Economic Activity and Intimate Relationships

Zelizer's article raises a lot of important questions about economic activity and intimate relationships. As she explains, the two can work in harmony, but many times they do not. On their faces, what is it about economics and money that contaminates intimate relationships?

I've always said I'd never want to be President. I feel like all the time, half the people would despise me and the other half adore me. Does this paradigm play a role in economic activity in relation to intimate relationships?

Lastly, I really enjoy the sort of closing question posed by Zelizer. Given that we live in a world of money and cannot sustain our lives without it, how can we possibly decide who owes what to whom? Is money truly the root of all evil?

Cultural differences and the density of objects

In the reading " Cultural differences and the density of objects", Weiner talks about how multiple crowns (or any other items) made of the same material can vary drastically in what they mean to someone or how much economic value it is worth. It seemed they used some of there prized possessions in exchange for everyday items.  And the items worth, or how much wealth a person has is by, well the possessions the own, but in the objects in what they have been through.  If an object was once used by a war god(so to say) then it what have much more significance which leads to more value that an item of the same material same everything has that has not been owned by them.  I guess if you look at society today we kind of do the same thing.  Say i own a baseball used by the great bambino; this item is not the same as a ball i bought from the store.  It still causes me to wonder about the banana leaves, and what material value they have.  I will have to do more research on the Trobriands people.  Good read though

Creating Values & Hierarchies in a Capitalist Market

In her piece, cultural differences and the density of objects, Weiner invites us to consider the impact of withholding particular items from commodity circulation in order to increase their prestige and value within the marketplace. She uses examples from non-capitalist societies such as the kula shells, fine mats, and other cloth-types that are imagined to exist on a continuum that ranges from highest rank and inalienable objects to low status, common objects used to circulate goods. She emphasizes how "juxtaposing one society's valuable objects against another's" facilitates understanding of how historical happenstance and cultural circumstances generate the symbolic nature of an "inalienable object" and the implications of keeping it out of common exchange.

Following this suggestion, I immediately began to think of how American society values art (which she ended up mentioning briefly at the end of the article). Last semester I had a class on Art in Social Context, where we touched on the notion of money's relation to artworks. One example I always found outrageous, Mark Rothko's White Center, sold at auction in 2007 for $72.84mil to a private collector. I found it hard to believe that a man could paint three blocks of colors on another color, a skill found in that of drawings done by toddlers, could be worth that much money. However, prior ownership is involved here, as this painting may be more well known by its common name, Rothko's Rockefeller, alerting all that this particular Rothko piece was once owned by American-famous capitalists, the Rockefeller family. Everyone in the collectors realm wanted to own a prestigious-by-association painting. Although this is confusing to many on why it matters that the Rockefellers happened to own something, other people that recognize their historical significance within a culture that hinges on the tenants of capitalism, would kill to get their hands on any worldly possession of the family. By making this connection, I found it easier to envision the continuum of hierarchy involved with objects as described by Weiner.

Although I find the prior example to be obvious, I further tried to place the notion of an object's created value within my own context. In a more simplistic view, I thought of the assigned value of "rare" objects. A trip to my local fish store could even help to exemplify these views, where the owner has a rather large fish, a zebra pike cichlid (which is impractical to keep for most people of the hobby based on its sheer size), advertised as "EXTREMELY RARE!!! $699". Now, it is reasonable to say, who in their right mind would spend that much money on a fish? It is eventually going to die, it doesn't serve much utility other than to have something pretty to look at (same function as Rothko's Rockefeller). This fish has no particularly special prior ownership and doesn't serve to increase one's socio-political status...but the point I'm trying to make is based in the fact that because the zebra pike cichlid rarely enters the US aquarium trade, the high pricetag attached to it can be seen as reasonable. 

As products of socialization to a capitalist society, we better understand Weiner's points through an exchange value associated with money rather than an association to a particular person or cultural meaning. This is because the American market depersonalizes objects to attend to monetary exchange values that are known constants by all consumers - in effect, it reifies the continuum described by Weiner as objects can be ranked according to their pricetags (ones worth more money are considered to be more valuable than those with low, everyday prices). What Weiner is observing is the process in which an object generates a "pricetag" or value within its social context. It makes sense why it may be hard to grasp the concepts of the shells, mats, or cloths for people who are not embedded within that cultural circumstance because we have no prior notion of the history and social ties affiliated with the objects discussed. 

Guyer: Marginal Gains

What I found interesting in Guyer's revist to the Tiv economy is that it seems to be a pre-colonial thought on exchanged. Meaning, that the exchangeable gifts are based on moral values. This seems to be a more previous look at a lifeworld style thought rather than a "systemic" approach because it is not basing it on just the thing itself, but the morality that comes with that certain thing/exchangeable gifts. The conversion table provided in the piece also allows to see that could be viewed as the most "basic" needs such as food is not a high commodity in the conversion based on its conveyance. However, it could also be argued that this is "systemic" approach to exchangeable gifts as well in Atlantic Africa because there is still an exchange system itself. It just applies more "totality" I believe on the gifts rather than it just being a "thing" that is handed for something else.

Guanxi!

Apologies for my earlier misspelling/mis-pronounciation!

The word/practice I was referring to is guanxi - relationships, connections.

Here's a quick discussion of guanxi in business practices in China from the BBC. This ties in well with our discussion of gifts among business bosses-employees in Japan!

I first encountered the concept in the book "Gifts, Favors, and Banquets: the Art of Social Relations in China" by Mayair Young. The book provides a much broader analysis of guanxi beyond business relations.

On Shells, Bikie (iron currencies), Keith Hart and Jane Guyer

As discussed in class, I'm posting a link to the transactions website. I want to draw your attention to two entries that speak to topics that relate to these last two weeks' readings:

1.  Keith Hart's description and discussion of the kina shells necklace (not to be confused with the kula shells!) circulating as currency in Africa. The discussion moves from the shells to Mauss so it connect with many of our discussions on Mauss.

2. (you'll have to scroll down to find this) Jane Guyer's discussion of "The iron currencies of Southern Cameroon" regarding her discovery through museum objects, archives and ethnographic work of the bikie (iron rods), pre-colonial currencies in circulation in south Cameroon before colonial currencies were introduced/imposed. The background she provides here helps to further explain the discussion of multiplicity of currencies in Atlantic Africa.

Gift Exchange Compared to Market Trade

In the article “Some Principles of Exchange and Investment among the Tiv,” Bohannan discusses the ways in which the Tiv organize their economic world, and begins by pointing out the ways in which they distinguish between “gifts” and “market” goods (p.60). Before going into the details of how their market it organized, he describes how gifts are considered separate from other commodities in that they are important for building relationships.

In light of our recent discussions in class about gift exchange, how might this distinction between gifts and market goods be similar (or different) to other systems we have studied? For example, in the United States most items that are given as gifts are also often items that are produced in what we consider to be the market, and there is a strong connection between seasons of gift exchange and market sales. While we ideally consider gifts to be separate from trade items, they appear to be far more connected in our own economy, in comparison with how Bohannan describes the distinct “spheres” in the Tiv’s economy (p. 60). It may not be particularly useful to closely compare these two economies in terms of their markets, but it seems to me that the practice of gift exchange has more similarities across different cultures.

Bohannan, Paul, “Some Principles of Exchange and Investment among the Tiv,” American Anthropologist 1955