Abstract
Commodification is a widely used and inconsistently defined concept. Inconsistent definitions of commodification, this paper observes, exist because alternative outcomes and consequences of converting relational goods into commodities are confused with the definition of commodification-social exchanges that convert relational goods into commodities. Distinguishing between alternative outcomes and consequences of commodification and the definition of commodification allows us to rationalize inconsistent definitions of commodification. In rationalizing inconsistent definitions of commodification, it is important to distinguish between commodities (goods valued for their ability to satisfy physical needs) and relational goods (goods valued at least in part for their connections to people which enables them to satisfy socio-emotional needs). The process of commodification is described as relocating relational goods from the humanistic sphere and relocating them in the commodity sphere.
Highlights
Accurate communication and scientific cooperation across the social sciences depend on consistent definitions of commonly used terms
In rationalizing inconsistent definitions of commodification, it is important to distinguish between commodities and relational goods
This study proposes that to be consistent with the social exchange perspective of commodification and the commodification definition proposed in this paper, that decommodification be defined as social exchanges that convert commodities into relational goods, in effect removing them from the commodity sphere and relocating them in the humanistic sphere
Summary
Accurate communication and scientific cooperation across the social sciences depend on consistent definitions of commonly used terms. Social scientists writing in different social science disciplines disagree about the conditions that give rise to human exchanges and the objects exchanged. As a result, they define human exchanges involving commodities inconsistently. To resolve the inconsistent definitions of commodification, this paper distinguishes between the kinds of goods exchanged: relational goods and commodities. Distinguishing between relational goods and commodities in social exchanges allow us to rationalize inconsistencies in the five most salient definitions of commodification. This paper claims that distinguishing between the definition of commodification and the outcomes or consequences of commodification eliminates the inconsistency surrounding the term commodification and promotes interdisciplinary communication and cooperation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
