Re: [ox-en] Kula and other comments from Gregers
- From: Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa cbs.dk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:29:07 +0100
Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:07:07 +0100, Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa cbs.dk> wrote:
Sorry if I misunderstand your intentions but it's not clear how what
knowing I have read
will you explain the point you are trying to argue. Assume I have read
But, you have - you keep refering to "Mauss etc.", so why should I
repeat details you already might know .... you need to enter the process
of establishing a common basis for discussion.
In my view this is a public discussion list,
This is a discussion which takes place between you and me, it might take
place on a public mailing-list - but I'm talking to you not everyone in
so what might be common
knowledge for some, is
not for others, therefore don't worry about adding extra detail, add
you feel helps explain your point.
What is the essence of 'the gift' (as stated by Marcel Mauss)? The
essence is 'reciprocity' and the cyclic exchange of "gifts" between
identified 'partners' over time with the intent of creating and
maintaining long-term relationships (here refering to the specific
context in which 'kula' exists, e.g. Melanesia).
That seems like a fair summary.
You mention "big Men" - what is it being a "Big Man", how is it
different from being a "Great Man" (
Not sure what you are asking, a big man is an form of chief or sub chief
as far as I know.
Here you'r some what wrong: A "Big Man" is given authority by people,
while a "Great Man" has authority over people (wields power) - and this
then asks; what is a "chief"?
My understanding is that Chiefdoms, as a transitional form between
societies and state-based ones, are significant in their role of
control of circulation, staring with tributary and prestige goods.
Could you elaborate with an example or two, of such chiefdoms?
I believe it was the ideological project of Mauss to show forms of
social organization which defies/opposes market capitalism - simply by
being based on a different value system.
Perhaps, I believe intention is a component in all analysis, no matter
how "objective" or "scientific" it claims to be.
As long as you keep wringing
pieces together in the way your doing you'r killing your argument. I
just end thinking that; 'this person has read a 20 years old
anthropology first semester text-book picked-up at a garagesale, then
grapped a few sentences and now throws them into the air' -
Gregers you being overly generous assuming I have a read a _complete_ 20
anthropology text book, I have not even read that.
Then you should stay away from making references to things, concepts and
subjects of which you have no knowledge.
I am a software developer and cultural producer, I make art and software, I
an anthropologist or a scholar of any kind.
and this is really sad, because you might actually have a point.
Then please help me elaborate it, and I will take whatever you help me
and use it in my own attempts to find and experiment with new ways of
Good - but don't expect that everybody just licks-up your results and
It is not my intention to become an anthropologist, which is why I
sometimes have to harass
them (and other scholars) into S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G out their points, and not
everyone to join the academy and become an expert in whatever field is
I have no expectation about such a thing.
Try to re-read my prior reply - because you did miss the important
Please Gregers, I barely have time to participate as much as have been,
help out and simply
repeat your point, I am not deliberately avoiding it, I promise.
Don't pull this; 'please, please feeel sorry for me' trick - write a new
version of your text instead.
Anthropologist, Ph.d fellow
Department of Organization
Copenhagen Business School
Kilen, Kilevej 14A, 4.
DK - 2000 Frederiksberg
(+45) 3815 2811
Jabber: glp jabber.dk
IRC: Look for 'glp'
Free Software & Ownership
Contact: projekt oekonux.de