Abstract
This article attempts to rehabilitate the concept of fetishism and to contribute
to the debate on the social role of objects as well as to fashion theory.
Extrapolating from Michel Serres’ theory of the quasi-objects, I distinguish
two phenomenologies possessing almost opposite characteristics. These two
phenomenologies are, so I argue, essential to quasi-object theory, yet largely
ignored by Serres’ sociological interpreters. They correspond with the two
different theories of fetishism found in Marx and Durkheim, respectively.
In the second half of the article, I introduce the fashion object as a unique
opportunity for studying the interchange between these two forms of
fetishism and their respective phenomenologies. Finally, returning to
Serres, I briefly consider the theoretical consequences of introducing the
fashion object as a quasi-object.
to the debate on the social role of objects as well as to fashion theory.
Extrapolating from Michel Serres’ theory of the quasi-objects, I distinguish
two phenomenologies possessing almost opposite characteristics. These two
phenomenologies are, so I argue, essential to quasi-object theory, yet largely
ignored by Serres’ sociological interpreters. They correspond with the two
different theories of fetishism found in Marx and Durkheim, respectively.
In the second half of the article, I introduce the fashion object as a unique
opportunity for studying the interchange between these two forms of
fetishism and their respective phenomenologies. Finally, returning to
Serres, I briefly consider the theoretical consequences of introducing the
fashion object as a quasi-object.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Theory, Culture & Society |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Pages (from-to) | 81-102 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| ISSN | 0263-2764 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2011 |