B. P. Thompson and Moral Economies
Marc Edelrnan
Britirh cultural histor;an Edward Palmcr Thompson ( 1924 93) ,Iisht well hive bccn a revercd ancestor fbr today's anthropologisrs, but instead he is Jikc a specter whosc traccs ir€ ub;quitous but who remains aLnost invisible. Thompson was a socisl constructiorlist bcfore social constructionism, a fervent antistructuralist bclbre fte poststmctunlist turn, 3n carly ProponeDt ofthc ;mportance of"agen y" and "exPeri irce" in social analysir, ud a tcn.rdous polcmicist :uld milihnt intclcctual before anthropology embraced activism. Yet whilc Thompsot]'s ideas pcrvrdc contemPor'ry Inthropology, his direct irlluence ir acknowledgments, citltions' explicit recognition is Nrprisingly slight. A search (in lune 2011), of thc Americar AntluoPolosical Association's onhr Anthrosourcc databasc, which indcxes over 30 journals and profcssi
A C|npnnr, r0 Mor"l A"tht|tarrl, Iist Edition Edited 6v Didier fas\nr' O 2012 jlnm Wilev & soN, h..lublished 2012 b{ lohn lvile-v & Sons. rnc 50 MARC rr,rr.M** of moral economy wrs "immensely attractive to political antlropologists," although shc acknowledgcd obliquely that much ofthis "ittra.tion" actmlly certered less on Thompson than on Imes Scoft's TLe Mofutl Econo$r of the Pe&sant (t976). vincent rlso view€d Thonrpson iis a fouDdadonal figue in legal antbropology (particulirly his Whi!! and. Ha\ten,1975) and io efforts to qrestion 'the consensus model of law" (1990: 422 423). Several anthropologisis in the broad movement to bnng history "bickin" (e.9., Gcrald Sidcr,Iein:tnd ]ohn Comar,ft) refer to Thompson in pa$ing, but mairlly to invoke his name as lcgitimation fbr dreir orvn nrtellectual projects. Thompson colabonted briefly with ]ack Goody (Gooc\ et d. 1978), one ofthe few mthropologists on the editorial board olthe progressive joumal -l'ltrt d-J'b"rr, but on m anthology lhat alDost exclusivcly involved Euopean social histor;ans. Benjamnr Orloret (1997) analF;s of an early tirantieth-century urban lix rn,t in Chile cmployed a Thompsornan moral economy liamework, bttt this was unusual for the anthropological literiture in its explicit, extensivc adoptioD of Thompson's nodel. Williarn Roseberry ( 1989), almost alonc amons anglophonc anduopologists, dealt at length and appreciatively ilbeit criticaUy - lvith Thompson's theoretical legicy, but even he vras more enamored of k].mond Williams, whom Thompson lsmbasted in a blistering 1961 attack in Nrv LeJt Revierl. This essay points first to intefclatiols betq-een Thompson's bn)graphy, thnrking, and methods that help to explain his theorctical orientation and scholarly pnctice, as wcll ,s anthropologists' rclative negl€ct ofhis work It dren examincs rhc origirls and subsequent t.ajectories ofthc coocept ofmoral econom,v, rr$ably dre contribution by ThompsoD that his hid and continucs to have thc mosr impact in anthropolog] and allied fields. The essxy rho attempts to furthcr uopack the prolbundlv Foliricrl content ofThompson's concept of "moral" and argucs that his research agenda and scholdy concerns wcre incxtr;cably bound up with his life as aD rctivist so much so drar it is impossiblc and indccd misleading to speak rboui one and oot the othcr.
EARLT LIFE oN THE LEFT
R€ad€rs who were not rnrcd h leli-wiDg families betwccn the 1930s and the 1960s or who werc not otherwise immcrscd i,r the sectariin politics ofthxt period nliy 6nd it difficult to comprehend the sourcc of the paisn)nate, acerbic, polemical stylc of argum€ntation tllat p€rmcat€s L. t'. Thompson's vriting. Thompson was a man and an inte ecrual ofthe t-eft bclbrc hc becane a historian aDd hc ncvcr ccascd bcnrg a militmt .nd activisr. This simple rcality is the necessary starting point for ana\zing Thonpson, even it it ;s ignored or downplayed in thc rumcrous social scicntjfic €xegeFs that abstract fiom politics his contnbutions to thc "rgcnc,v" vcrsus "struc' ture" debate, to undcrstandings of law ot to discussions ofmoral cconomy. As Bryan
his blists of intcreftion wdc powered by ese a\ wcll ds by 1o!e. xvcn whcn he ras whisperidg for cflacr his voic. ws loud, lis prcsentation dtumric, Ns Ncry word drd gesturc ihcarically explosive. W1rc[ Thomps,n sct his sighrs on an c\i1, it $'as widl a cdnon, drd he would ht n slip by... His pld.c ofchoice... was one ofopposirion, 'ever a rone ofuntulGlled political €ngagem.nt rcgisreled in retusrls that {e.e as consistently po*ertul as they werc unfaiJingly inpolitc. (1994: 8) r. T- H{)MPSON JND MORAI ECONOMIIs 5I ThompsoD .cad history at Cmbridgq btrt he ncver did graduite work. He joined tAe Communist Party of Grcat BritaiD (CpcB) a. rge 18, in 1942, before cntering dre military. Hc saw comblt as a tank connandcr and fbndtv rccallett the wrrm qcl,orncjrJ rhc wh( hc rcLcited,,, ,m. l vjtJsc. iI Lbrrurcd irrtr $hcn t,e woutd rLlinrih hrm\clf r\ a -conrnJc.- lo owing rtre rar hc pani,;rpared L !otunrccr coNtruction l,rigades nr Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, wherc his clder brother had died while fighring with communist pnrtisans igainsr thc Nrzis. His formation as a historjan owed at least is Druch to experienccs iike these and to the CpcB Historians, croup (which iDclrrded such lrmnMries rq M n.€ Dobb, Eric Hobsbawm, drd RodDey Hilton ) as it did to Cambridge and thc elite sphercs ofEnglish academia. about which he frequcndy cxprcssed mbivatcncc and even contenrpt (Thompson t978b: 38; t99l: 274 275,350 351; lGyc 1995). It was this sroup th:n nurtured his curiositv Jltour fi. linls ber$icr E glmJ ' R,{n rri( p,rr, rrrd r.:rh c:Jrn\, J ti\d ion which culminated nr lris epic literary political triosraphy of Williim Morris (l95S). Hnlir.r,rcaJernrcposiron$r'inrduh..lucJriolinrhrUnjre,.iaort.ds:I^L-- ..trcci\cty Mur.' DepJflrncnr. i piar Jrc iho\e b(.r,r\c ir oncrid rhc Morn, trtc possitr;lity of'naking sociilisri ar rhe sinre t;{nc as ;t open€d otrt irrro rew avcrues of lcarDingfor hnnself" (PalDrcr r994:65). Thc *-ork that ccrncnted Thompson's schot rrly reputii
fhompson's indignatioo about Louis Atthusser and his epigones was roote.l nor just in nisgivhgs abour thcir sclematic, ahistoncat vi€w of socixi chaDgc or then scorn for "sociJist humanisn\" btrt in diftirrcnces between tieir rcspectivc political Wl ic lh,{Ip.ofl Icfi rh( ( P('B,l(r rhc t056 'rricfl,'rii\. c\enr\, Atrhus\cr hr,t ioin(J rlk I rcnt.h C,'mnuni.r trr) ,l( F, in lo48 .Id c\cnl|rrlty be.rmc ir, oftic,at philosopher, chirged wirh developnrg r scholistic philosophical system rhat, atier 1956 and especially aficr 1968 (!vh€n rhe PCI allowcd him a ccrtain lecrvay to rlirt with Maoisrr), vould keep leftist inte ectuals loy to the par+ AlrlrLlsser, in Thompson's view, l]ot only misscd thc IC!,s heroic involvement in the Rcsistarce; his theory ofmodes ofproduction wasa pseudo sophis.icatcd version ofstalin'spam phlets ott M,trritm nnd Linguistics and or Dialecti t &ntt H^toricat Ma.teria.Iis%. wlrich had been sxcred wrir in the inrernational communist movemenf ,(When rhe ltlsn)Ds werc finally disp€lled, in 1956,,,Thompson dcclarcd, ..ir wls Althusser's busnress to sew tp peoplc's eyes and block thcir eas, to pur the whote corrupr struc ture off;rlsehood back in i mo.e sophisricated &,rm,, (r978b: 132) l
THoMpsoNts "ANTIIRopoLocrsst AND AN1ltRopol,oclsts' NEGLECT
Thompson was researchng and w.itins his most influeltiat historicat works at a timc when Althusser-hflucnced strucrural MarJdsts w€re iscendanr ir lrrench (Maurice Godclier, Claude Mcillissoux, Pieffc lhitippc R€n Emmanuel Tcrriy), British (Barry Hindcss, Paul Hirst) and US (Mrrshal Sanlns, tonarhan Friedman) anrhropolosv (and h Ldin Aarcrican cspecieliy Mexican - anthropotogy as rvell, althougi Thompson wrs likely unau,are ofthat). Rcnfto Rosaldo srggesrs rhat Thompson's 'disagreemenrs with mthropology rescmble his attacks on Louis Althusser's structu alism and his critiquc ofRaymoDd WiflianN, Dorion ofcutturc as consensus,' 09901 105,. I w, rrld .ugge.r m\rcrd rh I homp',n ncvcr r(J) .ngagcd ,.riou\ty srt, rhc dn'enity ofvicws ald approachcs withnr rndropology. Indeed, he conlbssed that his knowlcdge of tbe discipl;nc was '.intermifteot ani.t eclectic,' (1978a: 247); thar hc oversimplified Raymond Williams'work h the intcrests ofwinning ar arguncnrj and thit his polcmic aganNt Alrhusser urused him mtrch morc than trb rather tepid disegrecmcnts $irh anttuopololrists, rs Rosildo acknowledgcs in a footnote aod as ..Fotktore, anyone who compxrcs fhompson\ 1978 essays on Anhropology and Socil History" 1d "The Poverty ofTheory" will itnmeditely appreciare. Whilc Thonpson looked askmcc at the ahbtorical p()cliviries of Brirish social anthropology nr i6 structttral flDctioralisr phase, he was not avuse to usingit as a foil against econom;stic intcrpretations drat purportcd to exphh ivorking,class collective action with gnphs of price movements and that Ailed to takc account of popular cxperience and expcctations. :lhese, he commcnted, $,erc a maDif€station of
the sclizoid nrtcllc.tual clinare, $hich pcrmits this qruritative hisroriognphy ro .o exft (h th. sane places and somerimcs in th€ same mhds) with a sociat mthropolosy which derives lion Durkheim, Weber, oi Malinowski. We how att abour th. deticate tissu. of social noms dd .€cipro.ities which rcgularcs the life of Trobriand isldder. .nd lhc psycbic energies itrvolvcd in the cargo cuhs ofMclanesiat bur at une potu this iDfirtely comrlex social crearuc, M.lanesian mu, bccom.s ( our histoiies) the F- II, TI{OMISON AND MORT1L ECONOMIES 53
eightecnrh.ccntdy English collier$fio dlps his hand spasmodically upon his stomrch, dd.esponds ro elencntiry cconomic s nrli. (r97r: 78)
'fhis nromcntiry invocation of Durkncim and Malinovski, ho\€ver, was little morc than an adroit rhetorical dcvicc. Thomps()n sarv no placc for his ;ntcr€st in social conflicr and class-specific cultures in the antihistorical social sciencc of Durkhcim, RlddilTe Bft'wn, Parsons, mtl l-tvi Snauss, all ofwhom itl varyins ways €Ddnsized cquilibrium, stasis, and the generic charx(tcrhtics ofparticular groups or evcn ofal of humanity (Thompson r978a).'? History for Thonpson qas, above a , thc dhcipline of "contcxt" and 'procesr." fh;s mcant studlng cvidcncc $'ithin i6 lvhol€ hilrorical context,' rincc 'cach fact crD be g;ven mcaning only within an €Dscmble of orhcr mearings." "Context" wxs a fbrm of 'disciplift" igainst "abstnct typologicd air" rrd, Thomps()ll b€lieved, 1vould almost always render rhc lattcr worthlcss (1972, r978a). ".lust as thc historian who is innoc€nr of alduopological discipline may impose 20th-ccntury .ategorics won lTth'ccntury mat€rial," h€ wrotc, 'so thc anthropologically tr,ained may be in daDgcr of imposing catcgorics fiom a wholy different social culture ... Thc increasnrg tcrrdcncy to abstract somc anthropologicd or sociological turdhg lrom i$ context, and to t'louish it around is ifit w3s posscssed of some intrinsic value as a typolog,ical f:rct about all human societics is actively iniurious to history" (1972: 43). This emphasis on 'contcxt" also implied €xtreme cautio itbotrt cross-.r tural or trxnshistorical comparisom and.laims:
Thc prin.iplcs which cao be takc| rcrc &om onc $cie!.' ro rhc odrc d€ few, dtlnugh lrge h sig.ilicanc€j for $rmpl., rhe notion that ifa communitr t elic!$ that nagic works, ir rvill, within limits, u,ork Ghe nan who is cus.d will bcconr€ ill, ih€ dricfwho kno{s rhlr drc wizdd n searchtus him oul will, lin ftar ofdiscovcry, iet(n thc stolcn soods ...). (1972:47)
The historian, Thompson maintained, had toundcGtand evidence in close rclarion ship to tfie cultural sctting in which it was produccd. Concretely, this involvcd amarsing other, similff evidenc€ Fom the snmc pcriod ind ncirby locdcs; intcrro gdting the facts h rclation to othcr kDovledgc ibout the ways ofl;ti, the languagc, rnd thc subiectivity of the p€ople who produced them; and accounting fbr "the conditions ofrecording and preservation ofthe fact" (Calhoun 1994: 230). This t'?s "historical logic" and the corc ofThompson's ntcthod, and he saw it as somcthiug $holy distincr from and often opposed to :rnthropologicil practice and th;nking.l Evenworse ftxThompv)n rvns rhrr antlropologists did notsccm to get it.In "Thc Povcrty ofTheorv." ThompsoD rccalled bcing
in cmbridgc as 1 gucst et a scminar ofdistioFish.d ifttuopologists, wben I was $kcd to just-S a proposition,I rcplird ihar it was validatcd by'historicd logic." My courtcou\ h6rs dissolvcd nrt, undisg iscd laught€r I shared itr dre arNscmcnt, ofcourscr bur I $?s also lcd to rcilc.t np()n the "antbrcpological" sigrfic cc oith. €xchangc. For it is cusromary sddin th. rituals ofrhe r.ademy n)r the prlcdrioncrs of di*n.€nt disciplincs to profes rcsp.ct, lot so rnuch tbr thc findin8i of each othels disciplin€, as for thc authdti. .rcdentills ofrhar disciplinc irkli Artl if 1 s.mina. of historirDs wcre to laugh at a pbnGophcr's o. anrhrcpologr.st's vety credt tid&, (tbat is, thc logic or di$cipline 54 [r,al|c EDrt-n.\'\
centhr to rhcii pnclice) this wonld bc rcsarded as an ccasion for ofilnce. And rtr .,hisrorv, signfic$ce of rlts cx.hange wd that ir iras ve.y Beneralty slppokd rtDr was J,' e\c.p,:,,n ro n. I Jle: rlur hc JF. rptDc ..r'idt ro ir. frJcr.c( uJ\ n .\ cdlon hr laughrerj Dd thar, so fi. fton raking offeDcc, I, as a practitidrr {.ould joiD n th€ laushrei nyselt (1978b: 37i emphasis o.isinal)
Anthropologiits' relarivc negle.r of Thonpson cinnot be simpty exptxined rs reciprocity or rctaliation fbr his less rhan ftendly attitude towad thcm or, ;s Rceldo ..trave suggests, because the pcople they wrirc about cultural traditions whose antag onisms differ fion our o*n" (1990; 119). Thonpson,s epistenology aDd fonn ;f argumeot arc.halleDging for mthropologists_a Hc rarely made his theoreticat pren- ises explicit, but radcr sought to construct arguments by adducing more anctnore cases ard an nnassailably massivc rccretion of detail until he had b lt a conclujjvc arfiument-5 His crpositioD was recusile and nonlineaa intenvovcn with tieN diatrih.s adrer.,:nrs ag.urv l:rgc .rnJ .mJll. ta.r 'tnd pri\errr. Lrkc Marr. hi, largruge i. ofrrn ambiguous xn.l, surprisingly and ro the disappointment ofsone critics, he displayed ar "apparcnt lack of interest in th€ c€onomic workins ofcrpnalism" (Wood 1990: 136). Morcover, h;s advenanal stancc ris !,vis potiticat and scholar\ oppon€nts was doubtless troublesomc for the disciptine,s remaining rcsirivisrs. who masked their partialitics in rhe supposedly valuc Fee, neurrJt langragc that Thompson eschewcct
Thompson also wrote culture bound, vcry tsnglish $,orks rhat posc chalteoges to rcaden outsidc Enshnd. At over 800 pag€s, his magisrerial book on The Mqhinll oJ. the Endkb Worhin! Cl@ts is an intricate, beautilirlly and passionrtety wrinen work. It assumes not ody considerablc background abour irs most fimous protagonists (Willirm Gbbctt .nd William codwiD, amons ortrcrs), but ;tso a fne graiDcd knowledge of English regions and social types. Commenting on coDsasts beween Irjsh emisrants lrom differcnt regnnN of Iretand, tbr e{amplc, fhompson explains that they "differed as grcady Fon each other ar Cornish labourrs and Manchester cofton spinnes" (1963: 430-431), an allusion not recessarily acc€ssible to those unschoolcd in the Drinutiae of EDgtish history and g€ognptry. This..English" predis position is €very bit ls inrense in subsequcnt writings as iD rh€ M&ti"g.In; D72 ..a.so[isrs, essay he questioned why r colleague's list ofmob attacks oo witcies, and ,a scolds" incl ed an action "against skiDrmirgron,', (1972: 50) :md. in vet anothcr sorl. hc rncnooncd rhJr lo. rl rurh,'riric\ rirr.t rgaLr.r perq otrtnJ.n u h,, rrrctudcJ "badgers, forestallers and reg.arors" (1991:263), exprcssious that surelv sent more rhin onr re{dclrmning lor r di(1r,nJrv. Thomp.nl trim.ett $,j\ ,",.. of difficulty, admifting that "thcrc is, perhaps, too much sensibitiry nixed up wirh 'li.ny ,English thought - a relapse into an iajom' which may contuse international cxchanscs" (1978b: iii).
THr MoRAr EcoNoMY
ID his r978 essay on "Iolklorc, Anthropology and Sociat History," Thompson quoted Mrrc Blo. h's lrr Hrtrsan , CraI I l9r3t- notit)g rhrr -r,, rtrc grcJ| dcArir,,t:lxno rians, men fail to change their vocabulary every tim€ they chaoge theircustoms." Any !- r' rlloMlsoN AND MOIL{L ECONOMTES 55 $r'rk with th€ grdaR\r ,nlcstrurrion of moral dconom). thd asP"! ofTh"mpsun \ lndm.r ari bevonJ $c ol his'rv' uould do well to ..'"""i.. '[\'rPl$('l'homPson's i"J st.l,t","i.r. l his section c{amines use of moral cco,nornv' "a-""i;*. rssins throusl\ Th Maki'ta oJ'th" L"tish.work"lB il".-tt- in" w,rr-,' M,'rr'. P "j' hnglrrh cro$"'r CiLrnJhis Leleb.reJ l97l rticlc on'Thc Morrl Ee"nomv ol tltr MoEl JJ. i"r'i*"* c-*rn" and culmimtins with his rcEosPc'tivc cssav'Thc I tLrrD to thc appropflaton ii"*,m; Re'iewcd" ( l99l ). Follownrg this discussion, $holars "and trrniformation ofthc concept bv scvenlother irr.","'.'r:' ' ' iri nrorrl cc"nrnl c''rfl'tcd ru' irrrcffclJrcd mcrunts' "t".' '"orrl i'n I'nc lhJn rhc r)therl lhc tr\t rq oflhe word Lcomcrimc\ vith morc cmlha{is ;,""."f" - ."f",i"" ro "[rorcs" or custoars' with both understood as historic'] *".."tf'f" irl I l'bric rTho'nPson wrs partirl Io $ertints ".-".'. '*.^\oven 'ocial thc ;.;;;; r,,.':i;" ;,nifcrLrrion of tu' svrnpath) wi$ rns t ud'rr( subir.t\r' \b-d \rs soc'ery, rnc q'otur. ,.co;d rncJnins. or -morrt- rctrrcs r,, r pnncitl.d {JnLc ;;..;.j,X" ;" .".,"on good. wirh thc lrtter de rirred h"th in rcrm\ oliusromaJv .i-i"',"i *pr.rtio-n* l tuslrlis'hl thc lJricr' tururr-orier)rcd utopiin r\p<' r "i*l*ti;," i"uncreorlv rccolnizcd dime'rsiorr of rhomPsont Lon'tPtion ;il;.;"; ix' onen v,eucJ rt rcsrinjonlvon lorrs\trndirrg curtom in'i .' 'n hi\ hi(toricJ retr( h Mth nr\ "i:,1'.:."ri:and bc(ruse rr pro\rJes I connciting ttucrd rh'r linls co"'mitment-'rt',r".*,'"'. t,, th. pea.e move$ent in the I980s (scc bclow) *"i"' ,'l -th. mr)rai'$a alrtrdy evidcnr in hi\ fiBr hook' on.Focr rrcgor u of Jn}lsi\ rnd 3s a *a ,.,liri-. *,i"i', willirm Mt,rri{ { I('ss r' borh o a ' ,ltn* rn;f'"t.a rc his protagonist ln describitrg the €arlv nineteenth'centurv context, he wrotc drat
g All (JNr N'r'tt'dming The kribl. F, i,pheri( risn Blrtc $ ar bc(onu rcdl^J 'n ',1 rtc ;l;J ;';h'ii"' \rluc\ rhc m"kct. I lir'' bcrns Liousl't rnJ "'l'l Fk'I "t ticcinB ot mJnkrnd rum a nirrd.n rL rhi"",,r..'r sou.e tt rhc R'rmrnri' Rc\dlr - lbr th' ;;., r'. hhc'rln oims\'(n'c: rsun' ior equlrry .,1""", 'rfc'riom 'nd or t.nri." "rp*'"'"",ii." ,na s.r**" rhe *rc' rse hcing J*uov(d hv crth new trd\ince iDdosirill clPitalism ('l homPson l9ssl 43)
Fro'n tbn conrcnrPo AccorJi[s ro Thomp\orr, Morri\'s in'Piraii' Idcn\'dn"'iu'r .;'':il;;;;.t, ;'", riom -Lhc utopian asprr'ion< or rhc Pcrs'"ts or-nrercvai ' ress: 842r' ;;';:;,;;,h",,,'igt'r.a m"nl rn'lignation of \ir [homr\ M' trc ' "tocrrt rhe dtcl'ntivc rrs' p"rrti*J I'rsJ znrs Porirtcar ;':.;;;;;'; lnstc'td' ,r.li"i,u*, '; werc' Thontpson h"r€nts' all "muddlcd" rt bcst ""i ""-r,r.ism {n8le-'1'ntrihurion ro } Morn'. Jhim n' glcrtns mbr bc founded nor un rnv 8lFh. shid' unitct rl rnrormr c!cr) r\F( I .uhurc. ,n ,n( fi,:ld ionc. brrr on rhe guliw 'r ier hc Jrsnb*l * -tnor'l r'Jnm' it F rh' ii' i,. ."4 Tt'r' *Jin nrght :n\rshr .-.n.,i-",,r"',."r"""'r' hr(;nh $in\ !dmirJri'n fr Proro rnli mi'r'r "i r" JFsli{ i;;:;:i ;;";;: *"iins'"ilri' wh(h Bs* thcm rrri Mordr nc'\cr'oushr ii.';;; il;il;;;:iionrrdtair"^1r""r' rtr('n'mJrion or hi"'u'lr'('k'nJ in guidins bis actions. (I955: 828)
fiom broader historical prmess This individual qualitv w*s, horvcver, nrsepaable' and social struggles Moffis's 56 M^Rc !D1jLN!AN
moral crircna *crc dcrilcd til,m his undc.si dhg ofthe unfoldiDg asPnations ofm€D h history, and hjs direcr pcrccption of"realliviry mcr" in tht l.e*nt. Eve.y tioe hc.ut rlrough arl thc casu6trics dd soPhistier ro the rdderll'ing noml realitics' rhe Mkcd .ntas;nism ofcla$q, thc red miscry ofthc cxPlohed PeoPlcs, thc actualdenialoflifc irr clpiralisl socicty. (1955: 835)
The MarinA of the Engli'h Wolkir1t Clats (1963) .onr''ns a far morc dcvelop€d' if still somcwhat inchoate, lotior of moral cconomy. Thc contexr and Period - rhe industrial revolution -arc csscntiallythe same as the.a:Jy Part of WiU;a, Mo''tit,bnr thc Romantic pocts reccdc urd popuJar complsirts and voiccs take ccnter stage Thomp$n rnumerates 'thc gricvances f€lt bY \t'orking Pcople a! to changes in the chaficter of capitalist cxploitition":
rhe ns€ of a masterdass withort tndirional authontv or obligatiorsi th€ grosing disrucc bctwc.n mstcr aDd mini rhe rrinspdcncy ofthe cxPloitidon at dlc sourcc of their ncw wcalth and poweri thc los of statd and above all of nftcp'ndcnce for thc workcr. his r.ducrion ro roral dePcnd€lcc on thc ma\r€r's insiruments ofProductioq th' nrrnrlirv of Lhc llwi rhe dFrufri ,or thc dldiuonrl trmrlv e't'nontvr rht dts'tplirtc (onil,d,'ns r,l$ork. lci'urc JmrniDcsi thc m,rorony, bous rnJ los ol 'nd lrndl rcduction ofthc lnd to thc status of.n "instrum€nt." 11963.202-203)
This tension beivecn working pcopl€'s historical experiencc, .ratomary practices, and moral expectnrions, on tlrc onc hand, and thc cruel €xigcncies ofthe ncw indu$tr;al capitJist ordcr, on the othcr, is the ccDtral cxphDatory PrinciPle in Thomps Th. 'nc." h.torv'os .e. or l{sc hosier or cofton-mduh'tu'er' who btrilt hit forrune b]' thcsc Incds, was rcs ded not only with je.lousv but as ! nan eng'shs in t'd'lal a;d t/,/r/ practiccs. Thc lradirion ofthe ju$r Price {dd dre l.rir wasc livcd lon8cr mons the lo*$ ordc.s" thm is som.timcs suPpo*d l h.v sw las'zt'l" nor as freedoN' bur s "fo lmrrosition." Thcy could sct no "natural hw" bv $'hich onc nran' or a few (1963: men, cotrld eDsigc in Prdcticcs which brousht nriniFst injLrrv ro rldr f'll()ws 549: €dphrsis origidJ) Morcovcr, Ludditc direct actior ms Dor rn atavisn or a manif€station ofapoliticil or 'prE political' spont rci+6 It had, Thompson mairtain€d' tuturc orientcd, proforndiy democranc elements nnd wis both spontancous afld Highly orgrnize'I' d€p.ndins on thc moment md the localiry. Fr p. THoMPSON eND MOnAt, ECONOMTF.S Sz on.rhc,)ne hand ll look.d bJ, kqJrd ro otd (u{oh\ JnJ prcrnihr tcgi\huon which could udcr bL resvedi or drc orhcr b.nd *,.1,r,.r, ,,"" p."..i."1. r;;i."",i; il";.'lJi,lill,.ffi:,,111:::::*""i.-",;fff"[ $rS€i rfie condot or drL - - 58 M^R(r EDETMAN "factors," whosc operations werc '.lhedged around with many rcstrictnDs " Millers and bakeB, similrrly, wcre required to make suttcieot sopplies of the "coa6€r, houscbold" flours ind br.ads and werc considcred 'iser\aots of the community) workins not for a profit but for a f'air alowance" (1971: 83)' ln the eight€cnrh cntury this traditioral framework for Production and provisn'n came ude. increasnrg pressurc as firmers, dealers, millcr, arld bakers took advantage ol a modcrnizing agricultrrre and a rapidly tiberalting economy to circumvcnt th€ rules and ro press for what today miglrt bc called ftrthcr deregutatioo The violations ol widely hcld expe*ations and of hw, ho\'!'cver, provoked thc liequent ire of the poo., .rpecially ;" timer of dearth, gjvhg rise to seizures ofbrcad' grain ard fl()ur' crowds' lnsistcnc. on "sctting the Price," attacks on mills' anct thinlv veiled threats that those who sold "samplcs" at ingatcd prices, who benefitcd from export "bountics." or who otherwisc trarsgresscd bngstanding exP€ctations would sufer dir€ consequences. lhonpson demorstratcs that in times of plcnq' the aurhonties tended to reduce their cnforcement eftbrLs' but "the moraleconony," 'dle old model remained in inen's minds as a source of resentmeDt" (1971: 85) In scdcitv vcars' $hcn cuvds forned and riots brokc ort' th€ authorides xftemPtcd to reimPose tnditiolal practices, rbough $ith dinrinishinei cfTeciivencss over rhe coffsc of the cightee;dr centur)'. "Ihc crowd," Thompson iwote' "deived its sensc of the moral economy lcgitima&)n ... ftom the Paternitist Dodcl [but] in on€ rcsPect oithe crorvd brokc decisivcly with that oftbe pitemalists: for rhe popular crhic sanc rione.t direct action by the crowd, whercas the values of order underpindng thc paternalisr model enpluticrlly did not" (I97r:95,98) Onc of Thompson's signal cortributions was ro highlight dre extenr to rvhich "n rkcts" are pot;t. con'tr,rctio"s and outcomes of clsss struggle He provid€s copious exampics ofhow "crou'd pressurc" resultcd in pricc reductbn-s' ad hoc local sui,.idy and .h:rity p.,gr:tnrs, ,ind "Prudcnrial self restnint" on the pirt of flrmers and dealcn rvho hoped to precludc more injurious popula actions The laner secton a traditioral sougbt a mcdium "betwecn a soaring'economic' Price h the nlJJket' and 'rnoral'price scr by thc cK,wd" (1971: 126) Tlis occurred, lrow€ver' io "a sma er and nxrie intcented community" (t971: l3I), Lr a locaiized market' a place not onlv whclc "working people most often felt the;r exposure to cxPloitation" but also whcre "they cou'd most casily bccome organized" (1971: 134)' Thc narket rcnained a social as wcll as u econonic nexrs lt was rh' phce wh€'c oue hundrcd-and one sciil dd pcAonal timsacrions went oti {'here ncm was pdscd' shoPs rumour aD.l gosip fl€w round, politics ms (ifdcr)discussed in th' i sorwinc rrl(1 dre n;kei squde. Thc market was dre Phc€ whdc dr€ Peoplc, because thcv were nmeious, Llr fo. a noment thar thcv wer€ srors lr9Tl: 135) "Drre one suggest," Thompson later askcd, "thar market dav could acruallv bc tuDt" (1991: 3I9). ihat too is why the marketplnce beca$e a neNs ofconflict a'd struggle ln the eighteenth ccntury the conccpt ol markct or marketPlace thus evokcd a concrcte kiation, and one rif! with social rclations of'I knds Onlv larer' \'idl dre demise of thc Dn)rxl cc(Dom)', .lid rhe term "m3rkct" issrrme the m€txpboncal rnd detcrritorialized qudities that incrcasingly adhere to it The Political slcight of hand that accompaniej this scnantic shift involved making thc institutbfls and Poliric -- !. 1- IHOMISON IND MO!.AI ECONOMTTS 59 forces that acturlly shaped mdkets invisible, as wel as creating the appearancc ofa rpuate mct antonomous economic domain disembeddcd from society. The grear achievement of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, ard other classical political economists was, as Michael Pffclman (2000) dcmonstrites, to promote the extensior to new domains of "free" markets; meanwhil€ drcy simult ncously obscu.ed the brutal dispossession that accompanied the spread ofsuch markcts and promoted inrcrv€ntionist mea$rres, which thoroqhly contradicted liissez-faire doctrinc, to folcc rhc poor to work. THE ttMrGxATroN" o! MoRAt BcoNoMY Thc concept ofmoral ecoDony, is Didier Fissin suggestsj is a "bcautiful exrmple of transdbciplinary migration ..., invented by a historian and imported by a political scientist into inthJopolog,v, whcrc it knrw its greatcst success" (2009: 1246). Mrile it might be m exaggerition to mrintr;n drat moral economy vas invcntcd by a historian, it is doubdess truc that without Thompsor it would never have rttailcd such widespread acceptance. This migrrtion, however, has also inevitably invohad shifts in ne3ning. 'foday, mor,rl cconomy has become a polysemic catcgory with multiple geneakrgical strancls and contemponry intcrprctations.3 In "Th€ Moral Econollv Reviewed" Thompson locxtcd the 6rst menti{rN of "moral cconomv" in tbe late eighteenth and early ninctccnth centunes (1991: 336 337). Norcthclcss, there aDd elsewherc he rlso pointcd to several antecedents thar go mucb turthcr back. to ea.ly modern and evcn ancicnt timcs (1955: 842; l99I: 271). Th€se hclud€ the "momi" component ofArirtotle,s l'i*rromirr as a precunor of conte,nporary theo.ies of noril economy or "natural" econonry (f'aussig 1980; Booth 1994) lnd the Dedieval notion of the "jttst pd€c" developed by Thomas Aqrdnas (Zigon 2008; Lind 2010). lmportandy, as w€ , many rccent moral economy studies denvc not so much tiom Thompson c from others who h c adopted his termnrology and conceptuil appannrs, particululy political scicntist James Scott (and to a less€r extcnt Ra)'mond Williaos and Stuart Hall, who colabonrcd with Thompso' on Nrl, Il,ERcrr-rr and larcr in the 1980s peace movement). There ir, morcovcr, a proliftntion of "moral economy" an yscs in mcdic antbropology and elsewhcrc that employ thc tern in vays that escape the intentions ot' Thompson and Scott and that at times end up evisccrating the category ofm(\st ofits political and particularly its class content (scc (i,ndusion below). tn Th' Moral Econ,My ofthe Peasdnt (t976),tamcs Scott hews closely to Thompson's unde$tinding of "moral econony," though with less emphasis involvement in local lbod markets and more on produccn' values or morcs. These included peasmts' notions ol "just pric€s" (in luding "just" rents aDd trxcs), as 1vcll as othe. sorts ofertidements, such a-s access to lafld, gleanhg and tulring rights, riglts of wav rcross landowner propcrties, and redistrib(tive mcchrnisms and forms of reciprociry that linkcd pea$nts with elites and with each other. Scott's ipproach is also more conce ed witn developing r "phenomenological theory of exploitation" (1976: 16r ). Most peasar}ts in V€tnam and Btlrma, according to Scott, held deeply rcored vie\s about patron dicot relatn'ns and the right to "subsbtence security" 60 ,u{Rc ED!i"v,t\ aloTo: JS,..thcJninitc\trdIgc emtj/cdr\.nru,rruri\i.\thrlmishlLhrcrre,,,hn {cc,,rirv ,,d J,, u,rc, drcrd or,ho\i -rhrc\horrs.. ,,nii; prumrnct 0",, i;;;;il..",j; downward to huDgcr and Djscry (1976, r rbl.ir,*. ntntstiti,infttnhecomc[(vd(r.rmi,,"-,\ol$t,.... ,"1,j...". .i;,,J; r nr. i'rJid llt on rhc (or)Linuum ^""rr,;,,.;;t;;.;;:.;i;".' ber$ccn ,(cmmB, qurc\cencc rnLt oDcL.b.lti-n rrrrrrncrrr.,,trJ,,e.,^,, _-S.orr'' a" i,rr.gr.t pan-.,,, *g.,;;,;,;;;; ;,;',,;:... rrurrn,: sv.rrm ot confiictUdt clr., r(huo ,. t_vc rh{ ot, hi\ h^,,t hircl),"'cn,ioh o, .irc\ rhump\o,,.5,,,. .t,,,.d ;;;;;.;:;,'..,;:..1 $ irh ( lJ* (,,| ",,h;-, licr Jr.d JJ* bAid L,,flc. rj\ c -. rion. ,._, fr,.., _ ,* -r.r"i0.",,".,, R(vi,,,cd- -,r). rhi,mp*,n burr, p, J'\(J s.", r".;;;,; "".r " ",.Jii, ;;:;];l u,'ti.r \'h.'hr. w,{k\,,,utJ bc r \Lpfcr} .t,,pc ir riom cti* ..r rr uen ' in well r moral cconomy is a scb ol df€ct snurat€d ulfts drat stud 3nd ftncrion a"n".a ."r*i""'irip - ,nother In ttls usase' "donl" cdis its tull cmPl€mnr of "* rr\onJn rrr'c'dr''niehrn(pa(lrol trnJ , iph,e.nrh.dJ ni;errrnrr (rnruD ' '6irJ ,b:"",-.'....Herrr,,dr,rJ'uhd\"drl:bca'r)odrrJlonrJrinsrr relir''o'r" ! rrce' hu rherr^ -...... r... r"t'' r Dod'rtior'.i1odi'rihrrrr'rornrcnJl a- ,',.r".-.1 *'.-'1,i, a:'p1.1'r(rr.rn rcFrlJritic' rcg"lrndL Lrtrr r* c'pLicrhlr bur ; a r!lJrJed or em i r i"*", i" ir a.nu. n .ont- "no''\ 'v\rcm 'nnrl '1, 'r., (1995: forccs, with"'"a'.'"r.n cquilibrit$ Poinis rnd constnjnt' 4) ic ngo{ and Drston's lrlanl.oncern is to erplain rhc rise ofnormativ€ systens ofscient ,,,,inti6.ition !ncc rht sn.nricrrrh ccnrurv r\ -lorm\ u-m"Ei obtigJri"n J'rd 'L'ri nti'.-,19o5 llrr.-Mi,ralohlig,:ri,,n. 'lr..trgg.sr\.e\i\r\irrrh(\ii(rrrisr\r(hti'rrro ;..""-',"'"or'.trcrusrs.$h,l;-db,rplinc'u\vt'l!e'Llr'rcmoraJolrlrcprnonofthc the sublnissbn to rules scientist liom the proceclure, thc reining in ofjrdgrrrent, and Both inv('lvc ibat make iccurate quantincation and rcPlicrble e)qcr;ments Possiblc ii..-"t.r ofhonor ancl cornmunitics oftrust that are fuodamental to "r.rr"."a"s both thcn scierti$c $,ork. "Moral economics of science," Drstoi maintains' "derivc lbnns ard thcir emotional fi'rcc llom the culturc tu which thcy arc embedded - (r995: 24)' g.n,t."tarrly f'""".. f.",.stant introspection' bourgeois puncdlio$ncss" scicnce hir ' W'il. Dxton\ splendid account ofthc cmergeDcc of€mp;r;caly based .'u.l' to ....,--.na it, her rse of monl economv narks a major deParture &om ii"-p*."'" *a s.".c" approaches The most notable divcrgencc is the transforma m elcncnt ofa ,t,t" .."*,-y f.om a prnrciple that explains diss conflict to "rt -.t"f points" that produces "stabilitv n'"..i-."fi" "balancect systern;' wirh "cquilibdum morxl econonrv has r arJinregrity" (rslS, +). In Dastor's work 'n )*irmation drat rr".u'cri'r"1' ."a ll..tonl* generlogv llaLes an uneasv appearance' imPlicillv san- r";th the Marxism ofThompson and i;. ."*o.*. tl- "mb'n'r *'i"."""* rr'1-p"""i- (and"nd.r othco inltuenccs on s'off In effcct' Daston attcmpts to '-igrat "ih. .atcg..y I'om thc rcrlhl ofconflict to tbc re nr ofequilibri(m 62 u,,urc nDrr.M^N ln 1999 lean-Piere Olivicr dc S,:rdan pubiished a p()vocarivc article on CoNcLUsroN 'I have no right to patent thc term," E. P. Thompson obscn'ed ii lris cssay on "Thc Moral Economy Reviewed" (1991: 340). Thn somethrt grudging recognition, however, accompanied an insistence on its ccntrality to the corcept ofclass. morality, ud economy and a caution that depoliticizing moral economy rvould rcndcr ir anelytically uscless. The prolifcration of moral economy ftamcworks and the "banali zation" (Fassnr 2009) or broadcnirs ofthe term nrto an ovcrly capacious, citchill category run dre dmger ofrendcring it snlultrncously clevcr ard meiningless. whit, theD.;s to be done) A first step might be to point out tbat Thompson's use of "moral" reflectcd a profbund politica' sens;bility and commitmcnt that are sometimcs less appareDt in thosc who subscqueltly app.opriated and translormed his languagc. Although Thompson occasiomlty cautn'red historians :rbout imposi'g their own amlrticat citegories on dreil matcrial, his identifrcation with his subjects wherhcr Willirm Morris, dnctccnth ccntury redicrl laborcrs, or cighleeDth-certlrry "mob" pardci p,mts was so profburd that it is neady impossitrle to disentargle thcir notions ofthe moral univcrsc tiom his. This, irdeed, is onc ofthe criticisms most liequently leveled at fhompson (Andcrson 1980; Ro$ldo 1990). It reflccts the cenftality ot moral criteria to h:s politics (as was tbe .asc with Wili:m Moffis's), espccialy in the period alier 1956 when he "beFn to rcason." In thc 1980s Thompson tllrew himself into peace movement rctivism with his chancr€risdc passid d nearly ccascd historicrl rcsearch (Wood 1990: 149). while his involverreDt in peace activities hxd strctched back decades, tie announcement in lat€ 1979 drxt somc 160 NATO nuclear tippcd cruise missiles lvould bc sited in Bntanr, and the Soviet invasion of Afghd;tan at thc srme time, co'inccd him that thc cold war posed rn imminent dlr€at to human survival. Hc published a prrnpblct, I'r|test i.n,l S nite,wlich called rttention to rhe absurdities ofnuclear war fighting doctnne and he ctiifted thc Europe.n Nuclear Disarmanent Appcat (FND), which contributed to mobilizing nn ;ons of people throughout Europc. ImportmtlS his anallnis ofthe drngers ofthe momcnt went bq.ond the nucleir ddger to question thc crtir€, self peryetuating logic of the cold $lr and was 3s cntical of the Soviet Union rs itwas ofNAfO. Thc peace movement wxs, he hoped, "a.lctente ofPeoples rather than ol states," which had dre possibility ofincxricably hrking the ceuses of perce and offieedon, nr both thc East and dre West (ThomPson 19821 50) Thonpson, howcver, ws Dot only a nDvemcnt theorctician and stratcgist. He made speechcs, rppcrred on radio ard televisbn, organizcd workns grouPs. waj "luggcd around" by polic€ duriog a sit'ddvn strikc nr Oxrbrd, a,rd drove a cr in support of rhc 40,000 women who slrroundcd the cruisc missile base at GreeDham 64 Commoo (PalDrer r99,{: 142), r site whose very name suggcsts its erstwhile staturs as the kind ofnonprivate propcrty that he had writtel alrordt in Wbi$ rul l*&tetr.ln the early to mid r980s,public opnri{,o p()Is r3nked himamoDg th€ mosr admircd rnd most trlrsted public frgurcs ir Enghnd, second onlv to the "fint !i-omcn" of the mtion, Marsaret Thitcler, QueeD Elizabeth, ind drc Queen Mothcr (Cx[rom 19941 223tPalmer 1994| 126 r27). 'fhompsoo\ pe3c€ movement writings, while not ptrblishcd h acidernic joarllals, echo hh scholarly work ud the voiccs of his cighteenth and nineteenth century laborers ind weavcn in rheir n istencc on the m(,nl lesponsibitity ofthe individuat to his or her f€ o!1$ rnd to the planct, as weU as the rootedncss of this obiigation in a we hivc, if mt a duty, then a nc.d, deeply ergraled sidiu our culmre, ro Pds drc Place on no $o6c dur $c foud it. Thos oftrs $-ho do not cxpcct m afrcrlifc nay scc in tlu ou only iftnortalilv: ro pass on thc succession oflife, the s(ccsion ofctrhurc. k mry even be thar wc dc happier when wc ue ensrsed iD nutt€rs ldger thD our own wDrs, Irrser thd oursches. (r982r5r) 'thompson did populirize th€ Dotnm of mofal cconoDry, but othcrs who approprirtcd it did so much morc. It is unrcmarkible that conccpts such as thh cvolve. hdeed, the gencalogy ofmoral economy constinrtes i fine examplc ofwhat Thonpsotr himsclf warnect against when he invokcd Mar. Bloch's rem3* ibout histori:ns' frurtratbn in the fx€c of '1neD" who fail to alt€r their vocabdaries when their customs change. The firstjob ofary h;storidr or social scientist is to indicite the sense in {'hich she or he is enploying a particulir tcrm, a specification that oftcn involves gcncnlog ical scrutiny ofthc category itself. Andltical concepts, in othcr words, havc histories' and these are rclcvxnt to how we cmploy them. They also havc moral and political content. Given this, it is a pity thit fhompson's signal Lontribution to theories of moral economy has oflatc so olien been obscured. NOTRS Ar erso! ( 1980) provides a dcrailed critical discussnrn of ThonPsn's batde widr Alfilsser and r pfiial defense ofthe lattcr. Alderson !|rc trsks a lcy reisonible 'mord" quesrioD: Why rvere Thonpson3 ilLnsbns ibout sratinism dispelled orly in 1956 and dot bcfore, especiilly giv€n th. cxistcrce of an ext rsivc itrti Stalinist Mrdst Litchturc by Trotshis6, Mcnsheviks, aDd left so.ial deNocmts. Elsewhcrc, however, he ref.n to Evans P.itchrd\ Ir, Nrt'in a.guing ihrt rh. scnsc of tidc is cnlnrrally aDd historically spe.i6., and drai "clock tidc" add "work di$ipiine" dlvupred preexisting norio$ aDd bccanc focl ofconteniion (Thorpsotr 1967) Onc nndfesration ofthis distarce aoft ddnopolog-v is thar ThoDPson Paid no.riennon at r1l to eulier $orks in drc mdropobgicrL .dror rhat hrd g.cat resonaDce mrh lxs Foft, nx)st notiblr Mau'Js The Gifr 1t967 n9251) dd Poldyi\ Th' G/.4t Tre,lfof$atio" (2O0t lr944l). r'he nesl.ct ofloldyi is pcrhaps mosr su prising, since lris book cove.s mnclr ofth€ sanc tcnl.ry as The Mahifl! qftht Etuglith Wo/hi"! Clds and Whill! ard Exnt*, he hll ^id hught in dre Wo.kt6' Educatjonrl AssGirrion, !s Tht)mpsod hrer did aI L.eds The situatbn in $ciology is simild. Ar TriDrberge. rcndks, "howe\tr much rhey nright admi.€ hid d a social hi*oria. ard a compelling lirctuy srylist, most histoical $.iologists do not s& thcoreical rclevan.c in fhoDpson's work. A Perceived hck of th€o..ticJ geneElization dd explicjr ncrbodologl in Thonpsor's soci.l listory has been used to E, T. THOM}SON AND MORAT ECONOMIE5 65 acco m lbi his neager nnpact on sorntogists, dcspitc lns hflnence mong hi5tori4' (1984:2Ir). i Twenry yea6 after his "Crowd" cssay, Thonpso! renarked, "My 6les bulge wirh frtdi"] collected on mills and hdk ting dd neal nobs, erc., but sinc€ much ofthis repeats the evidence adduced in my a.ticl., k need rcr now be deploved. BUL a k,t of\ro.k underlay my findinss, and I nray be lbrsiven if I mr inlParierr with t.ivial obje.tions" (199I: 260). t The corrast here with tbe analysk iD Hobsbatn\ /rNtt t, R'rdrr (1959) is partiolrrly ' Iresumably rhis colhboration woui.l hrvc iddJessed dnecdy $nr€ ofdre "serial" hnroriaDJ cortro\r6i.1 clairN about iixd p.iccs and fie c.!ss of th€ F.cn.h Revolution, a debate dlat is otrdined in Edelman 12005). | "Maybe dre rrouble lis with tbt $ord 'nora1,"'Tbomp$n dtclarcd in his l99l retrospe. tilc cs.y on nonl economy. "'Moral'is x sigMl which b.ings on i rL.h ofplemical bl{hd to tbe acadcmic hcrd- Nofiing has nDd. hy .ritics aDgrier than the notioD dur a food rioter misht hale bc.n more 'nora| than r discipLc ofDr Adan Smifi" (I99t: 27r). REFERNNCBS {thrsscr, Luis (i969) }iir Mi'i. Nc* Yorh Piffheon {dNskr, Luis aM Baliba t, F.t\ennc \t97ti Readins c}pit , N.$ Yo.k, Pantheon. \ndcrso!, r'erry (1980) ,4/rr$e,ts *ithik Enslish Me$iD. Ion&)n: V€6o. ilod\, Mt. ( t953) the Hinozr,'r C/al- New York Vintase. looth, wi irm limes (199a) On fic Idcr of Moral Econom!. Aw.'i.an Poktical Scie,ce R.,1, ,88(3):663 667. loursois, Ihilippe rd Schonbqr, lcff (2009) ltisht.o$ DoP.ltotd. B.tk lc,v: Univc6itv of :alhoun, Crrig (199.1) E. P ThompsoD and thc Dlscipline of Hisrorical conrcxr. so.ial R 5edtcb 61, l2J : 223 243. )aston, Lominc (1995)The Monl Economy otscicnc.. ai r0:2 24. ldelnrn, Mdc (2005) Brhsins fie Moml Econony Back i! ... ro dle Srudy of2lst ceDrLq tansnattunal lcsmr Movenells. A$.ri.4k Ahthropolosi$ 107(3): 331-345. r-asqi\ Didier (2009) L.s acoronies momles relisii€cs. A,, L! Hitoir., s.ie, ! So.idl.! 6: t237 1266. rri€d, Mo.ton (1975) Z,r N,rt,,,l?iar.. M€nlo ltuk, cA: cummnr8s. 3oody, Iack, Thirsk. Ioin, md I'homp$r, E. P (cds.) ( 1978) Fe$ifi aul Inhe/itertr: Reml Socit ! in W.'r.n Enrop,, 120(F1800- C,rnbid.gc: C,nnbridge Udve6iry I'rcss. .Lliuserud, Anseli.tue ( 199 sJ Tt, Ctubure of Patiti.J ik M,lrry (r,.ra. Crmbridgc: Cambridsc aill, christopher (1997) Puti& d Rcraletio,: St di^ i,I"t ry/e tio af tb. EryIht R,roltian ofthe \dt"t.e"th Crrt^ne /1. NcwYork:Sr. Ma.tin's Pr.ss Hilron. Rdn.y (1973) -donti M Mdd. Fl :Medidrl l.6drt Mot.wcrtt! drd tr. Ehglsh ns,,d/lJ8l- Lddoo: ltnrpl€ snith. Hobsbiwr\ Eric (1959) P/ituitit Rrbeb: Stadi.' ik At.hrt FarN' oJ Social Maretu in th. J. "t Igtt drd 20th Ctrteries. Manchester: M.nchest r Unilc6iry Press. Hobsbxm, rric I. ( 1 969 ) Bddtr. Lndon: w€idcniild & Nicolvnr. Kavc, Hdrry (1995) Th. Bndlb Mari$ Hinriabs: Afl lrt odr.tor! A$al!!ii. New Iotkl Kup.r, Adan (.1999) C"bu/.: Tbe Anthrrydo!1^ts' A ount. Canbidge. MA: Havrd Lace!, M!.c (200r)Nairobi lournal: A Song rbout CotruP nr Trk s Kcnyr by Storm Ne! York Tim.s (Scpt. 6. ) Ar hnp://wv.nytines.com/2001/09l06lworld/nairobi jomal'a' eng about .o(optio! iakes kenl'i by storm.html:enr.=.tal. accc$cd leb 13.2012- Lnd, Chnstophcr (2010) ltrwabfi rfa Mo/rl Econotu!. Halihx, Ns: lernsood. 66 MARC riDLr-r!,{N Litilc, w.lrer [,. (2009) Mayi Dq*eeF.s: Ncw spintual Clienn dd th. Morility ofMakiDs MorcI tn Kath€.in Browlc and B. LynDe Milgmd (c.ls.), EcoMtuij etul..LlorLlit!: Arttropatolti'dl Apqloach5- Lrnhm, MD: AltaMirr Prcss,PP 77 97 Lnsdale, Iohn (1992) The Moral Econony ofMau Mau: wealth, Pove.ty & Civic Vinuc ir Kku)o PoliticJ Thousht. In Bruce Berman and loln l,nsdale (.ds.). Ushdl Va .l: Ca"flict itu K."!r 6"d Aliira. Inndor: James currcy, PP 3r5 505. Mau$, Mar.el ( 1967) 7r, Gik Fo/N dnllFs".tiok! |fE cha,se in Ar.ktic Societis N.svotk oli\rer de Sardan, J. !. (1999) A Moral Economv of connPtion in Afti^l Joatudt af Madel" Atiiq" Sttudi.s 37 | t) : 25 52. orlove, B€Djanin S. (1997) Mcat aM Strength: The Moral E.onomy of a Chileu lood Riot CaberaI Ahthrololofl t2(2): 23+ 2,68. Palrne!, Bryan D- (1994) E. P Tl'owf'o": Obj.nrons dnl q,?,rrt D Lrdon: Verso Itury, Jon.than and Bloch, Maurice (eds) (1989) Mo"e! dkd th. Morelitl of Lkchan!.. cmrbridse: Clmbridge Unive*ity Press. Pcrclmdr, Michael l2ooo) Ihe l"ttbtio" of Clqit'lttu: Cl|sical P\liti'dt Ecohotur an'l the S.rftr Hittor! af lriwitite Awnnldtias- Dts$an,NC: Duke Unive FiiI Press. lolanyi, Krrl (200r ) Tlre Grc6t Trd$fatwatio,: Tt. Politic'l a$d E rnowic oiai8 of O"t Tt-a 2nd edn. Bosron: Uelcon. Rosaldo, Renato (1990) Cel€bndry TbomP$n\ Heroes: So.ial Anall'sis in Hisrory and Artlrropon,gy. Itr Haney I. Krye it1d Keith McclellaDd \etts ), E. P TlJovp'ax: Critic&t Prrlrrttr',i ?hiladelplia: Temple Univcrsity Pns, PP l03 124. Rorebeny. willim (1989) ,4 ntbtololnsies Rd Histoie': Esa!' in C'tt rc, H tory atul. Poliicat -Ecorrwll. N.w Brutrsick, NJ: Rurges Univcrsity Press scorr, Jares C- ( 1976) 'l r, Manl Ea"ow! of tbr PBe,t: tteb.uia, Md Sublin.be in Sostbedn ,4Jir. New Havcn: Yale Univcsitf l'ress. rhussig, Michrel (1980) Tht D il \nd Co$Modiry Fetishisn i, Soett AMeicR. Chzrtt HjJl, NC: Unircisity ofNorth Carolina lrss. Thompsotr, E. l. ll95s) Willittn Mo//i: R eantir to Rttuletio$ar! Iondon: Lawrcnce & Thonpson, B. l'. (1963) Ihe M|ni"! ofthc ti"'b'h Wor*t,, L'lai' New York: Random House Thonpson, B. P. (1967)Tnn€,work Discipline, and Ind6tial CaPitalien lfft dr l'l4," 38: 56 97. Thodpso!, E. I,. ( 197 r ) Thc MoEl F,conony ofthc English Crowd n1 rhe BishreeDrh c.nn'ry Past e Prctert 50:76 136. Thompson, E. P. (1972) Althropoiogl aM the Disciplnre of Hitorical Conrext ,lvilltrl Hiitar! r(3): 4t 55. Thonpson, ts. P ( 1975 fit i8! asd Hu"Es: Ih, Oriqi,,l t -81'.[ l" New York Pddreor' ) ' 'Ihorpson, E. I'. (1978a) Folktore, AnthroPolosy, and social History l"dittk Hiltoti&l ttnien,3(2):247 266 Thompson, E. P (1978b) ?}e Potttt! ofTheor! e"d Otl"' -E$alvr' New York Montblv Rcview -l Thompson, E.l- (1982)East,wesr Is Thcre . hird wl-vl Ir, N,to, (Iuly r0),33:48 5l' Thomp$n, E. P (t991) Thc Moral Ecommy Revicwcd li C,'taN i, Connon rolqqbt: MerliD, pp.259 351. 'ftmbergc, Elefl Kay (1984) E. P ThomP$n: Urd€FraDding dE lrocess of Historv l! 'Ibedr skGpol (e'f.), wno" d Metbod in Histotic'l Sr.iala& Cambridse: Canrbridsc llnivcrsity Pless, pp. 2Il-243.'t vino"', T/dditiohs, 7,',& Tucotr: Vincent, loan (t990) A"tt/opobg! end ?atiti.s: 'd Univc6iry of AriT.na Pre$. wood. Elt Meiksins (1990) Fdlins rluousb dt cncks: E l Thompson aM the Dcbatc on Bire and sup.srructure. In Harvey Kayc iM Keitb Mcclelland leds), E. P Ihotu! 3: Criical P.ts!.rtfl6. Ph;l,Jl..lPlx.: TenrPlc Udrcrsity Pres, pP l25 152. ZtA6. t^neLr l2oo9) Motdlitl: A" Antbropolaic\l Pel,p."t" Oxford: Bers