David Graeber, who views this “double-think” as a kind of (good) social imagination, switching the most common negative fetishism into one thing good informs us that:
Your message “fetish” is ordinarily invoked whenever individuals appear to talk one of the ways and work another. The astonishing thing is this may take place in totally contrary methods. Those who employed them insisted that the objects were gods but acted as if they did not believe this (such gods could be created, or cast away, as needed) in the case of the African objects that came to be labelled “fetishes” by European merchants and other travellers. When it comes to modern commodity fetishism, it is quite contrary: the stockbroker that is average insist he will not really “believe” that pork bellies are performing this or securitized derivatives doing that—i.e., that these are merely numbers of message. To the contrary, he will act as they are doing these things if he does believe. (Graeber, 2015, pp. 3-4)
Even though this framework of disavowal is a must to ideology that is understanding and additionally it is indispensable for understanding fetishism, we ought to ask once again:
Should this be therefore, so what does then differentiate fetishism from an ideological dream or an unconscious impression that structures the true?
Fetishism therefore the dilemma of disavowal.
All influential notions of fetishism (anthropological, Marxist and psychoanalytic) pose the relevant concern of belief – of who actually thinks or if there was anybody at all who thinks or ever thought. „A split that is similar a disavowed illusion and real functions happens to be identified additionally within anthropological views on fetishism.“ weiterlesen