Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Difference Between Gift Exchange and Market Transactions
Difference Between Gift Exchange and Market Transactions What is the difference between gift exchange and market transactions, and how do they both relate to gender relations? Introduction Karl Polanyi (1968), in his critique of the principles that underlie the formalist approach to economic analysis, attempted to define the tools by which the economies of ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ societies could be analysed. Central to the substantivistsââ¬â¢ claims was the understanding that the introduction of money destroyed indigenous social relations by introducing the notion of ââ¬Ëequivalencies of valueââ¬â¢ where none had previously existed. In this approach, the substantivists were following the legacy of Marcel Mauss,[1] who, in his seminal The Gift (1954), had argued that in contemporary and archaic societies as widespread as North America, Polynesia and Ancient Rome the assumptions of economic analysis, as used in explaining market transactions, were not relevant as these societies were gift economies. In this essay, I will first examine what Mauss meant by the term gift economies, before providing a contemporary example from the work of Usula Sharma (1984) who demonstrates how a gift exchange may be instrumental in the subordination of women. In the second section, I then look at market transactions and, by drawing on the work of Maria Mies (1998), I reveal the gendered nature of the market. In the conclusion, I problematise the division between ââ¬Ëgiftââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëmarketââ¬â¢ economies, suggesting that both are weberian ââ¬Ëideal typesââ¬â¢ and that neither is fully adequate to account for the complexity of both market transactions and gift exchanges, as both are deeply embedded in social relations and thus in relations of power. Gender and Gift Exchange Marcel Mauss argued that in contemporary western society we make a distinction between gift exchange and market transactions, and that in the west we presume the former to be free of obligations (Douglas in Mauss, 2000: vii). However, Mauss argued that the gift in fact entails an obligation to reciprocate[2] and thus creates ties between individuals and/ or groups. For Mauss, this form of economy differs from the ââ¬Ëdisinterestedââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëself-interestedââ¬â¢ exchange of modern societies (Mauss, 2000: 75-6) and he believed that all economies were originally gift economies: ââ¬Ë[t]he system that we propose to call the system of ââ¬Ëtotal servicesââ¬â¢, from clan to clan [â⬠¦] constitutes the most ancient system of economy and law [] forms the base from which the morality of the exchange-thorough-gift has flowedââ¬â¢ (Mauss, 2000: 70). An example of gift exchange is that of Northern India, and the Dowry system as described by Ursula Sharma (1984), compl ete with mutual obligations and the creation of lasting ties. Sharma describes a marriage system whereby the family of the bride must pay a dowry to the family of the groom, creating lasting ties between the two families, premised on the ability of the bridesââ¬â¢ family to give: when they arrange the marriage of a son, parents do not just look forward to the dowry they will receive at the wedding. They look forward to the brideââ¬â¢s familyââ¬â¢s general capacity to give (Sharma, 1984: 64). Although, if asked, most participants would describe the dowry as ââ¬Ëfreely givenââ¬â¢ in fact behind the scenes ââ¬Ëexplicit bargainingââ¬â¢ takes place (Sharma, 1984: 64). In a society sharply divided, not only by gender but also by age and caste, control over what is given and what happens to these gifts once received is subject to division along lines of gender and age. Senior women in the household are responsible for ââ¬Ëseeing that obligations are met and proper relations maintainedââ¬â¢ (Sharma, 1984: 65), but when the gifts are of cash, then it is the senior men who are most in control (Sharma, 1984: 66). The ties created by the dowry may have severe consequences for the dis-empowered bride: ââ¬Ë[d]owry favours and is favoured by a cultural ethos in which brides can be viewed as objects to be passed from one social group to anotherââ¬â¢, further, ââ¬Ëin India the rapid inflation of dowries [â⬠¦] has led to a situation in which brides are more controlled by than controllers of propertyââ¬â¢ (Sharma, 1984: 73). Finally, ââ¬Ëdowry deathsââ¬â¢ may occur when the groomsââ¬â¢ family is disappointed with her dowry and hope to negotiate a better one for a second marriage (Sharma, 1984: 71). However, her powerlessness is eased by time, as she moves to being a ââ¬Ëdowry-takerââ¬â¢ on the marriage of her sons (Sharma, 1984: 72). Thus, we can see that in the gift exchange lasting relationships are created, and that these relations are differentiated according to age and gender. Gender and Market Transactions In this section I examine the ââ¬Ëmarket transactionââ¬â¢ through the work of Maria Mies (1998), revealing the gendered nature of the supposedly ââ¬Ëdisinterestedââ¬â¢ market. In a market transaction, rather than the exchange of gifts which then creates lasting ties between people, it is presumed that in the exchange of commodities only a relationship between things is created: ââ¬Ëthe transactors are strangers in a state of reciprocal independence which persists after the transactionââ¬â¢ (Thomas, 1991: 14). Such an understanding is supported by our ââ¬Ëcommon senseââ¬â¢ understandings of the different spheres of exchange: for example, Paul Bohannan (1968), in his discussion of the ââ¬Ëspheres of exchangeââ¬â¢ among the Tiv of Northern Nigeria, identifies a similar division in Tiv ideology between the ââ¬Ëgiftââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëmarketsââ¬â¢. The former representing the formation and continuation of social relationships, while the later ââ¬Ëcal ls up no long-term personal relationship, and which is therefore to be exploited to as great a degree as possibleââ¬â¢ (Bohannan, 1968: 300); in this set of relationships, all items have an exchange equivalent. After all, when I exchange cash for a commodity I do not feel myself to be tied into a reciprocal relationship with the shopkeeper. However, Mies argues that rather than the formally free, atomistic individuals, engaged in disinterested exchange (Polanyi, 1968) of theoretical liberalism, and therefore of much economic thought, instead we find that actors are no less entwined in power relations than in the gift economies outlined above. Indeed, she argues that ââ¬Ëthe exploitative sexual division is the social paradigm upon which the international division of labour is built upââ¬â¢ (Mies, 1998: 4, emphasis added). First, many have debated the way in which the public sphere is dominated by men, but Mies argues that it is in fact the unpaid work of the housewife, of caring and nurturing within the domestic sphere (Mies, 1998: ix), or ââ¬Ëwomenââ¬â¢s workââ¬â¢, that allows men to be free to enter the public realm (Mies, 1998: 31). Next, Mies argues that the ââ¬Ëhousewifizationââ¬â¢ of labour[3] not only naturalizes womenââ¬â¢s restriction to the private realm, but also means that her paid wor k is considered ââ¬Ëonly supplementaryââ¬â¢ to that of her husband (Mies, 1998: ix): ââ¬Ë[t]he process of proletarianization of the men was, therefore, accompanied by a process of housewifization of womenââ¬â¢ (Mies, 1998: 69). Finally, Mies argues that third world women are valued by capitalism as producers due to their ââ¬Ënimble fingersââ¬â¢ and as they are ââ¬Ëconsidered to be the most docile, manipulable labour forceââ¬â¢ (Mies, 1998: 117): in short, due to ascribed gender stereotypes. The symbolic hierarchy of gender thus has material effects as women are placed in an economically vulnerable position and are concentrated in low paid, part-time employment: women and their children are the most economically disadvantaged group across the globe. Further, women are locked into an international division of labour whereby the ââ¬Ëthird world women produce not what they need, but what others [first world women] can buyââ¬â¢ (Mies, 1998: 118, original emp hasis). Thomson echoes this argument: ââ¬Ë[e]veryone is now tied up in a historical network of global relations [] we are all caught up in international relations of production and appropriation which stretch across the spaces separating usââ¬â¢ (Thomas, 1991: 8-9) and this international relation of production is gendered. Conclusion Nicholas Thomas rejects Maussââ¬â¢ argument that the economies of Melanesia and Polynesia can be regarded as ââ¬Ëgift economiesââ¬â¢, which are thus opposed to the market economies of Europe. He argues that this division misses the way that these ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ economies are in fact deeply entangled with the global capitalist trade (Thomas, 1991: 4): ââ¬Ëa wider range of evidence from indigenous Oceanic societies suggests that there is a broad continuum between systems in which it is possible to substitute only people for people, or food for food, and those in which a wide range of expansive conversions are permittedââ¬â¢ (Thomas, 1991: 4). Divisions, such as Mauss makes, between ââ¬Ëgift exchangeââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëmarket transactionsââ¬â¢ are part of the reification of difference between ââ¬Ëusââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëthemââ¬â¢ (Thomas, 1991: 34), further, ââ¬Ëthe grand polarities almost always turn out to be implausibleââ¬â¢ (Thomas, 1991: 2 7). Thomas argues that by scrutinising our concepts via the lens of gender we can reveal the theoretical flaws or weaknesses that we might otherwise miss (Thomas, 1991: 2) For Polanyi, the economic sphere as defined by the discipline of economics is based on a conflation of two distinct meanings: the ââ¬Ësubstantiveââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëformalââ¬â¢. ââ¬ËThe formal meaning of economic derives from the logical character of the means-ends relationship [â⬠¦] it refers to a definite situation of choiceââ¬â¢ (Polanyi, 1968: 122), whereas in the substantive definition ââ¬Ëthe economy here is embodied in institutions that cause individual choices to give rise to interdependent movements that constitute the economic processââ¬â¢ (Polanyi, 1968: 125). In short, formal economics is based on the notion of formally free individuals, making rational economic decisions and which create no lasting ties, whereas substantive economics views all economies, whether regarded as gift economies or those based on market transaction, as embedded in social relations. Thomas concurs: ââ¬Ë[e]xchange is always, in the first instance, a political process, o ne in which wider relationships are expressedââ¬â¢ (Thomas, 1991: 7) for exchange relationships are always differentiated by power (Thomas, 1991: 22), by race, class, gender and age. Thomas would not have us abandon the distinction between gift and commodity entirely (Thomas, 1991: 29), perhaps it would be better to view them as points along a continuum, with each ââ¬Ëidealââ¬â¢ type at the opposing ends but the majority of actual cases lying somewhere in between; further it is necessary that we recognise the coexistence of both types (Thomas, 1991: 33). Whether or not the introduction of money destroyed indigenous social relations, by introducing the ââ¬Ëequivalencies of valueââ¬â¢, as the substantavists claimed, the ties that are created by contemporary commodity exchange may be less evident, but Maria Mies reminds us that nonetheless the global division of labour links third world producers to first world consumers in an asymmetrical power relationship that makes a lie of the supposed disinterestedness of market transactions. Bibliography Bohannan, Paul (1968) ââ¬ËSome Principles of Exchange and Investment among the Tivââ¬â¢, Economic Anthropology: Readings in Theory and Analysis, LeClair Schneider (Eds.), London: Holt, Rinehart Winston, pp 122 ââ¬â 143. Levi-Strauss, Claude (1969 [1949]) ââ¬ËNature and Cultureââ¬â¢ ââ¬ËThe Problem of Incestââ¬â¢, The Elementary Structure of Kinship, London: Eyre Spottiswoode, pp. 3-25. Mauss, Marcel (2000 [1954]) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, New York: W. W. Norton. Mies, Maria (1998 [1986]) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour, London: Zed Books. Polanyi, Karl (1968 [1957]) ââ¬ËThe Economy as Instituted Processââ¬â¢, in Economic Anthropology: Readings in Theory and Analysis, LeClair Schneider (Eds.), London: Holt, Rinehart Winston, Inc. pp 122 ââ¬â 143. Sharma, Ursula (1984) ââ¬ËDowry in North India: Its Consequences for Womenââ¬â¢, Women and Property: Women as Property, Hirschon, R. (Ed.), London: Croom Helm, pp. 62-74. Thomas, Nicholas (1991) ââ¬ËIntroductionââ¬â¢ and ââ¬ËObjects, Exchange, Anthropologyââ¬â¢ in Entangled Objects: Exchange, Materialism and Colonialism in the Pacific, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1-34. 1 Footnotes [1] As well as that of Bronislaw Malinowski, who in his influential (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, (London: Routledge) closely described the Kula exchange of the Trobriand Islanders. [2] Levi Straus, following Mauss, argued that the exchange of women (exogamy) provided the basis for ties between different groups (Levi Strauss, 1969: 14) via the incest taboo (Levi Strauss, 1969: 9-10) and thus provided the basis for culture (Levi Strauss, 1969: 24-5). [3] The defining of women as homemakers, and then relying on this definition to characterise their work outside of the home (Mies, 1998).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment