“He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not”: The Commodification of Human Interaction

Lailah Karamat Ali 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.

Figure 1. An ink drawn love heart

“Love is the way”, or so we are told. In Western societies, it is seen as the end goal, THE essential ingredient to one’s complete fulfilment. Aristotle famously declared that “man is by nature a social animal”. However, this is under threat in a society where capitalism has established itself. Has the nature of love changed? Has its form become unrecognisable to previous expressions? Has love become less attainable or tarnished?

Society has been infiltrated by the system of capitalism, which is contagious. Capitalism has transformed our economies and how we interact as creatures. The commodification of human interaction entails increasing commercial and economic factors in human relationships. An early social psychologist, Eric Fromm, spoke of how capitalism fosters a “having” rather than “being” mode of existence. The materialism with which our identities have become ensnared has eliminated the capability and opportunity for human connection and self-fulfilment. 

Love has been framed as something you can attain through devising strategies, enlisting the help of dating apps, self-help books, and romantic getaways. Capitalism’s infiltration has eroded the concept and expression of real-life intimacy. For instance, the pressure to present a perfect image on social media, the focus on material gifts as expressions of love, and the commodification of romantic experiences through commercialized holidays like Valentine's Day all contribute to this erosion. 

Figure 2. 14 February - Valentine’s Day

Take Valentine’s Day, for example. Most companies advertise Valentine’s Day deals to generate more money for the business; love is no longer solely about the emotional connection; instead, we find ourselves comparing with others’ experiences of love all through a material lens.

Even how relationships are established has changed; the rise in dating apps facilitates the analysis of relationships through a cost-benefit lens. Dating apps can successfully provide people with many (hopefully) single matches with similar attributes and goals. Nevertheless, various findings have highlighted the negative impact it can have. Schwartz developed the idea of a paradox of choice, an apathy and disappointment faced after being confronted with too many options. Now imagine the intensity of these feelings when scrolling aimlessly through dating apps, yes or no. Maybe he's not my type, lives too far, and looks like he gets around.

Figure 3. (LEFT) Bumble and (RIGHT) Tinder

The sheer possibility of matches, when it seems like they’re being served on a platter for one to taste and send back to the kitchen, means that a fear of commitment is festering among us, a rise in superficial relationships; the sheer capacity of possible matches leads to the belief the grass is always greener. The former sociologist for Tinder and Bumble (Carbino) spoke of the part this plays in relationship disillusionment. Not only may one struggle with committing, but the nature of creating a profile to attract others can lead to feelings of objectification. After all, that is the basis of a profile: to entice someone with intriguing pictures or witty anecdotes, essentially to market oneself. 

Capitalism also fosters heightened individualism, signifying an emphasis placed upon individual achievement and self-fulfilment; this can become problematic when it leads to sacrificing relationships with others and empathy for those others. The focus on YOU can characterise platonic, familial or romantic relationships as an entity that must serve you and yield benefits and results that further your agenda. One can also apply Durkheim’s insights into “anomie”, a state of normlessness or lack of social cohesion, where individualism erodes traditional structures like family ties, whose purpose has previously been providing a sense of belonging and purpose. 

The implications of individualism penetrate all of our social interactions; love seems to be solely conditional, where a relationship is evaluated based on the compatibility of what you want and desire. 

Beyond dating apps, self-help books are another form of media that may harm our social interactions. F**k friends that don’t serve your life! To guarantee your success is an individual pursuit! You are your own best friend! Self-help media often regurgitate claims like these, but what does this mean for how we interact with others? 

Multiple studies have analysed the impact of the self-help industry on our relationships. Turkle highlights how friendships are identified as tools for one’s use, not a reciprocal relationship. This shift in perspective is leading people to view friendships as transactional and disposable. Illouz also described how it commodifies relationships, framing them as mere strategic alliances. The weight of these findings underscores the significant impact of the self-help industry on our relationships. 

Through viewing them through this lens of utility, trust and authenticity are being eroded. The prevalence of claims of toxicit and the encouragement of the pursuit of happiness ‘by all means necessary’ are leading people to avoid emotional exchanges and difficult conversations. We are losing the depth of our friendships, the deep bonds necessary for meaningful connection. This loss underscores the urgent need to reclaim meaningful connections in our relationships. 

The commodification of human interaction can only be opposed by trying to escape the shackles of the dominant societal agents and the messages they embody. The question is, “Is that even possible?” 

To conclude, I would encourage you to ask yourself: Is it simply easier to blame a more prominent theoretical framework than yourself and the obstacles you have placed in your journey to love?”