Gifts and Commodities: A Dialectical Thought Experiment for Sublation

Abstract

The core motivation for this study is the realization that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) encounter temporary obstacles, conflicts, or inconsistencies that impede progress and generalization. According to the authors, sustainable development across social, environmental, and economic dimensions is unlikely to occur without redefining the meaning and recalibrating the metrics used to measure commodities. These meanings and metrics must align with values such as general reciprocity, morality, and the common good, going beyond mere calculations of means and ends and personal preferences. The research has three primary objectives: first, to compare and reassess the meanings and responsibilities assigned to “items” traded in indigenous and modern economies; second, to use Hegelian dialectics to enhance and transform the notion of a commodity by revising and expanding its current understanding; and third, to introduce a new construct—the giftized commodity—along with potential implicational scenarios and recommendations for its inclusion in theory development in stakeholder capitalism, sustainable consumer behavior, and ecological economics. Through a dialectical interaction (in a Hegelian sense), by integrating seminal and diverse viewpoints from economics and anthropology, such as Neoliberalism, commodity theory, gift theory, and production and consumption in indigenous societies, the authors intend to modify and restructure the scope of responsibilities associated with commodities and commodity exchange.

1. Introduction

Regarding how products are sourced, produced, distributed, and consumed, many industries have been the subject of criticism and pressure vis-à-vis sustainable development goals (SDGs). These industries are urged to make systematic and structural changes to reach the 2030 SDGs. We are pleased to see that policies, shareholders, organizations, and related individuals are making some temporary/permanent gestures and/or taking concrete actions to respond to the SDGs’. Some solid policies have been legislated. For example, China’s new “Environmental Protection Law” stipulates that “the direct emission of chemical oxygen demand (COD) of textile enterprises shall be controlled at 80 mg per liter”, a tighter restriction than the 2013 rate of 100 mg per liter. Additionally, there are encouraging signs that can be found in capital investments. For example, according to a current research report from The Association of Investment in 2021, “A significant minority of respondents (26%) rate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) as their most important or joint most important concern when investing”. Some initial public offering companies are creating business models built around sustainability principles or a circular economy; examples include ThredUp and Poshmark. Increasing numbers of independent organizations and think tanks, such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, are researching to achieve “a greater good” and are ambitiously turning knowledge into action.

Progress has been made—often through legislation and government incentives—to orchestrate demands with “green technologies”, but progress slows when many technological roadblocks are also on the “highway” to SDGs. Let us take the textile industry as an example. Sandvik and Stubbs [1] found that textile-to-textile recycling systems in the Scandinavian fashion industry are challenged by the need for advances in technology (for the task of separating materials) and by the costs associated with R&D and logistical support. At present, material scientists [2] have affected the separation of natural fibers from polyester in blended fabrics by utilizing ionic liquids (ILs) in the lab. More research needs to be conducted to develop more efficient means for removing pigment from waste textiles and the efficient use and re-use of ionic liquids. According to The State of Fashion [3], Novetex Textiles has successfully created small-scale circular production of textiles. Examples include its mostly automated waterless mechanical recycling process that produces no chemical waste and a system called the “Billie system”, which aims to produce recycled fibers. However, bringing R&D results to factory floors with scaled-up mechanical applications for producing circular textiles is still not possible. Solving important problems such as these will involve enormous creative thinking relating to property rights (i.e., open source vs. intellectual property), logistics, investment sources, entropy and energy dissipation, and ethical priorities (i.e., self-preservation vs. collective resilience). Taking action to serve the greater good, which Laboo and Goldsmith [4] define as “the collective well-being of the broader social group”, comes with associated costs. Not letting the costs of a “good deed” outweigh the benefits are often utilitarian “trolley problems”. It is structurally challenging to puzzle out a clean-cut answer.

Empirical studies related to ethical consumer behavior (most of which uses a deductive approach) have found that: (1) altruism—consumers’ predominantly acting out of concern for others [5,6] with diminished regard for their own needs—plays a vital role in engaging with ethical consumption behavior [7,8,9,10,11,12]; (2) the attitude and knowledge of environmental and social impact of the product influences consumers’ behavior [13,14,15,16,17,18]; (3) causal relationships or correlations were found between ethical consumption behavior and the individual’s prosocial/pro-environmental behavior [19,20,21,22]; (4) contextual opportunities (e.g., ethical product availability, informational transparency) encourage ethical consumer behaviors [23,24,25,26,27]; and (5) antecedent egocentrism engages with ethical consumer behavior but it is primarily driven by benefiting the self [28]. These are optimistic results based on the assumption that consumers are rational and can make purchasing decisions by thinking about the remote future in a non-egocentric way. The results from empirical studies by deductive reasoning such as these suggest that mental states are determinative for ethical behavior intention and can culminate in ethical actions. On the other hand, there is a lot of research that finds a gap between intention and behavior [29,30,31]. Even though the level of understanding, the quality of the intentions, and individuals’ goals and initiation matter to action realizations, the gap between intention and behavior is still large [32]. In sum, empirical findings on the relationship between attitude and intention and subsequent behaviors are divergent. Regardless, the question on how people ought to behave is a separate one, which is not determined by empirical studies. We agree with Immanuel Kant’s assertion in Fundamental Principles for the Metaphysics of Morals that “Empirical principles are wholly incapable of serving as a foundation for moral laws.”

The authors of Focusing on how Individuals Can Stop Climate Change is very Convenient for Corporations (from Fast Company, November 2019) argue that “appealing to individual virtues for addressing climate change is something akin to victim-blaming because it shifts the burden from those who ought to act to those who are most likely to be affected by climate change”. It is clear that without intergovernmental legislation, Capex investments, large-scale mechanical applications, and a unified and collective effort within each industry, a “net-zero, nature positive, and more equitable future” will continue to be a dream. However, in an article from the American Association for The Advancement of Science (AAAS) on 3 December 2020, the U.S. government’s Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) claimed that their OSRD structure is not working well in dealing with the complex climate change context. From the OSRD’s perspective, “a solution in many ways requires changes in individual behavior to reduce carbon emissions to the level that will make global climate patterns more sustainable”. In other words, chances of bequeathing to future generations the opportunities enjoyed at present will involve lifestyle changes at the level of the individual at present. As it is with corporate and governmental behavior, individual behavior will have to change if sustainability is to be attained.

Our study stems from the realization that research and efforts toward achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) encounter temporary impasses, conflicts, or inconsistencies, as mentioned earlier, inadvertently hindering the potential for generalization. To our knowledge, a research gap in sustainability-related studies lies in redefining the meaning of commodities exchanged within community and global economic systems, considering sustainability perspectives. We assert that reimagining the meaning of commodities exchanged in any economic system, whether local or global, is central to addressing sustainability-related issues. We would argue that significant progress in sustainable development across social, environmental, and economic dimensions is improbable unless we consider the possibility of redefining and recalibrating the instruments that measure commodities in a manner that resonates with concepts such as general reciprocity, morality, and the common good, transcending means-ends calculations and personal preferences.

Therefore, this research pursues three main objectives: First, it endeavors to reassess and contrast the meanings and responsibilities associated with the “items” exchanged in two distinct economic systems: gifts in indigenous economies and commodities in modern economies. Second, it seeks to utilize Hegelian dialectics to elevate and transform the notion of a commodity by revising and expanding its current understanding. Ultimately, we introduce a new construct, the giftized commodity, and suggest potential application scenarios and suggestions for its implementation.

This research’s theoretical underpinnings are inspired by and built upon insights from prominent thinkers such as G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Marcel Mauss, Chris A. Gregory, and Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm, among others. Crucially, we argue that the Hegelian process of sublation is pertinent and provides a more suitable framework for conceptualizing items exchanged within an economic system.

Our analytical endeavors concentrate on adapting theories [32,33] in accordance with the form that Hegel describes as progress. By introducing seminal and divergent viewpoints from economics and anthropology (e.g., Hegelian dialectics, Neoliberalism, production and consumption in indigenous societies, gift theory, commodity theory) into a dialectical interaction (in a Hegelian manner), we aim to restructure and modify the scope of responsibilities associated with commodities.

Our methodology is the employment of Hegelian speculative philosophy in pursuit of something more adequate, something that can—through its ethical dimensions—shape human behavior at both the institutional and personal levels. Speculation, for Hegel, takes on a form that, he argues, transcends “understanding” a kind of thinking that embraces a concept by annulling its contradiction. In its adherence to the logical principle of non-contradiction, understanding proves useful in mathematics and the empirical sciences. Speculation, on the other hand, distinguishes itself from the sciences and mathematics by embracing the conceptual truths of both a concept and its contrary. Such dialectical thinking culminates in a moment of synthesis in which a concept and its antithesis are synthesized into a new concept, one that brings together and preserves a truth and its contrary. In a historical moment of crisis, such as the ecological crisis of sustainability presently being experienced by the world’s population, speculative thought creates the occasion for moving beyond an impasse created by one-sided understanding. The one-sidedness of duties pertaining to autonomy is transcended when a commodity is also recognized to contain the social duties of a gift. Merely representing an item of exchange on the local or global markets as a commodity or as a gift leaves off vital ethical obligations necessary to engage the current environmental impasse. The present crisis calls for a speculative approach if ethical obligations are going to be suitable.

Giftized-commodity provides a new angle to complement and enhance the understanding provided by the previously discussed analytical endeavors and offer a fresh perspective for theorizing about sustainability, particularly in research areas such as ecological economics, stakeholder capitalism, and sustainable consumer behavior.

This paper begins by grappling with pertinent theories. We present commodity theory from the perspective of neoclassical economics and gift theory through the lens of Mauss’s anthropological study of indigenous economics. Subsequently, we examine the conflicting purposes and obligations tied to the production, exchange, and consumption of commodities and gifts within these two distinct economic systems. We then proceed to critique and challenge the gift and commodity paradigms, incorporating Hegelian dialectics to establish a more comprehensive synthesis of commodity meaning. Finally, we offer various implications and scenarios, as well as suggestions for further theoretical development and an acknowledgment of the limitations of our findings.

2. The Competing Theories: Gift and Commodity

2.1. Theory of Commodities in the Lens of Neoclassical Economy

Let us start with the definition of the terms commodity and gift. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, commodity is defined as: 1. an economic good; 2. something useful or valued; 3. a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors other than price; and 4. exchange or exploitation within a market. Marx [34] defined a commodity as “anything necessary, useful or pleasant in life”, and Gregory [35] refers to a commodity as a socially desirable thing. Aristotle’s Politics [36] speaks of the two propers of a commodity: “of everything we possess, there are two uses: both belong to the thing as such, but not in the same manner, for one is the proper, and the other the improper or secondary use of it. For example, a shoe is used for wear and is used for exchange; both are uses of the shoe. He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him who wants one, does indeed use the shoe as a shoe, but this is not its proper or primary purpose, for a shoe is not made to be an object of barter. The same may be said of all possessions… (book one, chapter nine).”

Marx [34] drew from Aristotle’s understanding regarding what is proper and what is improper in a commodity and concluded that a commodity includes two properties: a use value and an exchange value. The use value of a commodity is an intrinsic property tied to its physical properties, and it will be realized when the commodity is used to fulfill human needs. On the other hand, exchange value as an extrinsic property, is expressed in the price that a thing will fetch in a given market. In this paper, a commodity should be understood in the way that Marx understands it: as a thing or activity having the properties of use value and exchange value. Exchange here refers to exchange on a market, and by “market” we mean any place of contact between those freely choosing to sell and those freely choosing to buy. The trading processes of commodities in modern neoclassical economics are technical processes guided by the rational self-interests of the buyers, and impersonal market forces determine prices. The fact that wages are determined by these impersonal forces also becomes the ground for Marx’s famous and major critique of capitalism [37]. Impoverished by low wages, workers are alienated from a commodity-laden world that could not have been created without them. Relatedly, a definition of commodity exchange is given by Gregory [38] (p. 106): “an exchange of alienable objects between people in a state of reciprocal independence that establishes a quantitative relationship between the objects exchanged”. For the sake of this paper, neoliberalism should be understood as a doctrine that holds the unrestricted market (the open market) as an ideal.

2.2. Theory of Gift in the Lens of Indigenous Gift Economy

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a gift as: 1. a notable capacity, talent, or endowment; 2. something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; and 3. the act, right, or power of giving. The anthropologists Morgan and Lévi-Strauss [39,40] contributed to developing an understanding of gifts. They extended it through the analysis of anthropological data and by conducting positivist research. Still, one of the most influential books that discussed gifts and gift exchange was by the French sociologist and anthropologist Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Mauss’ theory of gifts emphasizes that each gift is part of a system of reciprocity in which the honor of both the giver and recipient is engaged. Mauss explains that exchanging gifts flows from the will to attach to other people. Gifts, Mauss understands, are not “pure gifts”. They are not given for free as a form of charity. They are, rather, contractual things. Exchanging gifts puts obligations on people to give and receive; the process of gift-giving is, in reality, not autonomous and voluntary. Gift exchange, Gregory [38] (p. 106) concludes, is “an exchange of inalienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal dependence that establishes a qualitative relationship between the transactors.”

2.3. A Contrast of Gifts and Commodities: Production and Consumption

Investigating the production and consumption of gifts and commodities provides another perspective on the important differences between them. Theoretically speaking, both the use and exchange values associated with a commodity participate in any given economic activity. However, use values are heterogeneous and have different meanings appropriate to a commodity’s physical characteristics. To exchange commodities in modern marketplaces, various use values must be translated into a homogeneous means of expression: quantified values [41,42]. In this respect, anything that happens between the production and consumption of a commodity is then objectified as “wages”, “profits”, and “prices”. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx [43] points out that laborers see the use-value that they produce transformed into exchange values determined by labor time. Under the lens of a neoclassical economy motivated by material reproduction and profit maximization, adopting a language of exchange values for commodities is more efficient and productive in the production process. Markets work in efficient ways when all commodities are thought of only in terms of exchange value.

In a gift economy, profit maximization and material reproduction are not the motivations [44], because gift production is governed by the methods of reproduction of people and qualitative relationships between people. The production process must be organized as if the items to be exchanged were people; personified terms and metaphors govern the production methods of gifts. In colonial PNG societies, gifts (non-commodities) are produced with utility in mind, but this utility can only be affected by one who understands the relevant symbols. Magic has to be put into the production process, as magic can attract “as much soul as possible into the crops because it is believed that only crops with a soul will grow” [45] (p. 129). Production in societies as such is restricted (for example, gardening practices have to follow certain rules on Woollark Island in PNG, and hunting and gathering are restricted among Australian Aborigines); delayed (as there is no drive to accumulate capital and to increase productive efficiency) or sometimes generalized (for example, more intensive methods are used for food production) based on the evolving human needs within those societies [38,40,46].

Gifts are different from commodities not only in the way they are produced but also in the way that they are consumed. In a capitalist commodity economy, the effects of consumption on the qualitative aspects of society was not a subject to be systematically analyzed by classical economists [47]. This is because the initial stage of producing commodities has reduced them into a homogeneous, measurable social form: exchange values. Implications for quality of life are not part of the value of a commodity when the commodity is understood only in terms of exchange value. Such considerations can be imposed by government regulations or by initiatives to educate the consumer. However, in PNG and societies like it, the primary concern for consumption is to institute qualitative relationships among tribes and clan members [48]. In such societies, consuming gifts is highly supervised, formalized, and organized because gift consumption is motivated and regulated by people and their interpersonal relationships, not so much by material reproduction and economic profits.

2.4. The Exchange Phenomenon of Gift vs. Commodity

There is a further and more significant difference in the exchange phenomenon between gifts and commodities. In contemporary capitalist economic society, the relationships between transactors engaged in a commodity exchange are understood quantitatively. These relationships are established by exchanging extrinsic properties with the commodity, namely price (exchange value). These relationships have a binding force that does not extend beyond payment of the contracted price. The transactors are understood as autonomous agents. Therefore, the phenomenon of commodity exchange involves alienable objects and is transacted by aliens [25,27,49]. Here, the interconnections and reciprocal dependence between the giver and receiver, the seller and buyer, are muted. Advertisements that spotlight interpersonal relationships, motivating slogans, and successful campaigns that accompany the marketing of commodities are, in truth, peripheral, and they do not mark the essence of the relationship between transactors. In sum, in the commodity exchange, there is an “objectification process” that aims to accumulate profits and material reproduction. The obligation attached to the exchange is discharged in payment for the item. Of course, agents are free to embrace obligations to the community at large if they wish, and governments may impose such obligations. Still, such obligations are external to the contract between agents. In other words, transactors are motivated by self-interest, and any common good that may result is a by-product.

The poem Hávamál, a part of the Codex Regius, the primary manuscript of the Poetic Edda from the 13th century, expresses some truths about gift exchange:

“With weapon and clothes

Friends must give pleasure to one another;

Everyone knows that for himself (through his own experience)

Those who exchange presents with one another

Remain friends the longest

If things turn out successfully

You know, if you have a friend

In Whom you have confidence

And if you wish to get good results

Your soul must blend in with his

And you must exchange presents

And frequently pay him visits”

The gifts in the gift exchange presented here are anthropomorphized. They are understood as having personified value and sacred meanings, being considered inalienable objects, and genuinely being what have been exchanged and transacted among nonaliens. Their relationships involve obligations that extend beyond the transaction and imply reciprocal dependence [35,49]. In his book, Marcel Mauss emphasized that three obligations present themselves as equally important in the gift exchange. First, there is the obligation to reciprocate for the gift received because the gift (taonga) intermingles with the soul (hau) from oneself and from nature, animals, soil, forest, water, etc. He concluded that obligations to reciprocate due to the soul (hau) of the gift are the most important feature of a gift exchange. The second is the obligation on the part of the receiver to give gifts. Refusing to do so is interpreted as rejecting the bond of alliance and commonality between the givers and receivers. Failure to meet this obligation is tantamount to declaring war. Refusing to give a gift means refusing to invite people into societal life, which is equivalent to refusing to accept. The third is the obligation to receive. Subjects in societal life have no option but to ask for hospitality, receive gifts, enter into trading, and form alliances through the circulation of those gifts. Subjects are not autonomous agents entering into a transaction. To sum up, a gift exchange is a “personification process” in that the items transacted contain souls, and the process is motivated by the reproduction of people and relationships. Transactors are immediately recognized for their obligation to the community. Gift refusal is forbidden, and accepting a gift obliges one to give gifts. In other words, gift-giving aims to assure people’s reproduction, and the souls of the giver and of nature are in the gift. Giving and receiving gifts expresses an intersubjectivity that connects agents to society, nature, and future generations. The autonomy of the giver and the receiver is minimized. The gift/commodity exchange paradigms, then, differ in their accounts of the transactors’ interests and in the obligations incurred by the transactors.

2.5. Critiques of Gift and Commodity Paradigms

Many ethnographic studies regarding gift exchange have been conducted since Marcel Mauss. For example, Thomas [50] argued that without concrete comparative analyses that consider historical and local regional contexts (for instance, clan and religious-based relationships in the colonial era and local and regional ethnographic data), overgeneralizations between regions and beyond specific historical eras cannot be avoided. Hart [51] is concerned with Mauss’ underlying and implicit attempt to move beyond merely local ethnographic interest and apply his findings to create a free market and modern society based on gift exchange. Hart argued that such a society, which is a kind of exchange based solely on altruism, would be a utopian impossibility. He argued that modern capitalism could not be sustained by resting on the kind of gift-giving that Mauss described. Hart argued that the friendliness of gift-giving has not disappeared from free-market economies and can be seen as having a place at weddings, birthdays, and holidays.

Contrary to gift exchange economies such as the ones studied by Mauss, modern globalized capitalist economies prioritize material reproduction rather than human reproduction. These economies are formalized and seek standards that maximize profits and self-interest. All those considerations outside of production and consumption in a commodity economy, such as distribution and who it is that produces, are dropped out of the equations [34,38]. It might be too extreme to say that the neoclassical intellectual edifice has collapsed since 2008 or that the neoclassical paradigm built upon rationality and self-interest has ultimately “failed” us. However, it is not too extreme to say that environmental, social, and ethical problems have persisted since its inception. These problems have recently taken on a particular urgency in light of findings by climate scientists. Annett [52] argues that neoclassical economics, based on Adam Smith’s famous claim that self-interest rather than benevolence serves the public good, endorses egoism, elevates material pursuits, and ignores ethical formation. Waddock [53] states that “neoliberalism’s lack of attention to social and ecological consequences of economic activity plays a large part in shaping today’s crises, including the pandemic, climate change, and biodiversity loss”. However, it is also true that restoring a clan-based PNG gift economy in which trading is grounded on souls, reciprocation, and people’s reproduction would be a fatal mistake. There is a nearly zero possibility for most people to return to live a life as people lived in tribes or as Henry David Thoreau lived in the woods at Walden Pond.

The present is filled with many pressing global problems. Unfortunately, neither of these economic systems is adequate for the task, and we suggest a turn to the Hegelian technique of dialectic for some insight in moving forward. We refrain from any commitment to Hegel’s metaphysical system of absolute idealism. Still, we believe that the moment of sublation in Hegel’s dialectical thinking can synthesize aspects of commodity and aspects of gift and create a “giftized commodity” construct that is meaningful. As inelegant as the term may be, we hope that this construct brings to light the obligations attached to the entities that the modern world produces and consumes.

3. Methodology: Hegel’s Dialectics

“Dialectic” is a term used to describe a philosophical process that seeks to subtract error from any given point of view by adjusting it in light of challenges that can be brought against it. The classical version of “dialectic” was presented by Plato as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate in which Socrates was talking on one side and some interlocutor or interlocutors were engaging his questions on the other side. As the dialogue or debate went along, the philosophical views or positions became more sophisticated and adequate. Therefore, the aim of dialectic, for Socrates, was to produce a step-by-step progression or evolution in philosophical views and positions.

As it was for Plato, the technique of dialectic employed by 19th-century German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel relied on a contradictory process between opposing sides. However, the opposing sides in the Hegelian dialectic are different definitions of a concept that make contrary assertions. Among the aims of Hegel’s works are to describe the dialectical form that progress in intellectual thought takes in history. This form is relevant if progress is to be made in thinking about climate change and sustainability. Employing rationality in a way that takes seriously the true parts of contradictory points of view seems illogical on the face of it (as it accommodates contradiction), but it is, in fact, a first step in making progress in thinking. The moment of progress comes with the fusion of the contradictory points of view. Employing rationality to reject either side of the contradiction results in a lack of progress that takes the form of skepticism [54].

Hegel’s dialectic acts to recast any point of view and advance its adequateness. This paper focuses on thinking as it concerns itself with sustainable development goals. Oftentimes, when talking about Hegel’s dialectic, people refer to one point of view in history as the thesis, the contrary point of view in history as the antithesis, and the fusion of the two points of view into one coherent network as the synthesis. The contradiction between a thesis, which is a beginning proposition, and its antithesis, which is a negation of the thesis, is overcome in a synthesis, a proposition in which the two conflicting propositions are reconciled. The formation of the synthesis rests on what Hegel calls the “portentous power of the negative” [54] (p. 93). This power aims to advance knowledge not by simply rejecting as false or wrong any philosophical, cultural, or ethical proposition (for this is not advancement at all), but rather by fully grasping the limitations of this proposition by understanding the truth of its contrary. Then, in a step Hegel calls “Aufhebung”, re-conceptualizing the proposition in a way that accommodates both the proposition and its contrary. This technique aims to “sublate” contradictory propositions or systems, or fuse the two together at a higher level of truth. So, the “synthesis” may look very different from the original proposition, but the purpose of Hegel’s dialectical technique is to overcome the dead end of one-sidedness that results from the simple rejection of a proposition. It aims to preserve in the new form that which stands against criticism from both the original proposition (the thesis) and its contrary (the antithesis).

In this paper, we are calling to mind that the exchange item in a commodity system is not a gift, and the exchange item in a gift system is not a commodity (see Figure 1). We propose that neither the attitude towards obligation attached to the commodity nor the attitude towards obligation in the gift is nullified. Both forms of obligation can be accommodated if each is seen as presenting critical and ethical aspects of conscious human life. To form this synthesis and thereby present our construct of a giftized commodity, we take our cue from Hegel. We describe how the obligations of commodity exchange are antithetical to those spelled out by gift exchange. As these are antithetical conceptual frameworks, bringing them together in such a way that aspects of both are incorporated in the synthesis would signal an advance. In other words, by effecting a negation of the negation, we bring to light a concept that transcends both gift and commodity. Hegel’s power of the negative, then, is not the act of discarding a belief or system of beliefs. Rather, it is the treatment of a belief or system by a kind of analysis that embraces negation to escape the mire of any one-sidedness. It then affords advancement through the negation of this negation and the birth of something new, the sublation (Aufhebung).

4. Discussions: Finding Subsequent Aufhebung

By taking down walls and building bridges between perspectives from philosophy, economic anthropology, and behavioral science, this giftized commodity construct expands our understanding. It transcends the inherent limits of the gift/commodity dichotomy. We propose that Hegel’s dialectic technique provides the key to synthesizing a new construct, a giftized commodity. This new construct includes as part of its meaning obligations that extend beyond that of a mere commodity, and these obligations reach toward a common good.

At the same time, this new phenomenon preserves the value of autonomy, which plays a central role in the commodity exchange. The outline of our argument goes as follows:

• Neo-liberal commodities connect the consumer with others (workers, people in faraway places, future generations, and nature). Recognizing only the quantitative dimensions of obligations between the consumer and others maximizes profit and material reproduction;
• Paying a contracted and quantified price for such commodities discharges obligations incumbent on the consumer, but only some of them;
• Further obligations exist, ones that demand reciprocity. The lack of attention to these further obligations results in the deterioration of the common good (disappearance of absorptive capabilities of the atmosphere, of resources available for future generations, of species of plants and animals, etc.);
• Gifts, which act as the item of exchange in gift exchange economies, are laden with obligations for the receiver to reciprocate. These obligations point to a common good: the flourishing of the clan;
• We are drawn to a Hegelian critique of the antitheses presented by gift and commodity. Hegelian sublation demands that the new synthesis incorporate aspects of both poles of these antithetical concepts. We label the new construct “giftized commodity”. We suggest that a Hegelian approach offers the occasion for changes in consumer behavior that are needed in the current climate crisis;
• The fact that the giftized commodity is as much a gift as a commodity means that the receiver incurs an obligation to reciprocate;
• Reciprocity is expressed as concern for the common good. Some obligations to the common good are discharged by paying for an item. For example, supply chains only work when buyers generally pay contracted prices, and stable supply chains help economic systems grow. However, there are also obligations to the common good that are not met by paying contracted prices. For example, there are obligations for consumers of the present generation not to waste resources unnecessarily and leave future generations in deficit. Many obligations to deal with climate change are of this sort as well;
• The motivating power of the obligations made apparent in the giftized commodity needs to be empirically tested. Still, regardless of its power to motivate human behavior, we hold that this construct brings to light obligations to the common good not recognized in the commodity exchange.

Our path of thought is illustrated in Figure 2 and the following explanation. A gift exchange economy, the kind that Mauss [49] and Gregory [38] describe and which we label above as the thesis, imposes a great deal of supervision on people regarding production and consumption. It does not aim at capital accumulation and productivity improvements but rather at a common good (the flourishing of the clan and of nature). Individual autonomy is not prioritized.

Commodity exchange is dominant on the world stage today and underpins the economies of the countries’ that have the most substantial influence politically and culturally. Though these several economies prioritize individual autonomy to widely variable degrees, advancement of a common good ultimately follows from capital accumulation and productivity improvements. In other words, the monumental success in achieving a common good in these countries results from the fact that market participants make choices based on selfish interests, and this opens the door for capital accumulation and productivity improvement. This is labeled in the chart above as Emerging Antithesis. In this marketplace, transactors essentially neglect some connections that the commodity binds them with workers in faraway places, future generations, and nature. Only ethical obligations that are discharged in paying for the item are recognized. Even if the payment for the commodity provides the possibility for workers, transporters, sellers, etc., to earn a livable wage, other obligations remain.

The fact that these other obligations are not met results in a deterioration of the common good. This is, we suggest, particularly evident in the current difficulties that the world is facing due to changes in the climate. It also lies at the core of resource depletion and pollution problems. Policies to address the issues of climate change, resource depletion, and pollution are debated, created, and put in place. Motivating the creation and implementation of such policies are obligations to the common good that are peripheral to commodity exchange from the neo-liberal point of view. Essentially present in the gift-exchange economies and forgotten in the commodity exchange marketplaces, these obligations to the common good are making themselves known and providing the occasion for antagonistic definitions of responsibility. In the chart above, this is labeled as Antithesis Maturation.

We believe that these antagonisms can be transcended when transactors “see” that commodities freely exchanged in the marketplace have attached to them obligations to tend to the wellbeing of the common good, as did gifts from gift-exchange economies. These obligations are in addition to paying the market price for the commodity. They are obligations directed to no particular person, but they are anchored in a specific thing: the commodity understood as having the dimensions of a gift. It marks the Hegelian transcendence of the Synthesis in Figure 2. The antagonisms in the relationship of commodity and gift are negated, and consciousness is thus organized in a novel way. What appears to be a mere commodity is no longer a “giftized commodity”. This negation of the negation allows the appearance of this novel construct, one that implies reorganized obligations for producers and consumers. Further, this reorganization is an evolution. We suggest that it is an example of Hegelian dialectic that Storm [57] (p. 6) aptly compares to “a three-dimensional spiral, passing over its starting point while perpetually ascending. It is a return, but a return in a higher key”. Fueled by the dynamic principle of negation, the evolutionary pattern repeats even at this higher level, and we labeled this above as Emerging New Antithesis.

5. Discussion: Theoretical Implications

Our study has shown the viability of bringing together the antithetical ethical principles attached to “commodity”, namely autonomy, and those attached to “gift”, namely a good that is common to the organic unity of a people. Using a dialectical method from Hegel, the ethical responsibilities of commodity and gift are merged (sublated) into a unified construct, the giftized commodity. Implications for using this construct include that it can be an effective tool for overcoming one-sidedness in several suggested areas. Having provided an analysis of giftized commodities, this section aims to offer recommendations for enhancing the clarity and application of this construct in sustainability-related research areas. The goal is to facilitate progress in fields such as ecological economics, the transition from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism, and sustainable consumer behavior.

5.1. Dialogues in Ecological Economics: Beun Vivir

Buen Vivir, which is also referred to as “good living”, “living well”, or “well-being”, is a political movement that has emerged in the Andes region of South America. It is primarily influenced by a non-Western perspective and draws its ontological and normative principles from the ancient cultures indigenous to the region. In recent decades, the movement has gained increasing significance, particularly in Ecuador and Bolivia, as discontent with Western models of development has grown [58,59]. BV emphasizes the interdependence between human beings and nature and promotes a holistic approach to development that considers social, economic, and environmental factors. This stands in contrast to the Western model, which prioritizes economic growth and individualism [60]. Although some scholars suggest that BV serves as a platform for integrating indigenous principles into current political issues [61,62], ongoing debates remain about how to translate this concept into practical policies and practices [63]. To advance BV research, researchers may consider using the “giftized commodity” construct to create metrics and indicators that align with BV’s principles. These metrics and indicators can be used to assess the impact of policies and programs on the well-being of individuals and communities and to ensure that economic activities related to the production and distribution of giftized commodities are embedded in human society (such as rules, customs, culture, nature, people, etc.) and the overall organization and relationships within that society (such as quality relationships, reciprocity, redistribution, etc.).

5.2. Transformation from Shareholder Capitalism to Stakeholder Capitalism

Within business models that consider stakeholder capitalism as a model, shareholder capitalism has received criticism for its lack of ethical grounding, as it prioritizes the interests of shareholders and their freedom to operate businesses, often at the expense of long-term sustainability and ethical considerations. This short-term focus on profit maximization has contributed to suboptimal outcomes, including global issues such as wealth inequality, environmental degradation, unsafe working conditions, and climate change. However, stakeholder capitalism is gaining popularity among institutions such as companies and organizations [64,65]. This model prioritizes balancing the interests of all stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, vendors, customers, local communities, and the environment. Its aim is to shift focus away from short-term profit-seeking and towards fulfilling business obligations to serve the interests of all stakeholders [66], with a particular emphasis on the well-being of people and the planet. For stakeholder capitalism to serve as a more equitable and sustainable model that benefits everyone instead of just a few, decision-makers at all levels, including governments and companies, must move away from fetishizing profits and adopt a broader definition of economic progress and activities [67]. One approach we propose to achieve this is by replacing the single-minded measurement matrix, which is commodities produced, exchanged, and consumed in the neo-liberal free market system, with a “giftized commodity” that captures a broader scope beyond just monetary value. Integrating this new construct into the stakeholder capitalism agenda requires boards of directors and executives to have explicit knowledge and understanding of the importance of fulfilling obligations of giving, receiving, and reciprocity in the value chain of giftized commodity production and consumption.

5.3. Sustainable Consumer Behavior

Within the discussion of the scope of marketplace obligations, understanding that human behavior concerning consumption, production, and disposal of goods involves a giftized commodity and not a mere commodity brings to light the fact that the obligations of marketplace participants extend beyond the autonomous buyer-seller transaction given so much attention by neo-liberal economists. When the marketplace commodity is recognized as inherently having dimensions of gift, deliberations by consumers, policymakers, and academicians take into account far-away people, future generations, and nature as an essential part of a market-place transaction and not as a superfluous duty (a duty that, with equal ethical import, may or may not be acknowledged by a buyer/seller). Becoming “green” is not a marketing or lifestyle decision; it is a responsibility for participating in a market. Goals for sustainability, determined by the United Nations or any other body, require a change in human behavior. Obligations bend behavior, and obligations in giftized commodities are not superadded niceties. They must affect the behavior of people, corporations, and governments.

5.4. The Giftized Commodity Construct Implication

In the sections just above, we explored the application of giftized commodities in various research areas, including BV, stakeholder transformation, and sustainable consumer behaviors. In what immediately follows, we further illustrate the fusion of antithetical obligations contained in this concept by exploring practices involving two everyday products—rice and t-shirts.

Japanese people traditionally start their meals by clapping hands together and saying いただきます (Itadakimasu), meaning “I humbly receive”, in order to appreciate the fishermen, farmers, chefs, waiters, etc. who were involved in the preparation of the food. This phrase also expresses the gratitude of the diners toward Mother Nature, as it shows an understanding of how much was sacrificed to make the meal possible. Itadakimasu is originally a Buddhist principle that beckons for respect for all living things, but now it has become a secular phrase that is considered to have no religious connotations. In present day Japan, diners continue to explicitly acknowledge the gift that comes at the expense of another organism’s having sacrificed its life. In order to reciprocate the sacrifices involved in making meals, a traditional Japanese diner must not be wasteful. Such wastefulness is calledもったいない (Mottainai), and finishing every grain of rice on the plates is a manner in which the duty to reciprocate is expressed.

Itadakimasu is a practical demonstration of how obligations that go beyond those essential to a commodity can be attached to a household item such as rice. The expanded meaning of rice shapes the behavior of its consumers. The rice is recognized in its dimensions as a gift. This is a peculiar feature of Japanese culture, but by employing the Hegelian method of sublating antithetical concepts, this fusion can be generalized, and the commodity as giftized is to be understood as standing for all items on the market. The giftized commodity has some features of a commodity: just as a bowl of rice or a t-shirt, it has market value and is traded in the marketplace, and it involves contractual economic exchange activities such as production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. Nevertheless, a giftized commodity is also understood as a gift because it comes from the repository of nature’s resources and involves significant sacrifices by individual human beings.

To explore the giftized commodity beyond the cultural artifact of Itadakimasu, let us look within the fashion industry. Many of the textile and apparel products consumers use and wear are manufactured by contractors and subcontractors in the developing world, where labor costs are low and areas of governance, risk management, and compliance are not stringently monitored or scrutinized. This allows for cost reduction and enhanced productivity. The fact is that the environmental and social impacts of the fashion industry are not distributed equally, with the most vulnerable and marginalized communities often bearing the brunt of the negative consequences. We argue that the reason why commodity should not be a one-sidedness term (i.e., one that quantifies exchange value under the neo-liberal’s scope) is that the obligations incurred for taking possession of the commodity, whether it be a ton or a bowl of rice, or a ton of cotton or a cotton t-shirt, cannot be fully discharged in paying for the item (e.g., paying for the contractual exchange value) in the marketplace. Indeed, the ethical responsibilities pertaining to the giftized commodity include obligations for reciprocity that extend beyond merely meeting the terms of the contract negotiated on the market. A bowl of rice has to be paid for at a restaurant to reflect its exchange value in the market, but the rice must also be recognized as a gift that has involved the use of non-replenishable resources (such as petroleum and the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb pollution) and the effects of this usage on present and future people in the world. These effects defy easy quantification and are not accounted for by the mechanisms of the market. In the case of Itadakimasu, the duty to reciprocate means that it is one’s obligation not to be wasteful and finish every single grain in the bowl. In the case of a firm producing cotton t-shirts, reciprocating activities can include supporting government policies that have the effect of diminishing profits. Examples include tax rates that may be high but are necessary for government programs to facilitate the widespread use of solar energy or programs to manage waste with the benefit of future generations in mind. Reciprocity may also include funding scholarship programs for members of the local community. These sorts of obligations go beyond those recognized in the t-shirt-as commodity. Additionally, they are essential if sustainability is going to be something other than an unreachable ideal. Moreover, reciprocity should be recognized at the level of the consumer. Consumers could take into account carbon footprint labels and use the information to shape their behavior in the purchasing, use, disposal, upscaling, or reuse of everyday goods. They could acknowledge the environmental impacts associated with those products and reciprocate by engaging in carbon neutralization activities, such as planting a tree, taking public transportation or biking for one day, or naturally drying a load of clothes after washing them. These acts help to compensate for the carbon emissions that occurred during the production, distribution, and consumption processes of the t-shirt. In this respect, the giftized commodity transaction, in which interconnections, generosity, self-interest, and obligations generated from seemingly irreconcilable gift/commodity exchange paradigms (see Figure 1) are now intermingled.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we explored the epistemology and teleology of giftized commodities. We propose that there should be a “return” to the obligations inherent to gift exchange that Mauss describes in his anthropological studies, but ones that have a more adequate nexus of meaning. The giftized commodity synthesizes the characteristics of gifts and commodities and has two essential characteristics: (1) they are economic goods with market prices; (2) they involve transactors from each side with duties to pay the market price, to deliver the goods, and to reciprocate to the community at large. A giftized commodity acts as a symbolic and semantic cornerstone upon which personal and political decisions (e.g., those concerning the allocation of resources) are structured and shaped. This construct is inherently paradoxical, as it subsumes both the insistence on autonomous agency that is connected to the meaning of commodities and the insistence on the ethical primacy of human community that is connected to gifts. It is a tangible locus of meaning that normatively directs community members to avoid the one-sidedness associated with either commodities or gifts.

In conclusion, the construction of a giftized commodity involves a balancing act between the preferences of the individual and the annulment of individual preferences for the sake of the collective. The true essence of a giftized commodity can only be realized when goods on the market are recognized as having ethical obligations to avoid extremes. This requires reflecting on what the commodity means to oneself and to the community as a whole. The extent to which policies curb individual autonomy must be the decision of democratic institutions in conjunction with technical experts, but the fact that balancing requires some curbing of autonomously chosen preferences is contained in the goods that populate our lives as consumers. The concept of “commodity” simply does not contain sufficient ethical connections to nature, faraway people, and future generations that need to be addressed if sustainability is to become a reality. We offer this, to date, incomplete and idiosyncratic construct not as a dogmatic truth claim but as a catalyst for further conversations, critiques, or empirical studies.