Message 04146 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 8/27 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] built-in infinite growth (was: Re:Meaning ofmarkets, scarcity, abundance)



Dmytri Kleiner wrote:


My understanding is that it was often competative, indicating that more
had to be given more than was received in the previous cycle, or else
status (and potentially power and even life) was lost. To be unable to
give more than you received was a disgrace that a chief could ill afford,
and of course the source of the wealth in the exchange was not the chief
exclusively, but rather appropriated surplus production.
The element of direct competition (e.g. burning of more blankets etc.) did in reality not take form before after the potlatch itself had turned 'obscene' - and the element of "competition" is not necessarily tied to that more has to be given. It is quite complex, the reality of the exchange-cycle, then what is the value-scale everything is being weighted on? You'r very quickly weaving yourself into a line of functional/materialistic thoughts, and to me it just seems that you constantly assume that "money" is already there (as underlying value system, and way of indentifying valuables).
Appropriated surplus production: Not really, resources where given to the chief which in the obscene form ended with destroying all production. So in this sense it becomes difficult to talk about 'surplus production'....
In the case when you'r using ethnographic/empirical examples - and building your analysis on them - you should probably try look a little closer at the complexities of life (and the reality that a lot of thoughts have gone into this issue since Mauss wrote 'the gift'). 


 Allusions to don't help. "consensus

among anthropologist
say this or that" is a form of the special pleading fallacy, not an
argument that can help us
understand the issue.
I was just stating that a very large body of individuals had spend a lot of empirical research time and analytical work on the subject of 'kula' - including a very long discussion of the kula vs. money aspect (highly influenced by marxist materialistic approaches in the 60's and 70's). I think it is needed to accept this fact, and not continue with a simple assumption.
One of the most recent examples is Susanne Kuehling: Dobu. Ethics of exchange on a Massim island, Papua New Guinea. 
This is a wonderful book, and I personally really like the author.
When it comes to the aspect of 'pleading fallacy' - I'm an anthropologist by trade, and you can either accept that anthropologists 'know shit' when it comes to the intrigate details of such a subject as 'kula' and take a much more detailed look at what this accumulated knowledge intails - or you can pull the "pleading fallacy card" as you'r doing. 



Then what is the basis for your doubt?
The empirical examples you'r refering to are far to simplified, and this pulls me away from the points your trying to bring across. 
I'm probably also not really into these meta-explanations .....

--

Gregers Petersen
Anthropologist, Ph.d fellow
Department of Organization
Copenhagen Business School
Kilen, Kilevej 14A, 4.
DK - 2000 Frederiksberg
gp.ioa cbs.dk
([PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]) 3815 2811
Skype: gregers.ioa
Jabber: glp jabber.dk
www.cbs.dk/staff/gp
www.icco.dk


Free Software & Ownership
www.wireless-ownership.org
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 8/27 L7 [In index]
Message 04146 [Homepage] [Navigation]