Economic Anthropology (Part II)
1. The anthropological toward the study
of economic systems
2. Forms of distribution & Exchange
3. THREE types of reciprocity
Reading: 1) Economic Anthropology; 2) L.
Cronk, “Strings attached,” The Sciences.
RECIPROCITY and Exchange in Economic Systems
1) The anthropological approach toward
the study of economic systems
2) Forms of distribution and exchange
3) Types of RECIPROCITY
Ethnographic Examples: KULA,
POTLATCH, Cargo Cult
“Life Without Chiefs”( Harris 1989)
- “cultural materialism”
- biological vs. social evolution
- principles of reciprocity
What can we learn from the “evolution
of human nature?”
- There is nothing inherited about the
political formalism and social
inequality that characterize large state
societies
How do anthropologists study
economic systems?
 Anthropologists study the means by which
goods are produced, distributed, and
consumed in the context of the total culture
of particular societies. Although they
borrowed theories and concepts from
economists, most anthropologists feel that
principles derived from the study of western
market economies have limited applicability
to economic systems were people do not
produce and exchange goods for profit.
Formalists vs. substantivists (Karl Polanyi)
 Formalists
Anthropologists after WWII adopted formal
neoclassical economic theory while attempting to
explain economic activities in non-western societies.
Ex. Exchange took in a ritual context; activities and
institutions that might represent a metaphorical
equivalent of the capitalist market (marriage
exchange)
 Substantivists
Anthropologists who suggested capitalist market
exchange is but one mode of exchange. Nonwestern
societies have devised alternative modes of exchange
that distribute material goods in a manner that is
consistent with their basic values, institutions and
assumptions about the human condition. The
various culturally shaped patterns of economic
activities should be the focus of analysis.
Three forms/modes of exchange
 Reciprocity: Products, gifts, and objects are passed
back and forth with the aim of: 1) helping someone in
need by sharing; 2)creating, maintaining, and
strengthening relationships; 3) obtaining products
made by others for oneself
 Redistribution: contribute products to a common
pool or fund that is divided (reallocated) among group
as a whole by a central authority
 Market: products are sold for money, which in
return is used to purchase other products, with the
ultimate goal of acquiring more money or
accumulating more products or both.
Modes of Exchange
 The market principle – supply &
demand
 Redistribution
 TYPES of RECIPROCITY
- Generalized reciprocity
- Balanced reciprocity
- Negative reciprocity
EXCHANGE and RECIPROCITY:
the anthropological/sociological perspective
 Exchange is a fundamental element in
defining social solidarity (the “glue” of
social solidarity)
 Exchange as a dynamic process, neverending, and constantly MUST BE
RENEWED
 Economic/social/political relationship:
The power/spirit of “gift” (Mauss 1925)
Generalized reciprocity
 Those who give goods or services do NOT
expect the recipient to make a return at any
definite time in the future.
 A transaction that involves least conscious
sense of interest in material gain.
 Occurring between individuals who are (or
at least are normatively expected to be)
emotionally attached to one another or trust
each other and have an obligation to help
one another on the basis of the relative need.
Generalized reciprocity
“cast your bread upon the waters . . .”
Sustaining families in all societies
One-way transfers.
Charity / donation
Volunteering activities
The pure gift (?) as an extreme form of generalized
reciprocity.
Generalized reciprocity may seem altruistic, but does
giving benefit the giver in various ways?
Ex. No Free Gifts (Mary Douglas 1990) in GIFT
(Mauss 1950)
Ex. Child-rearing in North America & Fulfilling
filial (孝 ) obligations in East Asia
Balanced reciprocity
 Products are transferred to the recipient and the
donor/giver expects a return in products of
roughly equal value (i.e. the exchanges should
“balance.”).
 Explicit and short term in its expectations of return.
 Although the value of the objects transacted is
supposed to be equal, balanced reciprocity is
characterized by the absence of bargaining
between the parties.
 Trade relationship
 May mostly involve labor.
Balanced Reciprocity
“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch
yours”
- Exchange of holiday cards / wedding
banquets
- Text messages on New Year’s Eve
- Japanese White Holiday (02/14; 03/14)
- Exchange between “wife-givers” and
“wife-takers”
- And others?
Negative Reciprocity
 Both parties attempt to gain all they can
from the exchange while giving up as little
as possible.
 Motivated largely by the desire to obtain
material goods at minimal cost.
 No money changes hands between
participants
Negative Reciprocity
Ex. U.N. sanctions against Iraq;
War in Iraq;
Bombing Libya
Theft
Robbery
Any others?
Ex. Food Poisoning and Baby Formula Scare
Strings Attached
 Thinking anthropologically about the power
of gifts
 Is there such a thing as a free gift?
 “Indian Giver” & Potlatch
 The power relations between the giver /
donors (international development agencies)
and the recipients (developing countries/ the
3rd World)
Is there such a thing as a free gift?
 Exchange is a fundamental element in
defining social solidarity (the “glue” of
social solidarity)
 Exchange as a dynamic process, neverending, and constantly MUST BE
RENEWED
 Economic/social/political relationship:
The power/spirit of “gift” (Mauss 1925)
“Indian Giving” vs. “White Man Keeping”
 …the point of the gift was to inaugurate a friendly
relationship that would be maintained thought a series
of mutual exchanges
 Like colonialists, most westerners were blind to the
purpose of reciprocal gift-giving…we too use gifts to
nurture long-term relationships of mutual obligations
as well as to embarrass our rivals and foster feelings of
indebtedness
 Failing to acknowledge this fact, esp. as we give money,
machines and technical advice to peoples around the
world, we run the risk of being misinterpreted and
worse, of causing harm.
Ex: Kula, potlatch, development aid, etc.
POTLATCH
- Classical case study in economic
anthropology
- Problems of INTERPRETATION:
- Wasteful display of wealth, lavish feasting
(夸 富 宴 ) ？ Competing for status
- Ecological perspective
- The cultural politics of
REPRESENTATION
Food as Gift, Food as Threat: Potlatch,
Reciprocity, and Exchange
 “Fight with food”
Online exhibition: Gifting and Feasting in the
Northwest Coast Potlatch
http://www.peabody.harvard.edu/potlatch/default.html
Potlatches, as once practiced by Northwest Coast Native
American groups, are a widely studied ritual in which
sponsors (tribal leaders) gave away resources and
manufactured wealth while generating prestige for
themselves. Potlatching tribes (such as Kwakiutl and
Salish peoples) were foragers but lived in sedentary
villages and had chiefs--this political complexity is
attributed to the overall richness of their environment.
Potlatches were social occasions
given by a host to establish or
uphold his status position in
society. Often they were held
to mark a significant event in
his family (the birth of a child
or a son's marriage). Potlatches
are to be distinguished from
feasts in that guests are invited
to a potlatch to share food and
receive gifts or payment.
Potlatches held by commoners
were mainly local, while elites
often invited guests from many
tribes. Potlatches were also the
venue in which ownership to
economic and ceremonial
privileges was asserted,
displayed, and formally
Potlatch
 Every event during a potlatch
highlighted the host's status by
demonstrating his wealth or
expounding on
his inherited privileges. Ownership of such
privileges determined status.
 Potlatches included speeches, singing, dancing,
feasting, and gift-giving. Speeches, songs, and
dances allowed a host to assert his ancestral
privileges to the guests. Masks and headdresses
worn during dances depicted the supernatural
being who had "given" the dance to the host or one
of his ancestors. Serving food allowed the host to
demonstrate his generosity and wealth, as did
distributing gifts.
Problems of interpretation (or overinterpretation)?
Potlatches were once interpreted as
wasteful displays generated by culturally
induced mania for prestige, but some
anthropologists argue that customs like
the potlatch are adaptive, allowing
adjustment for alternating periods of
local abundance and shortage.
• Ecological perspective
• Any examples of potlatch in the “modern
world”?
The Politics of Reciprocity
The Kula Ring 库拉圈
1)
2)
3)
System of exchange involves annual inter-island visits
between trading partners who exchange highly valued
shell ornaments (necklaces & armbands).
Each participant is linked to two partners: one to
whom he gives a necklace in return for an armband of
equivalent value the other to whom he makes the
reverse exchange of an armband for a necklace.
Malinowski considers the motivation for the enormous
expenditure of time and effort involved in kula
expeditions to be fundamentally non-utilitarian "in
that they [the kula valuables] are merely possessed for
the sake of possession itself, and the ownership of them
with the ensuing renown is the main source of their
value".
The development of kula partnerships has social implications
 They establish friendly relations among the
inhabitants of different islands and maintain a
pattern of peaceful contact and communication,
 They provide the occasion for the inter-island
exchange of utilitarian items, which are shipped
back and forth in the course of kula expeditions,
 They reinforce status and authority distinctions,
since the hereditary chiefs own the most important
shell valuables and assume the responsibility for
organizing and directing ocean voyages.
Kula ring 库拉交易圈
 A most elaborate complex of ceremony, political
relationships, economic exchange, travel, magic,
and social integration.
 Economic matters are inseparable from the rest
of culture (the economics is not realm unto itself)
 Just as true in modern industrial societies as it is
in traditional Trobriand society.
Example: when the US stopped trading with Cuba,
Haiti, Iran, Iraq, and Serbia, it was for political
rather than economic reasons. Economic
embargoes are popular political weapons.
The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea (Weiner 1988)
 Weiner’s work in the Trobriands led to a major
reassessment of Malinowski's conceptualizations
of Trobriand culture, adding to the tapestry the
integral role of women in Trobriand kinship,
political economy, and exchange.
 provides a balanced view of the society from a
male and female perspective
 Gives attention to women’s productive work—
distribution of their own wealth -- bundles of
banana leaves and banana fiber skirts which are
exchanged with other women in commemoration
of someone who had recently died.
 Take women’s economic roles more seriously
 Male bias in Malinowski’s classical field research?
Male bias in Malinowski’s classical field research?
 人类学者怀娜重特布里安群岛，对岛上妇女的活
动和交易模式进行田野考察。在《女人有价，男
人有名》（Weiner 1976）一中，怀娜勾勒出被
马林诺斯基完全忽略了的由女性主导的一个生产、
交换和社会网络的地方文化景观。根据马林诺斯
基的田野记述，岛上的男子交换贝壳、番薯和生
猪。而怀娜发现，岛上的经济活动应加入妇女交
换芭蕉叶和制作精致的草裙，才能真正还原实地
生活图景。尽管在马林诺斯基留下的照片和笔记
中，有证据表明妇女们有交换被她们视为财富的
芭蕉叶的习俗。而直至近半个世纪之后，怀娜才
重新“发现”了这一妇女经济活动传统。马林诺
斯基之所以对妇女间如此活跃的交易活动熟视无
睹或者说视而不见，主要是他认为芭蕉叶不具备
消费物品的一般特征。在他看来，只有能够满足
人的生物生存需求的活动才是“经济性”的（而
芭蕉叶子又不能当饭吃）。他可能压根就没有把
Cargo Cults （船货崇拜）
 “cargo” – pidgin English for traded goods (plus







knowledge of white magic power)
Prophecy fulfilled: the arrival of the whites as the sign
that the end of the world was at hand; “receiving the news
of the millennium”
The collision of “European civilization with the indigenous
cultures of the SW Pacific.”
Cult was well-organized: forms of local
resistances/cultural fusion
The acceptance of Christianity did not bring cargo any
nearer (not the whites but dead ancestors made the cargo)
The cults reflect quite logical and rational attempts to
make sense of a social order that appears to be chaotic
Cargo never comes; cults live on.
Scattered groups were brought together.
Concept review: EXCHANGE
 Reciprocity
Back-and-forth exchange of products, gifts, and
objects, symbolic of relationships as well as
satisfying material needs and wants.
 Redistribution
Collection of products and valuables by a central
authority, followed by distribution according to
some normative or legal principle.
 Market
Free exchange of products or services for money at
prices determined by impersonal forces of supply
and demand.
Q: Is there such a thing as a “pure gift?”