Economic Anthropology

Economic Anthropology Morgan M S 2001 Economics. In: Porter R (eds.) The Cambridge and contextually rich information on economic ac- History of Science, Vol. 7, Modern Social and Behaioral tivities worldwide. The way in which anthropologists Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK reacted to the confrontation of this diversity and how Qin D 1993 The Formation of Econometrics: A Historical they coped with it in theoretical terms, generated most Perspectie. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK Qin D 1996 Bayesian econometrics: The first twenty years. debates within economic anthropology. Econometric Theory 12: 5500–51 Qin D, Gilbert C L 2001 The error terms in the history of time- series econometrics. Econometric Theory 17: 424–50 2. The Intellectual Debates M. S. Morgan and D. Qin The major debates in economic anthropology have centered around (a) the universal applicability of Western generated categories of analysis, (b) the question of value, (c) the question of history and connectedness between polities, and (d) the weight of Economic Anthropology culture (meaning) in economic processes. Economic anthropology studies how human societies provide the material goods and services that make life 2.1 Western Categories of Analysis possible. In the course of material provisioning and during the realization of final consumption, people The main debate took place between those anthro- relate to each other in ways that convey power and pologists who considered that the postulates of mar- meaning. ginalist economics, that is, the rational (optimizing) allocation of (scarce) resources between alternative uses, were of universal application (Firth 1970); and 1. A Definition those anthropologists who, following Polanyi (1957), thought that the theory of rational action in regard to The degree to which something is ‘necessary’ for life economic decision making was only valid in the has long been debated and differences between one context of Western market economy, and that a real society and another have environmental, historical, definition of the economy should be meaningful in any and cultural reasons; but some wants must be inescap- society whatever its process of allocation. The first ably satisfied, otherwise death ensues. Therefore, there group was eventually defined as ‘formalist’ while the is a physical limit to relativism regarding material second was called ‘substantivist,’ following Polanyi’s means of livelihood. On the other hand, nonmaterial distinction. The most useful concept that emerged goods such as the goodwill of deceased ancestors during the debate, although it was not itself subject to might be conceived as essential for the reproduction of dispute in regard to ‘primitive’ economies, was that of a society. Most nonmaterial needs, however, have the ‘embeddedness’ of economic activities in other some material expression, such as food sacrifices social processes. A second wave of the debate in the during ancestor worship or wealth exchange during 1970s included anthropologists working with formal mortuary ceremonies. The domain of economic an- decision-making models and Marxian anthropologists thropology covers the recurring interaction of indivi- working with the concept of ‘mode of production’ and duals, within and between social groups and with the with issues of ‘transition’ to capitalist economies and wider environment, with the object of providing ‘articulation’ of different modes of production material goods and services necessary for social (Godelier 1977). reproduction. Traditionally, economic processes have been div- ided into production, distribution and circulation, and 2.2 The Question of Value consumption. These analytical categories respond to observable social interaction in all societies, although The question of value is a function of exchange, of the the categories themselves are a product of scholarly need to reach some equivalency through comparison. Western tradition. People, however, engage in social Some aspects of value have constituted constant relations that can be described as ‘economic’ and sources of debate within anthropology. First, Marx’s which can be analyzed as participating simultaneously distinction between use value and exchange value, and in the production, distribution, and consumption how it could be applied to noncapitalist societies or to categories. peasant societies where factors of production were not Economic anthropology originally focused on the fully commodified. Second, the classical labor theory Economic Life of Primitie Peoples (Herskovits 1960) of value, and how to use it in societies where the labor where many of the elements present in the Western market, when it existed, was only marginally active. economy (such as money, a market system) were Third, the marginal utility theory of value and how to absent. Direct observation of noncapitalist societies make sense of it when every good could have multiple through ethnographic fieldwork produced impressive uses and be valued according to different measures. 4069 Economic Anthropology Finally, the cultural theory of value where local and hunting, human work uses very simple technology meaning attached to objects, people and situations to select and get whatever food is available in the was the measure of value, posed the problem of cross- environment. Human–nature interaction has been cultural comparability in a connected world. studied from an ecological perspective stressing energy exchanges between different species, but emphasizing ‘culture’ as a basic factor of human adaptation to 2.3 History and Connectedness environmental constraints. The environment, however, is not an ahistorical given where human popu- Another issue that became increasingly central was the lations dwell. Rather, past relations between indivi- need to think historically about the transformation of duals, groups, communities and larger polities are social relations and the need to study the intercon- inscribed in the environment. Political ecology tries to nection between different societies through time. These include this history in its perspective. problems were especially salient to those anthropo- In most societies, the process of production requires logists influenced by dependency and world system the use of complex technology and the design of theories, by European Marxist anthropology, and by cooperative labor processes. Knowledge both of the what came to be known as the political economy skills necessary to use a particular technology and of perspective in anthropology (Roseberry 1988). The the coordination of the entire process is a crucial asset aim was to understand local processes as both being of control that generally is distributed unevenly among formed by and acting upon the larger processes of those participating in production. The way in which a historical transformation (Wolf 1982). society organizes access to land, labor, energy, technology, and information expresses economic and political social relations. Moreover, in all societies 2.4 The Weight of Culture these relations are embedded in other institutional Cultural aspects had been taken into account in domains such as kinship, religion, politics, and ‘pure,’ economic anthropology mainly as a context where disembedded, economic relations have seldom been material activities occurred. More recently, anthropo- observed. Peasant studies show, for example, how logists have been arguing about the centrality of kinship and marriage, experienced through discourses meaning for the understanding of economic processes. of respect and love, pattern inheritance systems but Bourdieu (1980) has developed the concept of also social relations of production within the house- hold farming unit. ‘habitus’ where past material social relations are \ transformed into a set of dispositions, a scheme of Cultural meanings attached to concrete tasks and perceptions that generate practice. Gudeman’s (1986) or collective or personal identities such as gender, age, proposition, on the other hand, stems from his caste, or ethnic group also contribute to shape work preoccupation with the methodological problems that processes. The concept of ‘division of labor’ was Western models of knowledge pose to the under- designed originally to explain the ‘integration of the standing of other cultures. He proposes to study how social body’ through the necessary dependence be- each society culturally models the processes by which tween specialized domains of work (Durkheim 1933). it secures a livelihood, and shows that some societies An example of this meaning can be found when have multiple articulated models of economic activity. speaking of the ‘sexual division of labor’ in a society Finally other anthropologists are using the term where male members are ascribed certain work respon- ‘moral economies’ to refer to individual and collective sibilities while female members are ascribed others. In moralities and cultural values that pervade economic this sense the concept is broad and general. More social relations. frequently, ‘division of labor’ is used to address particular production processes and the assigning of individuals or groups to positions within the process. This has given anthropologists the opportunity to 3. Concepts and Theory analyze minute interactions taking place between The classical categories of production, distribution those participating in a concrete labor process. and consumption, will be followed in order to present briefly the main concepts and theoretical develop- 3.2 Distribution

Load more