Friendship as a Commodity

On a surface level, Mr. Utterson’s relationships with his friends can be described as odd, faithful, or caring, among other things; however, I would like to focus on a very specific aspect of his approach to friendship. Utterson is not just open to having all types of friends; rather, he is somewhat indifferent. He simply “accepts his friendly circle ready-made from the hands of opportunity” (Stevenson 5). He doesn’t pick and choose his friends, but instead lets opportunity choose for him. What is distinctive is that certain qualities do not cause him to like an individual more or less. Instead, “his affections, like ivy, were the growth of time, they implied no aptness in the object” (Stevenson 6). While this may seem like a good thing on a surface level, this lack of distinction between people could potentially be somewhat dehumanizing. Before you dismiss me as crazy, hear me out. Some of the language Utterson uses reminded me of particular language Marx uses in his analysis of the “Fetishism of Commodities.” One of the key points in his analysis is that people place extreme value on objects, or commodities, because it serves as a way to indicate their social status and labor. Have you ever heard people talk about that $1000 purse they’re dying for, or that brand new, must-have iPhone? According to Marx’s theory, fetishism is driving that.

Utterson seems to approach friendship this way in that he indiscriminately wants to gather friends, and he seems to view them simply as things to be acquired. One place this is particularly clear is when he encounters a private letter addressed to him, but he is wary of opening it. He hesitates, and voices his concern: “I have buried one friend today… what if this should cost me another?” (33). The key here is his language; he uses “cost” to describe losing a friend, as though he was losing money. Utterson seems to be turning friendship into a commodity that he fetishizes because of the social status attached to it. He has plenty of wealthy, well-known friends that he frequently socializes with, and this undoubtedly has an effect on the way the public perceives him. He is even the person talked upon to identify the body of Sir Danvers Carew, who is of very high stature.

I’m not sure how this will play out in the book, and perhaps I’m overanalyzing. However, I do think it’s worth thinking about and perhaps developing further. Also, I promise Marx isn’t the only thing I think about. I’ll try to mix it up next time!