On Symbolic Economies of Resistance
In Symbolic Economies, Jean-Joseph Goux explores how Marx’s analysis of the genesis of money and value in Capital can be applied beyond economic contexts to understand broader logics of value exchange, both quantitative and qualitative. Goux begins by adopting a “radicalized conception of exchange,” which goes beyond traditional economic exchange. He is interested in exchange as a fundamental principle that applies to both economic systems and other domains of human interaction.
He proposes using tools from political economy—concepts like value and exchange—to draw parallels between quantitative (economic) and qualitative (symbolic, cultural, or moral) logics of value. Goux references Marx’s analysis of how money arises as a measure and medium of exchange in the early chapters of Capital. That is, Marx shows how money becomes a universal equivalent, allowing for the commensuration of diverse goods and values—Goux sees this as a foundational logic that can be generalized. Louis Althusser, a structuralist Marxist, critiqued this “genesis” of money in Marx’s work because it appeared to carry “Hegelian implications”—that is, it seemed to suggest an inevitable, dialectical development of forms of value. Goux acknowledges this critique but sees value in Marx’s account, nonetheless.
Furthermore, Goux argues that Marx’s analysis reveals a deeper, universal logic of value forms that transcends its specific economic context. While it starts with quantitative value (money), this logic can be abstracted to understand the creation and organization of qualitative values—cultural, symbolic, moral, or otherwise. According to Goux, the “sequential logic of value forms” refers to how different forms of value (e.g., commodities, money, symbolic systems) emerge in a systematic way. While quantitative value (economic value, measured numerically) is one specific instance, the same principles should apply to qualitative values (e.g., honor, status, aesthetic value), which do not have a purely numerical basis but are structured through comparable processes of exchange and recognition in the social field.
Goux proposes the concept of the “general equivalent,” which starts as a concept tied to money and economic exchange but can be extended to explain how systems of value operate in culture, ethics, and other fields. The general equivalent highlights a process where one object, value, or principle becomes privileged as the central measure of all others. This abstraction and substitution create systems where qualitative values—though inherently diverse—are made commensurable. Goux therefore builds upon Marx’s analysis to develop a universal logic for understanding how different systems of value (economic or cultural) function through the establishment of a general equivalent.
The general equivalent entails that its interior logic transcends its origins in economic theory to illuminate cultural and psychoanalytic systems. Goux identifies how the general equivalent—originally conceptualized in Marx’s analysis of money as the universal measure of value—finds analogs in other domains. For Goux, the Father in Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, the Phallus as the privileged object of desire, and Language as the universal medium of signification all function as general equivalents within their respective fields. In psychoanalysis, Goux explains, the Father is elevated to a position of singular importance, governing identification and establishing a hierarchy among subjects. Similarly, the Phallus occupies the role of a central standard against which all objects of desire are measured. Language, too, operates as a general equivalent, with verbal expression enabling the equivalence of all signifiers through a shared system of meaning. In each of these cases, a single element is idealized and set apart, creating a hierarchy that defines the value and function of all other elements in the system.
Goux argues that this process is structurally and genetically homologous to the way money—particularly gold—assumes its role as the general equivalent in economic systems. Just as money serves as the universal standard for comparing and exchanging commodities, the Father, the Phallus, and Language become central organizing principles within their respective symbolic orders. By recognizing these parallels, Goux unifies what were previously thought to be distinct logics: phallocentrism (Freud and Lacan), logocentrism (Derrida), and monetary exchange (Marx). Crucially, he asserts that these systems are all manifestations of a singular structural process of exchange and substitution. This unified logic, Goux suggests, has deep historical roots. He traces its emergence to ancient Greece, where the advent of money, phonetic writing, and abstract philosophical concepts marked a new mode of symbolization. These developments, he contends, laid the groundwork for a societal structure in which systems of value—whether economic, linguistic, or symbolic—became increasingly interconnected. In modern Western society, this logic reached its peak, shaping major social institutions and their modes of signification.
Goux extends his analysis to explore the historical correlation between modes of writing and systems of exchange. For instance, he links pictography, ideography, and phonography to distinct structural modes of exchange. Pictography, with its direct representation of objects, aligns with simpler forms of equivalence, while phonography, which abstracts language into universal signs, corresponds to the highly developed logic of substitution seen in monetary economies. By mapping these parallels, Goux argues that both signifying and economic processes can be understood through a single structural framework of substitution and equivalence.
It must be acknowledged that Goux’s argument is explicitly not about causal priority—he does not claim that economic systems produce symbolic ones or vice versa. Instead, he identifies a deeper, shared logic that governs both. This insight allows him to redefine how we think about the relationships between economic, linguistic, and psychoanalytic systems, demonstrating that they are all part of a broader symbolic economy structured by the logic of the general equivalent. Through this lens, Goux offers a powerful tool for understanding the interconnectedness of value, exchange, and meaning in human society.
In her review of Symbolic Economies, Patricia Hartz examines the critical reception of Jean-Joseph Goux’s ambitious framework, which seeks to unify the logics of economics, psychoanalysis, and semiotics under a shared structural principle. Hartz notes several significant critiques of Goux’s approach. Robert D’Amico argues that Goux misinterprets Marx’s analysis of the money form, treating it as the culmination of a logical progression, while Marx intended it as a mystified hieroglyph to be critically decoded. Gayatri Spivak critiques Goux for conflating key distinctions in Marx’s categories, such as value, surplus-value, and exchange-value, and for favoring broad structural analogies over a nuanced understanding of historical discontinuities. Juliet MacCannell and others challenge Goux’s static treatment of Lacanian categories, arguing that the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real are historically contingent and interdependent rather than fixed analogs of economic functions. Additionally, feminist critics take issue with Goux’s reliance on Freud’s phallocentric developmental model, suggesting that it privileges male experiences and risks perpetuating patriarchal structures.
Despite these critiques, Hartz acknowledges the theoretical brilliance of Goux’s synthesis, while urging readers to approach his claims with caution, particularly in relation to their historical specificity and implications for gender and cultural critique. At the core of Symbolic Economies is the argument that the same structural logic governs the elevation of money in economics, the Father and Phallus in psychoanalysis, and language in semiotics, positioning these elements as privileged standards of equivalence within their respective systems. Building on this central claim, Goux offers a “logico-historical” model, inspired by Marx’s analysis of the transition from barter to capitalist exchange, to conceptualize the progression of symbolic systems. He frames history as the unfolding of a universal reign of general equivalents, where all domains of exchange—economic, social, and cultural—are governed by a shared logic of substitution and equivalence.
The implications of Goux’s work are far-reaching. By bridging disciplines, his framework suggests that the same principles of substitution and equivalence underlie both material and symbolic systems, offering a unified theory of symbolic exchange. This perspective challenges traditional disciplinary boundaries and invites interdisciplinary engagement. At the same time, Goux’s focus on the centralization of the “general equivalent” reveals how privileged elements, such as money, the Father, the Phallus, and language, function as instruments of power. These elements not only enforce hierarchies but also regulate systems of value, shaping social, cultural, and psychological structures in ways that perpetuate dominance and exclusion.
Goux’s “logico-historical” model further portrays history as a progressive entrenchment of these general equivalents, culminating in the pervasive alienation of modernity. This portrayal raises critical questions about historical agency: if the trajectory of history is shaped by this overarching logic, how can societies resist or disrupt it? Goux’s argument also redefines subjectivity, positioning individuals as shaped by the reign of the general equivalent. For instance, the Father in psychoanalysis functions as a standard against which all subjects are measured, paralleling money’s role in measuring commodities. This perspective challenges traditional notions of autonomy, suggesting that identity and desire are externally structured by systems of equivalence, leaving little room to imagine alternative ways of being.
The question of resistance emerges as a key tension in Goux’s work. While he implies that liberation from alienation requires a fundamental disruption of the logic of the general equivalent, the mechanisms for achieving such resistance remain ambiguous. If this logic is as universal and transhistorical as Goux suggests, breaking free from it may require a radical reimagining of how value, meaning, and equivalence are produced and circulated. This opens the door to exploring counter-logics and alternative systems of exchange that resist centralization and hierarchy. Yet the challenges of such a project, both theoretical and practical, underscore the complexity and urgency of Goux’s ambitious vision. Through her review, Hartz highlights not only the intellectual power of Symbolic Economies but also the critical questions it leaves unanswered, inviting deeper engagement with its implications for history, power, and the structures that shape modern life.
To review, a symbolic economy refers to the system through which values—whether economic, cultural, social, or psychological—are created, exchanged, and organized. Just like money in a regular economy acts as a universal measure for the exchange of goods, symbolic economies involve things like language, cultural norms, or psychoanalytic symbols (e.g., the Father or the Phallus) functioning as central standards or “general equivalents” that make different values comparable. At its core, a symbolic economy is about how meaning, power, and relationships are structured in human systems. It’s not limited to material goods but extends to abstract things like desire, identity, and ideas. Goux’s central conceit is that these different domains—economic, psychoanalytic, and cultural—operate according to the same basic logic: something is elevated to a central position and becomes the standard by which everything else is measured or valued. This creates hierarchies and systems of equivalence that govern how value is assigned and exchanged, whether one speaks of goods, symbols, or social roles.
A symbolic economy of resistance would therefore represent a fundamental challenge to the systems of value and equivalence that underpin the dominant social, cultural, and economic hierarchies latent in a given society. In Goux’s terms, such an economy would seek to disrupt the “general equivalents”—those central elements, such as money, the Phallus, or patriarchal authority—that serve as the measure of all other values within their respective systems. By reimagining how value is assigned, exchanged, and upheld, a symbolic economy of resistance offers pathways to subvert structures of power and alienation, while fostering alternative ways of relating and organizing.
This form of resistance seeks to decentralize power through the pragmatic exercise of the imagination. Dominant systems of value rely on singular, hierarchical standards, like money in economic systems or patriarchal authority in social ones, which enforce conformity and exclude alternative perspectives. A symbolic economy of resistance would instead emphasize plurality, diversity, and relational value. For example, alternative economic practices such as local currencies, barter systems, or gift economies challenge the hegemony of capitalist exchange by fostering mutual aid and community-centric value systems. Similarly, in social structures, non-hierarchical decision-making and collective forms of leadership subvert centralized authority. Critically, resistance also involves the creation of counter-symbols. By reimagining the symbols and narratives that govern meaning, marginalized groups can challenge dominant standards. Subversion of existing systems is another crucial strategy. Protest movements and artistic practices often reappropriate the language or tools of dominant systems to critique and undermine them. Satirical art or performances, for example, use capitalist symbols to expose the absurdities of consumer culture. Underlying these practices is a shift in priorities from exchange-value—the abstract worth assigned within a system of equivalence—to use-value, which foregrounds tangible, relational benefits. In this way, a symbolic economy of resistance reclaims the value of work, care, and creativity outside the metrics of commodification.
In rethinking subjectivity, a symbolic economy of resistance also seeks to break free from the identities imposed by dominant systems. Where traditional hierarchies define individuals by their adherence to external standards, resistance emphasizes autonomy, fluidity, and collective belonging. This shift fosters new ways of being that are not bound by the alienating logic of equivalence. A symbolic economy of resistance invites radical creativity. It challenges the very basis of substitution and equivalence, asking how systems of value might look if they were built on interconnectedness rather than hierarchy. Art movements that refuse commodification, or cultural practices rooted in decolonized worldviews, imagine worlds where meaning and value emerge from mutual flourishing rather than competition or dominance.
