2014 05 20 Guerin ECD2 Parry Bloch

8/13/2019 2014 05 20 Guerin ECD2 Parry Bloch

1/40

otueqcxaJo flgleloru aql pup fauo;41


2/40


3/40

Money and themorality of exchangeEDITEDBYI . PARRYand M. BLOCH

CarvrnnrDcEUNIVERSITY PRESS


4/40

Publishedby the PrcssSyndicateof thc Univcrsity of CambridgeThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Streer,CambridgeCB2 IRP40 U/cst 20th Street, New York, NY tOOil.f2ll USAl0 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Mclbourne 3166,Australia@ Cambridge Univcrslty Press1989FtrstpublisM 1989Rcpintcd 1991,1993,1995,1996British Librurv cataloguing n publication dataMoneyaod he moralityof exchange.l. MonetarysystemsI. Parry.Jonathan.1943-II. Bloch.M.332.4Library of Congresscataloguing n publication dataMoneyand he moralityof exchange/editedy J. Parryand M. Bloch.p. cm .ISBN 0-521-36597-X. ISBN 0-521-3677a-3pbk.)l. Exchange Cross-culturaltudies.2. Money Special spects Cross-culturaltudies.3. Economicanthropology.L Parry.JonathanP.ll. Bloch.Maurice.GN450.M66 1989306'.3 dcl9 88-37709 UPISBN 0 521 36597 X hard coversISBN0 521 36774 paperbackTransferredto digital printing 2000


5/40

Contents

List of contributors page viil . Introduction:Moneyand he moralityof exchangeJoNATHAN ARRy nd ue,uplcr BLocH London Schoolof Economics I2. Misconceivinghe grainheap:a critiqueof the concept fthe Indian ajmanisystemc. J. FULLEp.,ondonSchool f Economics3. On the moralperilsof exchangeJoNATHAN ARRy, ondonSchool f Economics4. Money,men andwomenR. L. srrRRA r, niversity f Swsex5. Cookingmoney:genderand he symbolic ransformationof means f exchangen a Malay ishing ommunityJANErcARsrEN,ClareHall, Cambridge6. Drinking cash: he purification f money throughcere-monialexchangen Fijic. roREN London Schoolof Economics 1427. The symbolism f money n ImerinaMAURTcELocH,LondonSchool f Economics 1658. Resistanceo thepresent y thepast:mediums ndmoneyin ZimbabweDAvID txN, London Schoolof Economics

JJ

6494

r17

191


6/40

vi Contents9. Preciousmetals n the AndeanmoraleconomyM. J. sALLNow,LondonSchool f Economics 20 9

10. The earth and the state: he sources nd meanings fmoney n Northern Potosf,BoliviaolrvrA HARRIs,Goldsmiths ollege 23 2Index 269


7/40

Contributors

Maurice Bloch obtained his PhD from CambridgeUniversity. Atpresenthe is Professor f SocialAnthropologyat the London SchoolofEconomics.His latest book is From blessing o violence,CambridgeUniversityPress. ogetherwith J. Parryhe edited he volumeDeathandthe regenerationof life.JanetCarsten btained er PhD at theLondonSchoolofEconomics ndis currentlya Research ssociaten the Departmentof AnthropologyattheUniversity f Cambridge nda Fellow f ClareHall.She s heauthorof a numberof articles n Malaysia.ChrisFullerobtained isPhD rom Cambridge niversity. t present eis a Reader n SocialAnthropologyat the LondonSchoolof Economics.His fatestbook is Servants f thegoddess,CambridgeUniversityPress.Olivia Harris studiedat Oxford and the London Schoolof Economics.She s currentlySeniorLecturerat Goldsmith'sCollege,University fLondon.She s he authorof various rticles n the Laymiof Bolivia.David Lan obtainedhis PhD at the London Schoolof Economics.Aswell as beingan anthropologist e is a successful layright. He is theauthor of.Gunsand rain (Currey/University f CaliforniaPress).JohnnyParryobtainedhisPhD at CambridgeUniversity.Currentlyhe sa Reader n the Departmentof Anthropologyat the London SchoolofEconomics.He is the author of Caste nd kinship n Kangra.Togetherwith M. Bloch he edited Deathand the regenerationf life, CambridgeUniversityPress.Mike Sallnow btained isPhD from Manchester niversity.Currentlyhe is Senior Lecturer in Anthropologyat the London School ofEconomics.He is the author of Pilgrims of the Andes. SmithsonianInstitutionPress.

vlt


8/40

viii ContributorsJockStirratobtainedhis PhD from CambridgeUniversity.Currently heis Lecturer n Anthropologyat Sussex niversity.He is heauthorof OntheBeach,HindustanPublishingCorps.Christina Toren obtained her PhD from the London School ofEconomics.She has aught at the Universityof Manchester nd at theSchoolof African and Oriental Studies f the Universityof London. Atpresent he s preparing wo books,oneon the learningof symbolism nFiji and the other on anthropology ndpsychology.


9/40

1lntroduction:exchange money and the morality of

MAURICE BLOCH and JONATHAN PARRY

Thiscollectionsconcerned ith he way n whichmoney ssymbolicallyrepresentedn a rangeof different ocietiesnd, moreespecially, iththe moral evaluationof monetaryand commercial xchanges sagainstexchangesf other kinds.The focus, hen, s on the rangeof culturalmeanings hichsurroundmonetaryransactions,ndnot on thekindsofproblems f monetaryheorywhichhave onventionallyreoccupiedheeconomist.There is now a very large iteratureon so-calledprimitivemoney',but thisdoesnot centrally oncern sheresince ll thechaptersin thisvolumedealprincipally itherwith state-issue durrencies hichact as a generalmediumof exchange. r - as n our two Andeanistcontributions with the symbolismof preciousmetalsand their rele-vance o Andean deologies f production ndexchange,The first thing theseessays ollectively mphasises the enormouscultural ariationn the way n whichmoney s symbolised nd n whichthissymbolism elates o culturally onstructed otionsof production,consumption,irculation ndexchange.t becomeslear hat n order ounderstandhe way n whichmoney s viewed t is vitally mportant ounderstandhe culturalmatrix nto which t is incorporate d. his ma yseema bland enough esson, ut it is onewhichhasoften been orgottenby anthropologists rit ing about money - and lessculpablyalso byhistorians nd sociologists.s a result hey havecommonly allen nt othe trap of attributing o money n generalwhat s n facta specific etofmeanings hichderive rom our own culture.At another evel,however, ur essayseveala unity whichunderliesall of the apparently iverse xamplesheyconsider. his s to be oundneither n the meanings ttributedo moneynor n themoralevaluationof particular ypesof exchange, ut rather n the way the totlity oftransactionsorm a general atternwhich s partof the reproduction fsocial nd deologicalystemsoncerned ith a time-scalear onger hanthe individualhuman life. It is only when these otal patternsar e


10/40

2 M. Bloch and ). Parrycomparedhatwecanbegin o go beyond he conclusionhat he variablesymbolic lab oration f moneyand monetary xchanges yet anotherillustration f the way n whichdifferent ultures ee hings ifferently.Eachof our case tudies,we argue, eveals strikingly imilarconcernwith the relationship etween cycleof short-termexchange hich s helegitimate omainof individual oftenacquisitive activity, nda cycleof long-term xchangesoncerned ith the reproduction f the socialand cosmicorder; and in each case he way in which the two arearticulated urns out to be very similar.This suggestsomething er ygeneral bout he relationshipetween he transientndividualand heenduring ocial rderwhich ranscendshe ndividual.Thus n the firstpartof this ntroductionwe are centrally oncernedwith the way in which our own culturaldiscourse bout money hasinhibiteda properappreciation f the variability n its cross-cultu ralconstruction.n thesecond artwe ry to develophe hesishat oncewemove to the wider, more encompassing,evelof the total systemofexchangeome mportant ontinuities egin o emerge.The revolutionary mplicationsof money n lVesterndiscourseOne particularly rominentstrand n Westerndiscourse, hich goesback o Aristotle, s hegeneralcondemnationf money nd rade n thelightof an dealof householdelf-sufficiencyndproductionor use.Theargument oes omethingike his.Likeotheranimals,man s naturallyself-sufficientndhiswants re inite.Tradecanonly be natural n so aras t isoriented owardshe restoration f such elf-sufficiency.ustas nnature heremay be too muchhereandnot enough here,so t is withhouseholds hich will then be forced o exchange n the basis f mutualneed. Interchange f this kind is not contrry o natureand snot a formof money-making; t keeps to its original purpose- to re-establishnature'sown equilibriumof self-sufficiency'Aristotle 1962:42). Profrt7orientedexchanges, however,unnatural;and sdestructive f thebondsbetweenhouseholds.Pricesshould hereforebe fixed, and goodsandservices emuneratedn accordance ith the statusof those who pro-vided them. Money as a tool intendedonly to facilitate exchangesnaturally arren, nd,of all heways f gettingwealth, ending t nterest- wheremoney s made o yielda 'crop'or 'litter' - is the mostcontraryto nature' Aristotle1962:46).Aristotle'swritings e-surfacedn the Westernworld in the thirteenthcenturyand were taken up by ThomasAquinas hroughwhom theyachieved new renown.His influence n the economic hought andattitudes f theMiddleAgeswas,asPolanyi 1971:79) bserves,uiteasgreatas hatwhichSmithandRicardowere o exercisen he hinking f


11/40

Money and the morality of exchange 3a subsequentpoch;and his authoritywas nvoked n supportof theChurch'sprofound disquietabout materialacquisition.Someof th eideologicaleasonsor this medieval nease bout money especiallymoney s epresentativef the merchant'srofitand he usurer'snterest- are briefly eviewed n Parry's ontributiono thisvolume.Here wemaysimplynote hat one of themajorproblemswas hat he merchantapparently reated othing,while he usurerearnedmoneyevenas heslept. The abourer s worthyof his hire',but it wasnot at all clear hatthe merchant nd hemoney-lenderaboured. t wasessentiallyhis deaof material roduction s he source f value Le Goff 1980: 1)whichpromptedTawney 1972:.48)o remark hat the ruedescendantf th edoctrines f Aquinas s the labour theory of value.The last of theSchoolmen asKarl Marx.'Our own intellectual radition,however, lsocontains notherverydifferentkind of discourse boutmoneyand monetary xchange hichsees t as a far more benign nfluence n social ife. for the conclusionto be drawn from Mandeville'sFableof the beesand from the 'manyadvantages' dam Smith put down to man's propensity to truck,barterand exchange' as hat the happinessnd prosperity f societywas oundedon the ndividual ursuitof monetary elf-gain.n fact asHirschman 1977)pointsout, and we return to his argumentbelow,this theorygoesback mucb further than either of thesewritersan doriginally took the form of condoningmoney-making s a com-paratively armless nd gentlevice hat couldbe positively arnessedto the commonweal s a curb on other passions' f a more dangerousanddisruptive ind.Between hese wo radicallyopposedviewsof money there are, ofcourse, very argenumberof intermediate ositions. immel 1978),for example, aw n it an nstrument f freedom, ncl condition or theextension f the ndividual ersonalitynd heexpansion f thecircleoftrust; but at the same ime as a threat o the moralorder. But whatal lthesedifferent strands n our cultural raditionappear o agreeabout sthat - whether or goodor ill - moneyactsas an incrediblypowerfulagentof profound socialand cultural transformations.Regardless fcultural ontext ndof the nature f existingelations f production nd

exchange,t is often creditedwith an intrinsicpower to revolutionisesociety nd culture,and t is sometimes ssumedhat hispowerwill berecognisedn the way n which he actors hemselvesonstructmoneysymbolically.The essays ollectedherecastsome doubt on both thesepropositions.Money, we believe, s in nearly as much dangerof beingfetishised y scholars sby stockbrokers.


12/40

M. Bloch and ], ParryMarx and Simmel on thesocial corollariesof moneyThis 'fetishism'appears n different degree n the work of two highlyinfluentialwriterson money, o whom we havealready eferred:MarxandSimmel.For Simmel 1978),moneywasof majorsignificanceor the develop-mentof the cognitiveworld we now nhabitsince t helped o promoterationalcalculation n social ife and encouragedhe rationalisationcharacteristicf modern ociety; hile n thesame einothers ave eenmoney s hebasisor anabstract ystem fthought cf.Frankel1977:7).More thana reflection f otherstructuraleatures f a moderneconomyandsocietyasDalton 1965]wouldepresentt), Simmelsaw oney san activeagentwhichconstitutesthe major mechanismhat paves heway from Gemeinschafto Gesellschaft. nder its aegis, he modernspirit of calculation nd abstraction asprevailed ver an older worldthat accordedprimacy o feelingsand imagination' Coser 1977:194).Encapsulatinghe modern piritof rationality, alculability ndanonym-ity, it represents privi legednstanceor investigatinghe wholeUnlike Simmel,whoseesmoney tselfas heprincipal atalystor thetransformationf social ife, Marx's retment inks t to the (for him)more undamental henomenonf production or exchange thisbeingwhat ultimately reateshe need or an abstractmoney medium.Forboth writers,however,money s associated ith, and promotes, hegrowthof individualism nd he destruction f solidary o mmunities.Like Aristotle,Marx'scondemnationf moneyand marketexchangereflects certain omantic ostalgiaor a world n whichproductionwa sfor useand he nterdependencef thehuman ommunity ad not beenshattered y exchange. owever xploitativehe old order. t wasnot -ascapitalisms- based olelyon explicit, elentless,gotistical alcula-tion. f the abour heoryof value nviteda critique f capitalismandofthe abstractmoneymediumwith which t is associated)n grounds fequity, he new modeof productionalsogave ise o a gravemisgivingshared lso by many non-Marxistwriters that it denied hosemoral'bondswhichunitemenonewith another'whichDurkheimemphasisedas the basisof all socialsolidarity.Exchangeby which Marx meant

marketexchange) eginswith the exchange f surpluses etweencom-munities. ut onceobjects avebecome ommoditiesn externalrade,they nevitably end o become ommodities ithin the community ndto dissolve he bondsof personal ependenceetween ts members.Independentcommunitiesbecomedependent,and dependent indi-viduals become ndependent Roberts and Stephenson1983: 13).Exchange nd heabstractmoney orm romwhich t is nseparable,hu sstand ondemned sagents f individualisationcf. Marx l9M:96) and


13/40

Money and the morality of exchange 5of thedissolution f thecommunal ondswhichobtainedn theworldofproductionor use.When,Marx argues.hedirect aboura medieval erfowed o his ordwascommutednto a rent-in-kind nd then(moresignificantly)nto amoney-rent, contractualelationshipeplaced he bondsof personaldependence etween hem and many peasantholdingswere expro-priated,whilesome erfsmanagedo buy hemselvesree rom their entobligations ndbecomendependenteasants ith property ights n theland Roberts ndStephenson983: 0-1).Simmel races rather imilar volution ut emohasiseshe advancenhuman reedomwhich esults.The ordof the manorwhocandemand quantity f beeror poultry r honeyfroma serf, hereby eterminesheactivity f he attern acertain irection. utthemoment e mposes erely moneyevy hepeasants ree in so ar ashecandecide hethero keep ees r cattle r anything lse Simmel 978:286).While moneyerodesolder solidarities,or Simmel t alsopromotesawiderand more diffuse ort of social ntegration.n the caseof barter,trust sconfined o the parties irectly oncernedn the transaction; utmonetary xchange xtendshis rust o anenormously xpanded ocialuniverse.Now each,'as Frankelputs t (1977:31-2),'[ is] no longerdependent nly on his relation o the other but alsoon relations o th eeconomic irclewhich, n an abstract nd ndefinable ay, guaranteedthe unctioning nd acceptabilityf the money heymadeuseof.'Not only is it claimed hat moneychangeshe way in which peoplethink, and dissolves ondsbetween ersons ased n kinshipand otherascriptive riteria, t is alsoheld o effect hatseparation etween ersonsand hingswhich,asMauss 1966) tressed,sdeniedby manyprimitiveand archaicsocieties.Money permits possessiont a distance.Only inthe form of moneycan profitsbe easily ransferred rom one place oanother,allowing or a spatial separationbetween he owner and hispropertywhich enableshe property o be managed xclusively ccord-ing to objectivedemandswhile t gives ts owner a chanceof leadinghislife ndependentlyf hispossessions'Simmel1978: 33).While he giftof a specific bject alwaysretainsan elementof the personwho gave t',

exchangeelationshipsend to be morecompletelydissolved ndmoreradically erminatedby the paymentof money . .' (ibid. p.3761' fMauss1966).Notwithstanding arx's nsistencehat property s reallya relation-ship betweenpeoplemasqueradings a relationship etween ersonsand hings, here s a sensen whichhe oo representsmoneyasdriving awedge between personsand things in that it appears o sever therelationshipbetween he producerand hisproduct.The worker hasno


14/40

6 M. Bloch andJ.Parryaccesso the means f productionand spaid a wage or his abour. As aresulthisproduct s held o belong o somebody lse, nd s alienated nthemarket n an absolutewayas f it hadno connection ith him. Th ecommodity omeso ppear s hough t has'a naturalprice ,a relationto money and other commodities ndependentof the human factorsinvolved' Ollman 1976: 96).While n the feudalworld the lord andhisserfs were inseparable rom the land in which they had rights, withprivateproperty reelyexchangeablegainstmoneya man's ndividual-ity is not conflatedwith hisproperty n the sameway(ibid. p. 208-9).The mpersonalityndanonymity f money, t isargued,ends tself othe impersonal nd inconsequentialelationshipsharacteristic f themarket-place nd even o a complete nonymity n exchange. estruc-tiveof community,moneydepersonalisesocial elations.The ndiffer-ent objectivity f money ransactionss n insurmountableonffictwiththe personal haracter f the relationship . . The desirable arty fo rfinancial ransactions . . is thepersonwho s completelyndifferentous,engaged either or us nor against s(Simmel1974:227).Anonymous nd mpersonal, oneymeasuresverything y thesameyardstick nd hereby it is reasoned reduces ifferencesf quality othose f merequantity. t is n tsdenial f the unique, nd n the act hatit may easilycome o be regarded s the means o a// endsso that itspossessiononfersan almostgod-likepower, that Simmel ocates tsmostdangerousotential. imilarlyMarx(1961: 32) peaks f money s'the radical eveller, hat . . . doesawaywith all distinctions'-not eventhe bones f the saints eingable to withstand hisalchemy'.In the ight of suchargumentst is tempting o conclude hat moneyacts as a kind of acid which inexorablydissolves herishedculturaldiscriminations,atsaway at qualitative ifferences nd reduces er-sonal elations o impersonality.t is only to be expected,hen, thatthose traditional' ultureswhichmust or the first ime come o termswith it will representmoneyas a dark satanicorce earingat the veryfabricof society.It is not only n sucha world,however,hatmoney s creditedwith amastery vermen.Though n the deology f fully fledged a pitalism olonger nagent f some vilempire,money s nevertheles sreditedwith

a life-likepower. ndeed,asMarx saw t. this etishism f moneyas hepre-eminentxample f the etishismf commoditiess nseparableromcapitalism. eremoney tself sendowed ith ecundity.Money breeds'moneymuch Marx ironically bserved as it is an attributeof peartrees o bear pears . . ' Money as capital s ideologicallyransformedinto hesource f production,educingheworkerso mereappendages,making t appear nly right andproper hat capital hould eap ts justreward'.Moreovermoneyas a generalisedtandard f valuemisrep-


15/40

Money and the morality of exchange 7resentsproduction by making the value of a commodity expressednmoney ermsappear san ntrinsic ualityof thecommodity tself likeone of its physicalproperties rather hanof the labourwhich went ntoits production,which now becomesost from sight. Relationsbetweenpeoplemasquerade s relationsbetween hings.Non-monetary: onetary 'traditional' 'modern'?Given hat money s held o have he kind of profound mpacton societyand culture o whichwe havealluded bove, t i s hardlysurprisinghatthere s a tendency o postulate fundamental ivisionbetweennon-monetry ndmonetary conomiesor even ocieties).y theprocess fslippage hichHarrisdescribesn hercontributionchapter 0), t isalsoeasy o see how this oppositiongets elided with a seriesof otherdichotomies 'traditional'and 'modern',pre-capitalist nd capitalist,gift economiesand commodity economies,production for use andproduction or exchange with moneyactingas a major catalystof the'great ransformation'etweenhem,or at leastas a telling ndexof it.Theeffectof thishasbeen o blinda number f writers o the mportanceof money n many traditional', re-capitalistconomies.Fuller's haptermakes hispointwithdevastatingffect n referenceoanthropolo gical iscussionsf what has nappositely een called he'Hindu ajmanisystem'.Whatheshowss how hisso-called'system'hasbeenused o exemplifya radicalopposition etweentraditional'an d'modern'economic ystemsnd deologiesndhow, n theservice f thisobjective,anthropologistsand others)have managed o ignore heoverwhelminghistoricalevidence or the importanceof monetaryexchangesndmarket ntegrationn the traditional'ndian uralecono-mies o which heirmodels urport o refer.This s rueof a whole angeof commentatorsrom thosenineteenth-centuryriters or whom themoneyless orld of the jajmani system'was part of a pictureof th evillage ommunity sa little republic'sufficientnto tself, o Wiserwh operpetuateshisstereotype,o Dumontwho sconcernedo demolishheidea of the village as a sociologicallymeaningful solatebut wh oneverthelessontriveso downplayhe significancef marketexchange

in the pre-Britishera. What implicitlyseems o underlie his misre-presentations a deeplyentrenched otion about the transformativepotential f money uch hat tspresence ecomes n ndexof a modern'society,with the corollary hat in a 'traditional'one it can only be ofperipheral ignificance. ut whatever he causeof suchblindness,tseffectwas10encourage arx n the formulation f hishighlyquestion-able heoryof an unchangingAsiaticmodeof production', ndDumontin hi s overdrawn ontrast etweenhe politicaleconomy f pre-British


16/40

s M. Bloch and J.Panyand British India, and perhapsalso betweenHomo hierarchicusandHomo aequalis.More generally, uller'sargument houldalert us to rhe possibilitythat the significance f moneyand market exchange as beensimilarlyunder-estimatedn the ethnographic escription nd analysis f pre-capitalist conomies lsewheren the world, and to the fct that theextentof monetisations not a reliablendexof theatrophyof the moraleconomy'. s Bayly 1985: 86)has oncludedrom the ndianhistoricalrecord, he expansion f the casheconomy did not . . . dissolveherelationsof dominance hat arose rom the nterplaybetween he normsof caste nd hestructure f thepettykingdoms'. venwithin hedomainof the marketbuyersand sellerswereconstrainedy obligationshat required hat theypurchaseertain hingsat certain imes, n certainmarkets. he widespreadexistencef markets.money-lenders.nddouble-entryccount ookswasnotincompatibleith hepersistencef pre-capitalistentalitiesn materialulture. . . money f tself ould ot ransformelationships. . (ibid.p. 316)Gifts and commoditiesA furtheroppositionn thissequence n whichseveral f our chaptershave some bearing s that between ift and commodityexchange.nGregory's 1982)neat ormulation he first s based n anexchange finalienableobjects between nterdependen,ransactors;he secondanexchangeof alienableobjectsbetween ndependentransactors. t is,moreover,often assumed hat this radical opposition between heprincipleswhichunderlie he wo typesof exchange ill be reflectedn anequally radical contrst n their moral evaluation.Stirrat'schapter,however,reminds us that there are commodity contexts n which thealienableobject is transacted etweenconceptually nterdependentpersons;while in the casewhichParry describes he gift is alienatedasradically spossible nd mustnever eturn o the donor, or it is held oembodyhis sins cf. Parry 1986) and his sso regardless f whether t isin cash r kind. Heremoney sclearly ar rombeing purelydepersona-lised nstrument.Like thegift in kind t contains nd ransmits he moral

qualities f thosewho ransactt.As thissuggests,he dea hat hevery mpersonalityf moneymakesit of questionable ppropriatenesss a gift (exceptsignificantlyncharitable ontextswhere he relationship etweendonor and recipientis similady mpersonal)eemso bea peculiarity f our own culture apeculiaritywhich sexplored n somedetail n the chapterby Bloch (seealsoWolfram 1987). hegift, asSchwartz1967) asnoted, mposes nidentityon both hedonorand he recipient, nd evealsthe deawhich


17/40

Money and the morality of exchange Ithe recipientevokes n the imaginationof the giver'. But giftsof moneydo not imposean dentity n the sameway,and n thisrespectts abstractimpersonalitydissolveshe giver'sauthority. The problemseems o bethat or rs moneysignifies sphere f 'economic' elationships hichareinherently mpersonal, ransitory,amoral and calculating.There istherefore somethingprofoundly awkward about offering it as a giftexpressive f relationships hichare supposedo be personal, nduring,moral and altruistic.But clearly his awkwardness erives rom the factthat here money's natural' environment the 'economy'- is held toconstitutean autonomousdomainto whichgeneralmoral preceptsdonot apply (cf. Dumont 1977).Where it is not seen as a separateandamoraldomain,where he economys'embedded'in ociety ndsubjectto its moral laws, moiletary relationsare rather unlikely to be repre-sented s he antithesis f bondsof kinshipand riendship, nd here sconsequentlynothing inappropriate about making gifts of money tocement uchbonds.The radicaloppositionwhichsomanyanthropologistsavediscoveredbetween the principleson which gift and commodity exchangearefoundedderivesn part, we believe, rom the act thatorr ideologyof thegift hasbeenconstructedn antithesiso marketexchange. he ideaofthe purelyaltruisticgift is the other sideof the coin from the ideaof thepurely nterested ti l i tarian xchangeParry1986), ndwecannot here-fore expect he deologies f non-market ocietieso reproduce hiskindof opposition cf. Strathern1985). n his contribution o this volumeParry discusses seriesof caseswhich exemplifya whole range whichruns rom a situation n which the (supposedly)morally unproblematicsphere of gift exchange s opposed to morally perilous commodityexchange, o one in which it is gift exchangewhich represents diremoral peril while commodityexchanges distinguished rom it by itsmoralneutrality, o,acontext rom which hiskind of oppositionn moralevaluation ppearso be argelyabsent.While thosewho write n the Marxian raditionstress hemystificationwhichaccompaniesommodityexchange,hey endby antithesiso treatthe world of gift exchangeas non-exploitative, nnocent and eventransparent.An instance f thisromantic dealisation f the world of gift

exchanges Taussig's therwise ighlysuggestiveiscussion f theway nwhich hepeasantry f th e Cauca alley n Columbiahavesymbolicallyconstructed he world of commodity relations(Taussig 1980).Bycontrast he chapters y SallnowandBloch n thisvolumeshow ust howfar from beingpolitically nnocent uchnon-commodity xchangesftenare, whileParry argues hat n Hindu India t is not commodityexchangewhich is ideologicallyproblematicand loadedbut rather what is oftenmade o stand or innocencen Marxistwriting- the exchange f gifts.


18/40

10 M. Bloch and |. ParryHow misleadingt maybe to imply that there s universally omekindof unbridgeable hasmbetweengift and commodityexchange s illus-trated by Hart's recent discussion f exchanges f fish for yams andvegetables etween oastal nd nlandvillages n the Trobriands.Some-times heseexchangesake the form of ceremonialprestationsknownas wasi) between community leaders;sometimesof barter betweenindividualhouseholdsvava).Hart argues hat the first reflects:

highsocial istancendweakpolitical rder,bringing igmenandcorporateorganizationntoplay. nformal nterpersonalagglingeflectsow social is-tance ndstrong olitical rder.The ssueswhetherndividuals elongingodifferent roupseel ree o risk heconflictnherenln barterwithoutnvokingall hedanger,magic, restigendhierarchyhatgowilhceremonialxchange.Thusone orm s a temporary ocialrameworkreatedn the elative bsenceof society;heother s an atomisednteractionredicatedn thepresencefsocietyHart1986).The essential oint for our purposess that Hart's approachallowshimto emphasisehe dynamicaspects f these nstitutional rrangements,for it is easy to see ho\rya breakdown n political relations betweencoastal nd nlandvillageswouldeffecta shift rom barter o ceremonialexchange. nd their reestablishment moveback n the other direction.Here at any rate the oppositionbetweengift exchange' nd commodityexchange'ooks rather essabsolute han is often implied, for it seemsthat one may evolve ather easily nto the other.We are similarly somewhat scepticalof the radical oppositionbetweengifts'and commodities'mpliedby thenotionof 'fetishism'owhich we have previously eferred,and of the enormoussignificanceattributed to money in the creation of such phantasmagoric on-structions.For Marx there is a crucial distinction * though i is not alwaysconsistentlymaintained between money as capital when it isexchangedor labour power, and money as mere money when it isexchangedor the productsof labour. Sincesurplusabour s the sourceof capitalaccumulation, nd since t is only in capitalism hat labourpower s routinely xchangedor money, t maybe argued hat t is onlyhere hat moneywill generallyappear o have he self-expandingalueimplied by the notion of fetishism that it becomesan aspectof thenatureof money hat t 'breeds'more money.At any rate Marx writesasthough, n the absence f commodityexchangemediatedby money, heproducts of labour are recognised or what they really are. In thepre-capitalist orld, relationsdo not take his abstract' orm but ratherthe form of concrete personal relations. In the Middle Ages, forexample, the personalised ature of economicrelations meant thattherewas


19/40

Money and the morality of exchange 17no necessityor abour nd tsproductso assume antasticormdifferentromtheir eality. hey ake heshape,n he ransactionsf society f servicesnkindand aymentsn kind.Here heparticularndnaturalorm f abour, nd ot,asin a society ased nproductionfcommodities.tsgeneral bstractorm s heimmediateormof socialabour.Compulsoryabours ustasproperlymeasuredby ime,ascommodityroducingabour; utevery erfknowswhatheexpendsin heservicef his ord sa definiteuantity f hisownpersonalabour ower. . . thesocialelationsf ndividualsn heperformancef their abour ppearat allevents s heir wnmutual ersonalelations,ndarenotdisguisedndertheshape f socialelationsetweenheproductsf abourMarx1961: 7).Or again,we have he moregeneralormula hat:thewholemysteryf commodities,ll hemagic ndnecromancyhatsurroundstheproductsf labour o ongas hey ake he ormof commodities,anishestherefore,ssoon swecome o other orms f productionibid.p. 76).Whatsuch tatements ouldseem o suggests that n thepre-capitalistworld the productsof labour are not surroundedby 'magicand necro-mancy'- a proposition which is difficult to squarewith Mauss'schar-acterization f the gift in primitive and archaicsocieties,which hedescribes in terms eminiscent f Marx'sdescription f thecommodity- as 'not inert' but 'alive and often personified' Mauss1966:10).Moreover,Mauss's vidence ibid. pp. 43-4) suggestedhat the cere-monial 'coppers'which were exchanged n the potlatchesof thenorthwest-coastmerican ndiansare representeds begetting' thercoppersMauss1966:434),muchasmoney ssaid o'breed'money.Onthe faceof it, then, t wouldseem hat the objectsof exchange re aslikely o be etishisedn a pre-capitalistconomy s n a capitalist ne cf .Comaroff1985:72-3: osephides985: hap.9).It is, however, ossibleo argue hat he magical aloacquired y th eobjectsof exchange ave quite differentorigins n the two cases. tmight, or example, e said hat the fetishism f commodities erivesfrom the separationbetween the product and the producer, whichconfers on the commodity the appearanceof a quasi-independentexistence, hile followingMauss thatof thegift would derive romthe lack of separation etween ersons nd things,which gives t theappearancef beinganimated y the personality f the donor(Taussig1980: G7). Or, again, ne mightdistinguish etweenhe'fetishism'or'objectif ication'haracteristic f capitalism,where for the most partpersons re spokenof as though hey were hings,and the 'personifi-cation'characteristicf pre-capitalistconomies here hingsacquirethe attributes of persons cf. Gudeman 1986:44). Such distinctionssmack, owever, f a certainarbitrarinessndspecial leading.Moneytalks' n a capitalist conomy;persons re sometimesransferredn a


20/40

12 M. Bloch and f. Parryremarkablything-like'manner n somepre-capitalistnes,while (togivebut oneexample)thehistory f cloth n Indiaalso hows ow hingscould retain the quality of the people who fashionedand exchangedthem, even n a fully monetized conomy' Bayly 1986). t is thereforequiteunclear o us that here s anysimpledividebetweenhe kind ofmysticalaura which surroundshe objectsof exchangen capitalistandpre-capitalistconomies, r that it can be moneywhich explains he(alleged) ifference.The mpactof money on'traditional' worldsThe dominant notion which we have dentif ied n our own culturaldiscourse boutmoney that t representsn ntrinsicallyevolutionarypower which inexorably ubverts he m oral economyof 'traditional'societies hasoften,we believe, een akenoversomewhat ncriticallyby the anthropologist. he effectof thishasbeen o misrepresenthe realcomplexityof the causal actorsat work in the transformations xperi-enced y manycultures s heyaresuckednto heworldof thecapitalistmarket. It is perhapsworth pausingover two particularlystrikingexamples f thiskind of misrepresentation.Probablyhe best-known iscussionf the mpactof Westernmoneyon a previouslynon-monetary ubsistence conomy s Bohannan'saccount f thecase f the Tiv of northernNigeria Bohannan1955,1959;Bohannan and Bohannan 1968).The 'traditional' Tiv economy con-tained hreedistinct anked pheres fexchange: owest anking phereof subsistenceoods ransactedmainly by market exchangesn whichpeople ried 'to maximize heir gains n the best radition of economicman'(1968: 2'1); sphere f prestige oods n whichbrass odsserved sa medium f exchange,tandard f valueandmeans f paymentand hehighest ankingsphere f rights n humanbeings nd, n particular, frights n marriageablewomen.Small ocalised gnatic ineagesormedward-sharing roups n which rights n the daughters f the groupwerevested.The elder men of the groupwere he guardians f one or moregirlswhom heyexchanged ith outsiders or a wife for themselves r foroneof their closeagnates the only entirelyacceptableecompenseor

thegift of a girl being he returnof another.The vast majority of exchangeswere what Bohannan calls 'con-veyances'within the sphere,and heseweremorally neutral.But undercertain ircumstances'conversions'etween pheres erepossible, ndthesewere he focusof strongmoral evaluations grudgingadmirationfor the manwhoconvertedup', scorn or theonewhoconverteddown'.Conversionsetween he subsistencend he prestige pheres ccurred,for example,when an individual was forced by an acute scarcityof


21/40

Money and the morality of exchange 13subsistence roducts to exchangebrass rods for food. Conversionsbetween heprestige phereand hesphere f rights n womenoccurred,for example,whena man managedo contracta kem marriagewhichdidnot involve giving a ward in return, but which did involve a paymentofbrass ods or the wife'ssexualand domestic ervices nd a subsequentpayment or the rightsof a fatheroveranyof the children heborehim.Sincesucha wife had been acquiredwithout obligation to the ward-sharinggroup, they had no claim n her daughterwhom the father couldallocate n marriageas he chose.He had in effectconvertedbrass odsinto rightsoverpeople.

Central o Bohannan's nalysiss the importance e attacheso th eintroductionof Westernmoney n subvertingTiv spheres f exchangeandconvertinghis'multicentric'conomynto a'unicentric' ne. Otherfactors, ike external rade,are acknowledgedo b e of significance,utBohannan'smain emphasiss on the new mediumof exchange hichprovideda commondenominatorwhichallowedall commoditieso becompared against a single measure and made them immediatelyexchangeable.It is in the natureof a general-purposeoney hat itstandardizeshe exchangeabil ityalueof every tem o a common cale.It is preciselyhis unctionwhichbrass ods,a l imited-purpose oneyin theold system, id not perform.' Money',heconcludes,s'oneof th eshatteringly implifying deasof all t ime, and like any other new andcompellingdea, t creatests own revolution' 1959).This, we believe,considerably verstateshe case or it is not aprioriobvious hat by itself moneydoes ndeed reduceeverylhingto a commonmeasure, r make t impossibleor the Tiv to deny hat certain hingscanbe bought or money aswe deny hat academic nd politicalhonours,marriagepartners,sexual avoursand so on can legitimately hangehands gainst moneypayment.Nor is t clear hatsucha reduction asin factoccurred o the extentwhichBohannan'smoregeneral tatementsimply.At the imeof his ieldwork, or example,herewas ittleevidencethat andwasbecoming commodity. he deaof renting r sellingt wa sregarded s horoughlymmoral,andas antamounto rentingor sellingone's genealogical osition (1969:9n-. Nor could it be exchangedagainst nything lse t all notevenanother lotof land andall his nspite of the fact that for various easons here was now increasingpressure n what wasalreadya scarce esource.This snot, of course, o claim hat nothinghaschanged only that thetransformation f Tiv economicbehaviourmay not have beenquite asradicalasBohannanmplies,But more mportantlywe would argue hatthe introductionof lVesternmoneydoesnot account or thesechanges,and hatother actorsareof fargreater ignificance. he firstof thesewasan expansion f the economicrontier', n significantmeasure sa result


22/40

14 M. Bloch and f. Parryof the Pax Britannica, and he penetrationof an externalmarket intoTivland moneybeingone ndexof thispenetrationhough ncorpor-ation nto the widermarketmeant ar more han he introduction f a'general-purpose'mediumf exchange.What t meantaboveall was hatTivlandbecame market or silnificant umbers f Ibo traderswhopaidcash essentialo the Tiv for thepaymentof tax) or agriculturalproducewhich hey hen exported drivingup prices ndcreating hortagesnTivland tself. t is smallwonder. hen. hat the Tiv claim hat the lbo'spoila market' and try to exclude hem from it. What'smore, theseoutsideraders adnocommitmento themoraleconomy f theTiv, andwere presumablyquite ready to trade prestigegoods or cash thuseffectivelydestroying he barriers o conversionbetween he prestigeand subsistencepheres.At the other end of the scale he British effectively estroyed heimpermeabil ity f the highest phereby legislativeiat. Traditionallywhat had inhibited the conversionof prestigegoods nto rights overwomen was the institutionof exchangemarriagewhich meant thatnormally he onlyway o obtainawife was o offeragirl in exchange. utundermissionaryressurend'what ppeareduperficiallyo bepopulardemand' Bohannan ndBohannan 968: 48) he colonialauthorit iesmanaged with surprising uccess to outlaw suchexchangemarriages.The result was that insteadof brides being exchangeable nly fordaughtersnd sisters.hey nowbecamereelyavailable n payment fbrass ods. The effectof this seems o havebeen o deprive he lineageelders f muchof theirpower, or heyhadclearlywieldednfluenceve rtheyoungmenby controllingheiraccesso women.Unable o convertthe fruits of their abour nto marriage ayments.he youngmen hadtraditionally eenbeholdenor wives o the elders f the ward-sharinggroup. Populardemand' o do awaywith exchangemarriagewasno tperhapsso 'supercial'after all. At any rate it would seemto be areasonablenferencehat Tiv spheres f exchange uttressed system f'gerontocratic' uthority,and their subversion oseda direct hreat othat authority,It is not surprising,hen, hat whenBohannanwritesabout he Tiv'smistrustof money t always eemso be theelderswhoaredeploring he

situation.Althoughwe can ind no directevidencehat the youngme ninvokeda differentdiscourse boutmoney,we ratherdoubt that theywere ounanimousr unequivocaln theircondemnation.t is,however,clear hatTiv elders alk aboutmoney n the way thatweare apt to do -theymake t intoa condensedymbol f market elations,etishiset byattributing o it an nnate orce ndependentf humanwill, andblame tfor all thewoesof theirworld.Our second, nd morerecent, xample f this endencyo represent


23/40

Money and the morality of exchange 15money as the crucial agentof socialand economic ransformation sKopytoff's (1986) ich and fascinating aperon 'The culturalbiographyof things', n commenting n whichwe confine urselves xclusivelyothat part of his argument which bears most directly on our centralthemeandwith which we have he greatest ifficulty.For Kopytoff, the crucialattributeof a commodity s ts exchangeabi-lity, and commodityexchanges a featureof a// societies.A perfectlycommoditisedworld would be one n whicheverything s exchangeablefor everythingelse;while in a completelydecommoditised ne every-thing would be singular,unique and unexchangeable. either, ofcourse,s conceivablen practiceand all real world situations all some-wherebetween he two poles exactlywheredepending n the balancestruck between wo opposing endenciesowardsan expansionof thefield of commoditisationnd ts restriction.While a radicalmovementin the first direction denies cognitive discrimination,and therebyculture tself, a trend towards ompletesingularisation'ould makeexchange and hereby ocial ife- progressivelympossible.The naturalworld must thereforebe arranged nto valueclassesorexchange,and thesevalue classes which necessarily xist in everysociety constitutewhat anthropologists ave conventional ly alled'spheresof exchange'.Acknowledging he difficulties nvolved n thelabour theory of value,Kopytoff notes ts relevance or an understand-ing of these eparate xchange pheres. roduce nd temsof manufac-ture, say,yamsand pots, can be comparedby reference o the labourwhichwent nto heirproduction. ut no such ommon tandards avail-able n the case f, say,potsand itualoffices, r yamsandwives,and tis the absence f any obviousmeasure f equivalencewhich forms thenatural basis for the cultural constructionof separatespheres ofexchange'p.72).The problem, hen,as Kopytoff sees t, lies not in explainingwhy theTiv hadseparate pheres f exchangeut rather n explaining hy theyhadonly hreespheres ndnot more.His answer and his bringsus othe heart of our disagreement ith him - l ies in the technology fexchange,or commoditisations pushed o the limits which he rela-tively nefficient xchangeechnology f theTiv allowed.

One perceivesn this a drive inherentn everyexchange ystem owardoptimum ommoditizationthedrive o extendhe undamentallyeductiveidea fexchangeo asmanytems s heexistingxchangeechnologyillcom-fortably llow.Henceheuniversalcceptancef moneywhenevert hasbeenintroducednto non-monetizedocietiesnd ts inexorableonquestf theinternal conomyf these ocieties,egardlessf initial ejection ndof indi-vidualunhappinessbout t - an unhappinessell llustrated y the modernTiv. Hence lso he uniform esults f the ntroduclionf moneyn a wide


24/40

16 M. Bloch and J.Panyrange f otherwiseifferent ocieties: oreextensiveommoditizationnd hemerger f the separatepheres f exchange.,t is as f the internal ogicofexchangetself re-adaptslleconomiesoseize pon henewopportunitieshatwide ommoditizationoobviously ringswith t (p.72).Consistentwith this, Kopytoffgoeson to claim hat theexpansion f thefield of commoditizationwhich accompanies apitalism s not a con-sequence f capitalism tself, but of the exchangeechnologywith whichit is associatedndwhichplaces'dramaticallyider imits o maximumfeasible ommoditization'p. 72).In everyeconomy,we are old, thereis an nherentdrive restrained nly by the cultural need o discriminate- toward the greatest egreeof commoditisationhat the exchangetechnology ermits';and in small-scaleocietieshis drive is crit icallyinhibitedby the nadequaciesf the technology f exchange'p. 87).As will be clear rom whathasgonebefore,we areextremely cepticalof this kind of te chnological eterminism, nd would nstnce arth's(1967)Darfurstudyasoneexample hichclearly hows hat t cannot ethe nadequaciesf the echnology f exchangelonewhichprovideshebasis or spheres,or herewe find both. Moreover, f money sreallysucha 'fundamentally eductivedea' t is perhaps trange hat the colonialpowers n Africa shouldhaverepeatedlyound that they needed o taxpeople n order o draw hem nto the widereconomy. t is alsosurprisingthat a great many societies ailed to borrow the idea of a generalisedmedium of exchangerom more astuteneighbours.One might haveexpected apaukuor Tolai ingenuityo spreadike wildfire.The mainpointwe want o stress, owever,s hatby couplingmoney o capitalismin his suggestionhat it was money and not capitalismwith whichmoneywasassociated that was esponsibleor a dramaticexpansion fcommoditisation,opytoff gnoresheexistencef moneyaswe know tin many pre-capitalistconomies. e does not sy exactlywhen hebelieveshe 'dramaticexpansion' ccurred,but it is surelyclear hatwidespreadmonetisation onsiderably re-dateshe dominance f acapitalist ector,whileexperiencelsewheren the world wouldsuggestthat the existenceof money does not inexorably result in wholesalecommoditisationand atherseldomn thecommoditisationf landan dlabour).As we havepreviously rgued,n theTiv case.t any rate here

seem o begrounds or reversingKopytoff'sproposition: he expansionof commoditisati onwed ar more o anexpansion f the marketsectorthan it did to the introduction f Westernmoney. n the 'inexorableconquestof the internaleconomy'of this previouslynon-monetisedeconomy,heheavy rmourwasnot moneybut thenewsetof exchangerelationswith which he Tiv were orced o come o terms.


25/40

Money and the morality of exchange 17Moneyand the end of evilAnother assumptionwhichruns hroughmuchof the literaturewe havereviewed,and is marked n the work of both Marx and Simmel, s thatmoneygives ise o a particularworldview. It occurs n a particular ormin a recentpaperby Macfarlane 1985), n whichwecomment n order osignala moregeneraldoubt.As a broad cross-cultural eneralisation,Macfarlanesuggestshat astrongsenseof evil is undevelopedn hunter-gathererocieties;s adominantaspectof the valuesystemof the denselypopulatedagrarian'peasant' ocieties f China, ndia,partsof SouthAmericaandCatholicEurope;and has argelydisappearedrom 'modern'society.His centralproblem s o accountor this(alleged) isappearance,nd hishe does ntermsof a contradiction etween wo different deological urrents.Thefirst of these s encapsulatedn St Paul'swarning hat the love of moneyis the root of all evil': the second n Adam Smith'shard-nosed bserva-tion that it is not from the benevolencef thebutcher. he brewer.or thebaker that we expectour dinner, but from their regard o their ownself-interest'Smith1904:16).Avarice, he root of all evil, becomeshefoundationof society;Publick Benefit derives rom Private Vice; thegoodof thecollectivitysserved y theevilpropensities f the ndividual.In the face of this contradiction, Macfarlane argues, the absolutedistinctionbetween irtueandvice s eroded,and t becomesmpossibleto sustainan overpowering ense f unmitigatedevil.While his deological ouble-bindmightseem o be culturallyhighlyspecific,at variouspoints Macfarlanecoucheshis argument n moregeneralerms.Echoing immel's bservationhatmoney ssubversivef'moralpolarit ies',or example, ewrites hat:'Money',which sa short-handayof sayingapitalistelations, arket alues,trade ndexchange,shersn aworldof moral onfusion. . [it]complicateshemoralorder, urningwhatwas ormerly lackandwhite ntogreyness. . it ismoney,markets nd market apitalismhateliminate bsolutemoralities . .(p.72).Burridge'sdiscussion1969)of the preoccupationwith money in thesymbolismof Melanesian argocults s cited n supportof this generalproposition that 'money disrupts he moral as well as the economicworld.'Interestingthough Macfarlane'sargument s, we believe it to beseriouslylawed both n its specific pplicationo WesternEurope andin its moregeneral orm. With regard o the atter, t is abundantly learfrom the different chapters n this volume that money and marketexchange re central eatures f the politicaleconomyof manyPeasant


26/40

18 M. Bloch and . Parryagrarian ocietiesf the ype n which, n Macfarlane'siew,an deologyof evil s most ikely o flourish. o citeBayly 1985: 16)oncemore:Whatsstrikingin ndials hewaynwhichhe ormal pparatusfmarketsnda monetized conomymolded hemselveso and wereaccommodatedymentalitieshatstill viewedhe relationshipsetween en,commodities,ndothermen n terms f good pure) ndevil polluting).Not only is it entirely illegitimate to conflate money with capitalistrelations nd marketvalues, ut theextent o whicheithermoneyor thecapitalistmarket 'ushers n a world of moral confusion' s culturallyextremely ariable,and depends asour collection epeatedly howson the natureof the syslem hey confrontand on the mechanismst isable to develop for 'taming' and 'domesticating' hem. Contrary toMacfarlane'sassumption, he concernwith money we find in manyMelanesian argocults s not- Parry's hapterargues a concernwith itsmorally perilousnature or its subversive uality, but merely withdiscoveringhe secret f its fecundity,of making t multiply; a possibilitywhichappearsquite 'natural' n a world in which traditionalvaluablesregularlyattractan ncrement n exchange.As for its specificapplication o Western Europe, what we findsurprising about Macfarlane'sargument is its curiously ahistoricalnature.He writes as though St Paul'scondemnation f avaricewere aconstant nd unchanging alue n Western ivilisation.But while it maywellbe rue thatanunswerving ursuitof riches asbeenwidely rownedupon at all times, it is clearly the case that the extent to whichmoney-making nd money-mindednessavebeenseenasa moral perilhas undergonconsiderable hifts of emphasis.Little (1978:34), orexample, oteshow t wasat theend of the hirteenthor beginning f thefourteenth century that 'the pictorial theme of men and also apesdefecating oinsmade ts appearancen the marginsof gothic manu-scripts',and explicitlycontrastshe mentality hat produced hesedraw-ingswith 'the one that, n the ninth and enth centuries, seddepictionsof royal and mperialcoins o decorate acred ooks'. t wasduringtheeleventh(Little 1978:36), or perhaps he twelfth (Duby 1982:322),century hat avarice upplanted rideas he vicepar excellence,nd this

periodsawa burgeoning f satires n the hemeof money Murray 1978:72).The iming ssignificant ince hiswasa periodof rapidurbangrowthandof a major expansion f market rade. n otherwords, he attentiondevoted o money, trade and avariceas a moral peril grew with thesignificance f the moneyeconomy.So ar from a generalerosionof thesense f evil, as Macfarlane'shesiswouldsuggest, hat we reallyseemto witnesss a heightemng f thesense f evil inherent n money.What happened n the West, we would argue, is not that money


27/40


28/40

20 M. Bloch and J.Parryentering nto a secretpact with them. As Taussignterprets t, suchbeliefs representan indigenous eflection on the power, danger andimmorality f the newcapitalist conomy, ndon theperilswhich esultfrom the fact that what s extractedas a gift from the spirit guardians fthemine s hen ransformednto a commodity. hismakesminingverydifferent rom the traditional easant conomy f productionor use nwhich here s an unproblematicndundisruptedeciprocity etweenhepeasants nd the supernatural ources f fertility.What Harris'schapter hows,however, s that pesantsoo may besaid o owe their riches o a pact with the 'devils'.and it is thereforeimplausibleo interpret he belief n such devilcontracts' sa commen-tary on the evils of proletarianisationnd capitalist elationsof pro-duction.Neither n symbolism or in ritual are agriculture nd miningopposed.The fertility of the mines s rituallyrestored n a strikinglysimilarway to the fertilityof the fieldsand locks;minerals re held ogrow n the mines ike potatoes, nd t is said hat- like land a mineshouldbe left to lie fallow o recuperatets fertility.As Sallnow ointsout, it is only in mining that death at the handsof the spirits s apermanent ccupational azard,but this sonlyanextremevariantof therequirement f a sacrificialpilling f blood n Andeanagriculturalitual.SinceAndeanpeasants ave ong been ncorporatednto the market,and market relationsdo not representa comparable upernaturaldanger, t is clearlynot commoditisationtself which constitutesheproblem.Rather he realexplanationor the mystical angerof mininglies n ideasabout the cosmologicalignificancef preciousmetalsassupreme ommodities,he properuseof which s to flow upwardsastribute to the state.This tribute reproduces n ordered relationshipbetween he stateand he ocalcommunity a relationship hich s th esource f the atter's erti l i tyandprosperity, ndwhich s threatened yany ndividualappropriation f gold andsilver hat woulddisrupt hisflow. Hence hedangers f miningderivenot from the act hat he ore:

isextractedsagiftanddisposedf asa commodity that s, rom he mperfectarticulationetweenhedictatesfcapitalismnd henorms f Andean ulturebut rather romwithin he culture tself . . The supernaturalerilsof gold-miningandby associationf allmining] rea consequenceotof the ultimatecommoditisationf theproducl, utof theculturalogicn whicht is nitiallyembedded.When he rgument hat moneybringsabouta radical ransformationof society s extended y the propositionhat t must herefore ead orevolutionaryandspecifiable hangesn world view, t is easy o furtherassumehat moneymeanswhatmoney supposedly)oes.Regardlessfculture, t will always end o symbolise uch hesame indsof things.


29/40

Money and the moralityof exchange 27But seen sset,what heauthorsn thisvolume ppear o show s hat hemeanings ith whichmoney s nvested requiteas mucha productofthe culturalmatrix into which it is incorporated s of the economicfunctionst performs s a means f exchange, nit of ccount, toreofvalue and so on. It is therefore impossible o predict its symbolicmeaningsrom these unctionsalone.At first sight,however, t mightseem hatsuch elativism s called ntoquestionby severalof the casesdiscussed y our contributors whodocumentcaseswheremoneydoes ndeedappear o carry the kind ofsymbolic oad with whichwe are familiar rom our own tradition.TheShona piritmediums escribedn Lan'schapter,or example, voidandreject European goods as incompatiblewith the sacred domain ofancestral uthority.Similarly,Stirrat eports hat he Sri Lankan isher-men with whom he worked associatemoney with disorder and adisruption f theproperhierarchical rderof caste; ndToren hat th eFij ians alk of theworldof moneyas heantithesisf theorderedmoralworldof chiefs nd kinship.In fact, however, heseapparent imilarities ith our own culturaldiscourse re largely llusory. Though Shonamediumsmust avoid al lcontactwith Western ommoditiesike soap,petrolandCoca-Cola, eunexpectedlyind that there s no suchprohibitionon money in partbecause t is symboli callyassimilatedo a traditional tem, hoes.Unlike theseother tems,moneydoesnot stand n opposition o therealm of the sacred.Again, the seeming amiliarityof the Sinhalesecase urns out to reflectan entirely different set of meanings, or thefishermen'sdistaste or money has far less to do with an hostilitytowardscommoditisation nd the market han t has o do with the factthat here he controlof mo ney s in the handsof women.The Fij ianexample s also a caseof false amiliarity,but one which suggestsrather different kind of difficulty with those traditional argumentswhichattribute o moneya specific ignificanceegardless f context: adifficulty which derives from a misunderstanding f the nature ofsymbolismtself.The Fijian oppositionbetweenmoney standingor anti-social cquisi-tiveness)andyaqona drinking (standing or community) does at firstsight ndeedseem edolentof our own oppositionbetweencommerceand instrumentalityon the one hand, and kinship and morality on theother. What Toren makesclear,however, s that thisoppositionhasasmuch o do with thecontrast etween ross-cousinsnd other kinsmenasit has o do with the contrastbetween he market and he pre-monetaryeconomy.At thispointnot only doeswhat s seeminglyamiliar rom ourown culture begin to look very much less familiar, but it becomesapparent hat we are not dealingwith a simpleoppositionof irreconcil-


30/40

22 M. Bloch and f. Parryables, but rather with interconnected onceptswhich are part of atransformative iscourse.This seasiesto appreciatewhenwe consider he kinshipaspect f theFijian contrastwhichopposes n imageof societyasorderedby a fixedhierarchical atternof consanguinity, ffinity and chiefship epresentedin the ritual of yaqonadrinking, o an mageof the ephemeral, galita-rian, sexual and chaotic relations of unmarried cross-cousins. herelationship etween hese wo orders s not, however,one of staticandabsoluteopposition, or one side of the contrast s continually beingtransformed nto the other in a way which, far from being hreatening,actually representsan image of the successful eproductionof thecommunity.This is because ross-cousinshould becomespouses, ndhence he chaoticworld which is partly conjured up by rnoney s thenecessary recursor o the world of orderedhierarchyconjured up byyqona. What we therefore have is a continuingdialectic n whichcross-cousins ho are opposedare then united by marriageswhichbelong o thedomainof hierarchicalinship, ut hese n turn renew heopposition through the birth of children who are again opposed ascross-cousins.hissynthesiss representedn the ritualof 'drinkingcash'by the combinationof thesymbolism f money andof yaqonadrinking.In the first part of the ritual the subversive reativity of cross-cousinsassumeshe form of monetarycompetition,but in the secondpart thischaoticbehavioursharnessedo the reproduction f theordered aqonadrinking cornmunitywhen the result of the cashrivalry becomesbeneficialocial und.This ypeof transformations asweshall ee inno wayexceptionl.Not only doesmoneymeandifferent hings n differentcultures,but -as his examplesuggests it maymeandifferent hingswithin the sameculture. Sometimes epresented s subversive f the mostvaluedsocialrelations,t can alsobeviewedasan nstrumentor their maintenance.While n onecontext ife in themanner f money' s heantithesis f th e'Fij ian way', in another,money s morallyneutralor evenpositivelybeneficial. gain heambiguitys by no means nusual.What heFijianexample also demonstratesherefore s the misleadingnature of theassumption hat symbolic meaningscan be preciselyspecified. As

Lvi-Strauss1958:147-80) asargued s the casewith symbolismngeneral, the Fijian symbolismof money and yaqona drinking arecontinually being combined n creativeways o expressprocesses ndtransformation.t is consequentlyot only mpossibleo saywhatmoneywill 'mean' irrespectiveof cultural context, it is even misleading opresupposeht it will haveany ixedand mmutablemeaning n a givencontext a point which is also suggested y Appadurai's 1985)astutecomments n the typicallyantagonisticnterests f merchantsascham-


31/40

Money and the morality of exchange 23pionsof unfetteredequivalencen exchange) nd the politicalelite (aschampionsof regulationand control) in a world in which the statushierarchy sprotectedby sumptuaryaws.Whatmoneymeans s not onlysituationally efined ut alsoconstantlye-negotiated.TransactionalordersWe must, herefore,shift our focus rom a consideration f themeaningsof money to a considerationof the meaningsof whole transactionalsystems nd o the kind of transforrnative rocesswe have dentified orthe Fijian case.Whenwe do thisa verydifferentkind of pictureemerges.What we then find aresignificant egularitieswhichstronglyqualify thehighly relativistic onclusionso which a consideration f money nisolationhas ed us in the first part of this introduction.A particularlyclear nstance f the kind of regul aritywe have n mind s providedbyCarsten's hapter n this volume.As in the Fijian case, he Malay fishermen hedescribes ymbolicallytransformmoney rom a subversivend hreateningorce nto somethingmoral and sociallypositive. As in our Sri Lankan case, here is anintimateconnection etween he symbolism f moneyand hesymbolismof gender,but there he similarity nds.Unlike Stirrat'sSinhalese,heMalay fishermen f Langkawiarequitewilling to engage n commercialexchanges,hough they can only legitimatelydo so with comparativestrangers,or such elationsare seenas ncompatiblewith the moralbondsof kinship.Once he moneyhasbeenearned, owever, he me nhand t over o thewomenwhoremainuncontaminatedy contactwiththe amoraldomainof market ransactions.he womencan hen, as twere, de-contaminate'he money hey receive, ransformingt into amorally admissableesourcewhich sustains he householdand thecommunity.This they do by analogywith the way in which theytransform aw food nto a cookedmeal, he eatingof which s oneof thestrongestMalay symbolsof solidary elations.Women,Carstenargues,symbolicallycook' the money,and therebyconvert t into somethingwhichcanbe safely ncorporatednto - andwill nourish thehousehold.The fishermenof Langkawiare thus nvolved n two different trans-actionalorders: a world of fishingand commerce n which men engagewith strangersn a myriadof short-termransactionsnd where ndi-vidual competition, f not sharppractice, s acceptable; nd a worldwhich is oriented towards the longer-termgoalsof reproducing hehousehold,which in Malay ideologyprovides he model for represen-tat ions f thewider ommunity.The crucialand moregeneral oint s that, as or the Malays, n oneform or another,eachof the cases iscussedn this volumereveals


32/40

24 M. Bloch and ]. Pamysimilarpatternof two relatedbut separate ransactional rders:on theone hand ransactionsoncernedwith the reproductionof the long-termsocialor cosmicorder;on the other, a sphere'of short-term ransactionsconcerned ith the arena f individual ompetition.Amongst he Shona, he ong-termransactionalorderssymbolicallyconstructed n terms of an image of an immortal chiefdom which isrepresented y thespiritmediumswhoembody he ahcestralulers,whoin turn dispense ertility to their descendantsn return for obedience,respect nd ribute. In both our Andeancases,t again evolves roundasacredand enduringpolity which is represented s the sourceof theprosperityand ncreasewhich lowsdownto the ocalcommunityas ongas tribute flows up. Again, in Fiji, exchanges f yaqonabetweenchiefsand the people construct an idealised mage of an unchanginghier-archicalorder; while in the Sri Lankancase he predictable ong-termorder of castewith whichthe men dentify s opposed o the short-termamoral sphereof the market in which the women assume he crucialroles.With the Merina of Madagascar,rye imilarly ind an mageof theeternaldescent roupsymbolisedy the mmobile lone omb, which sseenasopposed o - but alsoaspartiallydependent n - individualistictransactionsf a short-term cquisitiveature.Finally, n India,gifts othe BenaresBrahmansare concernedwith the reproductionof thecosmicandsocialorder and - by ridding him of his sins with restoringthe pilgrim'splacewithin it. ln eachcase his long-term ransactionalorder is concernedwith the attempt o maintaina staticand timelessorder.In each,however, ulturalrecognition salsoexplicitlygiven o acycleof short-termexchanges ssociated ith individualappropriation,com-petit ion, sensuous njoyment, uxury and youthful vitality. This isvariously he world of commerce,wage-labouror brigandage,and isoften identifiedwith exchanges etweenstrangers. n the Merina case,for example,suchtransactions re concernedwith harena movablegoodswhich are ndividuallyacquired hroughcompetitiveactivities ikewar and trade. In life a legitimatesourceof sensual njoyment,harenamust at all costsbe dispersed eforedeath or they are firmly rooted n atransientworld whichdefiesand negateshe imageof a permanentandcollectiveancestral ssence mbodied n the tomb.As this might leadone to expect, here s a closeassociation etweenMerina funerary practicesand the two transactionalorders, and anexplicitconnectionsmadebetween ncestral ody-substancend nher-itedwealthon the one hand,andbetweenhe vitalsubstance f the ivingandhqrenaon the other. The case s instructive or it seems o revealsomethingmoregeneralabout he relationship etween he wo cycles fexchange.The short-term individualistic ransactions oncernedwith


33/40

Money and the morality of exchange 25harena re morallyacceptableo ong as heyremainsubordinatedo,anddo notcompetewith, he ong-termestorativeycles hich ocus nthe undifferent iatedollectivity f the ancestors.ndeedsuchactivitiesareparticularly esirable hen hegoods heyyieldareused o maintainthis over-arching rder - as, or example,when ndividuallyacquiredwealth is employed o restore he tombs or fund the ceremoniesassociatedith them.But, of course, llthis sextremely imilar o whatwe havealready ai dabout he Fij ianandMalaysian ases here hemorallyequivocalmoneyderived rom short-termexchange ycles s transformed y a simplesymbolic peration nto a positively eneficial esourcewhichsustainsthe idealorder of an unchanging ommunity.Much the samepatternemerges nce more from Parry's ndian example,whereevenwealthacquired hrough he most deviousmensby merchants, anditsandkings sunproblematico ongasa proportion f it isgifted o Brahmansaspartof the ong-term ycle f cosmic urif ication. gain, n Sri Lankawe ind hatmoney easeso bedirtyandbecomes egitimatenterest fmenrvhen t is used n consumptiono maintain he solidarity nd classidentityof the fishing il lageand o reproducehe household; nd thiskind of conversions alsographicallyllustrated y Harris'svignette fimpoverishedolivianpeasantsouring way heirwealth n libationsothe sacred arth,anddown heir hroats o produce oly drunkenness.

What we consistentlyind, then, s a series f procedures y whichgoods which derive from the short-termcycle are converted nto thelong-termransactionalrder procedures hich nclude he drinking'of cashn Fiji, the cooking' f money n Langkawi and he digesting' fthe pilgrims'giftsby the Brahmans f Benares, nd of course t is noaccident hat such ran sformationshouldso often be expressedn analimentarydiom, or everywherehis s one of the mostpowerfulof allpossiblemetaphorsor transformation.t isnot that what s obtained nthe short-term ycle sa kind of i l l-gotten ainwhichcanbe laundered'by beingconvertednto socially pproved hannels f expenditure ndconsumption.t is rather hat the two cycles re represented sorgan-icallyessentialo each ther.This s becauseheir elationshiporms hebasis or a symbolic esolution f the problemposedby the fact thattranscendentalocial ndsymbolic tructures ustboth depend n, andnegate,he transientndividual.It is widely argued hat outside he ideologicalambit of the capitalistmarket, he economy s seenas being embedded'n society, hat th erelentlessndividual ursuitof material elf-gains generally iscounte-nanced,and that collectivegoalsare normally accordedprimacyoverthose of the individual. Much of the so-calledformalist-substantivist'controversyurnedon he ssue f whethermaximizing anexists, ither


34/40

26 M. Bloch and J.Parryin factor theory, n thepre-capitalistorld;and thoughPolanyi imselfwasa creditable xceptionsee,or examplePolanyi1971) theanswersprovidedhavegenerallyended o take the form of a straightforward'yes'or no'. Whatwe believe ur discussionllustrates. owever,s hatall these ystems ake indeed ave o make some deological pacewithin which ndividualacquisitions a legitimate nd even audablegoal;but hat suchactivities reconsignedo a separatepherewhich sideologically rticulated ith, and subordinatedo, a sphere f activiryconcerned ith the cycleof long-term eproduction. he relationshipbetweenhe politico-economicomainof srthaand he moralorder ofdharma n Hindu theoryprovides n almostparadigmaticaseof thiskindof relationship etweenhe wo cycles.We thereforeind t strangethat Dumont{1970) hould ee heworld renouncer smoreor less hesole epresentativef the values f individualismn Indiansociety, ndshouldapparently enyany role o suchvaluesn thesphere f arthrt.That his deologicalpace hould xist s, we believe.nevitable forthe maintenance f the long-termorder is both pragmatically ndconceptually ependent n individualshort-termacquisitive ndeav-ours. Not only do the latter in fact provide much of the materialwherewithal ecessaryor the reproduction f the encompassingrder,but it alsohas o be acknowledgedhat thisorder canonly perpetuateitself hrough he biological ndeconomic ctivities f individuals.Whatweclaim o be describinghen san extremely eneral etof ideas bouttheplaceof the ndividual n a social r cosmic rder which ranscendsthe ndividual.The articulation etweenhe two spheress, however,by no meansunproblematic.f the ong-term ycle snot o be reducedo the ransientworldof the ndividual, heymustbe keptseparate witnesshe Malaypreoccupationith insulatinghe domestic omainagainst ommercialtransactions.ut if the ong erm s o be sustainedy thecreativity ndvitalityof the short-term ycle, hey must alsobe related hence heconcernwith thekindsof transformative rocessesf which he cooking'of money n Langkawis ustoneexample.Thepossibility f conversionsetweenhe wo orders lsohasmuch odo with their moral evaluation.While the long-rerm ycle s always

positively ssociatedith hecentral recepts f morality, heshort-termorder tends o be morally undetermined ince t concernsndividualpurposeswhich are largely irrelevant o the long-termorder. If ,however. hat which sobtainedn the short-termndividualisticycle sconverted o serve he reproduction f the long-termcycle, hen itbecomesmorallypositive like the cash drunk' in Fij i or the wealthgivenasdanain Hindu India. But equ ally here s always he oppositepossibility and hisevokes he strongest ensure thepossibilityhat


35/40

Moneyand the morality of exchange 27individual nvolvementn the short-term yclewill becomean end initselfwhich s no longer ubordinatedo the reproduction f the largercycle;or, morehorrifying ti l l , hat graspingndividuals ill divert heresourcesf the ong-term ycle or their own short-termransactions.Thenightmarishpectre f this asteventualitys llustrated y our woAndeancases. allnow ividlyevokes he extremedangerand secrecywith whichPeruvian easantsssociatehe miningof preciousmetals.Thereasonsor thisarecomplex, utonewavof unravell ingts ogic s ostart rom Harris' report hat- though nfinitelymorevaluable preciousmetals reseen sgrowing n theearth ike tubersor potatoes. ertilityand ncrease f all kinds s a blessingf themountain pirits, ndnormalcrops like potatoes require he normalreciprocation f libationsandan occasionalblood offering. One who obtains preciousmetals,however,s obtaining kind of supercrop, or which he only possiblereturn s the ife of the minerhimself.But the emptation f course s otry to concealhe appropriation nd husavoid he debt; houghsuchastratagems thoroughly nti-socil ince he mountainspiritswill thenextract heir returnat random.A renegade f thissortwho threatensopermanentlydivert the resources f the long-term cycle to his ownshort-term dvantage,s heantithesisf theparagon ho iberally ourslibations n to theerthor into his body n order o transcend,hroughdrunkenness, is calculating ndividualist self. Through his self-abnegationhe latter ensureshat what he derives rom the long-termcyclehasbeen eturned o it evenbefore t hasbeengiven.Similarlyn theBenares ase,he Brahmanwho eceivesanabut ailsto passt on rn roto s n effectdivertingwealthdestinedor the long-termcycle or hisown short-term nds.The consequences not only that hehimselfwill rot with leprosy nd suffer he torments f hell. but that -sincehe is blocking he channels f purif icationwhich flow in th eoppositedirection to dana- he also bringssin and misfortune o hisunwittingdonors.But when he munificentmerchant onfers anaon theBrahmans e is doing exactly he opposite.He is convertingwealthaccumulatedn short-termacquisitive ctivity nto a long-termcycleconcerned othwitha wholechainof purif ication ndelimination f sin,and with the supportof Brahmanswhose itual activities ustain hecosmos.Equally,our ethnography lso llustrateshe other horrendous ossi-bility hat he ndividualwill become oembroiledn theshort-term yclethat he will ignore he demands f the longcycle. t seems o be thisdangerwith which Merina notionsabout tree-plantingare concerned.Since he reeoutlastshe ndividualwhoplantedt, it representskindof illicit immortalisation f the type of wealth hat shouldbe dispersedbeforedeath.This anti-social ttempt o perpetuate isown ndividuality


36/40


37/40

Money and the moralityof exchange 29which exist at a deeper evel. That is, they are a consequencefregularit iesn the wav in which the transactional orld as a whole ssymbolically onstructedn terms of what we have called o ng andshort-termycles. oth n Madagascarnd n theAndes, ertain ormsofmoney are closely dentif iedwith the long-termorder of exchange.Because f the nstrumental seso whichmoney ends tself, he morefamiliar casehowever s for it to be most closely associatedwith theshort-term rder (as, or example, n our Fij ian and Malaysian ases).and it may even becomea condensed ymbol of that order. Suchsimilaritiesn symbolic onstruction sexist,we arearguing. erive romsimilaritiesn the way in which this order is constructed y differentcultures.It is.aswehave een, commonplacessumptionhatmoney ives iseto a specific orldviewand o particular indsof social elationship,utthis sverydubious.The further mplicationof cur discussion cwever sthat within i gorously ircumscribe dimitsandwithor withoutmoneythe vast majority of culturesmake somespace or exchanges hichdisplaymanyof the eatures hicharesometimes,s n our ownsociety.associatedith monetary xchangeadegree f impersonality,onsider-able copeor ndividual ratification nda concernorpure nstrumenta-l ity, for example). hosewriterswho creditmoneywith thepaternity fthese eaturesare thereforeconstructing falsehistory n whichwhat sactuallyan extremelygeneralcontrastwithin culturesbetween hedomains f the long and short-term rdersbecomes contrast etweencultures and t ison hisbasishat henotionof a great ivide'betweenthemonetary ndpre-monetary orldshas ested.n onewayor anotherthechapters y Fuller.Harris,Lan andBlochwhich ollowall make ef -erence o this kind of historical alsification.We do not. of course,ntend o imply thateverythings everywherethesame, r to downplayhegreat ariety f symbolic ystems ocumen-ted n thisvolume.Nor do we wish o suggesthat hekindof scheme ehaveoutl ineds eitheruniversal r eternal.Whilewe believe hepatternwe have dentif ied scommon o all our case tudiess typicalof a widerangeof societies,t is arguable hat the mature deology f capitalismwouldbe an example f something ntirelydifferent.By a remarkable

conceptualevolutionwhathasuniquely appenedn capitalistdeology,theargumentwould un, s that he values f the short-term rderhavebecome laboratednto a theoryof long-term eproduction.What ourculture (like others) had previouslymade room for in a separateandsubordinate omainhas, n somequarters t least,been urned nto atheoryof the encompassingrder- a theory n which t is only unalloyedprivate ice hat cansustainhe publicbenefit.What is alsopossible,however, s that the conceptual hift hasbeen


38/40

30 M. Bloch and J. Parryrather less adical, and that what hasreally happened as Mauss'sessayon the The Gift implied long ago- is rather that rty'esternideology has soemphasised he distinctivene ss f the two cycles hat it is then unable oirnagine the mechanisrnsby which they are linked. One of the merits ofthis formulation would be that it suggestsa way of understanding thequite contradictory representationsof money - as devil ish acid or asinstrurnentand guarantor of liberty - to which we are heirs. What, inother words, these two different discourseswould reflect is the radicaldivorce between fhe two cycles, each discourse deriving from theperspectiveof one side of the dichotomy aione.

These are issueswhich we cannot properly tackle here, however, forthe central focus of this collection is on ideologies which have beenlargely developed outside the centres of capitalism. The general com-parative lesson of which they provide a timely reminder is that thespecificity of the particular symbolic system, the similarities in thesolutions which different cultures provide to the same fundamentalproblems of human existence, and tbe way in which historical forces acton and transfo rm an existingcultural template, all have to be taken intoaccount f we are to begin to understand he meaningsof money. Th elesson s also one which we need to take to heart if we are to understandour own representationsof exchange.

ReferencesAppadurai,A. 1986. Introduction: omrnoditiesnd he polit ics f value', nThe social life of things:commodities n a cultural perspective,pp. 1-63,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Aristotle 1962.Thepotitics.Harmondsworth; enguinBooks.Barth, F. 1967. Economic pheresn Darfur', in R. Firth (ed.), Themesneconomic nthropology, p. 14v-^74,ondon:TavistockPublications.Bayly,C. A. 1986.The origins f swadeshihome ndustry): lothand ndiansociety. |TUJ-1930', n A. Appadurai (ed.), The social life of things:commoditiesn culturalperspective, p. 291321, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bloch, M. and Parry, J. {eds.) 1982. Death and the regeneration f ltfe,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bohannan,P. 1955. Someprinciplesof exchange nd investmentamong heTiv', AmericanAnthropologist, 7 6A-9.i959. The mpactof moneyon an African subsistenceconomy',The ournalof Economic History, 19 ($: 9I-503.Bohannan,P. and Bohannan,L. 1968,Tiveconomy,London: Longmans.Burridge, K. 1969. New heaven,new earth: a study of miltenarianactivities,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Comaroff,Jean1985.Body of power,spirit of resistance. hicagotUniversityPress.


39/40

Money and the morality of exchange 31Coser, L. 1977.Mastersof saciological hought: ideas n historical and socialcontext2ndedition),New York: Harco urtBrace ovanovich.nc.Dalton, G. 1965.Primitivemoney',AmericanAnthropologist.6T:44-65.Duby. G. 1982.The hreeorders:eudalsociety magined trans.A. Goldham-mer), Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.Dumont, L. 1970. Honto hierarchicus: he castsystem and its inplications,London:Weidenfeld nd Nicolson.1977 From Mandeville o Marx: thegenesis nd triurnphof economic cleology,Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Frankef S. H. 1977.Money: wophilosophres, xford; BasilBlackwell.Gregory,C. 1982.Giftsand comntodities, ondon: AcademicPress.Gudeman,S. 1986.Econonticsas culture:modelsand ntetaphorsof livelihood.London:Routledge ndKeganPaul.Hart, K. 1986.Heads r tails? wo sides f thecoin',Man,21 (4): 631*56.Hirschman,A. O. 1977.Thepassions nd rhe nteresrs:oliticalargutnentsorcapitalism efore ts riumph, Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Josephides. . 1985.Theproduttion of inequality:genderand exchange mongthe Kewa.London: TavistockPublications.Kopytoff. I. 1986. The cultural biographyof things: commoditization sprocess',n A. Appadurai ed.). Thesocial ife of rhings: ommoditiesn aculturalperspecrive, ambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Le Goff, J. 1980.Time,workand cuilure n themiddleages,Chicago:ChicagoUniversity ress.Lvi-Strauss, . 1958.Anrhropologie tructurale, aris:Plon.Little, L. 1978.Religiouspoverty and the profit economy n medieval Europe.London:PaulElek.Macfarlane, . 1985.The oot of all evil', n D. Parkin ed.),Theanthropologyof evil, Oxford: BasilBlackwell.Martin. E. (forthcoming).Themeaning f money n Chinaand he UnedStates(1986LewisHenry MorganLectures,Universityof Rochester.).Marx, K. 1961.Capital,vol. 1, Moscow:ForeignLanguages ublishingHouse.1964.Pre-capitalistconomicormations,London: Lawrenceand Wishart.Mauss,M. 1966.Thegift: forms andfunctions of exchangen archaic societies(trans. . Cunnison), ondon:CohenandWestLtd.Murray, A. 1978.Reason ndsocietyn theMiddle Ages.Oxford: ClarendonPress.Nash,J. L979.Weeat he minesand hemineseatus:dependencynd exploitationin Bolivian in mines,New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress.Oflman,B. 1976.Alienarion:Marx'sconceprion f man n capitalist ociety?nd

edition),Cambridge: ambridge niversityPress.Parry, . P. 1986.'The ift. the Indiangift and he lndian gift ' . Man.2l (3):45173.Polanyi, K. 1971.Primitive.archaic,and modern econonties: ssays f KarlPolanyi,ed. G. Dalton, Boslon:BeaconPress.Roberts,P. C. and Stephenson.M. A. 1983.Marx's heoryof exchange, lien-aion,and crjsri, New York: PraegerPublishers.Schwartz, . 1967.'Thesocialpsychology f the gift', TheAmerican ournal ofSociology. 3 l): l- l l .


40/40

32 M. Bloch and J. ParrySimmel, . 1978. Thephilosophy of money, London: Routledge and KeganPaul,Snith, Adam 1904.dr inquiry into thenstane nd susesf thewealthof *ations.ed. E. Cannan,2 vols.,London: Methuen.Strathern, M. 1985. Kinship and economy:constitutiveordersof a provisionalkind'. AmericanEthnologist,vol- 12.Taussig,M. i980. The devil and commodity etishism n SouthAmerica, ChapelHill: The Univenity of North Carolina Press.Tawney, R. H. 1972. Religion an the rise of capitalism, Harmondsworth;PenguinBooks.Wolfram, S. 1987. Inlaws and outlaws; kinship and marriage in England,Beckenham:Croom Helm.

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alain-musset
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

2014 05 20 Guerin ECD2 Parry Bloch

Documents