L01 Moral Exchange ANTH3220 PDF

ANTH3220A Economics Boring of fascinating? For the anthropologist, economics really means how we relate to one another to get what we do not make or do ourselves How do we do this? In ordinary terms… Give and receive (to people we know, to strangers as ”charity”), take (steal), excha...

ANTH3220A Economics Boring of fascinating? For the anthropologist, economics really means how we relate to one another to get what we do not make or do ourselves How do we do this? In ordinary terms… Give and receive (to people we know, to strangers as ”charity”), take (steal), exchange through commodity exchange (buy), exchange through gifting, credit, borrow (debt) Myths In this course we try to get at how humans really relate economically, and how we behave with one another, structure systems. And the consequences of this… There are many myths – meaning things that are believed that are not likely true about human economies Even anthropologists… Anthropologists are affected by their cultural environment and therefore their theories can be affected too. Marshall Sahlins was a very famous anthropologist. He taught the idea of how people relate through one of three ways – generalized reciprocity, balanced reciprocity, and negative reciprocity. The problem is… Is negative reciprocity really reciprocity? What is reciprocity? Well, most people thing it means an exchange generalized reciprocity (no really reciprocity) balanced reciprocity (exchange) negative reciprocity (not really reciprocity) So, David Graeber (another anthropologist) and student of Sahlins rethought this problem… and he comes up with moral economic relations… And it allows us to rethink what is going on…and how much we have been affected by money, debt, and yes, later capitalism – and why we see reciprocity everywhere, even when it isn’t (and why is that exactly?)  Today Question anthropology’s view/theory of reciprocity – is everything reciprocity? Learn David Graeber’s three moral economic relations Examine these three relations and ‘slippage’ between them – how one slips into the other Question the notion of ‘primordial debt’ in its two forms David Graeber Economic anthropologist Activist (occupy movement, debt alleviation) Three forms of moral economic relations Moral economic relations * Not about societies, all three present in all societies * 1. Baseline communism 2. Exchange (reciprocity) gift, commodity, debt relations (use of money) 3. Hierarchy 1. Baseline communism Principle of human relations: “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” Strengths: kindness, sharing, collaboration, efficiency Activated when “the need is considered great enough, or the cost considered reasonable enough” No accounts taken of what is given 2. Exchange Reciprocity (immediate or later return) tending toward equivalence ‘types’: Gift exchange, commodity exchange, loans and debts Reciprocity implications: honour, social standing, credit worthiness (the “return”) Between relative equals Can be competitive Return cancels or renews the relationship 3. Hierarchy Higher and lower status (social relations) Theft / pillage / predation / tribute / feudal system No squaring of accounts Includes anonymous charity (strange but true) Regulated by habit or custom Problem is believing this is “exchange” Hierarchy is regulated by custom or habit Graeber says: “Pillage turns into tribute” “Conquest, untrammeled force, becomes systematized, and thus framed not as a predatory relation but as a moral one, with the lords providing protection and the villagers, their sustenance.” (Tributary system, for example) All societies have these three forms Human economic relations are complex Capitalistic corporations like Google, they allocate most of their corporate resources according to baseline communism right? Not an exchange, what about others? Gifting exchange is everywhere – still immensely important Hierarchy is everywhere – taking/stealing others is a major storyline throughout human history Slipping between forms Baseline communism --> hierarchy Slippage when sharing becomes habit, sharing goes only one way between people Exchange --> hierarchy Having trouble repaying a debt Not being able to match a gift All life is reciprocity? So if reciprocity = exchange and exchange is only one of the three forms…then? Sahlins’ reciprocity is not a good way to describe human economic relations – discard! Second part – is all life reciprocity, and what about religion and primordial debt, karma and original sin? “All life is reciprocity” – Is this true? Even thousands of years before capitalism or anthropology, there was a tendency of religions and many societies to frame all life as being about reciprocity and particularly about debt, because debt is a form of reciprocity or exchange How and why? This is explained in Graeber’s discussion of “primordial debt.” So… Graeber says that with rise of indebtedness in early civilizations, and especially since the invention of money (so a long time), the idea of exchange has come to dominate our thinking about what humans are doing – “forgetting” the important roles of baseline communism and hierarchy. Thus, many forms of hierarchy are wrongly considered exchange, and baseline communism is seen as an ideal, not an everyday practice, when it is an everyday practice. Capitalism and moral economic relations With capitalism, it went further, a market exchange paradigm (commodity/service exchange) becomes understood as fundamental to all social relations and motivations Baseline communism and hierarchical relations are disregarded, and the focus is on commodity exchange for thousands of years now We might ask: Why the strong belief in the ubiquity of reciprocity? Religion yes. Also, maybe preference for notion that everything balances out – seems fair and just to us. We might ask: Why the strong belief in the ubiquity of reciprocity? Imagining world as market: “self-contained world where everyone has exactly the same motivation and the same knowledge and is engaging in the same self-interested calculating exchange” Individualism - exchange implies equality (but also separation – links economic thought to individualism) Graeber’s finding There are two main forms of the view that all life is reciprocity (and debt) that Graeber points out (as problematic) (1) Idea of primordial debt affects most religions Basic idea: our relationship to deities (“God”) or the universe is reciprocal (being “born into debt or sin”) Original sin, Karma, debt to mother Sacrifice is “an interest payment” on debt (2) Debt/reciprocity and the state (later) With the decline of religion and the rise of states (around time of French revolution 1789), debt idea assimilated into the power of state The state assumes this relationship we owe our country, because it is the sum of all of our obligations to one another Durkheim/Comte say God and society are ultimately the same Graeber says: “the ideal of primordial debt, is the ultimate nationalist myth.” Graeber says… Is there really a primordial debt to society and God/the universe? No, just a cultural construction by humans He thinks human judgement has been clouded by the economic system – it shapes our thinking… For example: Graeber says “the idea of primordial debt, is the ultimate nationalist myth.” Conclusion We now have an approach for understanding societies that is theoretically more sophisticated and includes: the three moral economic relations The idea that humans often confuse them for interesting reasons and the critique of “all life is reciprocity” and various ideas of primordial debt