the blink times

I’m not opening this mini-forum because of my broad knowledge in economics. No really, I’m so bad with money that if I were working in Lehman Brothers, it might have been a good thing because the recession would have arrived early and we’ll all be back basking in bills of bliss right now. Nevertheless, money does matter, and it would be good if I was endowed with more funds to buy my toys, comics, and (if fate permits) a full-size topless poster of Andrea Fonseka.

About a month ago, I found myself listening  to a short speech on the ‘perceived value of things’. The speaker, who was a round and rosy middle-aged man, talked about how our present economy was so dependant on things that were never really there in the first place. The argument here, is that one’s status of wealth is actually primarily determined not by what we possess (e.g. land, property, cattle, limited edition collectibles) but by the number of Benjamins in our pockets. If people can actually conveniently opine that age is only a number, why can’t money be treated like a piece of paper? Lehman Brothers screwed themselves big-time when they started lending money to dopes that had no means of paying those debts. It became a black hole investment, with every tangible thing collapsing because of nothing. Given the current recession, it might be interesting to figure out how this concept of  ‘value’ has been altered in our modern economy.

Most economists today continue to subscribe to the teachings of Marx, and all wage-earners should learn a thing or two from his concepts of use value and exchange value. In a Marxist view to classical economics, human labour is the most basic unit of value. We’re the base of the economy, thus we all have a certain degree of use or value to it. Assuming there is neither profit nor loss, every one’s use value can be exchanged for something of equivalence. This inevitably allows us to appreciate the simplicity of ancient cultures, in which barter trade (not money) was the way to go. Capitalism, however, functions on the doctrine of profit which introduces new variables to the idea of exchange value. Products of human labour are now converted into commodities, and this phenomenon was already present during the first civilisations, so there’s nothing new there. Instead of transactions on a one-to-one basis, we introduce the merchants and retailers who buy stuff and sell them off for a higher profit. By now, it’s not too hard to see that the economic viability of human labour is now giving way to something more intangible and abstract—the dollars and cents.

Foucault gives the breakdown on this particular process of abstraction in his book The Order of Things. Through the observation of differences in the development of human knowledge or epistemes, he points out a potent shift between the Classical and Modern period of our history. Nature, or the external world of objects, is no longer ‘visible’ in the literal sense. Rather, we come to know of or attain them through abstracted signs and concepts within our minds. This implies a modification of information gained through physical experience, into a system that can no longer be accessed through human sight.  For example, we can’t see how shares really look like, but the numbers on the STI index allow us to perceive their presence and worth. In other words, these figures become a form of representation for us, and whether or not their actual referents are there, isn’t really much of an issue…just as long as the numbers keep adding up.

There is of course, some continuity in the way these two theorists conceive of ‘value’, insofar as they suggest an avenue of recourse to a more ‘basic’ medium of exchange. Jean Baudrillard, on the other hand, kinda turns the tables on his forerunners, by claiming that there isn’t really a ‘real’ value to speak of. There are two pertinent points that lay the foundations of his approach. First, humanity is driven by consumption and not production. Capitalism reveals its own material exploitation on the basis that that the lower classes realise they are consuming, or acquiring less than their overlords. This marks a very distinct deviation, since it is possible that one can consume without producing (e.g. free-loaders like me for the moment). Second, all forms of economic of exchange, no matter how progressive or primitive, is governed by a systematised code of signs. This code directs all corporate attitudes and behaviour in the direction of profit a.k.a consumption. Therefore, if Baudrillard was still alive, he wouldn’t claim that the current recession is a result of capitalist exploitation, since the code is relatively, an illusionary entity by itself.

So what exactly constitutes ‘real’ value in a world driven by profit and loss? In extending his critique of Marx, Baudrillard conceives of ‘symbolic exchange’, which works simply on the act of gift giving. It is also an antithesis to the concepts of use and exchange values, because the giver experiences a state of loss through the giving of the gift. For the receiver, the value of the gift is not measured against an economic standard (i.e. how much it’s worth). Conversely, it becomes the significant factor in the establishment of a relationship between two individuals, and the autonomy of social exchange. I guess perhaps, in a time when everyone is fussing over nothing, just giving something special to someone you know might really be a valuable deed after all.

References:

Marx, K. (1961). Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, in T. Bottomore & M. Rubel (eds.). London: Pelican.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things. London: Tavistock.

Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. trans. Mark Poster. St Louis: Telos Press.