The Semiotics of BrandDiscussions of the category of ‘brand’ in anthropology inherit many of the tendencies of popular and professional discourses on the subject. In anthropology, for example, following much popular discourse, discussion of brand is almost always made identical with the discussion of the culture of circulation that brands indirectly index, hence, brand is almost synonymous with globalization, and therefore, most attention is given to specific highly salient brands (Coca-Cola, Nike) that serve as ‘meta-symbols’ (Miller) of this global culture of circulation, which, in turn, is often presumed to be centered in Western global brands and local, non-western uptakes. Since ‘brand’ is a complex media object, its very definition is a contested metapragmatic domain between interested popular discourses and varied professional discourses of designers, lawyers, marketers, consumers and activists. Furthermore, as a privileged semiotic object, the semiotic categories of brand are frequently extended not only to a whole new range of services, quasi-commodities and objects that are not in themselves economic objects (including experiences, places, countries, even recent discussions of ‘anthropology’ itself as a brand), so that the semiotic language of brand has undergone a curious form of genericide in which brand is often coextensive with semiosis as such. As a result of these tendencies, brands are typically represented as being in their very essence a kind of deterritorialized, immaterial form of mediation, a kind of globalized intertextuality, a semiotic image of the global capitalist economy itself (Lury 2004), very far from the materiality of messages on bottles in which they are often encountered on a token level. This review will seek, by contrast, to frame the phenomenon of brand as being a material mediation, aggressively reframing incommensurable semiotic meta-discourses of brand located in various popular and professional discourses within a semiotic framework, attending to different semiotic moments of this phenomenon. Rather than pre-decide the issue of what brand is, where brand truly ‘lives’ (as a label on a commodity? As an association with a producer? With a consumer? Is brand really ‘about’ globalization, hyper-reality? The condition of post-modernity?) I define these semiotic moments of brand (following Moore 2003 and his adaptation of Jakobson 1960) on the model of the speech situation, in terms of the way they foreground the involvement of different participants in the commodity exchange relationship which brands form both a component of and a regimenting meta-commentary on. Rather than attempting to discover an ‘essence’ of brand, or locate brand in some universal semiotic corollary of the allegedly universal human propensity to truck and barter, I will use a family resemblances or prototype model of brand, to show the ways that the concept shifts its focus along historical or cultural planes. The general semiotic language will be a Peircian framework (as has been adopted by many other analysts of brand, Moore 2003, Lurie 2004, Beebe 2004, 2008). The major discourses engaged with will be anthropological, but where appropriate discourses from other fields, notably design and legal theory, will be engaged. However, this review will only touch lightly on more general issues such as intellectual property law, globalization, periodizations of capitalism, insofar as they are consequentially registered in the semiotic definition of brand.

As we traverse these different discordant discourses about brand, within a generalized perspective treating brand as an object of conflicting semiotic ideologies (Keane 2003), the objective is not only to taxonomize the various semiotic moments, or

to offer a finalized definition, but to point to a direction in which we can see a basic tendency. It will be argued provisionally there is a tendency for brand to become almost a byword for ‘semiosis’ in general, a catch-all category for the individuating social and semiotic properties of those objects that are objects of capitalist exchange, or exchange in general (as brand is quite often compared to the Maussian ‘total social fact’ (Lury 2004)), or even, objects in general. It will be argued that this tendency is due to the way that brand is defined in relation to a privileged other term, the product or use-value. Like some binary star system where a highly visible luminous object wobbles around a massive dark companion, much of the behavior of brand can only be explained in terms of its relationship of alterity to its ‘dark companion’, the product. The two terms form a privileged doublet, as the advertising koan goes, ‘the producer creates a product, but the consumer buys a brand’, we see again and again at all levels that brand becomes a term for the ‘semiotic’ dimension of a product, including capaciously virtually every known form of semiosis, decoration, design, associations, indexicalities, iconicities, symbolisms, indeed all possible qualitative forms of differentiation (sensations, qualities, affective attachments). Sometimes, too, brand seeks to float free from its dark companion (leading to a kind of hyper-reality where brand becomes an autonomous product), or strives to absorb it (so that all qualities, ‘semiotic’ or ‘technical’, brand and product, are gathered together in an undifferentiated haze of an ‘economy of qualities’). This is because brand is defined in opposition to the latent notion of utility, use-value, technical, material objectivity of the product. So far from brand becoming ideologically or really independent of the product, the brand and the product form a privileged pair of complements, so that the opposition brand/product develops as folk-ontological opposition between immaterial/material, form/function, decorative/functional, symbolic/technical, properties of subjects/properties of objects and so on. However, precisely by attending to the way that these oppositions lead to antinomies and crises, the conundrums of discourses on brand amount to an immanent critique of the basic ontological oppositions underlying them, for example, the basic opposition between semiosis and technical dimensions of artifacts, or non-referential and referential functions of language (for critiques of this opposition from other quarters see Pfaffenberger 1992).

Trademarks: Indexes of the producer. The simplest way to begin would appear to be where older orthodox legal definitions of trademark have done, which identifies the “primary and proper function of a trademark " as "to identify the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed.” Certainly the use of a trademark or token of brand affixed to a product to index the producer of that product would appear to accord well with ordinary views of a central semiotic function of brand. However, even this relatively simple semiotic aspect of brand turns out to be complex in semiotic terms. This original definition collapses two different sorts of marks, proprietary marks optionally affixed to goods by merchants and regulatory production marks affixed by statute to identify the work of a single craftsman (Schechter 1927). The legal definition of trademark thus epitomizes this semiotic function often imputed to ‘brand’. Obviously, however, the current entity being indexed as source is quite different, usually a fictive person like a corporation or capitalist undertaking, and therefore does not correspond precisely to either of these earlier figures of mercantile capitalism. Indeed, the proliferation of kinds of entities and relations that brands can index has led to questions as to whether the

source/origin indexing function can be said to define brand (Lury 2004). If, following Moore, we broaden this semiotic aspect to any ‘source-identifying indexical’ (Moore 2003), there are, in fact, more that one kind of source identifying indexical that are often not distinguished, there are type-mediated indexes like logos, which act as ‘a signature of authenticity, indicating that the good that bears it is true to its origins—that is, that the good is a true or accurate copy’ and token-mediated indexes which mark a real contact, a making, a moment of imprinting by one for whom it acts as a kind of fingerprint’ (Coombe 1996). As Meneley (2004) makes clear, these two different kinds of indexes are hallmarks of industrial versus craft production, respectively, each leading to different kinds of goodwill or distinction.

In addition, not only the kind of indexical relation may vary, but also the object that is indexed as ‘source’: At first glance the ‘source-identifying indexical’ does not directly index the immediate producer (this is presumably only the case with the token-mediated ‘craft production’ index) but a ‘surrogate identity’ (Coombe 1996), a ‘prosthetic persona’ (Mazzarella 2003), a figure of the producer (Manning and Uplisashvili 2007). In many cases, the source or origin that is relevant is not a specific figure of a person but a place, which lends the product specific, and protected, technoscientifically and legally defined qualisigns of distinction and D.O.P. or terroir strategies of food marketing (Coombe et al. 2005, Heath and Meneley 2007, Paxon 2008). In the case of bottled water marketing, there is a specific and complex relationship between the product (which is produced ‘for free’ as a public good via the municipal water authority) and way this product is represented as being produced by a private company and/or from a natural spring source (Wilk 2006). The case of bottled water in particular raises the question of ‘goodwill’ as a property not only of rivalrous private corporate persons but also public ones, inasmuch as it is precisely distrust of the state’s capacity to provide water that makes private bottled water brands possible, but at the same time, it is precisely the state’s technoscientific regimes of production and regulation that underwrite the collective goodwill of the bottled water industry in fact. Here too, an important aspect of what brands index, the property of ‘goodwill’, is composed of a considerable amount of ‘dark matter’, which upon further inspection turns out to be the state, which provides services that lend a ‘generalized goodwill’ to private brands.

Brand and social imaginary/space-time. In bottled water marketing, the product is positioned within a broader anxiety-ridden social ontology defined between the antinomic polarities of public and private, nature and technology. In this way, we can see that brand acts as a “condensed space-time, and may be analyzed to give a fuller account of the wider intersubjective spacetime in which it operates” (Munn 1986:10). As Coombe (1996) shows, the specific kind of alterity involved in creating figures tend to draw on ‘symbolic fields of social alterity’, making the figure of the brand an index of the imagined horizons of the culture of circulation in which it circulates. In the case discussed by Coombie, these are drawn from imagined space of the ‘frontier’ in terms of which American consumers defined themselves, but they could also be drawn from the field of alterity of empire (McClintock 1995), even the entirely fanciful characters of folkloric alterity (Olivier 2007). In addition, in many cases brands are not valuable so much for the way they index real or prosthetic personas, but the way they index a whole social imaginary, becoming ‘metasymbols’ (Miller), standing no longer for producers or products but for whole dimensions of circulation, for example

the way that brand ‘labels’, often detached from the use-value or commodity, came to be self-valuable mediums of ‘contact’ with the ‘Imaginary West’ in the USSR (Yurchak 2006), or the way that socialist products index a particular apperception of temporal alterity in East Germany, (N)Ostalgia, as well as parallel phenomena elsewhere in the former USSR (Berdahl etc.) At the same time, the existence of ‘brands’ in political economic contexts that lack market rivalry between producers and concepts of ‘goodwill’, such as state-planned economies, raises important questions about the limits of the concept in relation to source-identification, as the category of brand circulates outside of the presumably functional political economy context that gave rise to it. In another example, the deployment of puranic devotional images as part of the advertising and sometimes packaging of commodities by both western and Indian companies in India reveals more how western ontologies of the commodity engage an implicit secularism presumed not to be relevant for Indian publics, as well as implicit orientalist ontologies (Jain 2007). Thus, brands not only index figures of identity (producers) but also figures of alterity within broader social imaginaries. (phastamagoria/hyper-reality) Indexing the product. The same legal definition demands that the trademark be ‘affixed to the product’, that is, that brand must be in relationship of reflexive calibration to the product. Here too is a dimension that is often neglected in what Moore calls ‘the dematerialization of brand’. While a brand may consist of a variety of semiotic exponents (a slogan, a logo, trademark, trade dress), and many of these can drift free of their association with a product, the core of the phenomenon is that brand is some sort of distinctive semiotic display materially associated with products of a certain type. That is, brands are both token-level indexicals (each instance of brand is associated with one instance of a product), but also typifying (unlike craft indexes of production, each of which is unique), each token of a brand trademark instantiates a type, and guarantees that each product will be of the same quality as every other. This dimension also takes on a new importance when the ‘product’ indexed is itself a new kind of object, a place, an experience, a service, or even something which is not itself a potential object of capital. It also becomes important when brands increasingly are no longer associated with stand-alone products but to whole ranges of products and services (Lurie 2004).

As the phenomenon of brand becomes ever more abstract, many stories about brand tend to collapse the phenomenon into an undifferentiated haze of ‘qualities’, none of which is in principle more intrinsic, more distinctive, or indeed differentiable from any other, so that brand is simply another name for the individuating bundle of qualities that, indeed, could be said to individuate any object, brand becomes, indeed, simply another word for whatever principle individuates (and renders comparable), any material object (‘economies of qualities’, Callon et al 2000). Although this approach has the advantage of helping us see parallels between capitalist modes of qualification and individuation and those of other cultures of circulation (e.g. the Kula, which also involves a certain kind of ‘economy of qualities’, or qualisigns (qualities that are potentially able to serve as signs, Munn , Keane 2003, Meneley 2008)), it is clear that the kinds of qualisigns that Callon is discussing are those specifically constituted by regimes of standardization and technoscientific authentication (Meneley 2007, Heath and Meneley 2007, Paxon 2008). However, as legal scholars in particular (Dinwoodie) are careful to point out, we cannot apply the same semiotic stories to linguistic exponents of brand as we can to non-

linguistic ones, and we should add, those that are able to be graphically represented versus those that are not, and finally, indeed, the most problematic exponents of brand are those that are simplex qualities that cannot be transcribed into a linguistic or graphic representation (a color, a fragrance).Linguistic distinctiveness. The ability of Legal protection of llinguistic trademarks (later extended to non-linguistic ones) to act as signifers is alleged to be based on is partially evaluated on the basis of two interrelated doctrines, such as those of distinctiveness and , dilution and genericide. The traditional doctrine of distinctiveness (Schecter 1927) relates to a specific dimension of the linguistic aspect of brand, namely, that “original, arbitrary, or fanciful words” are more singular and distinctive than terms descriptive or referential or in common usage (this particular model is ultimately canonized in the Abercrombie decision of 1976). Thus, trademarks are protected to the extent that they lack a descriptive or referential relationship to properties or qualities of the product. The same is true of slogans as well as names, so that, for example, legal departments of corporations routinely have to remind advertisers not to use the wording of slogans in advertising texts or the slogan becomes downgraded to an unprotected ‘descriptive’ usage, similar to the way that advertisers are reminded not to use the brand name as a noun, but always as an attributive adjective (not ‘Legos’ but ‘Legos blocks’), to avoid genericide. Hence, linguistic ideologies separating referential from other functions are implied here. Also, as Coombe argues (1996) and can be seen in specific cases like the Brownie camera (Olivier 2007), the legal definition protecting ‘fanciful’ names may have helped in the tendency to recruit arbitrary figures of ethnic, racial or supernatural alterity to brand products discussed above. Dilution, instead, “occurs when, because two signifiers are similar, they lessen each other’s differential distinctiveness” (Beebe 2008). This relates to a Saussurean paradigmatic dimension of value (Beebe 2008), but crucially, here, too, the properties not only of the signifiers used by two different undertakings, but also the properties of the product as use-value, have been at issue. That is, part of the question is whether dilution occurs when the products are by their nature non-rivalrous as use-values.

Trade Dress: non-linguistic dimensions of brand. On a second level, we can consider the relationship between the exponents of brand and the product as material relationship between sign-vehicles. Since the property of brand, indexing a unique prosthetic persona, may be realized through a variety of markings (exponents) of different kinds, including linguistic and non-linguistic signs, signs that can be graphically represented and those that cannot, not only the indexical relation of the mark to the product is important (the reflexively calibrated token-reflexive linkage), but also the manner of realization of the different material exponents of brand, logos, trademark, trade dress or get up what one might call the morphology of brand. In the simplest case, the kind of prototypical case recognized in older trademark laws, the trademark represents something akin to a morphological affix, a segmentable material sign which is potentially distinct, even removable, from the product. However, not only may brand be realized on a product via multiple exponence, but some of those exponents of brand may be materially continuous with, or only formally abstractable from the product itself. Some of the most recondite portions of trademark law are those where brand is represented by design features that are formally, but not physically, abstractable (Dinwoodie etc.). Here we see legal semiotic ideologies seeking to distinguish between

form (brand) and function (product, use value), notions of styling, design, decoration as opposed to technical utility. Often these semiotic ideologies are in conflict with those aesthetic ideologies amongst designers, who seek to blur those same boundaries between form and function. The problem is that just as legal regimes tend to prefer linguistic signs as ‘distinctive’ that are fanciful, arbitrary but not referential or descriptive as brands, so too legal regimes tend to prefer non-linguistic aspects of brand that are clearly non-functional, decorative, and clearly separated from the technical or utility dimension of the use-value or product.

Immaterial ‘services’. Similar problems are raised by services, which are often misleadingly said to be ‘immaterial commodities’ (what is presumably meant is that they do not take durable forms like normal commodities), often part of a general sea change in in capitalist economies where we have moved from an economy defined by ‘products’ to one defined by ‘services’. In the case of a service, since the product is typically an autonomous activity (often a linguistic one, say, talk), the categories of quality associated with branding by definition have to be realized in tandem with that activity, raising questions similar to those raised by design and trade dress. Cameron (2000, 2008) has shown in particular the kinds of consequences for an autonomous activity like talk (in particular ‘top down’ scripting of conversation) when it becomes a marketed, branded service, showing how real subsumption of an activity as a specifically capitalist labor process produces changes related to labor discipline (efficiency, monitoring), which is typical of any labor process subsumed under capitalism, but, because it is a service (that is, a labor process that is also a product in itself) there are also ‘styling’ changes that act to produce a uniform brand image of an activity presented to a customer.

Lovemarks: Indexing the consumer. Through brands, however, products are also attached to figures of consumption: idealized consumers. This new attention to the figure of the consumer in the brand, and the way that brands interpellate consumers and are appropriated by them, is often linked once again to a epochal periodization of capitalism, a general shift from a social ontology of productivism to one of consumerism, where there has been a general move from brand as a figure of production to a figure of consumption (Mazzarella 2003): a semiotic transition from trademarks of production to so-called lovemarks of consumer loyalty (Foster 2005). This perspective on brand seeks to see the “value” of brands as being a joint product of the labor of both producers and consumers. Often the new relationship between producers and consumers expressed in brand is treated not as one of rhetorical persuasion but as Habermasian dialog in the ‘hybrid forum’ of the new economy (Callon et al 2000, Lury 2004). The kinds of statements and qualities associated with brands are said to move to ones that emphasize subjective affective involvements and vague associations with lifestyles rather than specific objective properties of the product itself. Branded objects attract to themselves not only properties of the subjects (“person-alities”) that produce them but also, by association, the subjects that consume them. Robert Foster describes this as the

reattachment of the alienated product to another personality, that is, to the consumer. It is this reattachment that is achieved through branding. I hasten to add that branding involves more than the labour of special workers who design logos and devise advertising campaigns.... Branding also involves the work of

consumers,whose meaningful use of the purchased products invests these products with the consumer’s identity. . . . Put differently, the persons of consumers enhance the value of brands. (Foster 2005:11)

In some cases, particularly recent discussions of virtual environments, it can much more directly be argued that the line between producer and consumer is truly blurred (Coombe et al.). Importantly however, the intertexts of brand that occur as it is appropriated and redeployed by consumers, sometimes helping define the brand or lending it their own labor of consumption, is not legally recognized in property law and is subject to unilateral restriction. This area of brand has become a dominant theme in recent literature, linked to often uncritical appropriation of the professional discourses, definitions and claims of marketing professionals into anthropological discussions, a reflexive move aided by the frequently porous professional boundaries between the two discourses (Callon et al. 2000). Here, again, just as producer is treated as a Goffmanian ‘figure’, so too the consumer. Here, as well, we can see shifts from the interpellation of the consumer qua consumer to interpellation of the consumer as citizen, among other modalities, thus conflating different social imaginaries (for example Berdahl 1999, Bach 2002, Jain 2007,Özkan and Foster 2005), or as having certain specific desirable social properties that are associated with the prototypical consumer, for example ‘cool’, ‘cute’ (Allison 2000, 2004, Iwabuchi 2002, 2004), or even secular ‘culturedness’ (Gronow 2003, Kelly and Volkov 1998) or religious piety (Jain 2007).

Figures and fetishes: Character branding. Naturally, as brand objects attract more properties of subjects, whether of producers or of consumers, we come squarely into the vexed category of the brand as a fetish (which, nevertheless, is not at all the kind of fetish envisioned by Marx, as I will argue), or at least, certain aspects of that notoriously polysemous entity, specifically those having to do with the conflation of categories of subject and object. It is at this point, too, that analysts turn from Marx to Mauss, often finding in brand a kind of curious image of the Maussian ‘total social fact’. This portion of the analysis does not exactly fit under any of the rubrics above, so I will treat it as a separate one. In this final section I will explore the ways in which brands, as figures, come to take on more and more properties of actual subjects, becoming more and more like actual animate figures, with which consumers are able to form more complex affective relationships. Some classic cases, like figures like Betty Crocker (discussed in detail by Lury 2004), deserve comparison to the use of puranic images of deities discussed by Jain (2007), and especially to the complexities of Japanese character-branding discussed by, for example, Allison (2000, 2004, 2006ab) and Iwabuchi (2002, 2004), and in particular the kinds of forms of intertextuality between product ranges (where the character brands are either drawn from actual narrated characters or in due course become actual narrated characters in various media), and the different kinds of affective bonds between consumer and product enabled by ‘cute’ character figures as opposed to western signifiers of ‘cool’.

References

Allison, Anne, 2000. A Challenge to Hollywood? Japanese Character goods hit the US.

Japanese Studies 20.1, 67-88.

Allison, Anne. 2004. Cuteness as Japan’s millennial product. In Joseph Tobin (ed.),

Pikachu’s Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon, 34-52. Durham, NC:

Duke.

Allison, Anne. 2006a. Millenial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination.

Durham, NC: Duke.

Allison, Anne. 2006b The Japan fad in global youth culture and millennial capitalism.

Mechademia 1, 11-22.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In Arjun

Appadurai (ed.)¸The Social Life of Things, 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Bach, Jonathan. 2002. "The Taste Remains": Consumption, (N)ostalgia, and the

Production of East Germany. Public Culture 14(3), 545-556.

Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. Telos

press.

Baudrillard, Jean. 1996. The System of Objects. London: Verso.

Beebe, Barton. 2004. The semiotic analysis of trademark Law. UCLA Law Review 621.

Beebe, Barton. 2008. The semiotic account of trademark doctrine and trademark culture.

In Graem Dinwoodie and Mark Jamis (eds), Trademark Law and Theory: A

Handbook of Contemporary Research 42.

Bently, Lionel , Jennifer Davis, Jane C. Ginsburg (eds.). 2008. Trade Marks and

Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique. Cambridge.

Berdahl, Daphne. 1999 "(N)Ostalgie" for the Present: Memory, Longing, and East

German Things. Ethnos 64(3):192-211.

Callon, Michel, Cecile Meadel and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2002. The economy of

qualities. Economy and Society 31.2, 194-217.

Cameron, Deborah. 2000. Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication

Culture. Sage.

Cameron, Deborah. 2008. Talk from the top down.

Cavanaugh, Jillian R. 2007. Making Salami, Producing Bergamo: The Transformation of

Value. Ethnos 72:2,149 -172

Coombe, Rosemary. 1996. Embodied Trademarks: Mimesis and Alterity on American

Commercial Frontiers. Cultural Anthropology 11.2, 202-224.

Coombe, Rosemary, Steven Schnoor, and Mohsen al atar Ahmed. 2005 Bearing

Cultural Distinction: Informational Capital and New Expectations for Intellectual

Property. In Articles in Intellectual Property: Crossing Boundaries, J. Brinkhof and

F. Willem Grosheide, eds., Pp. 191-211. Antwerp: Intersententia.

Coombe, Rosemary.

Denicola, Robert. 1983. Applied art and industrial designL a suggested approach to

copyright in useful articles.

Dinwoodie, Graeme. 1997. Reconceptualizing the inherent distinctiveness of product

design trade dress.

Dinwoodie, Graeme. 1999. The death of ontology: a teleological approach to trademark

law. HeinOnline -- 84 Iowa L. Rev. 611 1998-1999

Dinwoodie, Graeme and Mark Janis. 2008. Trade Dress and Design Law. Forthcoming.

Fehervary, Krisztina. 2005 In Search of the Normal: Material Culture and Middle-Class

Fashioning in a Hungarian Steel Town, 1950-1997. Dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of Chicago.

Foster, Robert. 2005. Commodity Futures: Love, Labour, and Value. Anthropology

Today 21.4: 8-12.

Foster, Robert. 2006. Tracking globalization: commodities and value in motion. In

Tilley et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Material Culture, 285-302. London: Sage.

Foster, Robert. 2007. The work of the new economy: consumers, brands and value-

creation. Cultural Anthropology 22(4), 707-731.

Foster, Robert. 2008. Coca-Globalization: Following Soft Drinks from New York to New

Guineau. Palgrave.

Gardner, B.B & Levy, S.J. 1955. The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business

Review,. March-April.

Gaudio, R., 2003. Coffeetalk: StarbucksTM and the commercialization of casual

conversation. Language in Society 32(5), 659-691

Gewertz, Deborah and Frederick Errington. 2007. The alimentary forms of the global

life: the Pacific-island trade in lamb and mutton flaps. American Anthropologist

109.3, 496-508.

Gronow, Jukka. 2003. Caviar with Champagne: Common Luxury and the Ideals of the

Good Life in Stalin’s Russia. Oxford: Berg.

Hearn, Alison. 2008. ‘Meat, mask, burden’: probing the contours of the branded ‘self’.

Journal of Consumer Culture 8.2, 197-217.

Heath, D., Meneley, A.., 2007. Techne, technoscience, and the circulation of comestible

commodities: an introduction. American Anthropologist 109(4), 593-602.

Herman, Andrew, Rosemary Coombie and Lewis Kaye. 2006. Your Second Life?

Goodwill and the performativity of intellectual property in online digital gaming.

Cultural Studies 20.2-3, 184-210.

Humphrey, Caroline. 2002. The Unmaking of Soviet Life: Everyday Economies after

Socialism. Ithaca: Cornell.

Irvine, J., 1996. When talk isn’t cheap: language and political economy. In: Brenneis, D.,

Macauley, R.K. (Eds.), The Matrix of Language. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp.

258–283.

Iwabuchi, Koichi. 2002. Recentering Globalization: Popular Culture and Japanese

Transnationalism. Durham NC: Duke.

Iwabuchi, Koichi. 2004. How ‘Japanese’ is Pokemon? In Joseph Tobin (ed.), Pikachu’s

Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon, 53-79. Durham, NC: Duke.

Jain, Kajri. 2007. Gods in the Bazaar: The Economies of Indian Calendar Arts. Duke.

Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics. Thomas A. Sebeok,

Style In Language, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.

Kaplan, Matha. 2007. Fijian water in Fiji and New York: Local Politics and a Global

Commodity. Cultural Anthropology 22.4, 685-706.

Keane,Webb (2003). Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language &

Communication 23:409–25.

Kelly, Katriona and Vadim Volkov. 1998. Directed Desires: Kult’urnost’ and

Consumption. In Constructing Russian Culture in the Age of Revolution, 1881-

1940. Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd (eds.), Pp. 291-313. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Kriegel, Lara. 2004. Culture and the Copy: Calico, Capitalism, and Design Copyright in

Early Victorian Britain. Journal of British Studies 43 (April 2004): 233–265

Lee, Benjamin and Edward Li Puma. 2002 Cultures of Circulation: The Imaginations of

Modernity. Public Culture 14(1): 191-213.

Lury, Celia. 1999. Marking time with Nike: the illusion of the durable. Public Culture

11.3, 499-526.

Lury, Celia. 2004. Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy. London: Routledge.

McClintock, Anne. 1995, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial

Contest. London: Routledge.

Manning, P and Anna Uplisashvili. 2007. “Our Beer”: Ethnographic Brands in

Postsocialist Georgia. American Anthropologist Vol. 109, No. 4, 626-641.

Mazzarella. W. 2003. "Very Bombay": Contending with the Global in an Indian

Advertising Agency Cultural Anthropology 18(1):33-71

Mazzarella, W. 2003. Shoveling Smoke: Advertising and Globalization in Contemporary

India. Durham NC: Duke.

Meneley, Anne. 2004. Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Slow Food. Anthropologica 46: 165-

176.

Meneley, A., 2007. Like an extra virgin. American Anthropologist 109(4), 678-687.

Meneley, Anne. 2008. Oleo-signs and quali-signs: the qualities of Olive Oil. Ethnos

73.3, 303-326.

Miller, Daniel. 1998. Coca-Cola: A Black Sweet Drink from Trinidad. In Material

Cultures: Why Some Things Matter. Daniel Miller, ed., Pp. 169-188. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Moore, Robert. 2002. From Genericide to Viral Marketing: on 'Brand'. Language and

Communication 23(3-4): 331-357.

Moor, Elizabeth. 2003. Branded Spaces: The scope of 'new marketing'. Journal of

Consumer Culture 2003; 3; 39

Munn, Nancy. 1977. Spatiotemporal Transformations of Gawa Canoes. Journal de la

Societe de Oceanistes 33: 39-55.

Munn, Nancy. 1986. The Fame of Gawa: a Symbolic Study of Value Transformations in

a Massim (Papua, New Guineau) Society. Durham, NC: Duke.

Olivier, Marc. 2007. George Eastman’s modern stone-age family: snapshot photography

and the Brownie. Technology and Culture 48, 1-19.

Özkan, Derya and Robert Foster. 2005. Consumer Citizenship, Nationalism, and

Neoliberal Globalization in Turkey: The Advertising Launch of Cola Turka.

Advertising & Society Review 6:3.

Paxson, Heather 2008. Post-Pasteurian cultures: the microbiopolitics of raw-milk cheese

in the United States. Cultural Anthropology 23. 1: 15–47.

Pelkmans, Mathijs. 2006. Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the

Republic of Georgia. Cornell.

Pfaffenberger, Bryan. 1992. 1992 The Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual

Review of Anthropology 21: 491-516.

Richards, Thomas. 1990. The Commodity Culture of Victorian England. Stanford CA:

Stanford University Press.

Roseberry, W., 1996. The rise of yuppie coffee and the re-imagination of class in the

United States. American Anthropologist 98.4, 762-775.

Sahlins, Marshall.1976 Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press

Schechter, Frank. 1927. The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 HARV. L.

REV. 813 (1927)

Sherry, John. 2008. Ethnography Goes to Market, American Anthropologist 110(1): 73-

76.

Sherry, John. 2005. Brand Meaning, in Kellogg on Branding, eds. T. Calkins and A.

Tybout, New York: John Wiley, 40-69.

Silverstein, M., 2006. Old wine, new ethnographic lexicography. Annual Review of

Anthropology 35, 481-496.

Tonstull, Elizabeth. 2006. Does anthropology have a ‘branding’ problem?

Anthropology News 47.8, 17.

Wilk, Richard. 2006. Bottled water: the pure commodity in the age of branding. Journal

of Consumer Culture 6(3), 303-325.

Yurchak, Alexie. 2006. Everything was ForeverForever, until it was no More: The Last

Soviet Generation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zwick, Detlev, Samuel K. Bonsu and Aron Darmody. 2008. Putting Consumers to Work:

‘Co-creation’ and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture

Vol 8(2): 163–196.