FETISHISM RECONFIGURED: SURPLUS, EQUIVALENCE AND DIFFERENCE WITHIN THE PRODUCTION OF VALUE. LEE ALAN HAZELDINE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of Staffordshire University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy MAY 2013 Contents i Introduction 1 Part One: Fetishism and the problem of value. 17 Fetishism and the cultural imperialism of value 18 Fetishism and disavowal 23 Surplus Value and Equivalence 37 Part Two: Fetishism, Otherness and the Privileged Signifier 48 Inclusions and exclusions: fetishism and modernity 50 The privileged signifier and the metaphysics of presence 70 Baudrillard, privileged signifiers and the logic of the code 84 Part Three: Fetishism, Death and the General Economy. 95 Death-drive and the fetish. 96 Death and Symbolic Exchange 106 Restricted Economy versus the General Economy 111 The fetish as an untransposable object of desire. 121 Part Four: Fetishism, Difference and Deleuze. 134 Difference and Repetition 135 Desire as production and the Body Without Organs 144 Deleuze and Fetishism 161 Deleuze and Contemporary Theories of Fetishism 185 Part Five: Fetishism, Femininity and the critique of lack 203 Fetishism reconsidered: The Case of Female Fetishism 205 Phallogocentrism and the critique of lack 229 Sexual Difference and Deleuze 236 Conclusion 274 Bibliography 283 Notes 301 ii Abstract Given a post-structuralist critique of the metaphysics of presence within western thought, It is surprising that much contemporary theory that discusses fetishism still subscribes to concepts of substitution and disavowal which uphold a notion of self-present value. This study offers an original critique of traditional views of fetishism via a consideration of the role of surplus and equivalence within the production of value. Rather than describing fetishism in terms of a disavowal of a self- present determination of value, this critique recognizes that what is ultimately denied within traditional accounts is the artificial surplus production upon which its value is premised. An original account is proposed in which fetishism is perceived as an immanent productive process where difference generates signifiers of value. The fetish can be perceived as the means by which established measures of value are both endorsed and transgressed in relation to a restricted economy. This theory supplements the Bataillean notion of the fetish as an untransposable object of desire and considers the implications of a Deleuzean metaphysics of difference. The work of Deleuze offers a means to resolve the contradiction in which the fetish can be perceived as both an instigator and transgressor of value. As such, fetishism is found to be the archetype of value, rather than its substitute. An original contribution to the corpus of Deleuzean theory is made via an understanding of fetishism in relation to the Body Without Organs. Whereas fetishism has been discussed in terms of a reifying tendency, a wider consideration of Deleuze and Guattari’s work allows the notion to be considered from the point of view of transgression and becoming. Such a conception is found to have greater efficacy than current theories in that it allows the fetish to be understood as either a reified or transgressive value. iii Introduction Fetishism within modernity has always been associated with the problem of exchange in which the term is used to describe a process of substitution and disavowal of that which is perceived as both the origin and true determination of value. Given a post-structuralist critique of the metaphysics of presence, the notion of value being determined elsewhere, outside fetishistic relations, can be subject to criticism. If value can itself be viewed as a fetishistic construction, then operating within a traditional model of disavowal and substitution can be perceived as being complicit with a metaphysics of presence and the terms of a restricted economy in which it operates. A post-structuralist critique of the metaphysics of presence within western thought has undermined the legitimacy of privileged signifiers that instigate binary oppositions premised on notions of presence and lack. Given this, it is surprising that much contemporary theory that discusses fetishism still subscribes to concepts of substitution and disavowal that uphold a notion of self-present value. As such, instances of fetishism are described in terms of some form of cultural lack that is then disavowed via strategies of substitution. This study offers an original critique of the conventional view of fetishism within modernity via a consideration of the role of surplus and equivalence within the production of value. Rather than describing fetishism in terms of a disavowal of a self-present determination of value, this critique recognizes that what is ultimately denied within traditional accounts is the artificial surplus production upon which its value is premised. The tendency for traditional models of fetishism to repetitiously orientate around a singular economy in which one object becomes the privileged signifier of value is criticized – this is perceived as omitting the possibility that difference lies at the heart of the production of the fetish. Given the arbitrary and artificial nature of privileged signifiers that act as 1 equivalents of value, it is demonstrated that fetishism should be perceived as the archetype of value rather than a substitute. Against a traditional model of fetishism, an original account is proposed in which the concept is perceived as an immanent productive process where difference generates signifiers of value. As such, the fetish can be perceived as the means by which established measures of value are both endorsed and transgressed in relation to a restricted economy. This account supplements the Bataillean notion of the fetish, as an untransposable object of desire, and considers the implications for a Deleuzean metaphysics of difference for the notion of fetishism. Whereas Bataille offers a means to view the fetish as an untransposable object that transgresses the profane world of the everyday, with its concern for functionality and utility within restricted economies, the work of Deleuze is found to offer us a means to resolve the contradiction in which the fetish can be perceived as both an instigator and transgressor of value. An original contribution to the corpus of Deleuzean theory is made via an understanding of fetishism from the viewpoint of the Body Without Organs. Whereas Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari discuss fetishism in terms of a reifying tendency of anti-production, a wider consideration of Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari’s work allows the notion to be considered from the point of view of transgression and becoming. Against the traditional notion of a fetish that orientates around an economy of the same, in which an object is offered as a substitute and disavowal of a given value, this new conception offers a means to view the fetish as a repetition of difference in which value is simultaneously dispersed and created. As such, this study will offer a fresh perspective on fetishism without recourse to notions of origin, presence and lack. A Deleuzean conception of fetishism, constituted upon difference and becoming, is found to have greater efficacy than current theories of fetishism in that it allows the fetish to be understood as either a reified or transgressive value. By relying on traditional principles that have remained consistent with the notion, contemporary theories continue to subscribe to the reified oppositions that a restrictive economy puts in place; as such, 2 these theories can be considered to be blind to the full potential of fetishism as a productive force. In the first section of this study, Fetishism and the problem of value, the domain in which the notion of fetishism is defined within modernity is explored. An examination of the notion within modernity recognizes that the concept is used as a means of delineating legitimate value from its deviant other – as such, fetishism is found to be a tool incorporated within the discourse of modernity for confronting the problem of value. The origins and etymology of the term has been explored. By examining the work of William Pietz, the term is found to simultaneously to contain within it idea of magic, witchcraft and artifice within it. The concept is recognized as originating during the mercantile interchange between Europe and Africa and was used as a means to understand the non-universality and incomprehensibility of value between the two cultures. Rather than celebrating this difference, the concept acted as a means to validate western value whilst deprecating African notions. By examining the use of the term within modernity – from the eighteenth century onwards – it is recognized that it is used as a means to describe an irrational investment of value in an object that is believed to be innate, yet is in reality a product of human construction. This is true of de Brosses’ original use of the term to distinguish primitive, irrational beliefs in opposition to western rationality and scientific reason. It is also true of those psychosexual and socio-economic theories that incorporated the term. In each case the fetish is perceived as deviating from modern western standards of reason and value. The notion of fetishism within both socioeconomic and psychosexual discourses within modernity is found to have been used as an ironic means of describing the irrational and deviant element inherent within