Economic Resources PDF

# ECONOMIC RESOURCES ## LEARNING OBJECTIVES In this chapter, students will learn: - why anthropologists think of economics as a matter of decision-making - about the production of goods and services - how assumptions about the gendered division of labor are misleading - how distribution works to ge...

# ECONOMIC RESOURCES ## LEARNING OBJECTIVES In this chapter, students will learn: - why anthropologists think of economics as a matter of decision-making - about the production of goods and services - how assumptions about the gendered division of labor are misleading - how distribution works to get goods and services to people other than the ones who made them - about three modes of exchange: reciprocity, redistribution, and the market economy - about the consumption of goods and services ## INTRODUCTION: WHO GETS WHAT AND HOW? In documents written by Spanish occupiers in the New World, lists of trade goods show that the ancient Aztecs used cacao beans as their main form of currency. One turkey was worth 100 full cacao beans, but 120 if the beans were “shrunken.” One cacao bean could buy a tamal or a large tomato. The price for cochineal (red) dye was raised to 180 from the original 80 by the Spanish viceroy because he thought it should be worth more (Anderson et al., 1976). Aztecs used cacao to make a sacred bitter drink, called *xocolatl* in Nahuatl, that was essential to their religious rituals. In order to have enough cacao in the capital, the Aztec government demanded that the regions they controlled paid vast quantities of cacao in tribute annually to the empire. Mesoamericanist Dr. Michael Coe (2013) found that the Aztecs demanded 980 loads of cacao beans annually from subordinate states, each load weighing 50 pounds. Evidence shows that not all of this was authentic, however. Tribute from Aztec-controlled regions frequently contained filler: archaeologists have found counterfeit cacao beans stuffed with dirt to give the right weight and feel before their use in the marketplace. Who gets what - such as highly prized cacao beans – and how, are economic issues. The term economics may bring to mind capitalist systems based on supply and demand or the rise and fall of the value of currency. In a capitalist economy, people are most used to the idea that individuals in society act in ways that increase their access to wealth. However, knowing that societies around the world and throughout time are organized and function differently, it follows that people have different reasons for making the decisions they do. This chapter explores the different ways that culture shapes production, distribution, and consumption of food, goods, and other resources. Anthropologists Richard Wilk and Lisa Cliggett (2007) invite us to think about economics as the world of decisions. This description doesn't use the terms money, value, or other words that you might immediately associate with economics. When a person chooses to engage in this activity over that one, or to purchase this gadget rather than that one - these are choices that involve actors making decisions about what will be best for them. They are essentially economic decisions that bring the individual some sort of desired value, whether social, cultural, symbolic, or monetary. Keep in mind that not all social actors have the same set of choices, or many choices at all. Marginalized people often don't have access to the kinds of choices that other members of the community do. Therefore, a discussion of economics should also consider access and inequality. ## WHAT DRIVES ECONOMIC DECISIONS? In industrialized societies, economists argue that the driving force is profit and wealth. Institutions in cities like Seoul, Rio de Janeiro, or Paris are embedded in a web of decisions based upon the principles of supply and demand. In other words, the choices made by corporations, governments, and for-profit institutions are guided by the maximization of profit. Inherent in this model is the capitalist notion of supply and demand: when supply of an item is plentiful, the costs are low. When supply decreases, the costs rise. This can pertain to business deals (increasing costs when there is competition), land prices (purchasing a building in a popular area costs more than outside that area), hiring practices (a candidate in demand requesting a higher salary), and many other choices that institutions make as a part of their daily business transactions. What about outside the world of industry and institutions? How do individuals decide how to invest their money, effort, or time? Certainly, the people in Seoul or Paris have a variety of reasons for engaging in the kinds of exchanges that will provide them access to food, goods, services, or other resources. These reasons likely extend beyond monetary gain. For example, consider the goals of these exchanges: (1) a café employee collects leftover sandwiches bound for the trash and distributes them to homeless people in the neighborhood; (2) a college-aged son invites his father to dinner and pays for the meal; (3) a community member finds a lost dog and cares for it until the owner is found; (4) a shopper wavers between a nicely fitting generic business suit and a brand-name suit that doesn't fit as well but costs more, finally buying the brand-name suit; or (5) a group of friends from the local mosque volunteers at a food bank. There isn't a clear case of financial gain as the driving force in any of these examples. These kinds of exchanges occur within industrial societies but are outside the for-profit model. Many different principles guide the decisions of people, groups, and institutions. Daily, those decisions shift between valuing profit, status, relationships, loyalty, devotion, or some other goal deemed important. In nonindustrial societies, the value of wealth, status, or ego may actually be low in comparison to the value of fair and equal exchange. In any exchange, cultural expectations play an essential role in why people make the decisions they do. People may feel bound to make decisions based on the values of their cultural institutions, for instance, whether the society stresses dependence training (a communal culture) or independence training (an individualistic culture). Because cultural expectations can be very different, economic models based on profit aren't applicable to all types of societies. This is true for each part of the process, from production to distribution to consumption. ## PRODUCTION: MAKING THE THINGS PEOPLE NEED AND WANT As the first stage in the economic process, production involves using natural or human resources to create items for use. The types of resources available and the tools to extract, contain, prepare, and shape those resources determine what a society produces. However, social, cultural, religious, and political constraints also shape a society's modes of production. How work is organized in order to complete the tasks needed for production depends upon many factors. The unit of production may be an individual, household, corporation, or region. In nonindustrial societies, such as foraging or horticultural societies, the unit of production is more likely a household, extended family, or other unit based on descent (such as family members from either the mother’s or father’s lineage). The limiting factors for participation may include family relations, kinship responsibilities, and gender roles. For instance, Dr. Mary J. Weismantel (1998) describes the household in the Indigenous Andean village of Zumbagua as the locus of production, in that each family member has daily duties to perform as part of an overall economic strategy. Because there are few opportunities in the village to earn an income, men travel to work on distant farms each week, while women do the household farm labor and food preparation. Children might be tasked with herding sheep, goats, or llamas, or tending to *cuy* (farmed guinea pigs), rabbits, or chickens. In an industrialized society, the unit of production is often a corporation that creates goods and services. Who participates in this work has largely to do with training, age, and job competition. It may also have to do with class, ethnicity, gender, or other social factors that limit access for certain members of society. ## GENDER SPECIALIZATION The division of labor in food-getting strategies between men and women is a unique feature of human societies. We are the only primates in which expectations exist for males to work at certain tasks and females at others. The idea of "Man the Hunter and Woman the Gatherer” has long been taught as a biologically based division of labor in our species. Although anthropologists are sensitive to the spectra of gender and sex, research on gender nonconforming labor does not have the long history that binary gendered labor does. Due to the fact that most of the research on the division of labor deals with binary notions of sex and gender, the following section focuses on that research. Nonetheless, ethnographic research shows that when a transgender person adopts a social role, they perform the tasks appropriate to that role, if such tasks exist (see, for example, Stephen [2002] on the *muxes* of _Juchitán, Mexico_). Third gender and nonbinary people may have unique roles in society (see, for example, Nanda [1999] on the *_hijira’s_* of India). Most of the literature on the division of labor refers to separation by sex: that is, reproductive ability. In fact, much research starts from the assumption that reproductive needs are incompatible with hunting. For instance, hunting and tracking game in the forest would be difficult for a pregnant woman, who might still be nursing one or more infants or toddlers. Therefore, she conserves her calories and stays safer by remaining at camp or gathering plant material nearby. Specious claims are made that women do not have the muscular strength or aggressive disposition needed to hunt large game animals. One particularly outrageous claim asserts that female menstrual odors may drive away game. While these arguments lack evidence, they still persist today. Sometimes similar arguments based on biological differences are used to justify why more women aren’t elected as major political leaders or allowed into military combat. So, what does the evidence say? Many nonindustrial societies do, in fact, divide labor along these lines in the survey of the ethnographic record of 185 societies, Dr. George Murdock and Caterina Provost (1973) found a high correlation between certain tasks and gender specialization. Across these societies, they found that female technological tasks included gathering of wild foods and fuel, fetching water, and spinning. Exclusively male activities included hunting of large marine and land animals; working of metal, stone, and wood; and making musical instruments. They found that there were many more tasks that are done by both males and females, rather than being exclusive to one or the other. Even in this limited sample, the authors point out a number of notable exceptions. For instance, Pawnee women do wood working; Tuareg women make musical instruments; Mbuti women trap small game; and Hidatsa women build boats. House building, which is more often a male activity in modern industrial societies, tends to be a female activity when a society is nomadic. However, Murdock and Provost’s survey was completed in 1973, and the beauty of science is that new evidence can bring new conclusions. Recent research shows evidence of societies in which men and women equally perform the roles of hunter and gatherer, or in which women hunt certain types of animals exclusively. Among the Agta of the Philippines, women use bows and arrows to hunt deer and wild pigs. Since Agta women are also primarily responsible for childcare, women hunt with their infants strapped to their backs. Dogs are brought along for protection. In the Amazon, Mastes women hunt alongside men, and among the Mbuti (of the Congolese Ituri Forest) and Cheyenne (of the US states of Oklahoma and Montana), women join communal hunts. Among the Konso of Southern Ethiopia, women make up 75 percent of the stone toolmakers, increasing the probability that women have made tools throughout human history (Brandt & Weedman, 2002). New evidence confirms that women have likely always hunted, at least in certain environments: in 2020, Dr. Randall Haas and his team reported a discovery of a 9,000-year-old female hunter, approximately 18 years old, buried with 20 projectile points, knives, and hide scrapers. Analyzing her diet, it was consistent with what hunters would have eaten while pursuing large game. Comparing the burial with others across the Americas, they found at least 10 more female burials that could indicate hunting was a “gender-neutral” activity (Haas et al., 2020). There are many characteristics of gendered behavior that people have ascribed to human biology or some kind of “naturalness.” These exceptions show a fuller picture: that a single sexual division of labor is not universal, not even the most basic division of “man the hunter and woman the gatherer.” Gender roles are created through culture, not biology. Different expectations of who performs what tasks provide evidence that these divisions of labor, where they exist, are not based on biological differences (Panter-Brick, 2002). In fact, the argument with the most evidence for why there is a sexual division of labor in nonindustrial societies is based on the needs of parenting most efficiently. In addition to being the only primates who divide labor based on sex and gender, humans also are the only primates who continue to provide food for children after weaning. This important stage of children's development falls between nursing and self-sufficiency - we refer to it as childhood. Adult cooperation is crucial at this stage, for both feeding children and ensuring they survive to adulthood. (Caregivers also need to keep them from eating soap, playing with knives, and flushing phones down the toilet.) The need for adult cooperation in this in-between stage seems to be the most important factor in the division of labor. How feeding and caring for children occurs across societies depends on variables such as age, reproductive status, and ecology of the area in which they live. Importantly, is the forest/desert/tundra/ocean safe for children? If it is, they may accompany one or the other parent while hunting or gathering. If not, they may help gather in a nearby foraging area or remain back at camp where they can help process plant foods. Anthropologists assume that individuals and societies were motivated by efficiency and were flexible in allocating the resources of their communities, just as they are now. ## DISTRIBUTION: HOW PEOPLE GET THE THINGS THEY NEED AND WANT The economic practices of a society provide guidelines for how things get into the hands of people other than their producers. Examining processes of exchange shows us how food and other resources, including items of cultural, religious, or symbolic worth, are distributed among group members. Based on a typology created by economist Dr. Karl Polanyi (1944), anthropologists use three basic models to understand exchange in the world’s societies. The three modes of exchange are: 1. reciprocity, 2. redistribution, and 3. market exchange. Reciprocity is practiced in all types of societies. Redistribution is found specifically in societies with a central governing authority, such as agricultural, pastoral, or industrial societies. Market exchange is found in agricultural and industrial societies in which surpluses are produced. All of these are processes of distribution, or getting things into the hands of people. ### Reciprocity Reciprocity is a set of social rules that govern the specialized sharing of food and other items. Sociologist Dr. Marcel Mauss (1925/1954) originally referred to these items as “gifts,” meaning not only physical items but also the gift of one’s time or effort. Therefore, a gift might take the form of watching a friend’s children, cooking a meal for others, or driving someone to an appointment. However, gifts are not given in a vacuum. Strict social rules dictate the requirements of sharing among members of a group, especially when the group, such as foragers, relies on reciprocity to survive. Parties involved in a reciprocal exchange enter into a social and economic bond. Once a gift is given, the two parties are connected in an ongoing relationship. If one side of this relationship doesn't reciprocate with an appropriate gift that meets expectations, then the bond between them is damaged. Failing to reciprocate can destroy social, political, or economic relationships between individuals, families, or entire communities. Dr. Bruce Knauft (2016) discovered that gift exchanges were the initial step to a social identity in the community during his first fieldwork experience among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea. Each time he received or shared an item with a Gebusi man, the name of the item became their common nickname for one another, such as “salt” or “bird egg.” Other members of the community would also use these terms (“there goes your ‘salt”), underscoring the importance of the web of shared relationships and social life connected through gifts. ### Generalized Reciprocity Dr. Marshall Sahlins (1972) applied Mauss’s idea of “the gift” to three kinds of reciprocity that he saw during his fieldwork among the Ju/'hoansi: generalized, balanced, and negative. Friends and family often practice a loose form of reciprocity we call generalized. The value of the gift is not specified at the time of exchange, nor is the time of repayment. However, the parties involved have the responsibility to reciprocate at some time and in some roughly equal way. Because all societies have a circle of people they trust, generalized reciprocity can be found in every type of society. Familiar examples in urban society might include throwing a party for close friends, with the expectation they will invite you to one in return; doing favors for your brother, knowing he will return them at some point; or caring for a sick parent, who has done the same for you many times. In a foraging band, such as the Ju/'hoansi, hunting is governed by the rules of generalized reciprocity. Ju/'hoansi hunters prepare for the hunt by filling their quivers with arrows made by other hunters. Killing a large animal such as a giraffe takes multiple arrows, likely from each member of the hunting party, who must track and follow the animals for days as the poison weakens its system. Therefore, responsibility for the kill is shared from the moment they set out on the hunt. If the hunt is successful, the hunters will divide the animal such that all members of the band receive some. Contrary to what one might imagine, only a small portion goes to the hunters and their families. However, by entering into a sharing relationship with each member of the group to whom they have given meat, the hunters have solidified a bond. The debt of food will be repaid when the next group of hunters brings home meat. The reciprocal relationship is unlike a profit-driven one, which focuses on self-interest. Can you imagine a person in a capitalist society working hard to purchase a computer, and then giving it away when someone asks for it, keeping only the mouse? This is essentially what Ju/'hoansi hunters do. After skillfully bringing home an animal, they keep only a small portion. The system only works if the individual knows that others in the community will reciprocate by giving them an item of equal value in exchange at some point in the near future. People are likely to practice generalized reciprocity when they know one another well, that is, when the social distance is minimal among friends and family. In a system of reciprocity, the more that one gives away, the more that will come back. But it also means that the more one has, the stronger the demands will be on them. Demand sharing helps preserve the values of egalitarianism and equality by ensuring no one has more than anyone else. In hierarchical or ranked societies, the person with higher status must be allowed to give a gift of higher value. For instance, a chief shows off their wealth by giving valuable gifts to members of the community who have supported them. In response, it would be completely inappropriate for a community member to give a more valuable gift back to the chief. The more valuable gift marks the higher status of the giver. ### Balanced Reciprocity Because horticulturalists, like foragers, live in small-scale societies, they also practice reciprocity. Their main methods of distributing food around the village are generalized reciprocity (in which they trade with family and close friends) and balanced reciprocity (in which they trade with others outside their trusted circle). Balanced reciprocity is an exchange in which the value of goods is specified as well as the time frame of repayment. Trading partners who need to ensure that items or payment will be delivered at a specific time use this type of exchange. The items may hold great symbolic value and serve to maintain social and political alliances. Because the value of the items is known and the time to deliver is agreed upon, failing to do so is a major transgression. It will likely terminate the relationship and can have serious consequences, such as fighting, raids, or other sanctions. Off the east coast of _Papua New Guinea_, early ethnographer Dr. Bronislaw Malinowski (1922) described a system of balanced reciprocity called _**The Kula Ring**_. This system involves the circulation of gifts among trading partners in the archipelago of the Trobriand Islands. On an agreed-upon date, and with all of the necessary magical and ceremonial preparations complete, a man sails out to a designated location between islands to meet his longtime trading partner (*Kula* was restricted to men). At that time, he passes on a gift of a red shell necklace (*soulava*) or white shell armband (*mwali*). As part of the same ceremony, he receives the opposite item from his trading partner. In direct contrast to the capitalist idea that “the person with the most wealth wins," the goal of the _Kula_ exchange is to possess the item for a period of time, but then, importantly, to give it away. Each trading partner must continue to trade at regular intervals with other partners on different islands. The necklaces move in one direction around the islands and the armbands in another. It may take up to a decade before the items return to this same person. Having *mwali* or *soulava* in one’s possession gives a man status, but, more importantly, the history of each object remains with it, along with the names of the people who have passed them on. Trading exchanges like these maintain alliances between groups on different islands, sometimes preventing them from going to war with one another. Anthropologists refer to this as a **prestige economy**, in which prestige, not financial reward, is sought and gained. The man who has, at one time owned, and then given away, many *Kula* items has a great amount of prestige. ### Leveling Mechanisms What happens when a group settles into an area and plants crops rather than moving from place to place? The change from a nomadic life of foraging to a sedentary village life of farming rearranges the most basic patterns of social life. No longer are people carrying their belongings on their backs, but they accumulate goods and store them in their homes. While sharing is essential practice for foragers’ survival, some individuals practicing horticulture will now have more possessions than others based on the location and production of their gardens. Everything one owns is no longer in the open for the community to see; things can even be hidden from neighbors. The shift in food practices creates a challenge to the traditional egalitarian values of the group. Tensions created by these new more secretive - practices need to be reconciled, as sharing has always been an intrinsic part of their value system. In order to try to maintain the equal level of status among all members of the group, a society will practice some sort of **leveling mechanism**. This is a social and economic obligation to distribute wealth so no one accumulates more than anyone else. Settled societies develop rules for how and when goods get distributed, with the wealthiest members of the group experiencing the most pressure to share with others. Between individuals, leveling may take the form of **demand sharing**, in which members of the group may request items on demand. In communities who have more recently moved from foraging to a variety of settled subsistence methods, it is perfectly appropriate to demand or take meat or other food items when hungry, especially from those who have more than you. The leveling practices between individual members in nonforaging societies help distribute the wealth in culturally resonant ways. Dr. Polly Wiessner (2002), who lived and worked among the Ju/'hoansi in the 1990s, confirms that modern Ju/'hoansi who live on reservations and receive government rations still use demand sharing when they experience hunger. Rations are handed out during lean times (September through December), when gathering, hunting, or other food production does not produce enough to satisfy all the members of a group. In keeping with the cultural expectations of sharing, hungry family members may demand rations, money, or food items from others. Wiessner relates how men with pensions or a small income will often purchase large quantities of beer from the local store and drink it quickly before family members and close friends can demand it from them. There are also social institutions that more formally distribute wealth. An example of this type of leveling mechanism is the _*cofradía*_ or **cargo system** found in Maya villages and towns from Mexico through Central America. In this political and religious system, men living in the village must serve a volunteer position as a town laborer or official for at least one year. Since this is obligatory volunteer service, his family must pay for whatever expenses are incurred during his tenure. The more years one serves the community, the more prestige the individual is given. Ideally, leveling mechanisms such as demand sharing or the cargo system help to maintain the traditional ideals of a foraging society even after a community transitions to horticulture. ### Redistribution Redistribution is the process by which goods and money flow into a central source, such as a governmental authority or a religious institution. These goods are counted, sorted, and allocated back to the community. Redistribution as an economic strategy relies on a centralized authority and therefore is not found in exchanges between members in foraging societies. Paying taxes and tribute are examples of redistributive processes. For instance, almost every country today requires that citizens pay taxes annually to a government body. The monies collected are then redistributed through public works such as infrastructure upgrades. Tribute items are material goods or food items that are required to pay a central governing body at regular intervals, in addition to or in lieu of taxes. The Aztecs of ancient Mexico demanded vast quantities of tribute from subordinate regions. Tribute chiefs called *calpixque* would collect foodstuffs, cotton cloth, paper, copal incense, and ceremonial items from these regions in exchange for protection by the Aztec capital of _Teotihuacán_. Some scholars argue that it was precisely the high demands of tribute that pushed subordinate states to turn against the Aztecs and side with the Spanish – a lesson learned too late. Redistribution is also used in religious practices when offerings for gods or ancestors are brought to a place of worship. After a religious ceremony sanctifies the offerings and the gods partake of them in a nonearthly way, the offerings may then be divided among the worshippers. The Hindu *puja* is a form of worship that honors deities, special guests, or events. Members of the religious community will bring food items (fruits and sweets, for example) to the temple. After the ritual, food may be shared with members, now in a blessed form called *prasada*. Another example of a redistributive gift-giving ceremony with great social and cultural significance is the *potlatch*, an event in which Pacific Northwest Coast peoples share food, give gifts, and come together to celebrate. The potlatch is a ceremony common to Indigenous peoples living in the coastal areas of the northwest part of the continent, extending from Alaska southward through British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. The basic elements of the potlatch include a host group (a kinship group) inviting guests to witness an event of significance. The potlatch typically includes the reciting of oral history, feasting, dancing, and giving of gifts that have been created for the occasion. Prior to the arrival of Europeans in the region, it was likely that potlatches were quite rare for any particular group to host, being reserved for such events as a person’s formal assumption as chief. Neighboring groups would be invited, and the potlatch would last weeks or even months. However, in 1885, the Canadian government imposed a legal ban on potlatches, with imprisonment as punishment. They saw the potlatch as wasteful, harmful to economic growth, and an impediment to social progress. As a result, thousands of items used in the ceremonies, many sacred, were confiscated and ended up in private and museum collections. Even more detrimental was the disruption of an essential aspect of coastal First Nations life, with an entire generation unable to participate unless the ceremonies were underground. The ban on potlatches in Canada was lifted in 1951. Potlatches continue in contemporary times and are much more common today than in precolonial times. In addition to being organized to validate a person’s assumption of the position of chief, for example, potlatches may be held today for a variety of reasons, including a person obtaining an Indigenous name (and all the rights and responsibilities that go with it), getting married, and mourning the loss of a community member. They provide an opportunity for visiting guests to put on the public record events that have occurred within their own community, and opportunities to recite and validate oral history, validate myths and other stories through performance, affirm identity and status, and maintain alliances. Acceptance of gifts signifies that guests agree that the host has the right to the position and its responsibilities. In addition, gift recipients are then required to share their memories of the event. ### Market Economy Large and complex populations develop a market economy, which is a more formal and bureaucratic system. The laws of supply and demand set market rates for food and other goods, which must be traded or purchased according to a set price. The price remains the same for all consumers, some bargaining notwithstanding, since the vast majority of buyers and sellers no longer know one another personally. A market economy is the foundation of capitalism, in which things, services, and ideas are commodities that may be bought and sold. However, informal economic exchanges such as reciprocity and redistribution also persist in market economies. People make reciprocal exchanges between family and friends. In order to participate as members of society, they pay taxes to the government, which then redistributes them in public works, such as infrastructure improvement. Intensive agricultural and industrial economies are built in the marketplace - in other words, in the buying and selling of goods and services. Because farmers are producing a surplus, a central location for exchange draws people to negotiate the costs of items. In general, the laws of supply and demand set prices. In other words, when there is a lot of something, it will sell for a low price, but when there is little of something that many people want, it will demand a high price. Only buyers with high incomes will be able to afford exotic or high-demand goods. Consider the holiday season in North America, when the only toy a child wants is the most popular toy of the season. In my daughter’s case, it was the baby doll that peed and pooped. I hesitated, not wanting the poopy doll in my house, until my tiny daughter looked at me sweetly one night and said, “Mama, all I want is that doll.” I panicked, went on the internet, and realized they were sold out. I checked eBay, and for a moment considered paying far, far too much for a defecating doll. The supply was low and demand was high, and the dolls were selling for over a hundred dollars. Reason won out, and I decided to risk my daughter’s disappointment by not buying the doll. Fortunately, several weeks later, my daughter told me her friend had received the doll over the holidays, and the consensus was that it was “gross.” She was glad that she hadn’t gotten one. I was relieved. ### Money The market economy is based on the use of money for buying and selling goods and labor. Today, we usually think of money in terms of dollars and cents (or credit cards and PayPal, which also rely on dollars and cents). However, throughout history, money has taken many forms. It can be anything that is used to measure and pay for the value of goods and services. Money must be *portable*, so it can be brought to the marketplace for transactions. It must also be *durable*, so the value doesn’t diminish over time. Finally, it must be *divisible*, so it can be measured to the appropriate amount, and leftover change can be given. Trading blankets for a cow is fine if the blankets equal the entire cow. However, if the cow is worth more than the blankets, the cow would have to be butchered in order to give change. It’s much easier to weigh out something divisible, like bags of salt or yams, to the exact amount. Other examples of divisible items used as money throughout history are shells, teeth, jaguar pelts, bones, beads, and metals. Teeth, bones, and shells are referred to as **special purpose money**, in that these items were used only to measure the value of things in the marketplace and lacked another practical use. A stack of jaguar pelts on display or a large necklace made of teeth demonstrates great wealth in a symbolic way. This is called special purpose money because, although a wealthy person might wear a necklace of teeth as a symbol of high status, they are not going to attempt to eat with those teeth. In contrast, commodities such as salt, rice, cacao beans, peppercorns, tobacco, and alcohol are considered **multipurpose money** (also called **commodity money**). In this case, the item has value in itself and is not just symbolic. Salt is an essential mineral for human bodies that is used to preserve and flavor foods. Societies who have traditionally used special purpose and multipurpose money suddenly find themselves “poor” in a market economy. One result of colonization is that it changes the social and economic value of items and makes cash the only valued mode of payment. This often forces people to find jobs, often low-wage, within the cash economy. It can also lead to situations in which people who have few cash resources accept an **indentured relationship** in which their work is exchanged for items on which to live, such as land and food. These arrangements are often exploitative, with laborers unable to pay off their debts. Sometimes a seller or trader knows that the item they offer is worth less than the price they are asking. This would be an example of **negative reciprocity**, in which the seller is deceiving the buyer as to the real value of the object that is being exchanged. Trading partners who don’t have an alliance may enter into an exchange knowing that they may be swindled. Selling a used vehicle with a new paint job for a high price because no one can tell it’s been underwater is another example. ### Barter Even though trade through barter appears to be an example of balanced reciprocity, it is actually more similar to a monetary exchange within a market system. In contrast to balanced reciprocity, in which individuals are in a long-term relationship of exchange, those involved in barter may not know one another prior to the transaction and may not maintain a relationship afterwards. The individuals are trading items as if the items had monetary value, subject to the laws of supply and demand. In North America, many examples of direct barter exist, even though our economy is based on money. For instance, consider the kind of negotiation that takes place at a flea market or swap meet. I have traded an appropriate number of homemade bars of soap to a stranger for a leather belt - an exchange that worked out well for both parties. The other party needed to be clean and I needed to hold up my pants. Malinowski (1922) reports that in addition to the *Kula* exchanges of balanced reciprocity in the Trobriand Islands of _Papua New Guinea_, there is also a system of direct barter called *gimwali*. Items such as yams, coconuts, clay pots, wooden combs, and axe blades are traded between strangers. Direct barter takes place immediately, with one item being traded for another, using the strategies of haggling or negotiation to get a good price. In *Kula*, lifetime trading partners exchange items with great ceremonial and symbolic value, with the goal of maintaining social and political alliances. Haggling among Kula partners would not only be bad form, but might cause the alliance to fall apart or, in an extreme case, war to break out between islands. *Gimwali* is a system of barter of items of value to both parties, while *Kula* is a ceremonial exchange of items that have no practical value but bestow great symbolic status and wealth on the person who had had them. ## CONSUMPTION: HOW PEOPLE USE THE THINGS THEY NEED AND WANT Consumption is the set of practices related to the use of things produced by a society. These range from food items to clothing, raw materials to complex technological machines, reused or recycled items to new trends. Consuming is the act of getting some benefit from goods or services. Often consumption refers to food itself, and the choices people make about eating. For instance, a pastoral society such as the Maasai may consume milk and blood from their cattle, while Hadza foragers - who live close by - rely on plant materials, game, and honey. Why do these two groups people sharing a similar ecosystem choose to consume such different sources of nutrition? Their different social organizations - pastoralism and foraging - create different ecological limitations. As pastoralists, Maasai people rely on food and other products from their herds. The major focus of their economic lives is to maintain and grow the numbers of animals they keep. In contrast, foraging Hadza people do not keep animal herds, due to political choices and environmental limitations (discussed in Chapter 5). Therefore, they must pursue game and seek food in their environment daily. Consumers in industrial societies are constrained more by economics than the environment, that is, in how far their budget will go. In addition to economic factors, food choice is guided by social, cultural, and religious factors. Yet even in industrial societies, food choices may still be guided by past ecological limitations that are no longer as environmentally relevant. One explanation for why Hinduism prohibits eating beef is a good example. Harris (1985) argues that beef cattle (the Indian zebu in particular) are highly valuable to Indians, for whom they plow fields, carry burdens, and produce milk (which is turned into cheese, yogurt, and other nutritional food items). Routinely killing cattle for meat would undermine the steady access to nutrition and labor that the living cow provides. Harris argues that these ecological constraints led to the sacred taboos against consuming cow meat manifested by the bodily representation of the divine bovine Hindu goddess Kamadhenu. According to Harris, the need for working cattle in agricultural India has shaped the religious-based consumption patterns of urban Hindus in cosmopolitan cities. Some economists argue that the consumption patterns of a society drive its economic engine, from production forward. That is, the need for food, goods, and services dictate what and how much is produced. However, need is not the only factor that causes societies to engage in production. As I've stressed throughout this chapter, social,