Use-value Or Exchange-value?

By Author: emaly su
Total Articles: 235
Comment this article

The Cheap Shoes brings a difference to your collection. You will get additional lightweight strength that is provided by this Fly wire of the next generation.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the Glassville project embedded itself within a particular version of value, one that initially might be explained by Karl Marx's theory of value and its incorporation into the academy.

The shorthand version of Marx's theory goes as follows: individual workers, Shoes Online dispossessed of the means of production, are forced to sell the only value that they possess, their "use-value" as laborers.

For this labor, the capitalist provides them with enough wages to sustain their daily existence; this is the labor's exchange value. The capitalist trick is to force the workers to labor beyond the point of their mere reproduction workers provide more "use-value" than they receive in "exchange-value."

Marx concludes that the worker fails to see this exploitation because of the "fetishism" of commodities the workers believe ...
... that it is the inherent quality of an object, and not their labor, that creates value.

Marx's view that capitalism produced a culture that masks worker exploitation has been translated into an argument that the canon has worked to exclude the full range of writing Discount Shoes being produced within a culture, as well as the economic/historical context from which that writing arose. The canon has fetishized certain texts and claimed them as "art" by removing them from the context of their production. Under the guise of objectivity, the canon has become a vehicle for representing the desires of the bourgeoisie/middle class.

In response, Marxist literary critics have argued that previously marginalized texts, such as those written by the working class, should be placed within the "literary" canon. Marginalized writing is often held to possess the progressive values that critics claim the cannon have traditionally denied.

This version of canon reform has led to a situation in which professors of English studies are asked to choose between two opposing sets of texts (canonical and noncanonical), each seen as possessing opposing moral values (Guillory 25). A similar narrative could be made about the integration of nonstandard texts into composition classrooms.

As James Berlin argues in Rhetoric and Reality, the "canonized" text for composition classrooms is the expository essay that is embedded within the current traditionalist paradigm. Since the late 1960s, however, nonstandard writing and nonhegemonic voices have become part of the picture.

A look at mainstream readers, such as Negotiating Differences, or standard texts, such as Mike Rose's Lives on the Boundary, reveals how "marginalized" identities have been incorporated into a "composition canon." As was the case with the literary canon, these alternative voices are often brought in as a way to represent alternative moral values for students to study. Their inclusion poses the question of which set of essentialized voices composition should endorse.

In both composition and literature classes, the "value" of introducing these texts has been seen principally as creating a more representative set of literary/cultural voices. Guillory argues that, in a time of conservative politics, this push for canonical representation stands in for actual political representation.

As Guillory notes, including Latino literary voices in a literature course is a poor substitute for ensuring that Latinos can enter the classroom or government. In this regard, it is not clear how such curricular inclusion has significantly changed the actual political relationship of a university to its local or national partners.7 Increased representation in the classroom via assigned texts has not necessarily resulted in increased resource sharing with underrepresented populations at the local level.