Commodities can be understood as a "relation between relations" according to several theorists. [1] Aristotle viewed equivalence of value as a relation between statuses or shares. [2] Marx saw value as a relation between people mediated by a relation between commodities. [3] For Saussure, meaning came from the relation between linguistic forms and concepts in relation to other forms and concepts. Peirce analyzed signs as a relation between an object, sign, and interpretant, where the interpretant must stand in a corresponding relation to the object based on its relation to the sign.

1. intisari tulisan Paul Kockelman
“A Semiotic Ontology of the Commodity”
http://www.columbia.edu/~pk2113/Article%20PDFs/Semiotic%20Ontology%20of%20the%20Commodity.pdf
SEMIOSIS KOMODITAS SEBAGAI SUATU
RELASI DI ANTARA RELASI-RELASI

2. VARIOUS “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS”

3. “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT ARISTOTLE
Aristotle argued that equivalence of value should turn on geometric ratios. For
example, if we are engaged in a system of redistribution (e.g., what kinds of
people should be given what proportion of goods from the collective share),
then the following relation between relations should hold: as my status is
relative to yours (e.g., you are a knight and I am a knave), so should my share
be relative to yours (e.g., you receive 10 jugs of wine and I receive one).
Aristotle generalized this logic of equivalence to forms of exchange more akin
to reciprocation than to redistribution and to forms of value turning on
discipline and punishment (e.g., an eye for an eye, or a Hail Mary for an impure
thought) as much as utility and price (e.g., how many bottles of wine for a pair
of shoes, or how much wage for how much work)

4. “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT MARX
Building on Aristotle‘s idea, Marx (1967 [1867]) characterized value in similar
terms but with a focus on capitalist economies in which the people were
(formally) equal and the goods were (qualitatively) different.
In particular, value was a relation between people (e.g., different kinds of roles
within a division of labor) mediated by a relation between things (e.g., different
kinds of commodities within a market)
Marx, of course, was not just interested in where value comes from or why
people strive for it but also in how the systematic misrecognition of the origins
of value is both cause and effect of the very relationality that mediates it

5. MARX’Z ONTOLOGY OF THE COMMODITY
Karl Marx’s understanding of the commodity, then, is grounded in a dualistic
ontology, whose top-most branch (use-value versus value) is grounded in what he called
the pivot of political economy: use-value is the product of concrete labor, a trans-historic
relation between man and nature; and value is the product of abstract labor, a
historically- specific relation between man and man

6. “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT SAUSSURE
The idea of relations between relations was not just crucial to understanding
value in the sense of what someone strives for; it was also crucial for
understanding meaning in the sense of what something stands for.
Saussure (1983 [1916]), for example, famously introduced this idea with regard
to linguistic structure: within a given language, the relation between any
particular linguistic form and its meaning (e.g., a word and a concept) must be
analyzed in relation to the relations between other linguistics forms and their
meanings (e.g., other words and concepts within a particular grammatical
construction or semantic field).

7. “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT PIERCE
Joint attention is perhaps the
exemplary semiotic process: a child
turning to observe what her father is
observing involves an interpretant
(the child‘s change in attention), an
object (what the parent, and later the
child, is attending to), and a sign (the
parent‘s direction of attention or
gesture that directs attention).
Peirce, in contrast to Saussure, was focused on
semiotic processes instead of semiological
Here the relation between
structures, and inference and indexicality
relations, what Peirce called
rather than convention and code.
―correspondence,‖ is the relation
between the parent‘s direction of
He defined such processes in terms of relations
attention and the object and the
between relations: a sign stands for its
child‘s direction of attention and the
object on the one hand and its
object.
interpretant on the other in such a way as
to make the interpretant stand in relation
to the object corresponding to its own
relation to the object (Kockelman 2005;
Peirce 1992 [1868]; fig. 4).

8. SUATU RELASI DI ANTARA RELASI-RELASI : “HUBUNGAN BER-
KESESUAI-AN” MENURUT CHARLES S PEIRCE  A TRICHOTOMY
(c)
OBJECT INTERPRETANT
Interpretant, adalah efek
sebuah sign pada seseorang
yang membaca atau
memahaminya. [Peirce, teori
"triadic of the sign‖]
(a) (b) Interpretant adalah sebab yang
memungkinkan sebuah
representamen laksana sign
sebuah object; Interpretant
juga "effect" dari proses
semeiosis atau signification.
SIGN "I confine the word
• Di satu sisi, SIGN – misalnya sebuah kata – mewujudkan representation to the operation
OBJECT-nya [„maklum‟-nya] (a); of a sign or its relation to the
• Di sisi lain, SIGN mewakili its INTERPRETANT [=„hal‟-nya] object for the interpreter of
(b) the representation. The
• sedemikian rupa hingga membawa „the latter‟ concrete subject that
[interpretant, =„hal‟] ke dalam relasi dengan „the former „ represents I call a sign or a
[= object, „sesuatu‟] (c) representamen." — C. S. Peirce
• berkesesuaian (“corresponding”) dengan relasi dirinya
[interpretant] sendiri dengan the former [=sign] (a)

9. COMMODITY AS “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” –
LAKSANA (=KUALITAS YANG MENDEFINISIKAN) “MENJADI” DAN “SEBAGAI”
(c)
VALUE EXCHANGE-VALUE
What is at issue in
meaningfulness,
(a) (b) then, is not one relation
between
a sign and an object (qua
„standing for‟), but rather
a relation between two such
USE-VALUE relations (qua
„correspondence‟).
Di satu sisi, use-value mewujudkan (=“menjadi”) value (a); Di sisi lain use-value
mewakili (=“sebagai”) exchange-value (b), sedemikian rupa hingga membawa
the latter [exchange-value ] kedalam relasinya terhadap the former [value] (c)
corresponding - berkesesuaian, laksana relasi dirinya [exchange-value ] itu
sendiri dengan the former [use-value] (a).

10. VALUE AS „COLLATERAL RELATIONALITY‟
Commensuration is a process
whereby otherwise distinct
entities are rendered comparable
by reference to proportional
quantities of a shared quality
(Aristotle 2001b; Espeland and
Stevens 1998; Marx 1967).
The value of a use-value is that to which all exchange-values of that use-value
collaterally relate. A collateral relation is thus a particular kind of conditional
relation when the object in question (in this case, value) relates interpretants (in
this case, exchange-values) via commensuration: rendered comparable by
reference to proportional quantities of a shared quality.

11. IN DIFFERENT CASES: “INSTRUMENTS” & “ACTIONS”
(OBJECT) (INTERPRETANT) an action that wields entity
A FUNCTION AN ACTION or instrument that incorporates or
contextualizes entity (in light of the function it serves)
 an instrument is not a
material artifact per se
(e.g., the configuration of
IN THE CASE OF wood and steel that we call a
―hammer‖). Rather, an
INSTRUMENTS instrument is a
AN ARTIFICED ENTITY relational process of
(SIGN)
selection and significance
(OBJECT) (INTERPRETANT)
A PURPOSE A REACTION
a reaction is an action that reacts
to behavior,
 an instrument that is realized by
behavior, or
IN THE CASE OF instrument that contextualizes
behavior (in light of the purpose it
ACTIONS undertakes)
AN CONTROLLED BEHAVIOR
(SIGN)

12. IN THE CASE OF “AFFORDANCE”
an action that heeds feature or
instrument that incorporates feature (in
light of the purchase it provides)
(OBJECT) (INTERPRETANT)
PURCHASE ACTION
An affordance is a quality
 of an object, or an
environment, which allows
IN THE CASE OF an individual to perform
an action. E.g., a knob
AFFORDANCE affords twisting, and perhaps
NATURAL FEATURE pushing, while a cord affords
(SIGN) pulling.

13. A COMMODITY IS META-SEMIOSIS
VALUE EXCHANGE-VALUE
Embedding
Semiotic Process
USE-VALUE
OBJECT: say, INTERPRETANT: say,
a function (in the case of Embedded an action that wields an artificed
instruments); Semiotic Process entity (in the case of instruments);
or a purpose (in the case of or a reaction (in the case of actions)
actions)
SIGN: say,
an artificed entity (in the case of instruments);
or an controlled behavior (in the case of actions)
 Use-values are simultaneously semiotic processes (i.e., instruments, which consist of an
artificed entity as their sign, a function as their object, and a mode of wielding as their
interpretant) AND the sign-component of larger semiotic processes
(i.e., commodities, which consist of a use-value as their sign, a value as their object, and an
exchange-value as their interpretant).
 In this way a commodity is meta-semiotic: consisting of a larger semiotic process, each of whose
components may be smaller semiotic processes.

14. CAVEAT: THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES SHOULD BE
UNDERSTOOD AS A STRATEGY AND NOT A SYSTEM.
 Theoretically, there may be no end to the number of threefold divisions
one could introduce. And phenomenologically, there may be no end
to the future forms in which the commodity will appear.
 These categories have been selected because they relate most closely to
Marx‘s original distinctions (and hence should be familiar), and because
they are particularly salient in the current context (and hence should be
relevant).
 They are not meant to delimit real things, nor even express ideal
types, but rather to provide a pragmatic typology.
 They are thereby best understood as a set of flexible and portable
tools that are designed to interpret a wide-range of ethnographic
data in ways that are analytically precise (yet open-ended) and
empirically tractable (yet locally-sensitive).
 The issue then is not their truthfulness, but their usefulness.

15. Commodities (a) unfold into use-values, values, and exchange-values.
Use-values (b) unfold into utilities, units, and numbers.
Utilities (c) unfold into instigation, means, and ends.
SEMIOTIC ONTOLOGY OF THE COMMODITY
Instigation [who] (d) unfolds into
control, composition, and commitment.
Means [how] (e) unfold into means in
themselves, means toward ends, and ends in
themselves.
Ends [why] (f) unfold into what one wants
(possibility), what one has (actuality), and what one
needs (necessity).
Semiotic ontology of the commodity: Units (g) unfold into dimensions, origos, and
A commodity is anything that has use-value magnitudes.
and value, where the latter, [value] is Values (h) unfold into utilities, units, and numbers.
expressed as exchange-value Exchange-values (i) unfold into elementary
forms, total forms, and generalized forms.

16. APPENDICES (NEXT PAGES)

17. THE LOGIC OF THIS RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS
PEIRCE‟S THREE KINDS OF SIGNS  “TYPOLOGY OF DISTINCTIONS” (1955).
A ‗qualisign‘ is a quality that could possibly be paired with an object: i.e. any quality that
is accessible to the human sensorium – and hence could be used to stand for something else (to
someone). For example, in the case of utterances, a qualisign is a potential cry (say, what is
conceivably utterable by a human voice)
A ‗sinsign‘ is a quality that is actually paired with an object (in some event) and is
sometimes referred to as a ‗token‘. For example, an actual cry (say, the interjection ouch
uttered at a particular time and place)
A ‗legisign‘ is a type of quality that must necessarily be paired with a type of object
(across all events) and is sometimes referred to as a ‗type‘ – see Table above, column 3; a sinsign
is; and a legisign is a type of cry (say, the interjection ouch in the abstract, or what every token
of ouch has in common as a type).
Any sinsign that is a token of a legisign as a type may be called a ‗replica‘. Replicas, then, are
just run-of-the mill sinsigns: any utterance of the word ouch. And, in keeping within this
Peircean framework, we might call any unreplicable or unprecedented sinsign a ‗singularity‘
– that is, any sinsign that is not a token of a type. Singularities, then, are one-of-a-kind
sinsigns: e.g., Nixon‘s resignation speech. One of the key design features of language may be
stated as follows: given a finite number of replicas (qua individual signs as parts),
speakers may create an infinite number of singularities (qua aggregates of signs as
wholes).

18. THE OBJECTS OF INFERENTIALLY ARTICULATED SIGNS
In order to understand the meaning of such signs, several more distinctions need to be
made.
 First, just as there are sin-signs (or sign tokens) and legi-signs (or sign types),
there are ‗sin-objects‘ and ‗legi-objects‘. Thus, an assertion (or a sentence with
declarative illocutionary force – say, ‗the dog is under the table‘) is a sign whose
object type is a proposition, and whose object token is a state of affairs.
 A word (or a substitutable lexical constituent of a sentence – say, ‗dog‘ and
‗table‘) is a sign whose object type is a concept, and whose object token is a
referent.
 Finally, the set of all possible states of affairs of an assertion – or what the
assertion could be used to represent – may be called an ‗extension‘. And the set
of all possible referents of a word – or what the word could be used to
refer to – may be called a ‗category‘

19. AT LEAST THERE ARE FOUR SIGNIFICANT OBJECTS OF INTEREST IN
NON-NATURAL MEANING (INTENTIONAL COMMUNICATION)
1. My intention to direct your attention to an object
(or bring an object to your attention).
2. The object that I direct your attention to (or bring
to your attention).
3. My intention that you use (2), usually in
conjunction with (1), to attend to another
object.
4. The object that you come to attend to.

20. RELASI ANTARA “SESUATU”, “MAKLUM” DAN “HAL”
(c)
OBJECT INTERPRETANT
= =
“maklum” “hal”
(a) (b)
Secara semiotika bahasa Indonesia
sudah sejak lama mengenal relasi
di antara relasi-relasi sign-object-
SIGN
interpretant ini dalam wujud
= relasi di antara relasi-relasi triadik
“sesuatu” ―sesuatu-maklum-hal‖
Dalam bahasa Arab, kata „hal‟ yang kemudian diadopsi bahasa Indonesia
pengertiannya adalah “suatu moda eksistensi di antara „being‟ dan „non-being‟;
Sedangkan kata “ma‟lum“ - juga dari bahasa Arab – pengertiannya adalah “object dari
pengetahuan, atau informasi atau data” (object dari “sesuatu”); Maka object juga
adalah “maklum” dari sesuatu (misalnya sign, symbol, token, term etc)