Материал: disser_arhipov
258
interacting with each other. Hence, a theoretical possibility to apply economic analysis to anything that potentially has social currency value according to the initial intuitive hypothesis is not excluded, as this does not exclude the principle of convertibility in the terminology of this study. It is another matter that it is not possible to absolutize the possibility of increasing social capital in one institutional area at the expense of another such area, and to consider the fundamental possibility of converting one intermediary into another as an expression of the nature of one such intermediary. In other words, the fact that power can be obtained through influence (i.e. it is possible to convert influence into power) does not and should not tell us anything about the nature of power, nor about the nature of influence, but only demonstrates certain possibilities of “symbolic exchange” between social actors. Figuratively speaking, the mechanisms of abstraction underlying the generalized symbolic media belonging to different institutional areas represent a “black box” to each other, but at the same time interaction is possible between them – or rather, they can mediate a kind of interaction, communication, between social actors
That being said, we are interested in the question of which object of social relationships exactly shall be analyzed from the standpoint of the concept of the semantic limits of law in order to make a conclusion about its seriousness or unseriousness, reality or fantasy, and hence on the possibility to interpret and apply the law in such a way that the object falls under the scope of legal regulation in cases of “borderline situations of legal interpretation” (as far as the case concerns creating new legal rules, we shall mostly be interested in seriousness and unseriousness of the object). The economic theory can provide answers to these questions as well. A demonstrative, although [intentionally] naïve, yet precise textbook “The Basics of Economy” suggests the following as a response to an objection that “there is no thing that cannot be measured, where monetary units are universal measurement instrument, but not an end in itself”:
259
«You have surely heard many times that life is invaluable. However, we often put this treasure at risk. By purchasing cheaper goods of inferior quality, choosing unreliable but accessible means of transport, living in polluted city center nearby our work, or just crossing the street at the red traffic light, because we do not want to wait for the green one, we put ourselves under additional risk. One more minute of waiting becomes for us more important than the value of life, multiplied by risk to lose it under the wheels of a car. What is the reason for that? The reason lies in the necessity of choice. You remember that the resources in possession of certain human being and society are generally limited, and in order to receive something you need to sacrifice something else. In this sense, everything has its value. It is what we need to sacrifice what is the price of what we want to receive”.475
The object in this case is likely not the invaluable human life itself, but something in respect of which we determine the value. Let us emphasize, however, that we are not interested in abstract economic models of value of an arbitrary object (such models, indeed, could be created in respect of everything – however, in such a case we would also face a question of absurdity, but this time in economics, not law), but in monetary value or in the value within a conventional value system related to other generalized symbolic media.
Based on the example of computer games we, therefore, can come to a conclusion that playing a computer game is sometimes (but not always and not in all aspects) a matter of rational choice between joy and health, or, better, joy and time – this time that could be invested into career, or love etc. That is why in this case an immediate object of social relationship (that can be assessed economically, converted into money, and then – into other external referents of value of generalized symbolic media) – is not “computer games in general” and not “playing computer games in general”. The special object of social relationship that can be regulated by law without breaking its semantic limits, is time that a human being, who could have certain obligations imposed by law, spends in a computer game. In this case, a prohibition to play computer games during worktime would not be
475 Boyko M. The Basics of Economics. – Moscow: Nobel Press, Print on Demand, 2015. – 470 p. [Electronic resource] // The Basics of Economics. – [Site]. – URL: http://azy– economiki.ru/docs/the_basics_of_Economics.pdf/_basics_of_of_Economics.pdf/ (accessed: 06.02.2019). PP. 12-13.
260
absurd. This kind of prohibition would be a subject-matter of “weighing” the constitutional values. In the conditions where everyone is guaranteed with the right to leisure time, freedom of information and freedom of access to cultural heritage, such kind of prohibition in off-work time would not be legal – but this is the “second” area of the semantic limits of law that implies such kind of “weighing”. However, the prohibition to act in a certain way within the game itself, provided that such actions do not imply potential converting of the external referents of value (for example, selection of the in-game development path of a game character that forms a part of game process) would be blatantly absurd, as well as prohibition or other regulation of the process of receiving aesthetical pleasure from the process of playing a game. The examples of this kind could easily be continued.
That being said, since money – is a generalized symbolic media, the external referent of value is commodity. In case a special object of social relationships may be subject to theoretical commodification, then law could regulate it, because this would confirm its status as an external referent of value. Therefore, if we take money as the main illustrative (but not principal and not the single one) example, we also have to take into an account the concept of commodification.
A vocabulary definition suggests that commodification is:
«…the process during which more and more kinds of human activity receive monetary value and de facto become commodities that are bought and sold on the market. A theoretical ground for this idea is found in the works by Karl Marx who asserted that capitalism is selfexpandable economic system that requires more and more commodification. Capitalism, therefore, leads to substitution of spiritual and human values by the monetary ones”.476
476 The definition is given in the following edition: Sociological Dictionary (in Russian) / N. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B.S. Turner. – Moscow: Economics, 2004. Cited by: Commodification. What is Written in the Dictionary [Electronic resource] // Strelka Institute. - [Site]. - URL: https://strelka.com/ru/magazine/2016/03/28/vocabulary-commodification (accessed on 06.02.2019). In connection with the reference to K. Marx, it makes sense to emphasize that a critical rethinking in the light of the concept of generalized symbolic media of some theories which may seem to have lost their relevance at first glance, may have methodological potential. For example, in 1982, V.V. Lapaeva, analyzing K. Marx, in her analysis concluded: “For the circulation of paper money, it is necessary that the sign of money receives social significance (emphasis added – V.A.). It is carried out by means of legislation and state coercion, thanks to which the paper symbol receives a compulsory course...” etc. See: Lapaeva V.V. Legal Issues in K. Marx’s “Capital”. – M.: Yurid. Lit., 1982. – С. 90
261
We, however, have to emphasize that within this research, within the limits of sociological theory of generalized symbolic media and the accompanying model agnosticism, commodification as an instrument of defining the semantic limits of law is not aimed to facilitate substitution of spiritual and human values at all – using of the “commodification method” is absolutely instrumental. Even more so, instead of transforming of other external referents of value into commodities, we can classify commodities from the standpoint of other systems of generalized symbolic media (for instance, political power or love). In social reality and, all the more, in theoretical modelling such systems can well-coexist as ‘frames’ mentioned in game studies that could be switched between when necessary.
Returning to the commodification per se, there are a few good examples by E. Korotkova:
«The commodification of space, to make long story short, – is transformation of space into commodity, determination of its value, sale, purchase etc. You don’t sell just a house, but a house in specific place. In essence, this space becomes the same commodity as real-estate property. In this sense, commodification of space and gentrification are neighboring concepts. You transform the very space into a commodity, an expensive commodity, and because of its high value citizens of not that modern and fresh houses can no longer allow themselves to live in this place. I.e. they have money for an apartment, but not for the “space”… One of the more topical examples of commodification is presented by paid parking on the Moscow streets. In the essence, something that was not ever defined previously became a commodity – free parking space. Now you rent it from the city for certain fee. The same story happened with renting of the part of pedestrian walks for summer terraces of cafes: something that earlier was considered belonging to all free of charge became tradeable and exchangeable for money”.477
477 Commodification. What the Experts Say [Electronic resource] // Strelka Institute. - [Site]. - URL: https://strelka.com/ru/magazine/2016/03/28/vocabulary-commodification (accessed on 06.02.2019). R. Pozner also wrote about the possibility of “calculating” the economic value of individual legal artifacts (which is not surprising in the context of the methodology of economic analysis of law), see: Pozner R.A. Economic Analysis of Law: In 2 Volumes (in Russian). Saint Petersburg: Economic School, 2004. – Vol. 2. – P. 719.
262
Based on such premises it is not hard to notice that in a “normal situation” (in a situation where there are no grounds to raise an intuitive hypothesis on breaking of the semantic limits of law) the law itself, and, first of all, civil law serves the direct instrument of imperative commodification. For instance, the institution of intellectual property directly commodifies creativity. But this view is quite customary and does not raise major surprise. What is more interesting is that the institution of compensation of moral harm can thus be seen as an experience of commodification of other generalized symbolic media – following the real practice, this case may concern a broad range of examples, from health and knowledge to love and loyalty.
In conclusion of this paragraph, we have to emphasize one again that modeling of commodification is a theoretical instrument, and not a response to the question regarding the nature of relationships. In the process of discussing of this work, one of the critics suggested the following party provocative question. If presence of convertible social currency value is a quality that allows explaining when it is not absurd to apply or create law, then how this approach would work in respect of criminal law restrictions related to deeds encroaching the sexual freedom and sexual integrity of persons? Would violence that comprises an objective side of the corresponding deeds constitute some social currency value? The answer is – no, it is not violence. What the methodology developed in this research would consider as the object of social relationships in this aspect, would be sexual freedom and sexual integrity as they are. In this case, it would be those aspects that would be considered as having social currency value. Such a value, indeed, may in theory be converted to money (by a way than everyone knows), and, although such a convertation would be amoral, it would work as a theoretic instrument.
In the end of this paragraph lets us refer to what S. Abrutyn himself wrote about conversion.