Negotiating the Economic Spaces of the Personal

 

(Photo credit: Steven Depolo 2013)          

     I found Weiner’s ideas to be compelling, in part because she began by identifying the Western bias of exchange theory, noting how it is important to accept the influence of Enlightenment ideologies on shaping the theoretical premises for what constitutes definitions of "primitive", "exchange", or "gifts."[1] She approaches the subject of exchange with an attention to complexity, which always works for me! This results in another important layer of analysis, a frame for us to consider the cultural density of objects within the context of exchange and how the symbolic density of objects circulate and/or gain value in a society. In this conception, she proposes an expanded dynamic to previous thoughts about giving--something she calls the “keeping-while-giving” paradox. This is the “value created by trying to keep certain possessions out of exchange in the face of obligations to engage in exchange.”[2] This theory adds complexity to our understanding of non-Western exchange systems. Her assertion is that when seen in this way, this type of economy has more similarities to capitalism than might have been considered before.[3]  This would be a good point to discuss further.  

     Weiner suggests a commonality would be strategies for resisting exchange to retain objects of value--a very interesting concept. If we do a cultural comparison for these strategies, she believes it will add to an understanding of how giving and keeping inform and validate each other.  I wonder if we in capitalist America can reflect on how we consider exchange in this way—what do we resist and for what--and how to we decide about such things?  I see this as complimentary to Zelizer’s ideas about how economic transactions do, in the end, involve a great deal of organizing and evaluating of interpersonal relationships.[4] 

---

[1] Weiner, A.B. (n.d.) Cultural difference and the density of objects, AES Distinguished Lecture, p 393.

[2] Ibid, p 395.

[3] Ibid, p 401

[4] Zelizer, V. (2006). Do markets poison intimacy? American Sociological Association, Vol. 5, Issue 2, p. 37