Fetishism for Our Times: A Rhetorical and Philosophical Exploration
This article develops a detailed theory of the fetishes of the modern world. Fetishes may still have their original religious application as talismans and totems, but their actual range is much wider, as I illustrate. I show that a modern fetish satisfies our needs in an unexpected and unlikely mann...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
MDPI
2024
|
| In: |
Religions
Year: 2024, Volume: 15, Issue: 10 |
| Further subjects: | B
sexual fetishes
B hagiographies B de se desire B paradiastole B metonymy B religious fetishes |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | This article develops a detailed theory of the fetishes of the modern world. Fetishes may still have their original religious application as talismans and totems, but their actual range is much wider, as I illustrate. I show that a modern fetish satisfies our needs in an unexpected and unlikely manner: it does what it, prima facie, is not supposed to do. How does this happen? To explain, we must trace the construction of fetishes; I do this using some key rhetorical concepts. Paradiastole is a technique of evaluative redescription. It describes the world in value terms as something it is not—we can then ironize the result. If it serves the speakers’ essential interests and satisfies their desires, we have explained a fetish as a good-maker. The fetishization of an object, because of its ironic background, tends to invite critical, meiotic, and even derogatory responses—usually, the issue is and remains essentially contested. For example, early Christians wrote hagiographies that treated some people as saints, thus creating ad hoc beliefs that satisfied their religious interests. I also suggest a different, metonymic understanding of fetishes and their educational benefits. Perhaps my theory is overly permissive, allowing too many fetishes. My final conjecture is that true fetishes function as identity markers; for example, the crucifix is a fetish that defines Christianity. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel15101192 |