Fetish

In my line of work, people talk about their fetishes all the time.  I used to find it shocking.  I enjoyed learning about so many new ways to confront desire.  And people get pretty specific.  My current fascination is human barbequeing.  I have yet to see this particular fetish enacted but the existence of it piques my curiosity.

As an anthropologist, I am interested in the utility of the term fetish.  Many people are familiar with the psychological definition of the word - an object which a person derives sexual pleasure from which is not typically considered sexual.  This generally has negative connotations, bleeding into the realms of perversion and pathology.  The kinky community has reclaimed this word and stripped it of these overtones among themselves, instead using it to mean a type of sexual desire, even if non-traditional.  It is still, however, grounded in sexuality.

Then there's the Marxist fetish, usually used in the term "commodity fetishism."  This is economic rather than sexual (depending on how you read your Marx) and refers to the idea that objects are valued in terms of other objects rather than their relationship to people.  Money, in this case, is the ultimate fetish.  Goods become valuable not for what they do or how they are made but rather as status symbols.  Marx critiqued capitalism with this term, but the classic example of the yam practices of some groups in Papua New Guinea comes to mind as well.  In this case, yams are grown not to eat, but rather to be displayed as signs of status. It is important to have big yams.  When I first learned of this practice, I thought it alien.  Shortly thereafter, I saw a special on giant pumpkin growing in the United States and made the connection that this happens right here, although the growing of large gourds is still outside of my logic.  Regardless, the relationships to these over-sized vegetables is not mediated through other objects, meaning that capitalism has a special case of commodity fetishism.  But why the term fetish?

I like to think these other social scientists usurped the term from anthropology in the true bastard nature of all social sciences.  Borrowing concepts and words is practically scripture.  We would never get anywhere without some judicious cross-discipline fertilization.  But it is the anthropological definition that interests me - an object imbued with special powers due to spiritual intervention.  Historically, the term has been othering, separating enlightened Euro-American traditions from the more "primitive" cultures being studied.  Pretty quickly, however, Christian relics were subjected to the same analysis, perhaps in a further intellectual distancing from religious superstition, relying on the (sarcastically) superior logic of cold science.  I am neither anti-science or anti-religion, valuing and being skeptical of both.  But I find the notion intriguing.  Recently, the spiritual aspects have fallen away somewhat, instead focusing on the extra-material powers of an object in itself, rather than because it is an incarnation of a spirit.  It is easy to see how objects accumulate power.  Heirlooms act as both touchstones for memory and as carriers of some residue of their former owners.  Wedding rings, photographs, diplomas - any of these can hold the essence of some power beyond their role in signification.  It is easy to see this in the way wedding rings are treated after an acrimonious breakup.  There is some bad mojo attached to them that cannot truly be cleansed.

Except.  I am interested in the confluence of Marxist fetishism with anthropological fetishism.  It seems as if money wipes the slate clean, divesting an object of its power.  In a consumer culture, we are encouraged to feel attached to material goods (at least for a brief period), to view them as receptacles for our personal energy and identity.  But an object's history begins when it enters our personal sphere.  Despite the fact it is a common belief that material items hold energy, as demonstrated by the hesitance of some to buy a secondhand wedding ring, it is as if the item magically appeared without any history prior to the point of purchase.  In some circles, this is changing.  People are focusing on how goods are made, who makes them, under what conditions.  This is most noticeable to me in terms of food, but that may just be the circles I run in.

This brings me back to the sexual fetish.  For those who have never shopped for sex toys, I encourage you to try it.  The variety is overwhelming.  It seems as if every taste is catered to and, in some cases, created.  How do you know you don't need a vibrator than spins *and* flicks *and* lights up?  Toys become fetish objects.  Rather than being (or sometimes, in conjunction with being) invested with spiritual energy, toys gain an erotic energy which carry over through usage and time.

The term fetish has several specific meanings but the three are blended together in sex toys.  I like the term fetish, although context definitely matters.  I enjoy holding the concepts together, examining the role of spirituality, sexuality, and consumerism in power dynamics.