Lecture
10 : The Integration of Economic Systems
We
will deal here with economic anthropology, a field which in many ways was founded
by Malinowski.
Malinowski’s fieldwork with the Trobriands was perhaps the first really good study of
economic institutions in a non-literate society, and revealed the extent to
which economic life in non-literate societies was s complex as our own,
although in very different ways.
Economic
anthropology is not easy to teach, because Westerners regard our economic
system as "right" or at least that humans have a "natural"
tendency to want to "truck, barter and exchange" (A Smith). And we
all today (both economist and the man in the street) have largely accepted marginalist economic thinking which assumes that marginally
(in "close call" situations) supply demand mechanisms work to
determine prices [in the long run of course the cost of production is primary]
Anthropology
[like the other social sciences] has a kind of ambivalent attitude toward
economics as a discipline. Economics has (for the last fifty years or so]
attained acceptance as a "science" in both the popular mind as well
as among the academic and political elites, to an extent envied by other social
scientists. Never mind the fact that economists are not "right" anymore
than anyone else — they are perceived as being so. (This is a problem in the
sociology of knowledge —— why do we continue to heap prestige of economists in
spite of their dismal record? This probably has to do with the fact that
economic knowledge ——even if wrong—— serves as a means of legitimating power in
our society, and thus we need to believe that it is "scientific".]
Most
economic analysis (excepting, of course. economic
history] is based on the simple technique of holding "culture" [that
is non—economic factors] constant. Based on a notion of a rational self
interested, greedy, calculating, foresightful
individual one assumes that, even if such an individual did have other
(non-economic) motives, they can be safely ignored or held constant. Given a
rational, calculating, self interested economic actor, and assuming that he
lives in an unchanging culture, you can then presumably develop models to
predict and understand changes in the economy.
The
problem is, of course, that this is all a fiction: man is not intrinsically a
self interested, greedy, calculating, money making machine, and he does
live in a culture which is constantly changing.
Most
economic analysis (excepting, usually, economic
history] is based on the simple technique of holding "culture" [that
is non—economic factors] constant.
"Reason"
and rationality are always subject to culture. People may choose to buy
something because the price is right, but they may also choose because they are
under some social pressure to do so. Prestige and taste are very powerful
economic factors. Lobster, today, is a big delicacy, but 100 years ago they
were regarded as inedible nuisances (as the Tausug mostly do
today —— I was regarded as rather weird because I ate lobster.)
Does
a Rolls—Royce function more efficiently that a Honda? Maybe a
little, but ten times as much? (this of course
raises the important distinction between use value and exchange value
– a Rolls has a lot of exchange value but (to me at least) very little use
value, while a glass of water normally has lots of use value but little
exchange value).
It
would be much more efficient to slaughter all cattle as veal, rather than feed
them, but we do like beef on the whole more than veal.
Aristotle
was right: man is not an economic animal, but a social one, not searching after
acquisition of material possessions, but social good will, status, prestige.
Possessions are only valuable to achieve this.
That
we managed to have convinced ourselves that Aristotle was wrong, and that man
is primarily an economic animal, made in the image of Milton Friedman, tells us
more about our culture than it does about man in general.
In
non—literate societies, indeed in probably all human
societies prior to the industrial revolution, the economy was submerged by, and
embedded in, social relationships. The idea of an autonomous
"economy" is a very recent idea —— not much more than about 200 years
old. But it has so dominated our sensibilities that the tail has increasingly
come to wag to dog. That is, the "economy" was abstracted first from
the rest of social relations, and then increasingly the "economy" has
cannibalized the rest of society. So that there is precious little in our world
today which is not powerfully constrained by what appear to
us to be autonomous economic institutions.
We
assume that the economy "runs" because of certain very simplistic
ideas of human motivation: people want to avoid pain (deprivation, starvation,
etc] and ultimately to gain (that is, acquire more in the way of "the good
life"]
"No
pain, no gain" —— basic (and very simplistic] premise of our system. Now
this is a most peculiar idea, indeed and it is not shared by most of the
world’s cultures.
For
example, Tausug work very hard, probably harder than most Americans do ——
although they do so at their own pace ——no nine to five mentality! But when I
asked why they worked, they invariably said it was to fulfill social
obligations— expectations of others. Not to get ahead, and certainly not to
avoid starvation.
Their
motives for economic activity were as diverse as their motives for any other
kind of social activity.
Unmixed
simple motives are not a good basis for any complex human institution. Basic
human institutions abhor unmixed motives. Economic institutions can
no more reliably depend on fear of hunger, or greed, or "desire for a
better life" than, say, the family could be based entirely on sex. (The
only institution which could be entirely and only based on sex would be a brothel.
The family is in fact based on a great mixed bag of motives, as is any complex
economy. )The peculiar thing is that we continue to think, about our economy as
if it were based on very simplistic motives, which of course it is not.
Our
own Western society is unique in the extent to which the economy has been
abstracted from the rest of society, and then in turn has cannibalized that
very society. How did this come about?
1. First, the technological innovations of
the industrial revolution itself, which made possible a vast increase in
material production. There were many basic inventions involved here (steam
engine, spinning jenny, cotton gin, mechanical clock, etc)..
most of these actually came from
2. Second, there was, for the first time,
the treatment of land and labor as subject to market forces. A fully free
market for labor and land is only about 200 years old or so. What is meant here
is that for the first time labor and land could be traded (bought and sold) as
if they were commodities. The price of labor as a commodity is called
"wages", and the price of the use of land was called
"rent." Now this transformation is more profound that it first
appears. Traditionally the value of labor (that is, what it was
"worth") was fixed by custom, or notions of justice and fairness
rooted in religion, or social obligations deeply embedded in ongoing social
relations. And the value of land was similarly figured in relation to the
land’s place in the social system. But once land and labor became part of the
market, they began to have a "price" and it was not long before it
was assumed (as we do today) that its "value" was merely its "price"
neither more nor less. There is of course a legacy of the old medieval ideas of
"just price" rattling about in the background, and the socialists
have their own take on this problem, but the ideology of free market capitalism
just keeps on going, particularly in the US.
To
us, all value is merely "price", and price is determined by the
market, and the market is just what willing buyers are willing to pay willing
sellers, then value becomes nothing more than individual subjectivity. In
short, all value is desire -- the more people desire something, the more value
it has. There are no objective standards of (economic) value, and we have
indirectly come to think, no objective standards for other values either.
‘Different strokes for different folks"
Furthermore,
the matter is even more complicated. Because if you
have general purpose money [that is, money which is usable for all economic
transactions] then everything become convertible to anything else. Money
is the universal general purpose solvent — everything (or almost everything]
"has its price", as we say.
(General purpose money is money which is used as a means of exchange, a
standard of value, and a means of differed payments)
Actually
the complexity of Western economic life is the complexity of our technology and
system of production, The system of allocation is actually very simple, being
based solely on the principle of market driven prices, In many non—literate
societies, the system of production may be simple, but the system of allocation
quite complex.
There
are two major subsystems in economic life: the system of production, and the
system of allocation and distribution. It is easily confused in the West,
because allocation and production are linked by the fact that both the goods
themselves, as well as the principles of production, enter the market.
Now
the basic problem of economic anthropology is to study the way in which the
factors of production and allocation can be institutionalized in the relative
absence of a supply demand market.
An
extremely brilliant economic historian by the name of K. Polanyi
has identified three "principles of allocation," These are market
exchange, reciprocity, and redistribution.
1.
Market Exchange
This
is exchange based on the principle of the exchange of goods at prices fixed by
the so-called law of supply and demand. Now supply means the availability of
any good or service at any given price, and demand means the demand at any
given price. In theory the demand curve and the supply curve will meet at some
point -- the so called equilibrium price. But this is seldom ever realized in
practice.
Market
exchange in the capitalist West presupposes on a system of contracts between
comparative strangers, and a state apparatus and legal system to enforce them.
We must note that supply and demand are present in most exchange situations,
but in only the market economy is supply and demand the basis of the system for
the allocation of prices.
2. Redistribution
This is a system in
which goods move toward some administrative center and then are reallocated by
the authorities at the center. An example of this principle
are modern tax institutions. which function
indirectly to redistribute the wealth in the society,
Example:
In Bible
considerable mention of collective grain stores under the headship of the king.
Apparently large quantities of grain moved toward an administrative head under
the king, and then were redistributed out again.
3. Reciprocity
Reciprocity is
the principle of the reciprocal gift. Marcel Mauss, a
brilliant French sociologist (in his Essai sur le Don), has shown that there are really no completely
"free" gifts, but rather the receipt of a gift involves some
obligation to repay. This is the "rule of reciprocity": a gift given
must be repaid (however variable the cultural terms of repayment may be). There
is also a "sentiment of reciprocity" which in general is probably
universal, which is that it feels good to give and to receive in some emotional
sense.
Christmas is one
great American institution of reciprocity. Basic rule of Christmas: equal
status means equal gifts, unequal status -- unequal gifts. Two brothers
supposed to exchange roughly the same value -- may give each other a necktie,
which makes as much sense as doing each others washing, but the purpose is not
just economic but to solidify a bond. If one cousin breaks the rule and gives
the other 100 dollar gift, other cousin feels that this is really aggression,
and that he has been up staged. Reciprocity is certainly common in some
subcultures in American society (e.g. political favors, reciprocity in
organized crime) but hardly holds the economy together -- you could eliminate
it without major catastrophe.
We can
distinguish between specific reciprocity
and generalized reciprocity. In
specific reciprocity there is clear obligation to directly repay the person
from whom the gift was received, and people more or less keep track of who owes
whom. In generalized reciprocity the assumption is that the gift will
eventually be repaid by someone, sometime, but the details are not specific – a
bit like the Buddhist idea of karma, if you will.
Good example
here: drinking behavior. Depending on the subcultural
context and variability in small groups of friends, if you buy someone a drink
in a bar( or are bought one) there may be a specific
obligation to repay on that occasion, or there may be an assumption that
eventually the favor will be returned, perhaps at some future time. In
Australia (in my experience) there is a mixture of generalized and specific
reciprocity at play among mates drinking together. If you find yourself in a
"school" --as in school of fish – of mates in a bar, everybody has to
buy a round. If you have been bought a drink you cannot ( or
should not) leave until you have bought a round. In a large school I soon
discovered that the trick was to get your "shout" in early. By
waiting to the end to buy your round you would spend less money, but probably
end up on the floor.
Most actual
economies display more than one of the above principles, In America, the market
is dominant, but there is some redistribution (in the form of government
taxation) and reciprocity in the form of gift giving, but is peripheral.
In other
societies, while the market may be present it is peripheral, while some other
principle is central in the integration of the economy.
The
Trobriand Economy
Trobriand economy
well recorded system, by the work of both Malinowski
and Weiner, and others. All of the principles of allocation are present, but
reciprocity is central.
Domestic Labor,
Domestic Consumption
A Trobriand
household, primary unit of subsistence production, is
also the setting for everyday subsistence consumption. (In most non literate
societies – indeed even among the ancient Greeks-the household was the primary
economic unit). {The origin of the word economy refers to the Greek oikos or household
The division of
functions within the household is strictly defined. The woman has to cook the
simple food and does not require much preparation. The main meal is taken at
sunset, and consists of yams, taro, or other tubers, roasted in the open
fire—or, less frequently, boiled in a small pot or baked in the ground— with
the occasional addition of fish or meat. Next morning the remains are eaten
cold, and sometimes, though not regularly, fruit, shellfish, or some other
light snack may be taken at midday.
One important
point about the planting of gardens is that people plant more yams than they
can possibly use themselves, and overall the Trobrianders end up letting a fair
portion of their total yam production rot (although some of the surplus is fed
to pigs). Most of the yams are used in elaborate patterns of exchange, which is
at the foundation of the Trobriand economy. It is interesting that when a man
plants a garden he distinguishes between an
subsistence garden a yams produced for domestic consumption) and an exchange
garden (yams intended for exchange). In fact, a man who plants and tends an
exchange garden does not really own the yams They
belong to the persons for whom they are intended.
(Important note
here: men use magic exclusively in their exchange gardens. This is important in
the light of Malinowski’s theories about magic. The
Trobrianders are expert gardeners, and there is little uncertainty about being
able to produce enough to satisfy subsistence needs. But there is uncertainty
in the extent and quality of one’s exchange obligations – and this is where
magic is needed)
It is necessary
to identify six institutions identified by the Trobrianders:
1. Wasi
A
kind of "fish and chips reciprocity" in which fishing villages
exchange fish with villages in the interior. The exchange is done on
the basis of a system of standing partnerships with a fixed rate of exchange,
At harvest time a man from an interior village comes down and sets quantities
of yams in front of his partner’s house, This is an indemnification and the
partner is obligate to return an equivalent amount of fish, The fishermen bring
in a haul of fish which is then taken directly by the inland people. When a
large haul of fish arrives in an inland village it is distributed by an
institution called sagali. The number of
bundles of fish is strictly equivalent - the number of bundles of yams but the
number of yams and fish may vary with the supply, These exchanges cannot be
made with just anyone but only ones trading partner, These partnerships have a
religious sanction,
Wasi creates a debt structure
among the villages, but this is a system of indemnification rather than credit,
If one is faced with a supply which is unusually large, this is expressed not
in terms of fluctuations in the "price" (there really is no
"price" in this at all) but rather in pressures on the trading
partner to take more.
2. Kula
While
wasi is an exchange of necessities for
subsistence, Kula is an exchange of treasure items only, there is no
point in keeping these treasures, but the moral value only resides in getting
them so as to give them away again. Two major kinds of valuables (or vaygua) : large
white arms shells, and shell necklaces. These travel in opposite directions in
the ring.
The
Trobriand Islands form part of a larger Archipelago off the SE Coast of New
Guinea. While the cultures of these islands have mutually influenced each other
by diffusion, the customs and languages of each group are quite different. Yet
they are united into a giant ring of ceremonial exchange several hundred miles
across, so that each "tribal" group is a unit within the whole
circle.
What
they exchange around the ring are two kinds of ceremonial valuables also
classed by Trobrianders as vaygu’a. Each
kind is exchanged around the ring of islands in a different direction. Soulava, long necklaces of shell discs, move
clockwise around the circle. Mwali, white
armshells travel counterclockwise.
It
is hard for Americans to understand what makes man engage in such exchanges,
The answer lies in what Veblin called conspicuous
consumption, As the treasures circulate , value
attaches to them in terms of who owned them, and value is infused to the
valuable in terms of its history.
Every
man has seldom less than five or six kula partners,
and a chief may have thirty or forty. The trick is to get your partners to give
you more valuables than they give their other partners. This is done partially
by giving second grade treasures likes boars tusks or dogs teeth, which further
indemnify the other,
The
closest analogy in our culture is stamp trading or baseball card collecting, or
collecting and trading memorabilia from famous movie stars, etc. However, this
often works on the market principle where kula works
on the principle of reciprocity, Kula is not economic in the sense of providing
livelihood but it does indicate that people often trade merely for the prestige
of doing so.
Why
don’t people cheat, you may ask? Well, the question itself tells us more about
our culture and its assumptions . We might well ask
"Why do we pay our poker debts?" The answer is clearly because we
want to continue to play the game, and the game is usually more important that
the money.
3. Gimwali
Accompanying the kula expeditions, but not limited to them is another form
of exchange, called Gimwali, This is the
moneyless exchange on treasure goods in terms of a market principle, Just as the
acceptable behavior in kula is ceremony and decorum,
so the acceptable behavior in Gimwali is higgling and haggling, A man will never have Gimwali with his kula partner but
he may have gimwali with the kula
partners of other men on the expedition. Gimwali also
refers to the everyday barter of yams, fish, manufactured articles such as
pots, spatulas. knives, etc.
4. Pokala
Pokala is an asymmetrical
presentation to a status superior. There are a number of different kinds of
transactions which fall into the category: presentations from junior members of
a subclan or clan to senior members, or to other high
status persons. The obligation to return on the person of superior status is
protection, the prospect of future status, prospect of future material reward.
One kind of Pokala is a "tribute" which a man gives to the
headman of the village. The headman then redistributes it in terms of sagali.
5. Sakali
This is a huge
feast in which a man returns the payment given him in pokala
or urigubu, This is a redistributive
institution.
A sagali is a distribution of food in
connection with some ceremonial or special occasion—a mortuary feast , a commemorative feast, a competitive enterprise, or
the like. Prestige in the system is achieved, expressed, and validated by being
able to give away large quantities of food, to sponsor a feast, a war
(formerly) a cricket match, a work project etc. Thus an important leader of a
village or district gives away in sagali much of what
he receives.
The most
spectacular distributions of food and valuables apparently come in the mortuary
distributions after a death. Here, women play a dramatic and central role, even
though Malinowski published no detailed information
on women’s exchange systems Only with Weiner’s research in the Trobriands in the early 1970’s did it become apparent that
the men’s world of high finance and exchange is complemented by and intertwined
with a system where women publicly exchange symbolically female valuables and
compete for high stakes of prestige.
When a person
from a woman’s own subclan dies, she and her fellow subclan women give away vast quantities of women’s skirts
and especially of banana-leaf bundles (as many as 15,000 of them) at a special sagali mortuary distributions, one of long
series mortuary distributions. "In this ceremony women are the major
actresses on-stage in the. center of the hamlet
playing a role every bit astough kind aggressive and
competitive as a - - - man" (Weiner 1974).
A woman also
plays a central part in the distribution after her father death, and o lesser
part after the death of another person in her father’s subclan.
We have seen how a woman acquires skirts and bundles from her husband and from
her husband’s kinswomen to whom she has given baskets of yams. She also
acquires wealth to finance lavish mortuary distributions by strategically
investing yams she and her husband have received as harvest presentations from
her male subclan relatives, and by making salable
craft goods
6. Urigubu
This is an annual
contribution of food to the sister’s husband As much a three quarters of a yam
crop is given as urigubu or Pokala, hence a man is dependent for much of
his prestige food on his wife’s brother, Actually, the gifts might be seen as
going to their sister, although that is a question of perspective.
The presentation
of yams to another household -- which stores them in a special building for
display purposes—is very different from cooking them for food. Cooking yams for
food, in Trobriand terms, is not a realization of a real productive effort, but
something one avoids if at all possible.
The reciprocation
of this at least part is that skirts and bundles, distributed at a mortuary
feast flow from the sister (who gives them to her husband) and then back to the
wife’s brother.
Another aspect of
urigubu is that fact that since only chiefs
can marry polygynously , they get more yams than others, but eventually have to
convert part of it to pigs and then give a big sagali..
If a chief
received wither urigubu or pokala,
he returned often minor kula valuables. This
functioned in a sense of keeping the kula valuables
from being held by one man.
The class saw the
film: "The Trobrianders" made by Annette Weiner