ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY adaptive strategy, patterns of subsistence, alternative ends
DaniraIrin
50 views
46 slides
Sep 30, 2024
Slide 1 of 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
About This Presentation
ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY
adaptive strategy, patterns of subsistence, alternative ends
Size: 6.12 MB
Language: en
Added: Sep 30, 2024
Slides: 46 pages
Slide Content
ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY: ADAPTIVE STRATEGY, PATTERNS OF SUBSISTENCE, ALTERNATIVE ENDS Rimbo Gunawan
The meanings of economics for anthropologists Economics deals with the material means to man’s existence Economics studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services Economic anthropology treats in primitive societies those areas of life which economists study in modern societies—study of the things that economists do Economics is the study of systems of exchange Economics is the study of the allocation of scare means to altenative ends
Variety of Adaptive Strategies The anthropologist Yehudi Cohen ( 1974), Man in Adaptation: The Cultural Present , used the term adaptive strategy to describe a group’s system of economic production. He developed a typology of societies based on correlations between their economies and their social features. His typology includes five adaptive strategies: foraging, horticulture, agriculture , pastoralism , and industrialism .
Foraging Foraging (hunting and gathering wild plants and animals ) Foraging for wild plants and hunting wild animals is the most ancient of human subsistence patterns. Prior to 10,000 years ago, all people lived in this way. Hunting and gathering continued to be the subsistence pattern of some societies well into the 20th century, especially in environmentally marginal areas that were unsuited to farming or herding, such as dense tropical forests, deserts, and subarctic tundra
Kottak (2011) Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity
Kottak (2011) Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity
Horticulture Horticulture is cultivation that makes intensive use of none of the factors of production : land, labor, capital, and machinery . Instead horticulturalists use simple tools such as hoes and digging sticks to grow their crops. The fields are not permanently cultivated and lie fallow for varying lengths of time. Horticulture often involves slash-and-burn techniques : clear land by cutting down (slashing) and burning forest or bush or by setting fire to the grass covering a plot. The vegetation is broken down, pests are killed, and the ashes remain to fertilize the soil. Crops are then sown, tended, and harvested. Use of the plot is not continuous. Often it is cultivated for only a year . This depends, however, on soil fertility and weeds , which compete with cultivated plants for nutrients.
Agriculture Agriculture is cultivation that requires more labor than horticulture does, because it uses land intensively and continuously. The greater labor demands associated with agriculture reflect its common use of domesticated animals, irrigation, or terracing.
Pastoralism Pastoralism is a subsistence pattern in which people make their living by tending herds of large animals. The species of animals vary with the region of the world, but they are all domesticated herbivores that normally live in herds and eat grasses or other abundant plant foods . Horses are the preferred species by most pastoralists in Mongolia and elsewhere in Central Asia. In East Africa, it is primarily cattle. In the mountainous regions of Southwest Asia, it is mainly sheep and goats. It is often camels in the more arid lowland areas of the Southwest Asia and North and East Africa. Among the Saami people of northern Scandinavia, it is reindeer as well as some pastoralists in northern Mongolia. While the Saami mostly use their reindeer as a source of meat, the Dukha people of northern Mongolia milk and ride their reindeer much as other Mongolians do with horses .
Industrialism By the 18th century the stage had been set for the Industrial Revolution—the historical transformation (in Europe, after 1750) of “ traditional” into “modern” societies through industrialization of the economy. The seeds of industrial society were planted well before the 18th century ( Gimpel 1988 ). For example, a knitting machine invented in England in 1589 was so far ahead of its time that it played a profitable role in factories two and three centuries later. The appearance of cloth mills late in the Middle Ages foreshadowed the search for new sources of wind and water power that characterized the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization required capital for investment. The established system of transoceanic trade and commerce supplied this capital from the enormous profits it generated. Wealthy people sought investment opportunities and eventually found them in machines and engines to drive machines . Industrialization increased production in both farming and manufacturing. Capital and scientific innovation fueled invention.
Economic Anthropology Economic Anthroplogy (EA) looks at economics in a comparative perspective A population’s economic consists of system of production, distribution, and consumption of resources Thus, EA examines production, distribution, and consumption in different societies.
EA concerns with two main questions: How are production, distribution, and consumption organized in diffferent societies? Focus on systems of human behavior and their organization What motivates people in different cultures to produce, distribute or exchange, and consume? Focus on individuals who participate in those systems Therefore, anthropologists view both economic systems and motivations in a cross-cultural perspective
Mode of Production A mode of production is a way of organizing production —“a set of social relations through which labor is deployed to wrest energy from nature by means of tools, skills, organization , and knowledge” (Wolf 1982). In the capitalist mode of production, money buys labor power , and there is a social gap between the people ( bosses and workers) involved in the production process . By contrast, in nonindustrial societies , labor is not usually bought but is given as a social obligation. In such a kin-based mode of production , mutual aid in production is one among many expressions of a larger web of social relations .
In nonindustrial societies, there is a more intimate relationship between the worker and the means of production than there is in industrial nations . Means , or factors, of production include land ( territory), labor , and technology . While in industrial societies, industrial workers have impersonal relations with their products, coworkers, and employers. People sell their labor for cash, and the economic domain stands apart from ordinary social life. In nonindustrial societies, however, the relations of production, distribution, and consumption are social relations with economic aspects . Economy is not a separate entity but is embedded in the society.
Distribution and exchange The economist Karl Polanyi (1968) stimulated the comparative study of exchange, and several anthropologists followed his lead. To study exchange cross-culturally , Polanyi defined three principles orienting exchanges: the market principle , redistribution , and reciprocity. These principles can all be present in the same society, but in that case they govern different kinds of transactions. In any society, one of them usually dominates . The principle of exchange that dominates in a given society is the one that allocates the means of production .
Market principle In today’s world capitalist economy, the market principle dominates. It governs the distribution of the means of production: land, labor, natural resources , technology, and capital. “Market exchange refers to the organizational process of purchase and sale at money price” (Dalton, ed. 1967 ; Madra 2004). With market exchange, items are bought and sold, using money, with an eye to maximizing profi t, and value is determined by the law of supply and demand (things cost more the scarcer they are and the more people want them). Bargaining is characteristic of market-principle exchanges . The buyer and seller strive to maximize—to get their “money’s worth.” In bargaining , buyers and sellers don’t need to meet personally . But their offers and counteroffers do need to be open for negotiation over a fairly short time period.
Redistribution Redistribution operates when goods, services , or their equivalent move from the local level to a center . The center may be a capital, a regional collection point, or a storehouse near a chief’s residence . Products often move through a hierarchy of officials for storage at the center. Along the way, officials and their dependents may consume some of them, but the exchange principle here is re distribution. The flow of goods eventually reverses direction—out from the center , down through the hierarchy, and back to the common people.
Reciprocity Reciprocity is exchange between social equals , who are normally related by kinship, marriage, or another close personal tie. Because it occurs between social equals, it is dominant in the more egalitarian societies—among foragers, cultivators , and pastoralists. There are three degrees of reciprocity : generalized, balanced, and negative ( Sahlins 1968, 2004; Service 1966). These may be imagined as areas of a continuum defined by these questions: 1. How closely related are the parties to the exchange ? 2. How quickly and unselfishly are gifts reciprocated? Generalized reciprocity, the purest form of reciprocity, is characteristic of exchanges between closely related people. In balanced reciprocity, social distance increases, as does the need to reciprocate. In negative reciprocity, social distance is greatest and reciprocation is most calculated. This range, from generalized to negative, is called the reciprocity continuum.
Generalized reciprocity, someone gives to another person and expects nothing concrete or immediate in return. Such exchanges ( including parental gift giving) are not primarily economic transactions but expressions of personal relationships. Most parents don’t keep accounts of every penny they spend on their children. They merely hope that the children will respect their culture’s customs involving love, honor, loyalty, and other obligations to parents.
Balanced reciprocity applies to exchanges between people who are more distantly related than are members of the same band or household. In a horticultural society, for example, a man presents a gift to someone in another village. The recipient may be a cousin, a trading partner, or a brother’s fictive kinsman. The giver expects something in return . This may not come immediately, but the social relationship will be strained if there is no reciprocation. Utang na loob in the Tagalog speaking people in Luzon can be seen as a form of balanced reciprocity. This is too replicated in some places in Indonesia, particularly in the rural areas like in Tengger , Halimun , and others
Exchanges in nonindustrial societies also may illustrate negative reciprocity, mainly in dealing with people outside or on the fringes of their social systems . To people who live in a world of close personal relations, exchanges with outsiders are full of ambiguity and distrust. Exchange is one way of establishing friendly relations with outsiders , but especially when trade begins, the relationship is still tentative. Often, the initial exchange is close to being purely economic; people want to get something back immediately. Just as in market economies, but without using money , they try to get the best possible immediate return for their investment . Generalized and balanced reciprocity are based on trust and a social tie. But negative reciprocity involves the attempt to get something for as little as possible, even if it means being cagey or deceitful or cheating.
Reciprocity Commerce among small-scale societies in the past usually involved more institutionalized balanced reciprocity than is found in the international trade system today. In addition, commerce generally involved considerably more social gain. An example of such inter-societal commerce among small-scale societies was the Kula Ring of the Southwest Pacific Ocean. At that time when it was studied during the WW I by Malinowski, it still operated largely in its purely indigenous form. The Kula Ring was a closed trading system in which only established senior male trading partners from each island could participate. The trade network was essentially circular. If a trader was traveling in a clockwise direction around the circuit, he would give long necklaces of red shells ( soulava ) as gifts to his trading partner. If he was traveling in a counterclockwise direction, he would give armbands of white shells ( mwali ). These necklaces and armbands were the kula items.
In today’s lives, the market principle governs most exchanges, from the sale of the means of production to the sale of consumer goods . We also have redistribution. Some of our tax money goes to support the government, but some of it also comes back to us in the form of social services, education, health care, and road building . We also have reciprocal exchanges. Generalized reciprocity characterizes the relationship between parents and children. However , even here the dominant market mentality surfaces in comments about the high cost of raising children and in the stereotypical statement of the disappointed parent : “We gave you everything money could buy .” Exchanges of gifts, cards, and invitations exemplify reciprocity , usually balanced. Everyone has heard remarks like “They invited us to their daughter’s wedding, so when ours gets married , we’ll have to invite them” and “They’ve been here for dinner three times and haven’t invited us yet. I don’t think we should ask them back until they do.”
Economic anthropologists have been concerned with two main questions: 1. How are production, distribution, and consumption organized in different societies ? This question focuses on systems of human behavior and their organization. 2. What motivates people in different cultures to produce, distribute or exchange, and consume ? Here the focus is not on systems of behavior but on the motives of the individuals who participate in those systems . Economists tend to assume that producers and distributors make decisions rationally by using the profit motive , as do consumers when they shop around for the best value.
Economizing and maximization Profit motive (the desire for profit) is not universal This means that what is deemed "profit," how to achieve, and to use it, is not the same from one culture to another More than maximization, people tend to economizing, that is the rational allocation of scarce resources to alternative ends or uses
Classical economic theory assumes that our wants are infinite and that our resources are limited. Since resources are always scare, people have to make choises . They must decide how they will use their scare resources—their time, labor, money, and capital. And when people are confronted with alternatives, people tend to choose the one that maximizes profit and this is assumed to be the most rational choice.
However, certain economists now recognize that individuals in Western culture, as in others, may be motivated by many goals. Depending on the society and the situation, people may try to maximize profit, wealth, prestige, pleasure, comfort, or social harmony Individuals may want to realize their personal or family ambitions or those of another group to which they belong
Alternative ends To what uses do people in various societies put their scare resources? Eric Wolf (1966/1986) suggests: Subsistence fund Replacement fund Social fund Ceremonial fund Rent fund
Subsistence fund Expenditures made to meet the needs for survival or recover the calories people use in their daily activities, for example, funds to eat, drink, etc.
Food composition: is it universal?
Food expenditure among countries/cultures per week
Replacement fund People must maintain their technology and other item essential for production and to everyday life such as replacing damaged clothes and shelter, buying hoes, books, medical expenses, etc.. Replacement fund is also said maintenance fund
Social fund Expenditure to help friends, relatives, neighbors, and those who are in need. It can also be regarded as expenses incurred to maintain good relations with other, both relatives and non-relatives
Ceremonial fund Expenditure on ceremonies or rituals be it is considered sacred and profane, or religious and secular, such as preparing a festival honoring ancestors, matrimony, funeral, and others.
Rent fund Expenditures for production equipments or properties that do not belong to us but we use it for the production process such as land, houses, vehicles, and so on. In a wider meaning, rent fund also refers to resources that people must render to an individual or agency that is superior politically or economically. In this sense, tax, tribute, labor and produce given to a ruler can be categorized as well as rent fund.
The notion that human behavior is somehow oriented toward a maximization of some desired end has appeared in a great range of social science theory. Maximization is, of course, a fundamental concept in economics, for a central axiom of that discipline is that human wants are unlimited, but that we constantly strive to maximize our satisfactions.