Dr. Ashwani Kumar
“The most interesting of activities turn mundane when its performance is coerced for economic objects resulting in the alienation of the performer from the performance”
Reduction of Love to a Commodity: Capitalizing on Love
In contemporary society, love has increasingly been reduced to a commodity—something to be acquired, perfected, and consumed, often through media-driven narratives. What was once seen as a transformative, deeply personal experience is now shaped by trends, algorithms, and prescribed rules, turning it into a product for the masses. However, as philosophers like Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou argue, love is far from mundane or marketable. It is a disruptive force that defies easy categorization or mass consumption. Love is not about fitting into predefined roles or following a predictable path; it is a radical engagement that can reshape our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
Zizek famously describes love as a “disruptive activity”—a force that challenges social norms and expectations. For him, love is not about comfort or stability; it breaks from the ordinary. It is not merely an emotional exchange or romantic attraction but an unpredictable, transformative engagement that disrupts the status quo. Love forces people to rethink their lives within their life world, creating space for both personal and collective change.
In the contemporary society, the deeper nature of love has been obscured by cultural and economic forces that commodify it. Modern media and popular culture present love as a series of predictable steps—meet someone, date, find common ground, and settle into a “happily ever after.” This narrative frames love as a process to be followed, something to be achieved through conformity to societal expectations. As a result, love has lost its transformative potential and become routine—something to be packaged, replicated, and consumed like any other product.
Alain Badiou also views love as a singular event, an unexpected phenomenon between two individuals that creates something entirely new. For Badiou, love is not part of the existing order but an event that disrupts it, bringing about a new reality. It transforms both individuals involved, creating a new space where they can reimagine their lives and their relationship. It cannot be anticipated or engineered.
Engineering Love: “Portrayal of Love as an Engineered Outcome”
Unfortunately, modern society has reduced love to something that can be engineered. Dating apps, matchmaking services, and reality TV shows present love as something predictable, a process that can be cultivated through technology and pre-set routines. These systems frame love as a smooth transaction—a market service provided to consumers. By turning love into a series of measurable preferences—appearance, interests, compatibility—the ability to experience love as a transformative, unpredictable event is diluted. The spontaneity and radical potential of love are replaced by trends and formulas, rendering it more like a transaction than a life-altering experience.
In this context, love is also deeply linked to power and resources. In traditional societies, those without power or resources were compelled to follow prescribed patterns of relationships, shaped by institutional norms. Family, religion, and other social structures determined how love should be experienced and expressed. Only a few individuals, often from privileged backgrounds, had the autonomy to define love on their own terms. For the majority, love was shaped and limited by these institutional guidelines.
However, in the democratic era, the masses have gained greater access to education, economic resources, and technologies, empowering individuals to challenge and redefine traditional relationship patterns. As a result, new uncertainties emerge around relationships, giving rise to multiple realities.
Manufacturing a Common Understanding of LOVE: By the Institution of Market
To manage this uncertainty, the modern system, in collaboration with the market, constructs a standardized meaning of love. This manufactured understanding is shaped by media narratives and technological tools that direct individuals toward predictable, marketable relationships. People striving for personal fulfillment are often diverted from developing their own authentic understanding of love. By shaping and controlling these narratives, market-driven institutions maintain their status quo, promoting conformity to an idealized, transactional model of love.
Modern approaches to love often reflect a transactional mindset. Relationships are seen as solutions to individual needs—emotional, sexual, social, or financial. Compatibility and mutual benefit are prioritized over the deeper, transformative potential of love. When love becomes a calculated decision, a strategic arrangement, it loses its capacity to transform both individuals and the world around them. Instead of fostering change, it becomes an exchange of pre-existing needs.
A significant feature of contemporary love is how it has become a mass activity. Love is no longer just an individual experience between two people; it has been commodified, standardized, and marketed to the masses. Modern media, dating apps, and cultural narratives suggest that love can be achieved by following a set of steps, purchasing the right products, or aligning with popular trends. This idealized vision of love—emphasizing surface-level attraction or “perfect matches”—creates unrealistic expectations and a superficial understanding of what love truly is.
This commodified view of love turns it into a checklist—something to be bought, planned, and consumed. As a result, love is no longer a profound, individual experience but a product to be consumed by the masses. Society encourages people to treat love as something to be acquired with the right tools or strategies, reducing it to a predictable, transactional exchange.
In traditional societies, love was not viewed as a “mass activity” in the way it is today. Relationships were often arranged or supported by institutions like religion, family, and arranged marriages. These institutions played a guiding role in where and how love could develop, even if it did not always align with personal preferences. Relationships were part of a larger social and cultural system, providing individuals with meaning and purpose. Though these systems had their limitations, they did not reduce love to mere transactions. Instead, love was seen as a force capable of transforming both individuals and society.
Commodification by Individualization: “Individualization solely within the larger manufactured understanding of love – Individualization aiding & fortifying the Commodification”
In contrast, love in the contemporary era is increasingly viewed through the lens of individualism. Finding a partner has become a personal journey, and the communal or institutional support that once guided relationships has weakened. Dating apps, matchmaking services, and self-help books promote love as based on individual choice, attraction, and personal preferences. In this view, love is more about fulfilling personal desires than creating something new or transformative. People often seek compatibility, physical attraction, or social status, turning love into a personal arrangement—an exchange based on needs rather than a deep, collaborative connection. (The commodification itself takes place by virtue of this individualization as all the individualized services indeed take place within the larger manufactured understanding of the love and thus, strengthening the same).
Modern media and consumer culture shape contemporary understandings of love, suggesting it can be easily found if you follow certain steps or use the right tools. This framing reduces love to a product to be consumed, rather than something that emerges from meaningful, disruptive experiences between individuals. As a result, love becomes disconnected from its potential to challenge existing social norms and create new forms of relationships. Instead of transforming people and society, love is shaped by market forces—what is considered “lovable” often depends on what is trendy or commercially successful.
The commodification of love alienates people from its deeper, more radical potential. Rather than allowing love to disrupt their thinking and relationships, individuals are guided by external factors—media trends, societal expectations, and market-driven ideas about what love should look like. This weakens love’s ability to inspire genuine emotional connection or social change, making it more predictable and mundane. When love is shaped by market forces, its transformative potential diminishes, reducing it to a mere commodity.
Consequence: From “Transformative force” to “Mundane Activity” by virtue of ALIENATION
Love, in its most profound form, is not a commodity to be mass-produced or consumed. It is a singular, transformative event—one that arises from deep collaboration between two people, pushing them to transcend their existing realities and create a new space together. This is the true nature of love, and it is this deeper understanding that we must reclaim to resist its commodification.
The market seeks to alienate individuals from this deeper, more radical sense of love by turning it into a predictable, consumable experience. By framing love as something that can be engineered, bought, or consumed, the market diminishes its ability to disrupt societal norms and create new patterns of connection. In doing so, love becomes a potential threat to market-driven institutions, which strive to keep it within consumption, imitation, and conformity. Only by recognizing love as a transformative, unpredictable force can we reclaim its radical potential and resist the forces that seek to reduce it to a predictable, mass-produced commodity.
The views and opinions expressed by the author/s in this article are their personal opinions. You can contact the author/s at [email protected] The details of the author/s are:
Dr. Ashwani Kumar is an Assistant Professor (Sociology) at UILS, Chandigarh University, Punjab (India).
