CC BY
15DOI: 10.12731/2070-7568-2014-6-19 UDC 330.821.5
CONSUMPTION AS A SOCIAL STATUS SYMBOL IN STRUCTURALISM
Naydenov N.D., Kirosova T.A.
The article looks at the basic theoretical concepts of the political economy of the sign (structuralism, postmodernity) and their development in the theory of power based on the work by J. Baudrillard 'For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign'. The study is focused on consumption as the person's social status symbol, it compares and contrasts basic concepts of structuralism and neo-liberalism.
According to structuralism social structure is reproduced through the reproduction of objects/signs. It is important that not only things or money but mathematical formulas, linguistic constructions and people can act as signs. Structuralism views consumption as a person's social status symbol. Respectively, exchange is viewed as the exchange of symbols. The society needs the diversity of signs and manipulating the signs is one of the modern society's illnesses.
Liberalism is a social movement, which confronts the person's enslavement by communal ties and limitations within the limits of property and in the aspects where the individual is helpless in front of the society. Neoliberalism proclaims the
liberal model of an individual, who is primarily concerned with their belonging to their society and the struggle between the signs is significant. Assigning a certain value to the symbol is typical both for structuralism and neo-modernism.
The authors find it necessary to raise the symbolic diversity of the Russian society trough increasing the forms of consumption. At the same time we should not forget that the society is based on material production.
Keywords: postmodernity, neo-modernity, societal symbolic diversity.
Introduction
Political economy of the sign (structuralism) is a new trend in the economic theory, which introduces the economic content of the sign, information, exchange, symbolic exchange and needs, which previously did not constitute the subject matter of political economy. The study of political economy of the sign is timely firstly, because there is still no unanimity in scientific and academic circles regarding this aspect of modern political economy and its development. Secondly, the evolvement of the new trend in political economy brings about the need to reconsider the concept and the essence of the sign in the economic theory.
Literature Overview
The problems of structuralism (postmodernity in the economic theory) are studied in papers by P. Bykov, A. Mekhanik, M. Rogozh-nikov [2]. We shall accept that the sign is a phenomenon, connected
with another phenomenon. The first phenomenon is perceived by the doer and the second one is expressed for the doer by means of the first phenomenon.
Postmodernity is one of the main modern tendencies in science and culture, which affected economics, sociology, psychology, politics, morals, culture and art. Critical attitude to traditions, reflexive attitude to stereotypes and values, annihilation of rational attitude in the long-term perspective are the characteristics of postmodernity. The main criterion of estimating the work method is its present efficiency. The efficiency in its turn is diagnosed by the number of positive references by colleagues.
Among the characteristics of postmodernity are:
■ ambiguity (a range of options, polysemanticism);
■ no rules for subordination of the processes;
■ hyperrealism;
■ the doer performing the action is impersonal and decentera-lized;
■ fragmented practical activity.
Jean Baudrillard and his book 'For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign' which was published in 1972 and translated into Russian in 2007 [1] became a typical representative of postmodernity in the latter half of the 20th century (he adapted the existing theoretical concepts of modernity to present-day reality). Structuralism is a synonym of postmodernity. Postmodernity views existing social relations and phenomena as signs. Initially the reality governed the people with the help of the signs, so the reality and the signs corresponded to each
other. Nowadays, we are governed by simulation principles instead of former principles on which the reality was based. Signs correspond to other signs, but not things. Everything becomes a simulation, even the labour, which does not manufacture, but only socializes the individual and transforms the individual into a sign. In the simulation the individual including the authorities representative, deals with abstract things, formulas and simulacrums, but not real people, structures or relations.
Researchers refer to J. Baudrillard's ideas both critically and positively, because he proved the role of symbolic diversity in the societal development. Some authors view neo-liberalism the same positively as a concept of a liberal individual. (the individual who thinks that god lives in everyone's soul). Neoliberalism considers social institutions necessary for the individual. [3].
Methods
Analysis, synthesis, abstract analytical method, historic, ascention from abstract to specific.
Theoretical Framework
The book 'For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign' holds a special place among the writings of J. Baudrillard's (born in 1929), sociologist. In his book J. Baudrillard presented economic explanation of the sign as a fragment of economic reality, an economic category and a reflection of the societal hierarchic structure. J. Baudrillard looks at things and exchange values from the point of view of a consumer and their labour equivalent and from the perspective of social infrastructure signs, which possess imperative force. Societal
structure is reproduced through the reproduction of things/signs. Not only things or money can act as signs, but mathematical formulas, linguistic constructions and people.
Exchange is the initial theoretical category in the political economy of the sign. Normally, exchange means commodity counter-flow. The same is true for other definitions of exchange like the match between demand and supply, continuing distribution, the match between the consumer's and the supplier's plans, the point where the curves of the consumer's indifference and the manufacturer's production capability meet, reciprocity and centralization. J. Baudrillard derives from a different definition of exchange as an operation between two separate terms, which existed in isolation before the exchange, and as a double coercion - the coercion to give and the coercion to take [see 1, p. 79]. Such definition does not conform to the classical concept of exchange as the consumer's free choice. It is closer to the classification of exchange forms by Polanyi: gift, distribution, commodity exchange. However, J. Baudrillard does not differentiate between a gift, distribution and commodity exchange. He highlights the exchange's functional aspect - whether the exchange takes place for the benefit of the use-value or for maintaining the parties' social status. He proves that the main goal of the exchange is maintaining the parties' the social status. Accoridng to J. Baudrillard there is always an underlying social mechanism of demonstration, differentiation and veneration behind the purchase when items are saved or consumed. The main reason for purchasing is not satisfying the needs, enjoying the advantages or user value, but it is in the symbolic value of the exchange, social demonstration, competition and finally in class differences. [see 1, p. 14].
J. Baudrillard thinks exchange (commodity circulation) is performed in four social codes.
1. Functional logic of use-value (use-value acquisition).
2. Economic logic of exchange value (exchange based on equivalent labour costs).
3. Symbolic exchange logic (social status symbol).
4. Logic of cost/sign (the object is possessed as a status symbol) [see 1, p. 73].
The exchange is regulated by the rules of equivalency, differentiation and ambivalency. Equivalency presupposes that objects can be replaced according to their exchange value. Differentiation - the exchange can demonstrate the parties' social status. Ambivalency -the individual's acceptance/rejection of the other party's passion and desire for the object, the discourse between the consciousness and the subconscious.
J. Baudrillard argues with Marx. Unlike Marx who viewed manufacture as the basis, J. Baudrillard thinks that the logic of exchange is prior to the logic of manufacture. Each of the two exists for the sake of the other, which is more important than their separate existence. Exchange predetermines the existence of the first phenomenon for the sake of the other. Exchange of things/signs both differentiates people by their social status and the object of exchange by characteristic elements. Within the exchange system there exists social production of material differences, codes of values and status values, therefore, how functional goods and individual's needs are is predetermined by these fundamental structural mechanisms and differentiation principles [see
1, p. 87]. Consumption does not exist separately as the satisfaction of needs and desires without use-value. However, there exists manufacture of things/signs, which determines satisfaction of desires. Neither does superstructure over material production exist. Ideology and moral values are the basic elements of the society as they reproduce and maintain objects/signs. According to J. Baudrillard user values do not reveal themselves under modern market economy conditions, it is only the logic of the sign that acts [see 1, p. 105]. These are the basic concepts of the political economy of the sign.
J. Baudrillard is being very categorical and abrasive in his negative opinion of the authority. He sees the authority as something reverse to exchange. It is believed that the authority comes from logos and is opposed to passion and manipulating things and people. However, J. Baudrillard puts forth his own version of the authority. He thinks the authority is always impractical due to the idleness of the ruling classes of the society, their hedonistic pursuits and social hierarchy, which divides people into those who are beyond production and those involved in production.
In the institutional political economy the manager gets residual reward and the worker only the vital minimum [2, p. 290]. In the political economy of the sign J. Baudrillard makes the opposite statement. There is a fundamental need in a certain excess, god's share, victim's share, excessive spending and economic profit. Luxury spending has a negative effect on the level of spending and raises the survival level, but not vice versa [1, p. 95]. J. Baudrillard thinks that unreasonable expenses, luxury consumption and consumption for the sake of displaying one's social status are the negative characteristics of the ruling
classes. The necessary products become secondary in their meaning after demonstrative consumption. Thus, the authority disorganizes the exchange [see 1, p. 96]. It has a tendency to demonstrative spending and consumption. This way there is no difference between capitalist and socialist countries. In fact here J. Baudrillard's opinion is not supported by facts. In fact both capitalist and socialist countries' strategies combated spending - potlatch and kula (potlatch is a luxury excessive spending, kula - exchanging the objects as gifts).
He argues with the statement about the rationalizing function of the authority. In his opinion, the authority is a myth about economic rationalization of production and consumption. Production is rational in its essence and does not need rationalization and, thus, the authority. In his opinion, the idea that satisfying the needs in possessions requires rationalization is a repetition. People only develop a need in something on condition that virtual requirements to the objects already exist in the society. Then there is a dilemma whether the needs determine the individual or the individual determines the needs. [see 1, p. 80]. Virtual requirement to the objects makes the individual the force, which determines the relations between the human and the thing, while rationality is unnecessary.
J. Baudrillard thinks that in primitive societies 'the power belongs to the one who can give, but cannot receive. To give in such a way as to make the reverse act of giving back impossible means to break the exchange to one's benefit, to set a monopoly, which creates a mis-balance in the process'. Vice versa, to give back - means to destroy authoritative relations and start the symbolic exchange process, based
on competition and mutuality'. [see 1, p. 238]. In modern society the authority takes, but gives nothing in return.
J. Baudrillard claims that the ruling classes have secured their authority with the help of values/signs from the very beginning (archaic and traditional societies). In the capitalist bourgeois society, which he thinks socialist countries belong to as well, the ruling classes turn their economic privilege of taking decisions into the privilege of signs. Property or the type of material production is not important for establishing the authority of the ruling class. The most important is who controls the process of assigning meanings to signs. [see 1, p. 150]. Rationalizing role of signs is rejected.
We can draw a parallel between the concept of authority as the power of those who assign meanings and the concept of the managers' revolution.
Sociologist Adolf Berle was the father of the managers' revolution concept. The idea behind it is redistribution of authority from owners to managers [see 4]. A sole owner is an obsolete phenomenon, that gives place to a collective owner. Professional managers replace capitalists and owners and become the key figures.
The society's survival in developed countries depends on the quality of the managers' work, their competence, honesty and value. However this is only possible because managers work with signs, process the information, make experiments with information and strengthen the society's rationality by operating with signs. Managers cannot change fundamental relations of property. In social life the functions, which have to do with processing the signs are secondary as compared to real relations of property, material production and exchange.
J. Baudrillard's version of political economy of the sign is important because it introduces the concepts of use-value, consumption, information, managerial decisions, ideology, authority, exchange, symbolic exchange, needs, the one assigning the meaning and the one for whom the meaning is assigned, which previously did not constitute the subject matter of the political economy as economic categories. In this sense radical liberalism, which is seen as a social movement for the abolition of social institutions, is opposed to the political economy of the sign. Neo-liberalism admits the individual's need in social institutions.
References
1. Bodriyyar Zh. K kritike politicheskoy ekonomii znaka [For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign]. - M.: Akademicheskiy proekt, 2CC7. 335 p.
2. Bykov, P., Mekhanik A., Rogozhnikov M. Ekspert. 2013. № 21 (S52). Pp.l9-24
3. Davydov A.P. Nepoliticheskiy modernizm v Rossii [Neopolitical Modernism in Russia]. - M., 20l2. 644 p.
4. Kuznetsova N.V. Istoriya menedzhmenta [The History of Management]. http://textb.net/lC2/index.html
DATA ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Naydenov Nikolay Dmitrievich, Doctor of Economics, Professor
Syktyvkar Branch of Saint-Petersburg State University of Economics
Sysolskoe shosse 64, Syktyvkar, Russia ND.Naidenov@mail.ru
Kirosova Tatyana Aleksandrovna, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor
Syktyvkar Branch of Saint-Petersburg State University of Economics
Sysolskoe shosse 64, Syktyvkar, Russia
