Commodity fetishism where the rubber hits the road.

So it's been several years since SUVs served their original purpose -- which incidentally was before they were called SUVs: to go places without highways and to haul around farm/ranch/worksite supplies. Growing up in the heady days of the 1980's I had a friend who owned a Suburban, which had all the luxuries of an Econoline panel van, and a friend who owned an International Harvester Scout. They lived up mountains and such.

Now sometime between the late 80's and the early 90's the SUV was born: a masterful stroke of marketing that showcased the sins of gluttony and vanity. They're also a wonderful example of Marx's concept of commodity fetishism:

...the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. [source...]

That's a mouthful. Basically, commodities, while they have a utility -- a basic usefulness or reason for our needing them -- also have intangible qualities that make them more than their usefulness. Therefore, a BMW is not simply a car but rather "the ultimate driving machine" and therefore driving a BMW, aside from indicating that there's a high chance you're an asshole, alludes to status, success, etc.

In a slightly different context, Roland Barthes takes up this line in Mythologies (and elsewhere), where he identifies the way everyday signs -- from wrestling to wine -- become instruments of ideology (Baudrillard argues similarly early in his career but prefers the term "objects" to "signs"). In all cases, the point seems to be the same: the products around us are more significant in their symbolism than in their usefulness.

So this morning I saw a Lexus SUV trying to navigate the two inch depression caused by an incomplete city pothole patch job. This behemoth of a vehicle, whose ostensible purpose should be to handle difficult off-road situations (I particularly like the "urban SUV" ads that show careful but confident drivers navigating workzones, traffic jams, and potential accidents with ease thanks to the "off road capabilities" of their stylish SUVs), no longer even pretends to be interested in or capable of such achievements, lest their gloss coat or shiny hubcaps get scratched. However, I was unprepared for the absolute irony of the SUV driver gingerly easing his/her car through the shallow dent in the road as I whizzed by on my bicycle.

We truly are a culture of gross stupidity.