Anthropology X Branding: An Unlimited Collaboration
Vaishnavi Pandalai
Semester 6 – Media and Society
The idea of a brand is not one that is outside the human experience, in the sense that every decision we as rational human beings make, we have a label almost attached to it. To understand this, one would have to break down what a brand means, and what the implications of a brand are.
Karl Marx in his Volume I of Capital describes a commodity to be an inanimate thing that animatedly speaks to us (Nakassis,113). Within the Marxian framework, what inherently makes a commodity is two distinct things, it’s use value which is the purpose or use an object serves and an exchange value which is the value that an object earns when exchanged usually for money (Harvey, 15-17). However, Marx in his work goes on to state that value as such “does not have its description branded on its forehead” (Nakassis,113). This is where Nakassis states that since the publication of Marx’s Capital in the 1860s’ there has been a long association of a brand with the commodity itself.
Some of the greatest examples being Xerox for photocopies and Popsicles[1] for ice candies. The association of a brand to a particular kind of commodity does not specifically happen in the ways mentioned above. Over the last few years in India, the brand Kama Ayurveda gained a lot of traction, for being organic and ayurvedic (Chatterjee). What was not recognized often was that Kama Ayurveda was selling the same things that the Kottakkal Ayurvedashala form Kerala sold, except that Kama, managed to create a niche upper-class market that catered to a very different audience. It was this upper-class market that helped gather traction.
The power of a brand is essentially this, it creates a lifestyle and this is important to recognise as times change. Particularly because in the current global market we live in Lifestyles, People and Food choices are all seen as brands[2].
If one were to think of Stuart Hall’s Four stage theory of communication, the way brands are looked at very clearly follow them. He states that the stages are Production, circulation, use (which is ether distribution or consumption) and reproduction (Hall, 507).
Nakassis, in his paper, goes on to distinctly explain the way brands, not only produce their products, but also the implication that the current form of production within the neo-liberal system is inherently skewed to be benefitting one party within the production process. He speaks about what the global market has done to the idea of circulation and how circulation comes with a cost. This is where the argument of the circulation of the counterfeit comes in. The Oxford dictionary defines counterfeit as ‘ a fraudulent imitation of something else ’[3]. However, what is not emphasised enough in his paper, is that there is certain merit that the brand gains in the circulation of counterfeit. Meaning is created within the understanding of the brand.
The existence of a surfeit is not necessarily a con as discussed by Nakassis, it is a large form of reproduction (Hall), the excess may not necessarily have to all originals. In the case of counterfeits, it would come right in the face of the trademark and IP laws, however, the traction remains that of the ‘original’ brand. For example, the counterfeit Nike Air force 1 Crater[4] that is sold on the official website vs. the first copy sold at Majnu ka Tila in Delhi, still brings traction to Nike the overarching brand.
This leads to another argument of- what exactly a brand is selling? A brand essentially sells trust once, that as an idea is looked at devoid of the commodity it becomes easier to apply it to a whole array of things. It is for this reason that the larger than a brand idea has caught on. It has happened over time in micro-steps, for example at the very beginning of the Athleisure revolution when RUN-DMC released their 1986 song My Adidas, it was no more a reference to the brand that made sports shoes, it was a culmination of style, ease and a lifestyle that emerged once they signed their contract with Adidas (Explained, Athlesiure). This has happened time and again in America through the 60s ’70s and the 80’s, the culmination of style, streetwear, sport and music, created individual brands but also created larger overarching brands. For example ‘Jordans’ went from being a Michael Jordan X Nike collaboration, it became a statement in every possible way.
The understanding of a brand is larger than what one could fathom, it’s almost like the internet, everything in some sense is a part of the internet or gains traction on the internet. It is almost the same as a brand. Everything from the people wearing it, those who vouch for it, the ones who make it and it’s counterfeit and finally the user - you who think this is what a brand means.
References :
1.Chatterjee, Paramita “The Idea was to start something that was Indian: Kama Ayurveda Co-founder” Forbes 8th Anniversary Special, May 16 , 2017,https://www.forbesindia.com/article/8th-anniversary-special/the-idea-was-to-start-something-that-was-indian-kama-ayurveda-cofounder/46979/1
2.During, Simon, ed. The cultural studies reader. Psychology Press, 1999., pp 507-537
3.Explained Christophe Haubursin, 2019, Netflix.
4.Harvey, David “Commodities and Exchange” A Companion to Marx’s Capital ,Verso 2010, 15-17
5.Nakassis, Constantine V. “Brands and their Surfeits” CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol.28, Issue 1, pp 111-126 online ISSN 1548-1360. 2013 by the American Anthropological Association. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1360.2012.01176.x
