Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a description and definition of the term fetish that focuses on how the word is used rhetorically and may be defined philosophically. The author defines a fetish as an object that “transforms into something else that, in its novel form and role, is an imaginary good-maker that seems to satisfy certain interests and desires” (p. 2, ll. 54–56). The paper highlights several ways in which a fetish may be identified rhetorically. In particular, the author highlights irony, paradiastole, considerations of the object, the nature of desires and interests, the role of risk in fetishism, the religion-like desires that fetishes satisfy, and the place of metonyms in describing fetishes. 

This article provides a flexible definition of fetish that draws together various facets of how a fetish is employed rhetorically and how it may accordingly be described philosophically. Aiming for flexibility in defining fetish is helpful in light of the broad number of things that can be described in terms of fetishism. The author’s multifaceted approach to conceptualizing a fetish is thus a key strength of the article.

One question that I had while reading the article, however, was whether the multifaceted conceptual net might catch too many things. In particular, is this flexible definition so broad as to include within it things that are not typically thought of in terms of fetish? In the discussion of irony, for example, is the significance of irony in this definition sufficient to include any expression of irony within the boundaries of fetish? If so, the breadth of the definition of fetish and the components like irony within it would be broad enough to include things like humor or satire within the definition of fetish—things which are not typically conceived of as fetishes. In addition, I remained unclear at the end of the article as to whether all six of the qualities highlighted in the subheadings need to obtain for something to be called a fetish, whether only one quality needs to obtain, or whether some mixture of a few qualities may be sufficient.

The lack of a conclusion in this article leaves the work feeling unfinished. A conclusion that brings together the various strands of the definition of fetish would help readers understand the author’s point more easily. In addition, the conclusion may provide an opportunity to clarify some of the questions that I raised in the previous paragraph.

Finally, two minor things should also be addressed regarding citations.. First, on page 7, line 348, the page numbers for Schopenhauer, 1860/2015 still need to be added. Second, in the citation of Job on page 10, lines 462–468, it would be helpful to cite the chapter as well as the verses of Job. Since Job is traditionally divided into 42 chapters contained of varying numbers of verses, it is not immediately obvious where in Job the citation comes from. 

Author Response

To REF1:

I appreciate your comments; thank you.

I have added a chapter, "3. Conclusion and Beyond," to the end of the paper. In that chapter, I address the two remaining relevant problems: (I) I provide a conclusion together with (II) an answer to your query: "One question that I had while reading the article, however, was whether the multifaceted conceptual net might catch too many things." I now suggest that all true fetishes are identity markers. And I quote Rorty, who universalizes his idea of irony. Perhaps fetishes are like irony in this respect: they are everywhere if you want to see them. Here, I leave the question open, which motivates another paper.

I sincerely hope this answers your worries (that I share).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was a joy; please find my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REF: My judgement as a reviewer is that the work is
certainly publishable as it stands, and so please consider the below comments to merely
be suggestions, or food for thought.

AUTHOR: I am excited you liked my paper. During these dark times, it rarely happens. Refereeing is becoming increasingly cutthroat. I see many reports that look more like hate mail. There is little content and too much black bile. They hate my text, and they say it. Some like it, so I am left confused. Does fetishism seem like a touchy issue; why?

My changes are in red in the text.

I have corrected the following points you remarked on:

REF2:

Section 2.3:
This is a very minor issue, but with respect to the closing of the section I believe that
readymades were not at all well-received by audiences for some time, and so the author
may wish to re-word the final few sentences, albeit the point is taken regardless.

REF2: Section 2.4:
I appreciated the comments on border security and example of airport immigration
systems in the US, but it did read slightly as a personal grievance. I wondered if perhaps
more illustrations from the world of religion might not be more appropriate, and
especially given the purview of the journal. I noticed that the author does not include
religious statuary,

AUTHOR: I myself have been worried about the security point; the REF2 is right. -- I am familiar with the Ancient worship of Epicurus and the statues involved. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to make such a major revision to this paper if the REF2 does not explicitly demand it (it is not). Instead, I will touch my account of the US border security to make it less personal. I hope this solution works.

There will be other papers where I can, I hope, explore your idea!

I am writing a series of papers of fetishes.

With my regards,

/the author

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conclusion adequately addresses the concerns from my first review. The qualification that a fetish must be an identity marker strikes me as an intriguing possibility to consider and, as the author notes in the conclusion, one of a few points in this paper that could benefit from further research. This article thus appears not only to make a contribution to current scholarship but also to leave open the promise of further development by the author or other readers.

Author Response

Thank you. I wrote a better Abstract,

/the author