Abstract
I argue that in seeking to comprehend value, the analogy with language extends remarkably far: precisely because economics is concerned not merely with material things but with social phenomena. I explore the analogy between value and meaning, between coins and words, drawing in part on writers from other disciplines, such as the semiotician de Saussure, some of whom have proposed the reverse analogy: from economics to linguistics.
The value of a commodity is something which not only distinguishes it from or relates it to other commodities, but is a quality differentiating from its own existence as a thing, a value in use.
(Marx 1971: 128)
This is a revised version of a chapter in McNeill, D (1988) Fetishism and the Form of Value. Unpublished thesis, University of London.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The last sentence refers to his earlier discussion of the arbitrariness of the sign: “the idea of ‘sister’ is not linked by any inner relationship to the succession of sounds s-o-r which serves as its signifier in French” (de Saussure 1974a: 67). One may agree that economic values are not wholly arbitrary, (while having reservations about the term “productivity of land”) but it is surely adopting an extremely asocial view of economics to claim that economic values are “natural”. Economists like Walras, of course, would agree with such a position (see Chap. 4); but it is rather surprising to find Anderson, by implication, associating himself with this view.
- 2.
The quotation continues: “Both sciences are concerned with a system for equating things of different orders—labour and wages in one and a signified and signifier in the other” (de Saussure 1974a: 79). This second part of the passage, however, is not in de Saussure’s notes. (The Cours de Linguistique Générale was not written by de Saussure himself, but was put together by two editors, on the basis of lecture notes from his students). This, according to Mauro, is “an addition of the editors, rather arbitrary given the comparison which it contains” (de Saussure 1974b: 451) (my translation). Mauro offers the following gloss on the first part of the passage:
In political economy one is faced with the notion of value—but to a lesser degree than in linguistics—and with a system of values. Political economy studies equilibrium between certain social values: value of labour, value of capital. (de Saussure 1974b: 451) (my translation)
It is by no means clear that this is an improvement on the editors’ version.
- 3.
As indicated in the previous chapter, I believe that structuralism has less to contribute to an understanding of history, and that Althusser’s difficulties arose largely from trying to apply his ideas to the doctrine of historical materialism.
- 4.
In this field he cites Baudrillard, whose work is discussed in Chap. 13, as a major figure.
- 5.
See Chap. 6.
- 6.
Eco also very briefly considers a third example, the exchange of women, but, making reference to Lévi-Strauss, notes that the exchange in this case is not of “physical objects”: “The woman, the moment she becomes ‘wife’, is no longer merely a physical body: she is a sign which connotes a system of social obligations” (Eco 1977: 26).
- 7.
Indeed in a sense perhaps values are meanings, see below. Although it is important not to go too far. As Eco puts it, “to look at the whole of culture sub specie semiotica is not to say that culture is only communication and signification, but that it can understood more thoroughly if it is seen from the semiotic point of view. And that objects, behaviour and relationships of production and value function as such precisely because they obey semioticlaws” (Eco 1977: 27).
- 8.
To call this a “primal act of classification” is not to claim that someone, at some time in history, really performed such an act. (In other words, to suggest that Eco is adopting something akin to Marx’s “logico-historical” method). To avoid the appearance of a creation myth it might be better to analyse the learning rather than the “invention” of language; see Wittgenstein’s discussion of ostensive definition, and of languagegames (Wittgenstein 1969).
- 9.
The analogy is relevant not only to the Marxian concept of value. Schaff offers a long and interesting list of possible interpretations of meaning. Among them is that “meaning is a relation between the sign and human action” (Schaff 1962: 227), so that the meaning of a term is found “by observing what a man does with it, not by what he says about it”. “Psychological categories are here replaced by categories of objective behaviour, the action of human organism, and in this way we acquire objective data which enable us to define meanings and differentiate between them, data which can be observed intersubjectively” (Schaff 1962: 262). There are parallels here with the replacement of utility theory in neo-Classical economics by “revealed preference”.
- 10.
This seems a good description of meaning (and, indeed, of value). My only criticism is that he goes on to say that “meaning is, first, a relation or a system of relations between men on the psychological plane”. If the term “psychological” is simply intended to contrast with material, then the word “social” would surely be better.
- 11.
From the phrasing of this passage it might seem that the comparison is one which has been proposed by someone else; but there is no reference to another work. According to Lepschy (1985: 200) “Marx and Engels did not have much to say about language”, and I have found only few relevant references in Marx’s writings, for example Marx (1975: 190–1; 1973: 145). One relevant quote (see Chap. 12) is: “Production by a solitary individual outside society … is just as preposterous as the development of speech without individuals who live together and talk to one another”. There is one other interesting reference—in Marx’s critique of Bailey; but this is not exactly about language:
‘It is impossible to designate or express the value of a commodity except by a quantity of some other commodity.’ (As impossible as it is to ‘designate’ or ‘express’ a thought except by a quantity of syllables. Hence Bailey concludes that a thought is—syllables.) (Marx 1973: 146)
- 12.
Thus, for example, Whorf (1956) examines implicit categories which have no corresponding name. This might be claimed as evidence of ideas without words; but such “ideas” are, nevertheless, set within a language—and can be expressed in that language, albeit not by a single word. A more controversial issue is the causal relationship between words and ideas. As de Saussure asks: “do ready made ideas exist before words?” (de Saussure 1974a: 65). Here, there is a close parallel with the relationship between money and exchange-value.
- 13.
This is a passage from Marx’s discussion of the fetishism of commodities. It is evident that the concept of fetishism also has parallels in language—as Schaff also pointed out (Schaff 1962: 224)—and these might prove interesting to develop.
Bibliography
Anderson, P. (1983). In the Tracks of Historical Materialism. London: Verso.
Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of Semiology. London: Cape.
Eco, U. (1977). A Theory of Semiotics. London: Macmillan.
Lepschy, G. (1985). Linguistics. In Z. Baranski & J. Short (Eds.), Developing Contemporary Marxism. London: Macmillan.
Marx, K. (1954). Capital (Vol. I). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1971). Theories of Surplus Value, Part III. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, K. (1975). Karl Marx: Texts on Method (T. Carver, Trans. & Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Mepham, J. (1973). The Structuralist Sciences and Philosophy. In D. Robey (Ed.), Structuralism: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon.
de Saussure, F. (1974a). Course in General Linguistics. Fontana/Collins: Glasgow.
de Saussure, F. (1974b). Cours de Linguistique Générale (T. de Mauro, Ed.)
Schaff, A. (1962). Introduction to Semantics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). The Blue and Brown Books Oxford. Blackwell
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McNeill, D. (2021). The Commodity as Sign. In: Fetishism and the Theory of Value. Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56123-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56123-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56122-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56123-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)