The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange Philippe Steiner

To cite this version:

Philippe Steiner. The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange. 2014. halshs- 00955296

HAL Id: halshs-00955296 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00955296 Preprint submitted on 4 Mar 2014

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. GeWoPs Working papers du GEMASS Groupe d’étude des méthodes de l’Analyse sociologique de la Sorbonne

The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange

Philippe Steiner N°63 | february 2014

his paper studies the speciic form of gift-giving behavior in which an organization, or a set of organizations, intervenes between the donor and the donee. It is suggested that this should be called an organizational gift, or “organic gift”. Following Richard Titmuss’ insights, the irst part considers what happens in the domain of biomedicine, examining here what is meant by a “gift” in the case of organ transplantation, in contrast to the Maussian conceptualization of gift-giving behavior. he second part elaborates this inding, and delineates the main characteristics of this modern form of gift, entailing the presence of organizations in the absence of which the donor and the donee could neither give nor receive. he inal part broaden the perspective, including a review of Karl Polanyi’s conception of reciprocity as an integrative form of economic activity, providing a new way of mapping the forms of exchange which present themselves as alternatives to market exchange in our current market societies.

Working Papers Series

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 2/21

The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange

Philippe Steiner

February 2014

L’auteur Philippe Steiner est professeur de sociologie à l’université Paris-Sorbonne et membre de l’Institut uni- versitaire de France. Chercheur au GEMASS, il conduit ses recherches sur la sociologie économique et l’histoire des sciences sociales. Il a récemment publié La transplantation d’organes : un commerce nouveau entre les êtres humains (Gallimard, 2010) et Durkheim and the Birth of Economic Sociology (Princeton university press, 2011). Le texte Une première version de ce texte a été présentée lors de la conférence « New Developments in Economic Sociology », organisée par l’université d’Uppsalla, en septembre 2013.

Ce papier est publié par le Groupe d’étude des méthodes de l’Analyse sociologique de la Sorbonne (GEMASS - CNRS, Paris Sorbonne, FMSH) à Paris, dans la collection de working papers de la Fon- dation Maison des sciences de l’homme. Site Internet du GEMASS : http://gemass.fr/ Citer ce document Philippe Steiner, he Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange, FMSH-WP-2014-63, GeWoP-6, february 2014.

Les Working Papers et les Position Papers de he Working Papers and Position Papers of la Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme the FMSH are produced in the course of ont pour objectif la difusion ouverte des tra- the scientiic activities of the FMSH: the © Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 2013 vaux en train de se faire dans le cadre des chairs of the Institute for Global Studies, diverses activités scientiiques de la Fonda- Fernand Braudel-IFER grants, the Founda- Informations et soumission des textes : tion : Le Collège d’études mondiales, Bourses tion’s scientiic programmes, or the scholars [email protected] Fernand Braudel-IFER, Programmes scien- hosted at the Maison Suger or as associate tiiques, hébergement à la Maison Suger, research directors. Working Papers may also Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme Séminaires et Centres associés, Directeurs be produced in partnership with ailiated 190-196 avenue de France d’études associés... institutions. 75013 Paris - France Les opinions exprimées dans cet article n’en- he views expressed in this paper are the http://www.msh-paris.fr gagent que leur auteur et ne relètent pas author’s own and do not necessarily relect http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/FMSH-WP nécessairement les positions institutionnelles institutional positions from the Foundation http://wpfmsh.hypotheses.org de la Fondation MSH. MSH.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 3/21

Abstract his paper studies the speciic form of gift-giving behavior in which an organization, or a set of organizations, intervenes between the donor and the donee. It is suggested that this should be called an organizational gift, or “organic gift”. Following Richard Titmuss’ insights, the irst part considers what happens in the domain of biomedicine, examining here what is meant by a “gift” in the case of organ transplantation, in contrast to the Maussian conceptualization of gift-giving behavior. he second part elaborates this inding, and delineates the main characteristics of this modern form of gift, entailing the presence of organizations in the absence of which the donor and the donee could neither give nor receive. he inal part broaden the perspective, including a review of Karl Polanyi’s conception of reciprocity as an integrative form of economic activity, providing a new way of mapping the forms of exchange which present themselves as alternatives to market exchange in our current market societies. Keywords gift, Mauss, organisation, Polanyi, transplantation Les dons organisationnels et l’approche sociologique des échanges Résumé Cet article étudie la forme particulière de don qui est à l’œuvre lorsqu’une organisation, ou un ensemble d’organisations, prend place entre le donateur et le donataire. Ce que l’on peut appeler don organisationnel ou don organique. A la suite des rélexions de Richard Titmuss, la première partie de l’article étudie le déroulement du don dans la transplantation d’organes. La seconde partie caractérise cette nouvelle forme de don dans laquelle en l’absence des organisations le donateur et le donataire ne pourraient se rencontrer. La dernière partie de l’article montre comment le don organisationnel prend place dans une version renouvelée de la cartographie polanyienne des échanges. Mots-clefs don, Mauss, organisation, Polanyi, transplantation

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 4/21

Sommaire

Transplant surgery and the organizational gift 5 Organizational gift, gift and market exchange 8 Reciprocity and alternatives forms of exchange in modern economies 13 Polanyi’s four types of economic integration 13 What “reciprocity” means in a market-system society 14 Forms of integration and the relational dimensions of economic integration 15 Conclusion 17 References 17

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 5/21

ince the middle of the 19th Century have relentlessly opposed the commodiication sociologists have known that, beyond of human body parts — the only exception is in market exchanges, there exists in any Iran, where a biomarket for kidneys was made given society a plurality of modes of legal in 1987. In parallel to the case of blood that Stransferring goods. Accordingly, they have was central to Titmuss’s approach, organ trans- devoted an important part of their inquiries to plantation surgery has introduced a new and explaining the functioning of these alternatives to unusual form of gift. However, the issue of what market exchanges: inheritance and gift in Auguste is actually given, and to whom, remains complex. Comte’s Système de politique positive; gift in Mar- French legislation from the 1970s up to the pres- cel Mauss’ Essai sur le don; and symbolic exchange ent-day is a case in point. in a series of papers written by Pierre Bourdieu in According to this legislation, organ gift-giving the 1970s. I cannot here deal with the whole set of means essentially that the person whose organs these modes of exchange, so I will focus on what are removed, whether dead or alive, receives happens in the domain of biomedicine, particu- nothing, whether cash or any other material larly in organ transplantation. he main inding is advantage, as a counterpart for that person’s gift. that there exists a speciic form of gift-giving beha- Furthermore, the French legislature decreed in vior in which an organization, or a set of organiza- 1978 that all French citizens were deemed to tions, intervenes between the donor and the donee. I have given their consent to post-mortem dona- suggest that this should be called an organizatio- tion. Following a lengthy debate, revision in 2011 nal gift. Some of its characteristics were explained of the bioethical law (Loi de bioéthique) made it in Richard Titmuss’ study, when he emphasized possible, in the case of living donation, that the how the gift of blood difered from the gift consi- living donor receive some payment to cover the dered by anthropologists; notably because there costs incurred in making this altruistic gift. But is no longer a direct connection between donor this payment should never be confused with any and recipient. In the organizational gift there is direct or indirect payment for the organ itself. no similarity between both individuals, connec- Hence from the legal point of view a gift is made ted only by the willingness of one of them to help according to article 894 of the French Civil Code, a sufering “stranger”. which runs as follows: “Inter vivos donation is an Following Richard Titmuss’ insights, the irst act through which the donor makes an actual and part of the paper will consider what happens in irrevocable transfer to the beneit of the donee the domain of biomedicine, examining here what who accepts it”. his form of resource transfer is is meant by a “gift” in the case of organ trans- clearly quite unlike the selling of a good, which is plantation, in contrast to the Maussian concep- “a convention by which one party undertakes to tualization of gift-giving behavior. he second deliver something and his counterpart undertakes part of the paper will elaborate this inding, and to pay for it” (art. 1582); it is also unlike exchange delineate the main characteristics of this modern behavior, which is deined as “a contract by which form of gift, entailing the presence of organiza- those involved give one thing in exchange for ano- tions in the absence of which the donor and the ther” (art. 1702). Gift-giving behavior precludes donee could neither give nor receive. In the inal the existence of the counterpart that is central to part I will broaden my perspective, including a the deinition of both selling and exchanging. review of Karl Polanyi’s conception of reciprocity his legal deinition does not it the sociologi- as an integrative form of economic activity, provi- cal approach of gift-giving behaviors, notably ding a new way of mapping the forms of exchange that which Mauss proposed in his famous study which present themselves as alternatives to mar- published in L’Année sociologique (Mauss 1925) ket exchange in current market societies. including the three obligations: to give, to receive and to give back. here is thus a sharp contrast Transplant surgery between the sociological and the legal approach. and the organizational gift From the legal point of view, a gift entails free here is almost universal agreement that the will since the idea of an obligation to part with surgical practice of transplantation is founded something would be meaningless — the min- upon gift-giving behaviors; from the 1950s to gling of freedom and obligation so often men- the present, both medical and political worlds tioned in Mauss’s writings is likewise ruled out.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 6/21

Furthermore, the idea of an obligation to receive costly dialysis; a moral obligation to give back to is also absent from the legal point of view, since the one who chose to help you when you were one article of the French Civil Code states that in a medical distress. However, even in that case, a donation is efective only when the donee has the medical organization remains central: it is the explicitly accepted the gift. Finally, any obligation medical staf who decides if a relative may or may to give back is explicitly ruled out by the deinition not give, according to medical and psycho-socio- provided in article 894. Given such discrepancy logical standards and guidelines. he medical between legal and social approaches, it is neces- organization remains central because the medical sary to consider carefully in what sense organ staf performs the surgery, and also because of the donation can be considered sociologically as a gift. complex follow-up for both donor and recipient. In order to get a clear picture of what is meant by The technical dimension managed and performed organ donation, I suggest that the materiality of by the organization is thus central in both forms gift-giving behavior be considered with respect to of donation. There is a quantitative proof of that transplant surgery. centrality: annual reports of the French organization in charge of the coordination of all transplant In the case of post mortem procurement, dona- activity in the country provides information about tion occurs within the medical organization. the rejection of organs given by the relatives of Death, and more precisely brain death, requires brain-dead patients. These reports make clear the intervention of several specialists able to read that, contrary to what is commonly thought when data provided by (usually) two successive ence- a gift is under consideration, biomedical gifts phalograms; if the person assigned to an inten- are commonly discarded by the organization. In sive care unit is declared dead while her heart is 2006 the report regretted that 31% of the families still beating and her lungs inhaling oxygen and approached for a gift turned down the offer, but expelling carbonic gas, then the process of dona- it also mentioned that 18% of potential donors tion can begin. Since the dead person has rarely did not become actual donors because of medical spelled out what should be done with her organs obstacles, or because of antecedent conditions in in such a situation, transplant teams have to meet the family or the relatives in order to get the donors. In 2011 these igures were unchanged. Similarly, people willing to give a kidney to a their consent to perform the surgery necessary relative or a spouse may be prevented from doing to extract living organs from the dead body. his so if their medical status and/or socio-psycholo- is compulsory when the legislation requires an explicit consent, but this is also practically what gical proile do not meet the legal and medical requirements for a nephrectomy to be performed. happens when presumed consent applies because In France, as in most countries, living donation surgeons are very anxious about possible negative entails both technical and relational dimensions reactions from grieving families, as well as public or, to put it in other words, legal-medical obli- opinion concerning what might appear to be the gations and moral ones; it is thus impossible to unethical harvesting of organs. Is this a gift? he consider only the relational and moral dimension, donor does not actually give her organs, since she as a Maussian approach would suggest. is dead. If there is a gift, it comes from family members or relatives who give their consent to his does not just amount to saying that biome- the surgery necessary to open the body and extract dical gifts are “a bit more complex” than usual organs. What about inter vivos gift-giving? In gifts, those that one may perform in the course that case, the person actually decides by herself to of daily activity. From a sociological point of view, give or not to give this right to extract a kidney, a biomedical gift has a greater resemblance to a a lobe of her liver or, more rarely, a part of one sacriice — a social coniguration close to a gift of her lungs. Furthermore, in most cases, longs- — than to a Maussian gift. What is the dife- tanding afective relations between the donor rence between a sacriice and a gift? According to and the recipients are the basis of the donation. the work of Mauss and his friend and colleague We may thus consider that, in this speciic case, Henri Hubert (1898), the diference comes from Maussian obligations are at work: a moral obli- the presence of a third party in the conigura- gation to give to a relative facing bad health or, tion. While the gift is a performance in which worse, facing death; an obligation to receive in the donor and the donee meet and proceed to the order to escape painful, time-consuming and actualization of the irst two obligations (to give

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 7/21 and to receive) before they meet in the future to deinition of sacriice is not suficient to make reverse their position (the third obligation turns sense of the whole process, even if it offers the pos- the donee into a donor and vice-versa), this is not sibility of understanding the role played by pro- the case with sacriice, because between those fessionals, and the organization in which they act. who expect something from it and the person or To conclude this irst point, the role and centrality the thing sacriiced there is a third party, the sacri- of the medical organization are so prominent that icer, whose technique is necessary to the eicient I suggest that this form of transfer of resource be performance of the ritual — a very “technical” considered as a genuine form of gift, an organi- ritual in the case of organ transplantation. In the zational gift. This is, I suggest, its main sociolo- post mortem production of the organ (the “scarce gical characteristic. From a morphological point resource” of this commerce) the dead person is of view, to use a Durkheimian category, it means the one to be sacriiced. Qualiied members of the (see igure 1) that the production, distribution and medical organization are the professionals whose use of the scarce resource cannot be achieved wit- command over the medical technique ensures hout the organizational intervention that occurs that the sacriice can be performed according between the irst individual (the donor) and the to the prescribed ritual (determined in this case inal individual (the recipient). When there are a by medical eiciency considered as a value). he stringent time constraints and a high sensitivity last party of this coniguration is the family, who of the public to equity issues, medical organiza- might expect no more than a moral beneit from tions are coordinated by a “supervising organi- the “gift” — namely, the beneit related to helping zation” (UNOS in the United States, Agence de an unknown human being, thus giving a meaning la Biomédecine in France) that may have some to the sudden and unexpected death of a relative. legal power over lower level organizations. As a Sacriice represents a useful step so that we might consequence, the organizational gift is an “arms- arrive at the idea of the organizational gift. length gift”, or a “gift at distance”, compared to In order to gain a full picture of the system of the direct gift theorized by Mauss. Most generally, social relations that support transplantation as a this means that both individuals are not in direct new form of commerce among human beings a contact, they remain “strangers” to each other. inal party to the transaction has to be considered: It is worth stressing the fact that such situations the donee. Once the organ is produced, the scarce are not limited to organ transplantation, and not resource moves swiftly from the initial organi- limited to the domain of biomedicine (see, for zation to the inal one, the operating theatre in example, Barman 2007). Basically, the organiza- which the organ is grafted into the body of the tional gift was already central in blood transfu- recipient. To this inal individual in the transplant sion, from the interwar period up to the present. relational chain, the organ appears to be a gift Some of its characteristics were explained in Tit- since it is received free of charge, in the sense that muss’ study, when he emphasized how the gift of this individual does not have to meet the (very blood differed from the gift considered by anthro- great) cost of the medical procedure. It is also a pologists such as Mauss and Claude Levi-Strauss gift because the recipient cannot legally oblige (Titmuss 1970, p. 276-279); notably because, anybody to give a kidney; there is no obligation with organizations intervening, there is no longer beyond the moral one, even if this moral obli- a direct connection between donor and recipient. gation is itself the result of organizational work. In that sense, following Emile Durkheim’s This inal step is the reason why the sociological famous distinction, the organizational gift can Figure 1 : Organizational gift

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 8/21 be labeled an “organic gift”: beyond the fact that Organizational gift, they are both human beings, there is no simila- gift and market exchange rity between both individuals, they can belong to highly differentiated social groups, and be A gift is usually associated with reciprocity. connected only by the willingness of one of them Where does the organizational gift stand? he to help a suffering “stranger”, far removed from notion of the organizational gift is missing from them. The division of labor in society applies the sociological approach to the gift, as repre- equally to market exchange and to gift-giving sented by Philippe Chanial’s otherwise com- behavior. However, beyond blood and organs, prehensive collection of surveys of gift-giving there are other situations in which organizations practices (Chanial 2009). It is the same with the are central to the modern gift. This is the case classic book written by Jacques Godbout and with sex cells, a most interesting case because Alain Caillé (1992). To see how the organizatio- of the wide set of solutions — from commodi- nal gift belongs to the wide domain of reciprocity ication to various forms of gift (with or without it is necessary to consider how the presence of anonymity, direct or indirect gift, required coun- organizations modiies the situation. ter-gift, etc.) — that result from different natio- he organizational gift involves two consequences: nal regulations, or lack of regulation (Melh 2008, Théry 2010, Almeling 2011). • Two types of actor take part in an organizational gift: individual persons, and moral per- One important point that medically-assisted sons (or organizations). procreation brings to the fore is the relational dimension of organizational gift. For seve- • Relations exist between organizations them- , relations that have no reason to belong ral decades the anonymity of the gift was taken selves to the category of gift, irrespective of the for granted since it was in the domain of organ nature of the relationship between the transplantation: anonymity permitted the couple individuals at each end of the circuit of not to tell member of their inner circle how the commerce. children were conceived. It was even possible not to say anything to the children themselves. Modern societies are not solely constituted of he situation changed dramatically when same persons in the sense of physical individuals, as sex couples stepped in since, in that case, anony- it is the case with traditional view of the gift- mity was meaningless on the one hand and, on giving practices occurring in archaic societies. the other, these couples were eager to get more According to James Coleman (1982), in modern information from the potential donors and more society there are two types of actor capable of opportunity to choose the donor itted to their intervening in the transfer of resources: physical wish than other couples could (Almeling 2011, persons on the one hand; and on the other orga- p. 34-5; hery 2010, p. 43-4). Last but not least, nizations, which are moral persons. he resources some decades after the success of medically- over which each of these persons has control dif- assisted procreation, some of the children who fer, and this diference has an impact upon the had become aware of how they were conceived relations that can exist between them. Physical wished to be given information about one of their persons have no resources other than those that biological parents in order to ill a gap in their belong to them — fungible property and human personal identity. his has major consequences capital — plus those held by persons, but which for the organization of the donation, whether fra- belong to their network of acquaintances for- med in terms of labor for the men selling sperm, med by their family, religious connections and or in terms of altruism for the women selling eggs their social neighborhood — what Coleman cal- (Almeling 2011), since this means that one of the led social capital. Moral persons can in general central element put forward in Titmuss’ analysis make use of all the resources accumulated in the does not hold: the organizational gift may require group created for the purpose of undertaking a that “two steps strangers” meet. In such a situa- given activity. his distinction highlights a major tion the organizational gift forbids the usual “give asymmetry between actors, and it becomes neces- and forget” solution, and induces potential rela- sary to take account of the status of the latter to tions at a remote stage. his is of consequence for understand the nature of the social relations that all the parties and for the sociological understan- they maintain. ding of this form of organizational gift.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 9/21

Figure 2 : Typology of transactions

I therefore propose to distinguish personal social With this distinction in mind, it is thus possible relations from functional or impersonal social to go beyond the typology of transfer of resource relations, or alternatively personal friendship (Figure 2) set by contemporary anthropologists and professional friendship. Personal relations (Descola 2005, Testart 2007) for contrasting gift and personal friendship arises where actors are and market relations on the basis of the dife- physical persons. his does not hold for rela- rence between two forms of constraint (moral tions between organizations, or between an orga- and legal) and the absence or existence of per- nization and a person. In this latter case, while sonal links between the exchanging parties. he the individual member of the organization is of intermediary type appears when the transaction course a physical person, that person occupies a involves personal relations and legal constraints role that can require detachment and the mana- salient in the case when the good is not for sale, gement of personal feelings (Hochschild 2003). but the owner is willing to sell it to one of his On the one hand this individual is interchan- friend who wants to buy it. his is what can be geable with other members of the same orga- considered as an “embedded market transaction”. nization; and on the other, relating to clients of Adapting the typology to the framework of an the organization, this individual has no reason “organized” society (Figure 3), I suggest how we to extend the relation with this client beyond might take account of moral persons and the the duration of the transaction, even if this is of relationships corresponding to them: organiza- long duration. his point also serves as proof of tional connections. his typology relates perso- the diference between the two types of relation: nal connections to relationships between persons; if the relation between the individual member of and also impersonal connections to relationships the organization and the person addressed per- between individual members of organizations – sists even when the irst leaves the organization or also between the latter and persons who are and/or the second ceases to be a client, it is rea- “clients”, understood broadly as persons making sonable to think that the relationship has acqui- use of relationships with organizations to obtain red a personal status. he two persons involved the resources which they need. now engage according to the formula “because it’s me, because it’s him” with which Michel de Relying on moral constraint, the organizational Montaigne characterized his friendship with gift belongs to the domain of reciprocity, like the Etienne de la Boétie. he same sort of thing can Maussian gift; however, it difers from the lat- be said for relations between two individuals hol- ter by the fact that there is no direct and perso- ding posts in organizations, and of their relation- nal link between the donor and the donee. he ships in the framework of market relationships importance of organization within this form of between organizations: two individuals can be solidarity may be emphasized on three grounds: in a situation of professional friendship, paying tarifs and cost, power relations, and the length of attention and exchanging presents as occupants relational chains. of positions that place them in a working rela- Firstly, the issue of covering the cost of the orga- tionship. Proof of this can be seen when one of nization is of paramount importance in organ them retires, changes employer, or position: will transplantation. In the case of organ transplanta- he receive the same attention, the same presents tion, and notably in the case of kidney transplan- as his predecessor? tation, the issue of cost is easily forgotten since it

Figure 3 : Typology of transactions involving organizations

is far below the cost of alternative treatment (dia- association collected respectively 1.8, 1.6 and 1.6 lysis) after the irst year — the diference is about millions euros; and when the cost of fundraising 10,000 euros a year in favor of transplantation. is taken into account, the net amount available is In that case, the cost seems to dwindle besides reduced signiicantly — to 56%, 55% and 47% the inancial gain accruing to society whenever a of these sums respectively (Avare and Eynaud kidney is grafted to a patient sufering from end- 2010, p. 163). The organizational cost of raising stage kidney failure. Nevertheless, while dona- the organization’s resources is only one side of tion is free, it is also costly — about 7,000 euros the story. A study conducted for the Fondation in Continental Europe for the procurement of a de France demonstrates that organizational costs kidney. he heaviest cost comes from the medical represent a signiicant burden for the charity sec- organization itself (surgeons, operating theatres, tor (Fondation de France, 2008). In 2005, foun- intensive care units, drugs, follow-up, etc.) which dations in France spent 339 millions euros: a makes transplant surgery the most expensive form signiicant sum indeed, but this is only 9% of the of surgery according to the current French tarif, money they received (about 3.7 billions), since the so-called tariication à l’activité (T2A): from more than 90% of their funds were used to cover 15,900 euros for a kidney transplant, to 39,000 the cost of the organization1 and pay the wages of euros for liver transplant, and up to 63,000 euros the non-volunteer part of their workforce. Only for a heart and lung transplant. hese tarifs those organizations linked to public institutions include a standard stay in an intensive care unit; or a private irm did better — they redistribu- however additional days are common, but costly: ted 89% of the money they received — because from 600 euros a day (heart and lung transplants), their organizational costs were paid by their host to 1,100 euros (lung-heart transplant). It is worth organization. emphasizing that tarifs do take into account Secondly, the organizational gift introduces the the organizational dimension of donation, since issue of control and power relations. Usually, hospitals could be funded if their staf assumes power relations are left out the picture of gift- co-ordinating the work of various medical orga- giving behavior largely because, in the case of nizations in a given area. So in the absence of a biological donation, there is no direct connec- biomarket, there is a potential economic sociology of tion between the donor and the recipient. Howe- tarifs that can be developed which would unco- ver, once the organization is treated as playing a ver how societies deal with costs when there is no decisive and active part in donation the picture market and, consequently, when the price mecha- changes, and power relations arise, as Coleman nism does not operate. pointed out. he basic idea is simple: when orga- Broadening the issue of the organizational cost nizations are taken into account, the relational of organizational gifts beyond organ transplantation, one may understand the importance of 1. hese costs are associated with the origination and difu- this point through some data related to a non- sion of their programs, program follow-up, expertise, audit, the building of networks, education, conferences and mee- proit association active in the ield of medical tings, publications, inancial and overhead costs (Fondation care. During the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 the de France, 2008, p. 20).

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 11/21 dimension of donation changes signiicantly, for the collection of sperm was in France foun- since the person representing the organization ded upon the same principle: there is no relation is not there as a mere individual but has to act between the sperm donor and the couple and according to a given script, a given task to be consequently, no possible relation between the achieved whatever that person’s feelings about the children born as a consequence of the insemina- matter might be. Further, it may be the case that tion of this sperm and the initial donor, whatever the organizational script entails the “management their wishes might be (hery 2010). Initially, the of feelings” (Hochschild 2003) as a resource for centers that held the sperm destroyed personal the task to be performed. Furthermore, organiza- information as soon as the sperm was used; now tions have their own speciic interests in respect they keep their records for 30 years but they do of the control of given resources. not give any information to children, preventing them from obtaining full access to their identity. his is particularly true in the case of the bioethical his represents a clear airmation of the organi- domain. When the irst version of the French law zation’s power with respect to individuals in the on bioethics was debated in Parliament during donation chain. the years 1992-94, the prime issue was to gain control over surgeons working in hospitals. Some Thirdly, it is important to consider the relational of these surgeons had been involved in irregular dimension of organizational gift-giving behavior. allocations of organs that had prevented the col- Viviana Zelizer’s work — her proposal concer- lection of the usual number of organs, and it was ning the “circuits of commerce” (Zelizer 2005, decided to create a supervising organization able 2011), and the relational dimension of her eco- to constrain members of the medical profession nomic sociology (Zelizer 2012) — is a useful active in the domain of transplantation. Beyond starting point.2 She has emphasized how impor- these irregularities, and beyond the control that tant it is to consider relational work, that is how lower level organizations tend to have over the people involved in transactions mingling money scarce resource because they want to ofer them and intimate relations are able to agree on subtle to their “own” patients, this supervising organiza- distinctions about their transaction.3 According tion has among its duties a proactive stance in the to what has been said above, the relational work production of organs. In brief, to get the greatest to be done does not limit itself to an agreement possible control over the organs of brain-dead between the two parties of a given transaction: it people; in the words of Blanca Miranda (2003), may be necessary to take into account previous then at the head of the Spanish Organización transactions (what was the nature of the transac- Nacional de Trasplantes, the issue was to “optimize tion thanks to which the seller got the good?) or the pool of donors”. At the inter-individual level, further possible transactions (what will the buyer the issue of control of a scarce resource merges do with the good?), or possible other parties who with the issue of power: this was the case when might emerge in future (children born from the a heart surgeon claimed that when a person was selling/giving of sex cells). Study of the rela- brain-dead in his hospital, he would explain the tions arising between young women working in situation to the family and then just tell them that, go-go bars in Bangkok and their foreign custo- if they were not aware of the wishes of the dead mers, relations that mix sexuality and money, person, he would remove organs for transplant intimate feelings and payment (Roux, 2011) may (Cabrol 1987, p. 163). his full-blown application illustrate the irst point. Roux explains that these of the law of presumed consent was completely young women do not consider themselves to be at variance with the way it was used by other sur- prostitutes, and that the relation with their foreign geons, asking relatives for their authorization in male customers entails much more than sex for collecting the organs of the deceased person. In money, even if both are at the root of the rela- the irst case, the surgeon was bluntly claiming tion usually labelled and condemned as sexual that he used all his symbolic power as a surgeon to gain access to organs. 2. See as well in this volume the chapters written by Kieran Healy and Nina Bandelj. Control and power relations also play a role in the 3. According to Zelizer there are four sets of variables to be domain of medically-assisted procreation. Due considered: 1) speciic social tasks among groups and indi- to the great importance given to anonymity in viduals involved; 2) a set of transactions; 3) media (i.e. legal the case of biological donation, the organization tender, token, goods, etc.) used in these transactions; and 4) negotiated meanings.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 12/21 tourism. Thaï women expect their regular foreign and many intimate transactions, organizations customers to “take care” of them, that is, to be are major actors confronting individual actors in provided with steady lows of money with which their transactions. Of course, negotiations occur they can secure a living. And they themselves do between human beings, but this is not exactly likewise, “taking care” of their customer, hag- the same when one of them acts as the perso- gling for them in local markets, ordering in the niication of an organization. Consideration of local language in restaurants, and acting in part the role of organizations within circuits of com- as “tour guides”, showing to their foreign friend merce ofers two interesting perspectives: on the parts of the city and of the country which they one hand, they may render the negotiation more would not otherwise have known. The Thaï lan- diicult — because of the rigidity of organiza- guage translates the English word care into kae, tional scripts and administrative routines which a linguistic move that is culturally meaningful in may be beyond the reach of the person involved itself, but all the more so when one bears in mind in the face-to-face relationship with a customer. the fact that kae also has a deep cultural mea- As an example, one may think how reluctant ning for Thaï people. Roux explains that most of medical staf once were, and still are, when faced these women come from poor villages in which with people willing to give a kidney to a friend their families still try to make a living. Accordin- or to an unmarried partner. he person willing to gly, being in the capital city they are expected to give is submitted to a series of legal and psycholo- “take care” of their relatives and to send them gical examinations to ensure that the transaction the money necessary for the maintenance of the its the requirements of the organization, exami- family home, or provide funds for the education nation procedures which go beyond the medical of the youngest children. Furthermore, payments requirements determining the good health of the being not strictly related to sexual intercourse, an donor. On the other hand, organizations may enduring relationship is established, notably in ofer the possibility of going beyond face-to-face the case of a tourist going back and forth between relations, and link the cultural shaping of transac- his mother country and Thailand. This pattern its tions at the micro-level to political decisions and very well into Zelizer’s circuits of commerce and political debates at the macro-level. Once tran- with the role that she assigns to culture within sactions are properly deined culturally and routi- the economy: a monetary transfer is redeined nely implemented by organizations, these cultural in terms that allows both parties to have a legi- meanings become more stable and are more likely timate say in what is occurring, and thus helps to be taken for granted and accepted as resources them to reproduce their social relationship. In for future transactions, even for a limited period other words, transactions do not occur singly and of time. he idea of a series of transactions and in isolation, as a unit separated from the previous organizations would thus render more power- transaction and that following. This is precisely ful the economic sociology of circuits of com- what Roux demonstrates: the meaning attached merce. his approach is has real value, and will to the money-sex transaction in the tourist-hos- be of use in guiding empirical research. However, tess relation in Bangkok is irmly connected to the study of organisational gifts cannot be reduced the fact that the meaning of “taking care” is alig- to Zelizer’s conception, since that does not take into ned with the “taking care” meaning attached to account relations between persons and organisations, the hostess-family transaction. This bears direct and so does not take account of the characteris- comparison with the gift relationship as Mauss tics of the latter. To the extent that organisations viewed it, since for Mauss the gift is characte- are taken into account, it is necessary to question rized by a series of gifts and counter gifts, propel- the formation and maintenance of the connections led by the three obligations to give, receive and between individuals qua representatives of the orga- give back. nisation, and to study how interpersonal connections Furthermore, Zelizer’s circuits of commerce are and impersonal interactions combine in elaborating limited to face-to-face relations between per- and maintaining the social meanings characteristic of sons. Curiously enough, no organization has a organisational gifts. place in these circuits, or at least their presence It is important to bear in mind the fact that is not taken into account. his is most surprising, the organizational gift implies that imperso- since even in the case of transactions involving nal and personal relationships are present in the life and death, dependent people, care relations, same sequence of transactions. Such a circuit of

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 13/21 commerce involves both market exchange and Polanyi’s four types gifts. he organizational gift belongs therefore to of economic integration those kinds of transaction that blur the boundaries In Trade and Market in Early Empires Polanyi between the sphere of market exchange and that proposed a general approach to the economy. of personal relationships. All the same, the study of This approach has two faces: the irst concerns organizational gifts should be expanded beyond Zeli- the famous distinction between formal and subs- zer’s conception, since she does not take into account tantive views of the economy. This distinction relations between persons and organizations, and has been subjected to extensive debate among so does not take account of the characteristics of anthropologists, and to a lesser extent among eco- the latter. And, to the extent that organizations nomists and sociologists: it is generally thought are taken into account, it is necessary to question that the substantive approach did not survive the the formation and maintenance of the connections criticism.4 I will not consider this debate any fur- between individuals qua representatives of the orga- ther, and I limit my comment to one point that has nization, and to study how interpersonal connections been overlooked as a consequence of the opposi- and impersonal interactions combine in elaborating tion of formalism to substantivism. It is impor- and maintaining the social meanings characteristic tant to bear in mind the fact that Polanyi himself of organizational gifts. Second, organizational gift said that in modern society the substantive and brings to the fore the issue of a longer relatio- the formal views merged. This is very much the nal chain than the one put forward in Zelizer’s case when one is compelled to offer one’s labor work. As mentioned above, when organizations in the market to earn one’s living; in that case, enter the realm of donation, gift-giving behaviors any sharp distinction between the two forms entail a “two-stage donation” which generally almost vanishes, leaving open the question of transforms the individuals located at the oppo- how a Polanyian approach to the economy may site ends of the chain into strangers. But there are be developed in such a situation.5 situations in which this process may make it possible for the individual who is one stage removed he second face of Polanyi’s general approach to obtain information, or even meet the person to the economy has been subjected to much less standing at the very beginning of the relational scrutiny, and has been generally thought of as a chain. In any case, the relational chain is here lon- general and robust map of the various arenas of ger than that studied by Zelizer. commerce in societies, notably because his map is largely compatible with the one that Mauss ofe- Reciprocity and red in the concluding parts of his Essai sur le don, alternatives forms when he explained that there was “an atmosphere of gift” (Mauss 1925, p. 258) with the develop- of exchange in ment of social welfare. his mapping distinguishes modern economies four forms of economic integration: autarky, reci- he organizational gift is of inherent interest procity, redistribution and market exchange, and since it opens the door to an economic sociology claims that these four forms may be at work of modern forms of gift, notably, but not exclusi- simultaneously in any society, even if one form vely, in the burgeoning ield of biomedical com- may have a clear supremacy. Polanyi himself gave merce. However, I would like to suggest that it is an empirical example of the co-existence of these also of interest because it provides an opportunity four forms in his posthumously published study th to enrich our understanding of the various are- of the kingdom of Dahomey during the 17 and th nas within which people engage in transactions, the 18 centuries (Polanyi 1966). possibly involving choices between scarce goods, The difference between the four forms are plain: without actually completing a market exchange. autarky means an economic entity which is able Since Polanyi’s mapping of these arenas is cer- tainly the most often used I will start with a brief 4. See Hann and Hart’s presentation of this famous debate summary of his approach, cast in terms of forms (Hann and Hart 2011, chap. 4). of integration; then I will briely explain how it is 5. According to this view, Zelizer’s work can be read as an possible to elaborate his views through a focus on attempt to explore the “hyper-monetized” world in which modern society. the substantive and the formal approach of the economy merge (see Zelizer 2005, 2011). I have developed some aspects of this idea further in a previous paper (Steiner 2009).

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 14/21 to provide for itself all the necessary elements several nuclear families connected by kinship of its economy; reciprocity means that there and solidarity.7 These are among the most impor- exist forms of exchange which involve com- tant types of gift-giving practice, including social merce between groups of a given society, so that support for those in need of inancial help during group A gives something to group B, which then periods of economic crisis. To these direct gifts reciprocates; redistribution means that a cen- one should add bequests, an important transfer of tral agency collects part of what is produced by resources that is almost completely overlooked economic entities, and then redistributes a por- by current work in economic sociology.8 Comte tion of the resources collected back to those is probably the only great European sociologist to entities; and, inally, market exchange involves have stressed the importance of bequests among the rules of exchange and of market price, and the forms of transfer of resources that he consi- which depends on the relation between supply dered in the second volume of his massive Sys- and demand. Central to this mapping is a strong tème de politique positive: gift-giving and mar- connection between each form of exchange (or ket exchange as peaceful transfers, with conquest transfer of resource) and a given institution,6 such and bequest representing the violent side.9 Howe- as the oikos or any other form of economically ver, gift-giving and bequests are directly linked autonomous entity; symmetrical elements within in his economic sociology since they both belong a society, and especially families; central enti- to the domain of what Comte then called altruism ties such as the State; and inally the market -sys — he actually coined the word — in contradis- tem, in the sense of a set of markets that generate tinction to conquest and market exchange, which prices free from any moral, religious or political are driven by self-regarding economic motiva- regulation. tion, or egoism in Comte’s vocabulary. While forgotten, Comte insights are relevant to mar- I do not want to challenge the mapping of the ket society today. French data related to bequest economy that Polanyi made to provide tools for and donation, whether on the macro and the anthropologists, historians and social scientists micro levels, are supporting Comte’s view on busy with archaic, historical and modern eco- the importance of bequest as a form of trans- nomic activity respectively. I would like to focus mission of wealth. Economists interested in on the most modern forms of economic activity the macroeconomic role of bequest stress that so that we might obtain a more precise mapping with the growing importance of high incomes, of the reciprocity form, for which organizational the massive inequality that they create, and the gift-giving is a component that has so far been overlooked. 7. In his study of the economic habitus of Algerian people What “reciprocity” means in the 1960’s Bourdieu diferentiated the nuclear family (mé- in a market-system society nage) from the household (maisonnée): “the real entity is not the nuclear family but the household, a group of individu- Following the point of view that links the work als and families which disposes of an aggregation of small of Polanyi and Mauss, it is clear that gift-giving incomes, and provides a far better existence than each family practices belong to reciprocity. However, there would have if reliant on its own resources only. Group solidarity gives each individual and each family security against are several forms of gift beyond those which one material and psychological destitution” (Bourdieu 1977, p. might make to friends and relatives. 100; my translation). See as well Florence Weber’s work on this point (Weber 2002). From these gift-giving behaviors one must single 8. here are obvious exceptions to this, for example, Bour- out transfers of resource that take place among dieu’s study of matrimonial strategies of land owning fami- members of the same family or the same house- lies (Bourdieu 1980, book II, chap. 1) and Jens Beckert hold — a household, or a maisonnée according comprehensive comparative analysis of American, French to Bourdieu’s conceptualization, is made up of and German bequest legislations from the middle of the 18th century to the present (Beckert 2004). I have limited th 6. “he institution of the economic process vests that pro- my own research in this area to 19 century France (Steiner cess with unity and stability; it produces a structure with a 2008). deinite function in society; it shifts the place of the process 9. See Comte 1851-1854, II, p. 155. Philippe Descola has in society, thus adding signiicance to its history; it centers recently elaborated a general typology of “schemes of attach- interest on values, motives and policy [&] he human eco- ment” between humans and non-humans. He is led to dis- nomy, then, is embedded and enmeshed in institutions, eco- tinguishing exchange, predation and gift on one side, pro- nomic and non-economic. he inclusion of non-economic is duction, transmission and protection on the other (Descola vital (Polanyi 1957, p. 148). 2005, chap. 13).

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63 The Organizational Gift and Sociological Approaches to Exchange 15/21 much greater inequality in accumulated assets Finally, it is important to stress that all these held by those families at the top of the wealth forms of reciprocity are grounded on a speciic distribution, developed societies are reinventing institution: the nuclear or extended family in the the 19th century “dynastic economy”. This means case of a direct gift and bequest; charity organi- that the low of wealth that moves, through both zations in the case of indirect gifts. In this last bequest and donation, from the older generation case, organizations are the integrative dimen- to its successor is steadily growing, amounting in sion because they are linked through tariffs or set 2008 to 15% of the French national income — a prices;12 secondly, because they convey power huge increase in comparison to the 4% of 1945 relation within circuits of commerce; and, inally, (Piketty 2011, p. 1073, igure I). On the other because they have a speciic relational form. hand, sociologists interested in the micro behaviors of bequest and donation stress how stron- Forms of integration gly they are related, there being complex forms and the relational dimensions of calculation between those who have received of economic integration more from their parents while young, and those he relational dimension of Polanyian mapping who will receive more through bequest. This is has been left untouched by commentators so far. especially important when there is an important he present enquiry suggests that this might be dynastic asset, such as vineyard or a speciic asset given some further consideration, and the rele- related to an entrepreneurial activity (a bakery for vant relational forms added. example), transmitted to one of the siblings.10 he relational translation of the irst three eco- Finally, to these direct gifts should be added nomic integrative forms does not raise diiculties organizational gifts that represent a signiicant (see igure 4a): autarky and oikos are represented part of gift-giving behaviors in present-day mar- by an isolate in a sociograph; reciprocity grounded ket society. Beyond what has been said above, on the family as an institution is represented by it is interesting to consider some data collected either dyadic symmetrical links (simple recipro- by the Fondation de France. In 2004, 55% of city), or by asymmetrical dyadic links forming a French people gave money, goods or time. The closed chain so that, in the end, any entity gives report gives some detail: “21% of the people and receive; redistribution is represented by a interviewed have sent a check to an organization; graph in which one entity, and only one, is sin- 18% have directly given money to somebody gled out by a maximal degree of centrality (i.e. asking money for herself, or for a charity organi- this entity has a degree of centrality equal to 1). zation; 14% have bought goods so that a part of the price went to charity; 2% have given through he relational translation of the last form — the a monthly debit to their bank account, and 1% market system — is missing in Polanyi’s writings. through the internet page of the organization”.11 Based on the two fundamental principles of equi- A signiicant part of these gifts therefore involves librium economics, I suggest that a Walrasian and organizations, which appears to be an inescapable an Edgeworthian graph can be used to lesh out part of gift-giving, and which is an issue for those the relational dimension of the market system in charge of charity fundraising since, according understood as an exchange of information (see to the report, there is a tendency to give to orga- Figure 4b), from which the matching of goods nizations to which one has already given since and person (the actual transactions) results. they are assumed to be more reliable. The issue of In a Walrasian market participants, whether on trust is important, since it means that donors need the supply or on the demand side, are connected to trust the organization if they are to be induced only to an auctioneer who is the central actor for to give to a stranger. the information graph, with a maximal degree of centrality, as in the redistribution form. Howe- ver, in the market system the central entity does not collect resources that have been produced

10. See on this point the study on the Cognac industry (Bes- or demanded, but limits itself to centralizing sière 2010), and the three family budgets examined in a re- cent PhD devoted to the sharing of resource among French poor households (Perrin-Heredia 2011, chap. 5). 12. “Insofar as exchanges at a set rate is in question, the eco- 11. Fondation de France, 2004, Baromètre de la générosité en nomy is integrated by the factors which ix that rate, not by France, p. 4 (See also Sylvain Lefevre 211). the market mechanism” (Polanyi 1957, p. 154).

Figure 4a : Relational translation of the Polanyian forms of economic integration

Figure 4b : Relational coniguration of the market system

information so that equilibrium prices can be gift, the simplest form. In that case (see Figure achieved; then a real exchange of resources may 1), the relational translation involves a relatio- take place in the economy according to the dis- nal chain going from the individual placed at the tribution of preferences among market actors.13 start of the process when a gift is addressed to In an Edgeworthian market, each market entity is an organization; it then runs from this organiza- directly connected with all the others in order to tion or series of organizations to the inal indi- negotiate and re-negotiate the price so that, in the vidual at the end of the chain. The second form end, the market converges toward an equilibrium of reciprocity that I have considered is secondary price, theoretically equal to the Walrasian equili- redistribution among members of the household, brium price if the number of entities involved is or the household percolation of resources. In that high enough. case, the relational dimension is composed of a series of reciprocal exchanges between genera- How can the different forms of reciprocity tions (Elderly, Parents, Children), duplicating mentioned above be translated into a relational itself from generation to generation and, as a graph? Let us irst consider the organizational consequence, reinforcing their protective strength when three generations are living during the same 13. See Michio Morishima’s study of the Walrasian econo- period of time. This relational structure may fur- my, and notably his demonstration of equivalence between ther be characterized by the fact that downstream this approach to general equilibrium through the so-called “tatônnement” process and the arbitrage process — the latter lows surpass upstream lows, because the elderly involves direct connections between market entities (Mo- transmit more than they receive from their child- rishima 1977). When the information issue is solved, actual ren and grandchildren. Finally, the bequest rela- lows of exchanges depends on the matching technology of tional system involves the various generations units demanded and supplied. In other cases, matching may produce speciic exchanges structures, as demonstrated in that receive and give resource through successive the case of a inancial market (Baker 1994). bequests in an open and never-ending process.

Figure 5 : Percolation and bequest as form of economic integration

The percolation and bequest relational systems reciprocity as they do to the market system. As a may be sketched in a simple form as in Figure 5.14 result, gift-giving is heavily modiied: organiza- hese two relational systems overlap at any given tions are powerful and costly, they blur or prevent point in time, provided that the three (sometimes the direct relation between the donor and the the four) generations are alive (Masson 2009). donee and, inally they extend the chain running his means that both forms of reciprocity overlap from the initiating individual to the inal reci- because of the equity issue within families and pient. his new integrative system for the transfer because of legal rules, notably in the French law of resources deserves the full attention of econo- of bequest that requires that wealth donated be mic sociologists. taken into account when it comes to determine the shares of each person entitled to the bequest. References his is of great signiicance when the wealth of Almeling, Rene, 2011, Sex Cells. The medical the past generation takes the form of vineyards market for eggs and sperm, Berkeley, the Univer- that one of the children continues to cultivate sity of California Press (Bessières 2010). AvAre, Philippe and eynAud, Philippe, 2008, “L’autorégulation des associations faisant appel Conclusion public au dons”, in Christian HoArAu and Jean- All these forms of reciprocity amount to sugges- Louis lAville (eds.), La gouvernance des asso- ting that, in our present market society, the trans- ciations. Economie, sociologie, gestion, Tou- fer of resources outside market exchanges remains louse, Erès, p. 153-171 important; due to their importance in the domain BArmAn, Emily, 2007, “An Institutional Approach of biological donation, it must be stressed that to Donor Control: From Diadic Ties to a Field- they are in no respect limited to older, even anti- Level Analysis”, American Journal of Sociology, quated, forms of exchange. 112(5), p. 1416-1457 However, reciprocity in our present market socie- Bessière, Céline, 2010, De génération en géné- ties takes diferent routes, and is much more com- ration. Arrangements de famille dans les entre- plicated than Mauss and Polanyi ever thought prises viticoles de Cognac, Paris, Le Seuil possible. Particularly important is the fact that organizations play a major role in making pos- BoltAnski, Luc, 1993 [2007], La souffrance à sible some of these forms of reciprocity. Spe- distance. Morale humanitaire, média et poli- cialization and the division of labor apply to tique, Paris, Gallimard

14. Both forms of transfer of resource are at work simulta- Bourdieu, Pierre, 1994, Raisons pratiques. Sur la neously in the family and the household (see Masson 2010, théorie de l’action, Paris, Le Seuil Bessière 2010). It is worth pointing out that percolation is an illustration of the combination of reciprocity and redistribu- Bourdieu, Pierre, 1997, Méditations pasca- tion — since a part of the resource received in a household can liennes, Paris, Le Seuil come from governmental redistribution — which is a “way to gain in power” as Polanyi stated (Polanyi 1957, p. 153).

CAillé, Alain and godBout, Jacques, 1992, L’es- sensible”, PhD thesis, Université de Reims- prit du don, Paris, La Découverte Champagne Ardenne

CHAniAl, Philippe, (ed.), 2009, La société vue du piketty, Thomas, 2011, “On the long-run evolu- don, Paris, La Découverte tion of inheritance in France, 1820-2050”, Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 126(3), p. 1071-1131 ColemAn, James, 1982, The Asymetric Society, Syracuse, Syracuse university press polAnyi, Karl, 1957 [1968] “The Economy as Instituted Process”, in George dAlton (ed.) Prim- Comte, Auguste, 1851-54 1890 Système de [ ] itive, Archaic and Modern Economies. Essays politique positive. Traité de sociologie instituant of Karl Polanyi, New York, Anchor Books, p. la religion de l’humanité, Paris, Garnier 139-174 desColA, Philippe, 2005, Par-delà nature et polAnyi, Karl, 1966, Dahomey and the Slave culture, Paris, Gallimard trade. An Analysis of an Archaic Economy, Seat- FondAtion de FrAnCe, 2008, Les fondations en tle, Washington university press France en 2007. Fondateurs, secteurs d’inter- steiner, Philippe, 2008, “L’héritage au 19e siècle vention, poids économique, www.fondationde- en France : loi, intérêt de sentiment et intérêts france.org économiques”, Revue économique, 59(1), p. HAnn, Chris and HArt, Keith, 2011, Economic 73-95 Anthropology. History, Ethnography, Critique, steiner, Philippe, 2009, “Society and the Mod- London, Polity Press ern Economy: Who Was Right? Polanyi, Zelizer HeAly, Kieran, 2004, “Altruism as an Organi- or Both?”, Theory and Society, 38(1), p. 97-110 zational Problem: The Case of Organ Procure- steiner, Philippe, 2010, La transplantation ment”, American Sociological Review, 69(June), d’organes. Un commerce nouveau entre les êtres p. 387-404 humains, Paris, Gallimard HeAly, Kieran, 2006, Last Best Gifts. Altruism testArt, Alain, 2007, Critique du don. Études sur and the Market for Human Blood and Organs, la circulation non marchande, Paris, Syllepse Chicago, The University of Chicago press tHéry, Irène, Des humains comme les autres. HoCHsCHild, Arlie, 2003, The Managed Heart, Bioéthique, anonymat et genre du don, Paris, Berkeley, California university press Editions de l’EHess kArpik, Lucien, 2007, L’économie des singulari- titmuss, Richard, 1971 1994 , The Gift Rela- tés, Paris, Gallimard [ ] tionship. From Human Blood to Social Policy, mAsson, André, 2009, “Réciprocités indirectes London, London School of Economics Books : typologies et modèles économiques”, in André WeBer, Florence, 2002, “Pour penser la parenté mAsson, Des liens et des transferts entre généra- contemporaine”, in Danièle deBordeAux and tions, Paris, édition de l’eHess, p. 145-169 Pierre stroBel (eds.) Les solidarities familiales mAuss, Marcel, 1925 [1980] Essai sur le don. en questions. Entraide et transmission, Paris, Forme et raison de l’échange dans les socié- Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, p. tés archaïques, in Marcel mAuss, Sociologie et 73-106 anthropologie, Paris, Presses universitaires de France Zelizer, Viviana, 2005, he Purchase of Intimacy, Princeton, Princeton university press melH, Dominique, 2008, Les enfants du don. Procréation médicalement assistée : parents et Zelizer, Viviana, 2011, Intimate Lives: How enfants témoignent, Paris, Robert Laffont Culture Shapes the Market, Princeton, Princeton university press morisCHimA, Michio, 1977, Walras’ Econom- ics. A Pure Theory of Capital and Money, Cam- Zelizer, Viviana, 2012, “How I Became a Rela- bridge, Cambridge university press tional Economic Sociologist and What Does that Mean”, Politics & Society, 40(2), p. 145-174 perrin-HerediA, Ana, 2010, Logiques éco- nomiques et comptes domestiques en milieux populaires. Ethnographie d’une “zone urbaine

Working Papers : la liste

Hervé Le Bras, Jean-Luc Racine Rodolphe De Koninck & Jean- FMSH-WP-2012-24, novembre & Michel Wieviorka, National François Rousseau, Pourquoi et 2012. Debates on Race Statistics: towards an jusqu’où la fuite en avant des agricul- Dominique Méda, Redeining Pro- International Comparison, FMSH- tures sud-est asiatiques ?, FMSH- gress in Light of the Ecological Crisis, WP-2012-01, février 2012. WP-2012-13, juin 2012. FMSH-WP-2012-25, décembre Manuel Castells, Ni dieu ni maître Jacques Sapir, Inlation monétaire 2012. : les réseaux, FMSH-WP-2012-02, ou inlation structurelle ? Un modèle Ulrich Beck & Daniel Levy, Cos- février 2012. hétérodoxe bi-sectoriel, FMSH- mopolitanized Nations: Reimagining WP-2012-14, juin 2012. François Jullien, L’écart et l’entre. Ou Collectivity in World Risk Society, comment penser l’altérité, FMSH- Franson Manjali, he ‘Social’ and the FMSH-WP-2013-26, february WP-2012-03, février 2012. ‘Cognitive’ in Language. A Reading 2013. of Saussure, and Beyond, FMSH- Itamar Rabinovich, he Web of Xavier Richet, L’internationalisa- WP-2012-15, july 2012. Relationship, FMSH-WP-2012-04, tion des irmes chinoises : croissance, février 2012. Michel Wieviorka, Du concept de motivations, stratégies, FMSH- sujet à celui de subjectivation/dé-sub- WP-2013-27, février 2013. Bruno Maggi, Interpréter l’agir : jectivation, FMSH-WP-2012-16, un déi théorique, FMSH- Alain Naze, Le féminisme critique juillet 2012. WP-2012-05, février 2012. de Pasolini, avec un commentaire Nancy Fraser, Feminism, Capita- de Stefania Tarantino, FMSH- Pierre Salama, Chine – Brésil : lism, and the Cunning of History: An WP-2013-28, février 2013. industrialisation et « désindustrialisa- Introduction, FMSH-WP-2012-17 tion précoce », FMSH-WP-2012-06, halia Magioglou, What is the role august 2012. mars 2012. of “Culture” for conceptualization in Nancy Fraser, Can society be com- Political Psychology? Presentation Guilhem Fabre & Stéphane Grum- modities all the way down? Pola- of a dialogical model of lay thinking bach, he World upside down,China’s nyian relections on capitalist crisis, in two cultural contexts, FMSH- R&D and innovation strategy, FMSH-WP-2012-18, august 2012. WP-2013-29, mars 2013. FMSH-WP-2012-07, avril 2012. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Zuber, Byasdeb Dasgupta, Some Aspects of Joy Y. Zhang, he De-nationali- Climate policies deserve a negative External Dimensions of Indian Eco- zation and Re-nationalization of discount rate, FMSH-WP-2012-19, nomy in the Age of Globalisation, the Life Sciences in China: A Cos- september 2012. FMSH-WP-2013-30, april 2013. mopolitan Practicality?, FMSH- WP-2012-08, avril 2012. Roger Waldinger, La politique Ulrich Beck, Risk, class, crisis, hazards au-delà des frontières : la sociologie and cosmopolitan solidarity/risk com- John P. Sullivan, From Drug Wars to politique de l’émigration, FMSH- munity – conceptual and methodological Criminal Insurgency: Mexican Car- WP-2012-20, septembre 2012. clariications, FMSH-WP-2013-31, tels, Criminal Enclaves and Crimi- april 2013. nal Insurgency in Mexico and Cen- Antonio De Lauri, Inaccessible tral America. Implications for Global Normative Pluralism and Human Immanuel Wallerstein, Tout Security, FMSH-WP-2012-09, Rights in Afghanistan, FMSH- se transforme. Vraiment tout ?, avril 2012. WP-2012-21, september 2012. FMSH-WP-2013-32, mai 2013. Marc Fleurbaey, Economics is not Dominique Méda, Redéinir le pro- Christian Walter, Les origines what you think: A defense of the eco- grès à la lumière de la crise écologique, du modèle de marche au hasard en nomic approach to taxation, FMSH- FMSH-WP-2012-22, octobre inance, FMSH-WP-2013-33, juin WP-2012-10, may 2012. 2012. 2013. Marc Fleurbaey, he Facets of Exploi- Ibrahima hioub, Stigmates et Byasdeb Dasgupta, Financiali- tation, FMSH-WP-2012-11, may mémoires de l’esclavage en Afrique de zation, Labour Market Flexibility, 2012. l’Ouest : le sang et la couleur de peau Global Crisis and New Imperialism comme lignes de fracture, FMSH- – A Marxist Perspective, FMSH- Jacques Sapir, Pour l’Euro, l’heure WP-2012-23, octobre 2012. WP-2013-34, juin 2013. du bilan a sonné : Quinze leçons et six conclusions, FMSH-WP-2012-12, Danièle Joly, Race, ethnicity and Kiyomitsu Yui, Climate Change in juin 2012. religion: social actors and policies, Visual Communication: From ‘his is

Not a Pipe’ to ‘his is Not Fukushima’, Criminal Ofending Around the Time for domestic, regional and internatio- FMSH-WP-2013-35, juin 2013. of Marriage, FMSH-WP-2013-48, nal security, FMSH-WP-2014-59, GeWoP-1, octobre 2013. january 2014. Gilles Lhuilier, Minerais de guerre. Une nouvelle théorie de la mondialisa- Torkild Hovde Lyngstad & Torb- Anatole Fogou, Histoire, conscience tion du droit, FMSH-WP-2013-36, jørn Skarðhamar, Understanding the historique et devenir de l’Afrique : juillet 2013. Marriage Efect: Changes in Crimi- revisiter l’historiographie diopienne, nal Ofending Around the Time of David Tyield, he Coal Renaissance FMSH-WP-2014-60, january Marriage, FMSH-WP-2013-49, and Cosmopolitized Low-Carbon 2014. GeWoP-2, octobre 2013. Societies, FMSH-WP-2013-37, Pierre Salama, Les classes moyennes juillet 2013. Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund & Yan- peuvent-elles dynamiser la croissance nick Lemel, Lifestyles and Social du PIB dans les économies émer- Lotte Pelckmans, Moving Memo- Stratiication: An Explorative Study gentes?, FMSH-WP-2014-61, ries of Slavery: how hierarchies tra- of France and Norway, FMSH- février 2014. vel among West African Migrants WP-2013-50, GeWoP-3, octobre in Urban Contexts (Bamako, Paris), Marta Craveri & Anne-Marie 2013. FMSH-WP-2013-38, juillet 2013. Losonczy, Growing up in the Gulag: Franck Varenne, Chains of Refe- later accounts of deportation to the Amy Dahan, Historic Overview rence in Computer Simulations, USSR, FMSH-WP-2014-62, of Climate Framing, FMSH- FMSH-WP-2013-51, GeWoP-4, february 2014. WP-2013-39, août 2013. october 2013. Rosa Rius Gatell & Stefania Taran- Philippe Steiner, he Organi- tino, Philosophie et genre: Rélexions Olivier Galland & Yannick Lemel, zational Gift and Sociological et questions sur la production philoso- avec la collaboration d’Alexandra Approaches to Exchange, FMSH- phique féminine en Europe du Sud au Frenod, Comment expliquer la percep- WP-2014-63, GeWoP-6, XXe siècle (Espagne, Italie), FMSH- tion des inégalités en France ?, FMSH- february 2014. WP-2013-40, août 2013. WP-2013-52, GeWoP-5, october 2013. Françoise Bourdarias, Jean- Angela Axworthy he ontological Guilhem Fabre, he Lion’s share : Pierre Dozon & Frédéric Obrin- status of geometrical objects in the What’s behind China’s economic ger, La médecine chinoise au Mali. commentary on the Elements of Euclid slowdown, FMSH-WP-2013-53, Les économies d’un patrimoine of Jacques Peletier du Mans (1517- october 2013. culturel, FMSH-WP-2014-64, 1582), FMSH-WP-2013-41, août 2013. Venni V. Krishna, Changing Social février 2014. Relations between Science and Society: Pierre Salama, Les économies émer- Contemporary Challenges, FMSH- gentes, le plongeon ?, FMSH- WP-2013-54, november 2013. WP-2013-42, août 2013. Isabelle Huault & Hélène Rainelli- Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Weiss, Is transparency a value on L’exil comme expérience, FMSH- OTC markets? Using displacement WP-2013-43, septembre 2013. to escape categorization, FMSH- Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Exi- WP-2014-55, january 2014. liance : condition et conscience, Dominique Somda, Une humble FMSH-WP-2013-44, septembre aura. Les grandes femmes au sud de 2013. Madagascar, FMSH-WP-2014-56, Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Exil et january 2014. post-exil, FMSH-WP-2013-45, Débora González Martínez, Sur septembre 2013. la translatio de miracles de la Vierge Alexandra Galitzine-Loumpet, au Moyen Âge. Quelques notes sur les Pour une typologie des objets de l’exil, Cantigas de Santa Maria, FMSH- FMSH-WP-2013-46, septembre WP-2014-57, janvier 2014. 2013. Pradeep Kumar Misra, he State Hosham Dawod, Les réactions ira- of Teacher Education in France: A kiennes à la crise syrienne, FMSH- Critique, FMSH-WP-2014-57, WP-2013-47, septembre 2013. january 2014. Gianluca Manzo, Understanding Naeem Ahmed, Pakistan’s Counter- the Marriage Efect: Changes in terrorism strategy and its Implications

Position Papers : la liste

Jean-François Sabouret, Mars Antonio Sérgio Alfredo Gui- halia Magioglou, Refaire l’Eu- 2012 : Un an après Fukushima, marães, Race, colour, and skin rope ou refaire le « monde » ? Un le Japon entre catastrophes et rési- colour in Brazil, FMSH- commentaire sur l’ouvrage : lience, FMSH-PP-2012-01, PP-2012-04, july 2012. « Refaire l’Europe avec Jür- mars 2012. gen Habermas », FMSH- Mitchell Cohen, Verdi, Wagner, PP-2013-07, septembre 2013. Ajay K. Mehra, Public Security and Politics in Opera. Bicen- and the Indian State, FMSH- tennial Ruminations, FMSH- Samadia Sadouni, Cosmopo- PP-2012-02, mars 2012. PP-2012-05, may 2013. litisme et prédication islamique transfrontalière : le cas de Maulana Timm Beichelt, La nouvelle poli- Ingrid Brena, Les soins médi- Abdul Aleem Siddiqui, FMSH- tique européenne de l’Allemagne : caux portés aux patients âgés inca- PP-2013-08, septembre 2013. L’émergence de modèles de légiti- pables de s’autogérer, FMSH- mité en concurrence ?, FMSH- PP-2013-06, avril 2013. Alexis Nuselovici (Nouss), Étu- PP-2012-03, mars 2012. dier l’exil, FMSH-PP-2013-09, septembre 2013.

Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme - 190 avenue de France - 75013 Paris - France http://www.msh-paris.fr - FMSH-WP-2014-63