple sociologists were coming to the same conclusion, “In a more empirical vein, Joseph Veroff and his colleagues, comparing the results of national surveys they conducted in 1957 and 1976, found a significant shift in the way that people structure their self-definition and sense of well-being. They characterized this change as one from a ‘socially integrated’ paradigm to a more ‘personal or individuated’ paradigm and identified it in three aspects: “(1) the diminution of role standards as the basis for defining adjustment; (2) increased focus on self-expressiveness and self-direction in social life; [and] (3) a shift in concern from social organizational integration to interpersonal intimacy.” (Joseph Davis). Moreso, Daniel Bell, Robert Bellah, and Daniel Yankelovich, all too found an increasing rise and emphasis on the personal desires and exploration of immediate experience, over institutional standards and values.

There are two different ways the “self” has been commodified. The first being through manufactured desires and branding within the market, the second being the conscious commodification of personality in a social setting. Let’s take a closer look.

In this new cultural shift of the time, the term “self” was deinstitutionalized and for this reason became its own criteria in each person’s mind. To put it simply, each person would attempt to work out what they deemed “self” in relative isolation from others and their viewpoint on the matter. What it meant to be yourself, find yourself, all were now individualized concepts, relative to the person that was creating their own answers. Without needing to point any further, the very markt forces that created this vacuum of hyper-individual definition settings of “self” and fulfilling “self”, rushed into filling it.

Even in the 1970s, sociologists were talking of scripts, a term used to describe what we now refer to as algorithms. “Scripts” as Louis Zurcher, a social psychologist at the William A. Menninger Foundation described it point blank, that scripts were being written to channel these inner impulses into manufactured consumer choices for consumption on the market. To understand the sheer absurdity of this phenomena, we can take branding for instance, the strategy we deem as innate to capitalism, was only formed in the mid-to late 1980s, some 40 years ago! At this time, companies became obsessed with manufacturing images, not things in and of themselves, but emphasizing a carefully crafted image, a descriptor of a company’s product pitch to the consumer, and how their commodity would help fulfill themselves.Branding expert Scott Bedury expanded upon this, “a great brand is an emotional connection point that transcends the product….” that is an almost myth like evolving story that creates “the emotional context people need to locate themselves in larger experience.” Marketing, and the new algorithms created to enhance it, incorporate the language of self-determination and transformation, and build upon the set societal idea that being true to our unique inner desires and overall selves is a powerful moral ideal… “Authenticity has been so thoroughly appropriated and packaged in the metaphorical stories of the mass marketers that we barely notice anymore. Advertisements rail against the conventional demands of society and sell products as instruments of liberation. Brands of jeans signify rebellion and rule breaking, fruit drinks and sneakers have countercultural themes, and cars let us escape and find ourselves.” (Joseph Davis) We can, sadly, dive even further. The journey of self actualization, understanding oneself, and then finding oneself, has quite literally been laid subject to marketers who manufacture desire and exploit this need of self-finding. Putting it further, sexual expression, self development, and spiritual growth are now the subject of market master advice, and pre packaged programs and algorithms.

In a sense, the marketers recognized that the notion of an entirely self created self is a fiction story, something that is humanly impossible. What do I mean? Simple, the creation of the self isn’t completely internal, as it can’t be. We, as humans in a contemporary capitalist society, are in constant dialogue, in constant understanding cultural patterns and trends. Companies, more specifically the marketers employed at such firms, understand this and can position their goods and images not simply as fulfilling desires, but meeting that need that every human feels, the need for connection, the need for recognition by society, the need to have values to live by… the things that make up our understanding of “self.” Mr.Davis analyzes this next step far better than I can, “Social identities remain but as one is turned into a consumer, they are increasingly shaped and conditioned by patterns of consumption. We identify our real selves by the choices we make from the images, fashions, and lifestyles available in the market, and these in turn become the vehicles by which we perceive others and they us.”

In a depressing manner, we then come to the realization that have a sense of “self” one must partake, either consciously or subconsciously, in the manufactured desires of the market, to over consume commodities within this market to be a part of the transaction every human being takes place in right now… value judgements. Under this system of manufactured desires and marketing warlords, we are naturally quick to judge based on consumer consumption, as consumption is used as a means of showing and describing one’s self, and thus it is only natural to judge another person’s “self.” based on their consumption. We cannot escape this system, it is impossible. Everytime we log onto the technology we need to do work in our workplaces, we serve algorithms and “scripts’ ‘, that then cause us to over consume to express one’s self and identity… It is an entire system of commodity and sign, a system of representation and cultural exploitation, a means of exploiting the natural desire to find, and then fulfil the idea of “self”.

In the second sense of commodification, we ourselves turn personality into a commodity, that being commodifying in the sense to relate to it as an object that can be bought or sold, as an object that has “exchange value” in a market. Personal branding, like branding of products and physical objects, is a form of image marketing. Even with all of the differences of modern day, post fordist capitalism to other, fordist forms of capitalism, the forced, almost compulsory market competition remains the same. Tom Peters, new economy guru and author of the story, “The brand Called You.” explains, “We are CEOs of our own companies: Me, Inc. To be in business today, our most important job is head marketer for the brand called ‘You.’If branding is such a powerful tool for selling products, he reasons, then it makes perfect sense that individuals should “self-brand” in order to stand out from the competition, become the ‘go to’ guy, and get to the top.” To even survive in modern day capitalism, one must brand themselves and market their own “self”. Before branding, individuals must act like marketers getting in touch with the selling parts of the commodity being marketed, and must get in touch with their skills/labour power, the parts of their personality that will be sold. They then must craft these traits of themselves into an image and distinctive personality, like the Air Jordan Michael, or the Nike Swoosh, even testing their brand on friends, families, and others, just like marketers test their commodities on focus groups. This process of self-branding encompasses and consumes every single part of one’s life. Self branders must take part in this market-force and competitive social networking of their branded personality to rise to the top of the labour force. It is something we all must do as members of the working class, we must commodify, test, brand, and then sell our manufactured personalities that are constantly competing against each other, just to get employed by the private owner of the means to produce. “Doing so necessarily implies that the criteria of self-definition we use become more narrowly instrumental, impersonal, and contingent. To be successful at Me. Inc, my traits, values, beliefs, and so on — the qualities by which I locate myself and where I stand — must be self-consciously adopted or discarded, emphasized or de-emphasized, according to the abstract and competitive standards of the market. And since the market is never static, staying “relevant” like the great brands means that these qualities must be constantly monitored and adjusted to retain the desired image.” (Joseph Davis)

When analyzing the impact this commodifying of personality has on social relations, it implies a necessary change in all human interaction. If personality is being manufactured to market said personality, and then appeal that “self” to the capitalist class, all others within every reaction must be objectified in the interest of the bottom line, of bringing your manufactured, branded personality to the top. On top of this, if I make whatever the market values, what I value, then every interaction that doesn’t involve market values and surviving in the market must lose priority and significance and who I am, how I identify, what I do… myself”.

Within this late stage capitalism, you aren’t you. You are a set of manufactured desires enforced upon you by algorithms you can’t escape to exploit your journey to self-actualization. You commodify your own self to compete against fellow workers, in turn reinforcing the very system that put you into that position in the first place. How do we escape this? According to the capitalist class, the problem isn’t even there in the first place. So continue ignoring your own oppression and consume my friend! Consume!