Intangible Materialism: Critiquing the Linguistics of the Virtual Marketplace

A recent article by Rob Walker explored the notion of ‘immaterialism’ in the virtual marketplace. Using examples such as virtual gifting, digital collectibles, avatars in virtual worlds, and even phone apps, Walker explores the notion that the virtual goods we purchase online are just as effective as material items. He very perceptively notes that conspicuous consumption exists albeit in a virtual environment, therefore one can be a ‘material girl’ in a virtual world. However, the conception of ‘immaterialism’ is in itself contradictory and a proper term should be forwarded.

In considering ‘immaterialism’ as a concept, it is important to first accede that “time changes all things; there is no reason why language should escape this universal law.”1 By allowing for change, Saussure recognized that when linguistic signifiers (words) change, so might the linguistic signified (meaning). One of his examples is the Latin word necare, kill, which became the French word noyer, drown. So, it is natural for words to change and meanings to change along with them. However, in the linguistic tradition, “the action of time combined with the social force keeps language from being a simple convention that can be modified at the whim of interested parties.”2 Simply put, meanings cannot be changed or amended haphazardly.

In the case of the term ‘immaterialism’, it is important to note the definition of the term. Immaterialism refers to a critique of materialism made in the 18th century by Irish philosopher and bishop George Berkeley. In refuting materialism, he argued that “if all knowledge comes from the senses, nothing has reality for us unless we perceive or have perceived it.”3 The philosophy of immaterialism forwards that even tangible items exist only in the subjective realm. Any additional meaning ascribed to the term ‘immaterialism’ should recognize the potential to be affected by and also to circumscribe this previous philosophical definition.

Departing from philosophy and linguistic tradition, what Walker suggests is assigning a new and, I will argue, incorrect definition to the term ‘immaterialism’. This new conception of ‘immaterialism’ takes the term materialism (highest value is placed in material objects or material well-being) and adds the prefix im- in order to recognize that the good purchased is virtual rather than tangible. This presents a contradictory definition since, on one hand, the prefix im- denotes ‘lacking’, but while the virtual marketplace may be lacking a great deal, I think that Walker will agree that it is abundantly materialistic. On the other hand, the term immaterial refers to that which is unimportant or irrelevant, but as Walker argues, virtual gifts, apps, and collectibles are important, relevant, and effective. So, then, what is the form of materialism that is occurring through the practice of virtual consumption?

If we are to agree that (a) virtual consumption is occurring and (b) virtual consumption generates a form of materialism, the practice should be defined correctly. The form of materialism that occurs through virtual consumption is tangible by proxy. Virtual consumers need certain tangible resources and tools: electricity, a computer, a modem, a router, an internet service provider. The ISP, in turn, needs resources and tools: labor, servers, racks, an office. In all of this, there is no lack of tangible goods and services being consumed. However, when we purchase and consume a virtual item, we are also engaging in intangible materialism, where a high value is placed on the consumption of intangible goods or services. Any argument otherwise would be immaterial.


1 Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Eds. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, (Illinois: Open Court. 1983), 77.
2 Ibid., 78.
3 Durant, Will and Ariel. The Story of Civilization, Part VIII: The Age of Louis XIV. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), 594.