13Money and Morality

7/29/2019 13Money and Morality

1/19

~ t 3

.

Money and themorality of exchange

EDJ,:rED BY

J. P'ARRY a n d M. BLOCH

-,

n t righl o/ / 1tU I I I ~ , s i t o{ Cambr dgtfO P ' '" C fld ~ ~/ I

al! ma"" 'f o/ boob" tU B fQ t db ,

f f t " ' Y VI I( 1 /j J 4.The U ,, . r,ly ha! pr"r rdDl1d p ubli Jht d co nri,u,al.Uy

s;', n l J U .

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CambridgeNew York Port Ch ester Melb ourne Sydne y

FLACSO "Biblioteca


2/19

Pub lishe d b y th e P re ss Syndic at e of th e U niversit y of C am bridgeT hc Pll Buildin g . Tr umpingron St rect , Ca mbrid ge C B2 1R P40 W CSI2 0lh St re et , New Yor k, NY 10011-4 211. U SA10 Stamford R oa d , Oakei gh, M cl b ourn e 3 1M, . Au stralia

Ca mbr idg e U ni ver sir y Prc ss 19x9Contents

Frsl p ubli s hcd 191'9R eprint ed 1991

Pr inred in Crea r Bri m in at Th e Ba rh P rcss , A von

Bri tisl Li b rar)' cnt alog uing in p ubi ic ation duu ,

Mone y nnd the rno ral iry of cxcb a ngc .l . Monerary sysrems1. Par ry. Jonnth an , 1943-Ir. B locb. M .33 2.4 List of cont ribut ors pa ge vii

Librar )' o/ Cougress clll a/og ll llg in p nb icati o n da ta1. Introdu ction : Mo n ey and th e mo r ality of exchange

M o ncy und thc mora li ty o f cxcl lilngc/ e d ile d by J . Pa rr y an d M . B oc h .JO N AT H A N P ARRY and lvIA UR I CE BL O C H , . London Schoolp . cm.

ISBN 0 -521- 36597 -X . - IS BN 0-521- 3 I i n n (pbk . ] of E con omi csl. Ex chnng e - Cr oss- cultural st udie s ,2 . M on ey - Sp eci a l a spccl S - C ross-culrura! s tu d ies .

3. Eco norni c anlhrop ology.2, Misconcei ving th e gr ain he ap : a cr itiq ue of th e con cept of

r. Parr y, Jonarhan P. th e Indi an j ajmani systemIl . Bloch , Mauric e . c . J. FULLER, London School o f E conomics 33GN4 50 .M 66 191'9306' .3 - dc l 9 RR-37709 CUP ....

3 . O n the m or al pe rils o f e xch angeISBN O 5 2 1 36597 X ha rd covcrs J ON ATH AN PAR RY, London School o] Ec onomics 64ISBN O 52 1 3677 4 3 p upe rb ack

'-

4. Money me n and wornenR . L . STIRR AT, Uni versity of Su ssex 94

5, C oo king m oney : gen d er and th e symbolic transf orrnati onREGC"" , 7 2 n 5 o f mean s of exc ha nge in a M alay fishin g communit yCUT. ~ ' ' _ J J AN ET CA RSTEN , CIare Hall , Cambridge 117

f!t[1UOTECA . F'lACSO 6. Drinkin g ca sh : th e purifi cation o f mo n ey throu gh c ere - . .. ..._.._- . . . ~ .- ' I monj a! e xch ang e in Fiji

c . T OREN, London Sch ool o f Econ om ics 142

7 . Th e symbolism o f m oney in Irnerin alvIA URI C E BLO CH , L ond on S chool of Econom ics 165

8. Resistance to th e pres en t b y th e pa st : medium s a nd m oneyin Zimbabwe

CE DAVID LAN , L ond on Scho ol of E con om i cs 191

v


3/19

viii Co nlribulors

J ock Sti rr at o btained hi s PhD from C ambr idge Uni versity . C urrently h eis Le ctur cr in Anthrop ology a l Sus sex Uni versity. H e is th e a uthor of O nth e B each, Hindu stan Publishing C orps .

Christina T oren o bt ained her PhD fr om th e L ondon Sch ool o fEconomics . She h as taught al the Univer sity o f M anchester a nd a l th eSchool o f Afri can and Or iental Studie s o f the Uni versity o f London. Alpr esenl s he i s p reparing two books, one on th e learn ing of sy mbolism inFiji and th e ot her o n a nthropo ogy a nd p sycholo gy .

.~

1

Introduction: money and the morality 01exchange

MAURI CE BLOCH a n d }ONA T HA N P AR R Y

This c ollection is concerned with th c way i n wh ich money issymb olicallyrepr esented in a range of d ifferent soc ieties a nd , more espe cially, withth e moral evaluati on o f rn on erar y and co mmercial exc hanges as againstexchanges of other kinds . Th e foc us, th en , is o n th e range o f culturalmcanings wh ich s urround m onetary tr ansactions, a nd n ot o n the kind s ofpr oblems of rnon etary the or y whi ch haveco nve tionally preoccupied the

economist. Th ere is now a ve ry l ar ge liter alur e o n so -called ' prirnitivemoney ' , but thi s do es not centr ally co ncern u s here s ince a llth e chaptersin thi s vo lurne deal prin cipally ei ther with state- issued currencie s whichac t as a gener al medium o f exc hange, or - as i n o ur t wo A ndean islcontributions - with the symboJi sm o f p recious rnetals a nd th eir relevanee l o Ande an ideolo gies o f pr oduct iori an d exc hange .

Th e first thing th cse essays co llectively e mph as ise i s the en ormouscultural variation in the w ay in which m oney is s ymbolised and in whichth is s ymbolism rel ates to c ulturally co nstructed n otions o f pr oduction,consumption, circulat ion a nd e xchange . It becomcs c1ea r th at i n o rde r l oun derstand lhe w ay in wh ich money is v iewed it is v itally irnp or t ant lound erstand the cultur al matrix int o w hich it i s incorporated . Th is may

seem a bland enou gh lesson , but it i s o ne which h as o ften be en forgottenby a nthropologists wr iting a bout m oney - a nd l ess c ulpably a lso byh istorians a nd so ciologists . As a resu1t th ey have co mmonly f allen intothe tr ap o f attribut ing to money in ge neral wh at i s in fac t a s peci fi c se t ofmeanings which deri ve from o ur o wn culture.

At a nother level , howev er, o ur essa ys r eveal a unity which underliesa ll o f the apparently divers e exa mples they c onsider. This i s lO be foundneith er in the me anings a ttribuled t o money nor in th e moral ev aluationof p articular type s of e xchange , but ra ther in th e way the t otality o ftr ansactions form a gener al pattern wh ich is par t o f the repr oduction ofsoc ial a nd ideol ogical sys terns co ncerned with a t irne-scale far longer th anth e individual hum an life . It is o nly wh en th ese tot al patt erns a re

1


4/19

2 3. Blo ch a n d J. Par r y

co rnpared th at we ca n begin ro g o b eyond th e conclusion rh at the va riablesy mbo lic e laboration of mon e y a nd rn on er ar y exc hange i s ye r a notherillu st r atlon o f th e way in w hich diff er en t culrures see thing s differ entl y .Eac h o f o ur case s tu dies, we a rg ue, reveals a s trikingly similar con cer nwi t h th e r elationship b etween a cycle o f s hort-terrn e xchange w hic h i s th elegitimare d om ain o f indi vidu a l - of te n a cquisitive - ac tivity, a nd a cy cle

o f lon g-term exc ha nges co ncerned w ith th e repr cdu cr on of th e soc iala nd cos mic o rde r ; a nd in eac h c ase th e way in w hich th e tw o a rea rticulared rurns o ut ro be very si milar. Th i s s uggests som eth ing ve ryge neral a bout th e relarion ship be twee n th e tran si en t individual a nd th ee ndur ing socia l or d er w hich tr ansc en d s th e indi vidual.

Th u s in th e first part o f rhi s inrroducrion we a re c entr a lly co nce rnedwi th th e way in w hich o ur ow n cultural d iscou rse a bo u t m one y h asinhibit ed a proper a pprecia rion of th e vari ability in ir s cross-c ulluralco nstruction . In th e se co n d p art we tr y lo d evel op th e th esis th at on ce wem ov e lo th e w ide r , m or e en com p assing, level o f th e tot al sys rem ofexc hange so rne im p or t ant co ntinuities begin ro e me rge .

The revolutionary impli cations of money in West ern dis course

O ne p art icularl y promin en t s trand in W est er n dis cou r se , w hich go esb ack l o A ristotle , is th e ge neral co nd e rn nation of m on e y a nd tr ad e in th eIight 01' a n id e al o f h ous eh old se lf-s ufciency a n d pr od u ction fo r use . T hea rgument goes someth ing l ike th is. Lik e ot h er a nimals , m an is n atur allyse lf-sufcien l a n d hi s wanl s a re tinil e. Tr ad e c an o n ly b e n alur al in so fa ras it i s o riented l ow ards th e resl or at ion o f suc h se lf-sufciency. ju sI a s inna lure lh er e m ay be t ~o mu ch h er e a nd n Ol e no u g h lh er e , so it is wi thhouseholds which w ill lh en be fo rce d t o exc ha nge o n th e b asis 0 1' mutu alne ed. ' Inlerchange 01' thi s kind i s nol co n t ra r y t o n alur e a nd is nOl a fo rmo f m one y-m aking ; it k eep s lO il S o riginal purp ose - to re-esl abli shn atur e 's o wn e quilibrium 01 se lf-sufcie ncy' ( Aristotle 1 962: 42) . Pr o l o r ien led e xch an g e is, how e ver , unn alur al ; and is d e slru Clive 0 1 th e bon d sbe twee n h ouseholds. P rices s ho uld th er ef or e be x ed , a nd goo ds a ndse rvices r emun eraled in acco rda nce with lh e s lal us 01' lh ose w ho pr ovided th em . M on e y as a rool i nt en d ed o nly l o facilitale exc ha nge isn alur ally b arr en , a nd, 01'a lllh e ways of ge lting we a lth, l en d in g a l inleresl- w he re m oney is m ad e to y ield a 'c ro p o r ' litter' - is ' l he m o st co nlrarylo n atur e ' (A ristotle 1 962 : 46).

Ar istotl e's wri tings r e- surf ac ed in th e W e stern world in rhe th irte enthce ntury a nd w er e raken up b y Th om as Aquin as lh rough w ho m th eyac liieved a n eW renown . Hi s i nftue nce o n the eco no mic th ou gh t a nda ttitu des o f lh e Middl e Ageswas, as P olanyi ( 1971: 79) o bserv es, qu il e a sg rea l as lh at whi ch Smith a n d Ri card o we re l o exe rcise o n lh e th inkin g o f

M oney an d th e m or a lity 0 1' ex c ha n ge

a s ubseque nt ep o ch; a nd hi s a utho rity was in voked i n support 0 1 th eC hurch 's p rof ound d isquie l a bout m ate rial ac q ui s ition, So rne o f th eid eologcal re as on s for thi s m edieval un ease a bout rn oney - espe ciallym on e y as rep r es enr arive o f th e m er chant ' s pr ofit a n d th e usu r er 's int er est- a re bri efty reviewed in P ar r y's co ntrib ution l O thi s volume. H er e wernay s irnply n ot e th at o ne ot th e m a jo r p roblems w as th at th e rn er ch an t

a pparently c rea ted n ot h ing, whil e th e usu r er ea rned m on e y ev en as h eslep l. ' T he l ab ourer is worth y of h is hir e ' , bu t it w as not a l a ll clea r th atth e m erch ant an d th e m on ey -len d er laboured . It was esse nrially thi s id e a01' m ater ial pr oducrion as th e so urce of va lue ( Le Go ff 1 980: 6 1) wh ichpr ornpt ed Ta wney (1972 : 48) lo remar k th at ' the tru e des c en d ant of th edoctr ines o f A q uinas i s th e labour th e or y o f v alu e . Th e last 0 1 th eScho olm en was Karl M ar x . '

O ur o wn inr elle ctu al tr adition , how ever , a lso co ntains a nother v er yd iff er ent k ind o f d iscou r se ab o ut m oney a nd m oner ar y exc ha nge whi chsees it as a f ar m or e be nign inftuence o n s ocial life, for th e co nclusio nlo be dr awn fr om M an deville' s Fa ble 01 th e bees a nd fr om th e ' m a n yadvanrages ' Ad arn S rnirh pu t do w n ro m an 's pr op ensity ' ro rru ck ,b art er an d exc hange ' was th at th e happine ss a nd pr osp erit y o f societywas found ed o n th e indi vidu al pu r suit of rnonet ary se lf-ga in. In fac t asH irschrn an ( 1977) po ints o ut, a nd w e return lO his ar gu m en t bel ow ,th is th e or y goes b ack mu ch fu rth er th an ei ther 0 1 th ese wri ters an do rig inally l oo k th e forrn o f co ndoning m oney-m akin g as a com" par atively harml ess a nd ge ntle v ice lh al co uld b e positively har n es sedto lh e co mmonweal as a c ur b o n o lhe r ' passions 0 1' a m o re d ang er ou sa nd di sru plive k ind.

B elwe en lh es e lwo radically o pp osed vi ews of m on e y lh er e a re, 0 1co urse , a ver y larg e number o f int ermediat e posilion s. Si mme l (1 97 8) ,fo r exa mple, saw in it a n in st rument o f freedom , a nd a co ndit on f or lh ee xlensio n 0 1 lh e individu al per son alily a nd th e ex pansion 0 1 th e c ircle 0 1tru st; bu t a t lh e sa me lim e as a th r eal lO lh e m or al or der. Bu l w ha l a ll

th es e dif fer enl s lra nds in o ur c ullural tr adili on a p pe a r l O ag ree a bout i slh al - w he l he r for good o r ill - m oney ac ts as a n in cr edibly po w er fulage nt of p ro f ound soc ia l a nd cul l ur a l lr ansf or m alions . R eg ardle ss 0 1'cullural co nlex l a nd o f lh e n alur e o f e xi slin g re lalions o f pr od u clion a nde xcha n ge, it is o flen c red iled w ilh a n intrinsic pow er lO rev oluti on isesoc iely a nd cultur e , a nd il i s so meli mes ass ume d lh al lhi s power will berecognised in th e way i n whi ch th e ac tors th em selves co nstrucl m oneysy mb o lically. Th e essays co llecled he r e cas I so rne d oubl o n b Olh lh eseprop osition s . M oney, w e believ e, is i n n earl y as mu ch d anger 0 1 beingfeti shised b y sc holars as by s toc k br o ke rs.


5/19

4 5M. Bloch an d J. Parry

Marx and Simm el on th e social corollarles o f money

This 'fetishism ' appears in different degree in the work of two highlyinfluential writers on money, to whom we have already referred: Marxand Simmel.

Fo r Simmel (1978) , money was of major significance for the development of the cognitive world we now inha bit since it helped to promote

rational calculation in social life and encouraged the rationalisationcharacteristic of modern society ; while in the same vein others have seenmoney as the basis for an abstract system of thought (cf . FrankeI1977: 7) .More than a reflection of other structural features of a modern economyand society (as Dalton [1965] would represent it), Simmel saw money asan active agent which constitutes ' the major mechanism that paves th eway from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. Under its aegis, the modernspirit of calculation and abstraction has prevailed over an older worldthat accorded primacy to feelings and imagination' (Coser 1977 : 194) .Encapsulating the modern spirit of rationality , calculability and anonymity, it represents a privileged instance for investigating the whole ,

Unlike Simmel , wh o sees money itself as the principal catalyst for thetransformation of social life, Marx's treatment links it to the (for him)more fundamental phenomenon of production for exchange - this beingwhat ultimately creates the need for an abstract money medium. Fo r . ~ both writers, however, money is associated with, and promotes, th egrowth of individualism and the destruction of solidary communities.

Like Aristotle , Marx's condemnation of money and market exchange rreftects a certain romantic nostalgia for a world in which production wasfor use and the interdependence of the human community had not beenshattered by exchange. However exploitative the old order, it was not -as capitalism is - based soleJy on explicit, relentless, egotistical calculation. If the labour theory of value invited a critique of capitaJism (and ofthe abstract money medium with which it is associated) on grounds ofequity, the new mode of production also gave rise to a grave misgivingshared also by many non-Marxist writers - that it denied those moral'bonds which unite men on e with another' which Durkheim emphasisedas the basis of all social solidarity. Exchange (by which Marx meant ,mark et exchange) begins with the exchange of surpluses between communities . But once objects have become commodities in external trade,they inevitably tend to become commodities within the community andto dissolve the bonds of personal dependence between its members.Independent communities become dependent, and dependent individuals become independent (Roberts and Stephenson 1983: 13).Exchange and th e abstract money form from which it is inseparable, thusstand condemned as agents of individualisation (cf. Marx 1964: 96) and

Mo n ey an d the morality of exchange

of th e dissolution of the communal bond s which obtained in the world ofproduction for use.

When, Marx argues, th e direct labour a medieval serf owed to his lordwas commuted into a rent-in-kind and then (more significantly) into amoney-rent, a contractual relationship replaced the bonds of personaldependence between them and many peasant holdings were expropriated, while some serfs managed to buy themselves free from their rentobJigations and become independent peasants with property rights in theland (Roberts and Stephenson 1983 : 20-1).

Simmel traces a rather similar evolution but emphasises the advance inhuman freedom which results .

The lord of the manor who can demand a quantity of beer or poultry or honeyfrom a serf, thereby determines the activity of the latter in a certain direction . Butthe moment he imposes rnerely a money levy the pe as an t is free, in so far as hecan decide whether to keep bces or cattle or anything else (Simmel 1978: 286) .

While money erodes older solidarities, for Simmel it also promotes awider and more diffuse sort of social integration . In the case of barter ,trust is confined to the parties directly concerjred in the transaetion ; butmonetary exehange extends this trust to an enormously expanded socialuniverse . 'Now eaeh ,' as Frankel puts it (1977 : 31-2), '[is] no longerdependent only on his relation to the other but also on relations to theeconornic cirele whieh, in an abstraet and indefinable way, guaranteedthe functioning and aeeeptabiJity of the money they made use of. '

No t only is it elaimed that money ehanges the way in which peoplethink, and dissolves bonds between persons based on kinship and otherascriptive criteria, it is also held to effect that separation between personsand things which, as Mauss (1966) stressed , is denied by many primitiveand archaic societies . Money permits possession at a distance. Only inthe form of money can profits be easily transferred from one place toanother, allowing for a spatial separation between the owner and hisproperty whieh 'enables the property 10 be managed exclusively according 10 objective demands while it gives its owner a chance of leading hislife independently of his possessions' (SimmeI1978: 333) . While the giftof a specific object always 'retains an element of the person who gave it ' ,exchange relationships tend to be 'more completely dissolved and moreradically terminated by the payment of money . . . ' (ibid . p . 376; cf.Mauss 1966).

Notwithstanding Marx's insistence that property is really a relationship between people masquerading as a relationship between personsand things, there is a sense in which he too represents money as driving awedge between persons and things in that it appears to sever therelationship between th e producer and his product. Th e worker has no


6/19

6 7. Bloch and ]. P arry

access ro che m eans o f pr oduction a nd is paid a wage fo r his labour. As aresult his pr cduct is held to bel ong to so mebody e lse, a nd i s a lienated o nth e market in a n absolute w ay as if i t h ad no co nnection w ith him. Th eco mmodity co mes ro a ppea r as th ough i t has'a " na tur al pri ce " , a relat ionto money a nu o ther comm odities ind ependent o f the hum an fac torsinvolved' (O llrnan 1976: 196) . Wh ile in th e feud al world th e lord a nd h isse rfs we re : inseparable from the land i n which they had ri ghts, withpr vate pr ope rty fr eely cxchangeable agai nst m oney a man 's ind ividuality is not co nared w ith his pro pert y in th e sa rne way (i bid . p. 208-9) .

T he imp ersonality a nd an onymity o f rnoney, it is ar gued , tend s itself r o,the impersonal and incon sequential relationships c haracterisric o f th emarket-place a nd even to a co mplete anonymity in e xchange. Destructiveof co rnrnunity , mone y dep ersonalises socia l rel ations , 'The indifferent ob jectivity of money tr ansactions is in in surmount able co n fl ict w iththe personal c haracrer of the rel aticnship . . . The de sirable party fo rfinancia] t ransactions . . . is the pe rson who i s co mpletely ind ifferent tous, engaged neither for us n or a gainst u s ( SimmeI1 974: 22 7).

An onymous a nd imper sonal, money measures ev erything b y the sa meya rdstick and th ereby - ir is reasoned - reduces di fferences of qu ality to"those o f mere qu antit y . It is in its d enial of the unique, and inth e fac t th atit may eas ily co me t o be re garded as th e means to a ll end s so t hat its

'possessio n co nfers an a lrnost go d-like p ower , th ar Simmel l ocates i tsrnost dangerous potential . Simil arly Marx ( 1961: 132)s peaks o f moneyas "'; .

' th e radic al l eveller, th at . . . does away with al ldi stinctions' - not eve nthe bones o f th e sa ints b eing a ble ' ro wi thstand th is a lcherny'.

In th e light of s ucb-argurnents it is tempting to co nclude th at moneyac ts as a kin d o f a cid wh ich inexorably d issolves cherished culturaldiscriminations, ea ts away a t qu uiitative diff erences a nd redu ces perso nal r elations to impersonality, Ir is o nly t o be ex pected , th en , th atthose ' tradicional' cultures which mu st for lhe r st time come to termswith it will r epresent money as a dar k satanic force te aring


7/19

8 9. Bloch an d J. Parr y

a nd Brit ish India , and perhaps also b etween Horn o hi erar chi cus andH orno a equalis .

Mor e generally, Fuller 's argument should a lert us to the p ossibilit ythat th e significance o f money and mark et e xchange has been s imilarlyunder -estimated in the ethnographic descripti on and analy sis o f pr eca pitalist ec onomies elsewhere in the world, .and t o the I act that thee xtent of rn onetisation is not a reliable index of the a tro phy o f th e 'm or al

economy' . A s Bayly (1985 : 286) has concluded f rom th e Indian hi storicalrec ord , th e e xpansion of lh e cash e conomy ' did not . . . dissolve th erelations o f d ominanee th at a rose from the interpla y between the n orm sof cas te a ndth e s tructureof the pett y kingdorn s' . Even within th e domaino f th e mark et

bu yers an d se llers w er e constrained b y ob ligations th at requir ed th at th eypu r chase cert ain thin gs a l c er t ain time s, in cert ain m arkets . Th e w ide s pr ea dex istcnce o f rn ark ets , m oney -l enders, and d oubl e- cntr y a cc ount books w as notinc ompatible w ith th e persi stence o f pre-capitali st ment alit ies in mater ial cultur e. . . m on e y o f itself c ould not tr ansforrn relation ships . . . (i bid. p . 3 16)

G ifts and co m mo diti es

A furth er o pposition in this sequenee o n wh ieh sev eral o f o ur chaptersha ve so rne b earing is that between gift and co rnmodity e xcha nge . IrrGr egory 's (1982) ne at Iorrnulation the first i s b ased o n a n exc hange ofinal ienabl e o bjects b etween in terdependem tr ansac t or s; th e second anexchange o f ali enabl e object s between ind ependent tr ansact o rs . It is ,rn or eover , of ten assumed that this radic al o pposition b etween th eprin cipies which underlie the two type s of exeh ange will be refl ect ed i n a nequ ally radical contr ast in their m oral evalu ation . Stirr at 's chapter,however, reminds us that there are comm odity co ntex ts in which th eali enable o bjec t is transacted betw een co nceptually inter depe ndentpersons ; whil e in th e case which P arr y describ es the g i ft is a lienated asrad ically as possible a nd rnust never return t o th e donor , for it is held t oe mbody hi s s ins (cf . Parr y 1986) - and thi s is so regardl ess o f wh eth er il isin cas h or kind . Her e mone y is clearl y far from b eing a p ure ly d epersonalised instrument. Lik e th e gift in kind it c ontains a nd tr ansrnits the moralqu alities of th ose wh o tr ansact it.

A s thi s s uggests, the idea th at the very irnper sonality of m one y make sit o f quesli onable a ppropriateness as a gifl ( excepl sign ificantly ineh aril able conl eXlS where lhe relalionship between d onor a nd r ecipientis s imilarly imp ersonal) s eems lo be a peculiarily o f o ur o wn culture - ap eculiaril y which is explored in sorne delail in lhe ch apter by Bloch (seeal so Wolfram ( 1987) . Th e gifl . as Schwartz (1 967) has noted , imp oses a nidenli tyo n b oth lh e d onor and the rec ipient .. a ndre veals ' th e idea which

Mon ey a nd th e rnor al it y 01 exc hange

th e recip ient e voke s in th e irna gination of th c g iver ' . BUl gifts of moneydo not i rnpose an identit y in the sa me w ay, a nd in thi s resp ect its abstraerimperson ality dis solves th e giver's a utho rity. Th e pr oblem s eems to beth at j or us mon ey signifi es a sphere o f ' eco no mie ' relationships which areinherentl y impers onal, tr ansit ory, a moral and ca lculating. There isthere fore sornething pr ofoundly a wkward about o ffering it as a giftex pressive of relati onships w hich a re suppose d l O be per sonal, enduring ,

moral and altruistic , Bu tc1

early thi s a wkwardness d erives from the faclthat he re mone y's ' natural ' cnvir onrn ent - th e ' economy' - is held loconstitute an autonornous d omain lo which general m oral precept s donot appl y (cf . Dumont 1977) . Wh ere it is not see n as a se parare a ndamor al dorna in , where th e ec onom y is 'emb edded' in so cicty and subjectlo its moral law s, monetary relations a re rather unlik ely to be represe nted as the antithe sis of bonds of kin ship and friendship, a nd th er e isconsequently nothing in appropriate ab out mak ing gift s o f m oney tooernent such bond s .

Th e radical op p osition which so many a nthropologists hav e disc overedbetween ... the principIe s o n which gift and c omm odity exch ange a refounded derive s in p an , we beli eve, from th e fae t th at o ur ide ology o f th egift h as been con structed i n antithesis t o market ex change : Th e idea ofthe purel y altrui stic gift i s the o ther s ide o f th e eo in fr om th e ide a o f thepurel y intere sted utilit arian exchange ( Parry 19 86), and w e cannot therefor e expect the ideologi es o f non-rnarket so cieties l o repr oduce thi s kindof oppo sition (c f. Strathern 1 985). In hi s contribut ion lo t his volumeParry discusses a serie s o f c ases which exemplify a wh ole range whichruns fr om a s ituation in which the (s upposedly) m orall y unpr oblematicsphere o f gift exchange is o ppose d ro morally perilous cornmodityexchange, to one in which it is g ift e xchange which represents a diremoral peril while comm odity exc hange i s distinguished from it by itsmoral n eutralit y , to a con text from which thi s kind o f o pposition in m oralev aluation appears lo be l argel y a bsenl.

While those wh o writ e in th e Mar xian t radition s tress th e mystificationwhich accompanies c ornmodityex change , th ey tend by a ntithesis l O treatthe world of gift exchange as non-exploitative , inn ocent and eventransparent . An in stance o f th is rornantic i dealisation o f th e world o f giftexchange isTauss ig's o therwise hi ghlys uggestive di scussion o f the w ay inwhi ch the peasantry of the C auca valley in Co lumbia h ave s ymbolicallyconslrucled lhe world o f comm odily relations ( Ta ussig (1980) . Byconlr ast the eh apters by Sal1now a nd 81 0ch in thi s vo lume showjust howfar from being p olitically inn ocenl s uch n on-c omm odily exch anges oftenare, while Pany a rgues lhal in Hindu Indi a il is not commodily exchangewhi ch is ideologicall y pr oblematic and l o a d ~ d bUl r ather whal i s o ftenmade 10 s land f or inn oe ence in Marxi sl w riting - th e ex change o f gifts .


8/19

10 11M. Blo ch a nd J. Parr yH ow misleading i t m ay be t o impl y th at ther e is un iversally so rne kind

of unbri dgeable c hasm b etween g ift a nd co mmodity exc hange is illu str ated by H arr' s re cent d iscussion of ex changes o f fish for yam s a ndvegetables between coasral and inland villa ges i n the Trobriand s . Sometime s th ese exchanges take th e form of ceremonial p restations ( knownas was i) between co mmunity l eaders; so metimes o f b arrer between

individu al households (vava). H art a rgu es that th e first reflects:high socia l d istance an d we ak p olitical a rder. b ringing bi g men an d co rporateor ganization into p lay . In formal i nterpersonal h aggling refl ects lo w social distance a nd strong p olitical o rder. T hc is sue is w hether indi viduals be longing 10diff erent g roup s feel f ree 10 risk the co nict inherent in ba rrer without invokingall the danger, m agic, p restige and hi erar ch y that go w ith cere monial exc hang e .Th us o ne fo rm is a ternp or ar y so cial framework creared in the re lative absenceo f socie ty ; the o ther i s a n at ornised in teraction predicated o n the pr esen ce ofsoc iety (H an 1986).

Th e esse ntial p oint for o u r pu rposes is th at H art ' s a pproach a llows himto e mphasise th e dynamic a spects of th ese institutional a rrangements ,for it is eas y to se e how a breakd own in pol itical re lations b etween

coastal and inland villages would effect a s hift from barter to ceremonialexchange , a nd their re establishment a mo ve back i n the o rher d irection.H ere a t a ny r ate th e o pposition b etween 'gif t ex change' a nd ' conimodityex change' looks rather les s ab solute th an is o ften implied , for it seems ....th at one ma y evolve rather ea sily i nto th e other.

We are similarly sornewhat sceptical of th e radical opposi tionbetw eent gifts ' a nd 'co rnrnodities ' implied b y th e notion o f 'fe tishisrn' t owhi ch we have pr evibusly ref erred, a nd of the e normous sig nificanceattributed t o rnoney i n the creation o f such phanta smagoric co n. ,struction s.

For M arx th ere is a cruci al d istinction - though it is not a lwaysco nsistently m aintained - between money as capit al wh en it isexc hanged for l abour po wer, and m oney as mer e rno ney wh en i r isexchanged fo r th e products of labour . Si nce s urplus labour is the sourceof capital accumulation , and since it is o nly in c apitalism that lab ourpower is r outinely ex changed fo r money , it ma y be a rgued th at it is o nlyhere t hat m one y w ill gen erally appe ar to have th e s elf-expanding va lueimpli ed by th e notion o f fetishism - th at it b ecome s a n as pect of th enatur e of mo ney that it 'b reeds' m ore mone y. At an y rate Mar x wr ites a sth ough, in the ab sence o f commodity e xchange mediat ed b y mon ey , th eprodu cts o f lab ou r a re r ecogni sed for wh at the y reall y are. In th epr e-capitalist world , relations do not take thi s 'abs traer ' fo rm but ra therth e form o f concrete pe rsonal rel ations. In th e Middle Ages , fore xample, th e personalised nature o f e conomic relations mea nt thatth ere wa s

Mo ne y a nd t he mor a lity of exc hange

no necessity fo r labour an d its produc ts 10 ass urne a faniastic for m clifferenl fr omtheir reality . T hey t a ke t he shape , in th e tr ansactions of socie ty o f se rvices in k indand paymen tsin kind . H ere the particular a nd nat ural fo rm o f lab o u r. a nd not , asin a so ciety b ased on pr odu ctio n of commodities, irs g ener al a bstraer f orm is theirnrned iat e fo rm o f soc ial l abour . Co mpulsory l abour is just as p roperly measuredbyt ime , asco rnmodity prod ucing l abour; bul ev ery ser fkn ow s wha t h e expe ndsin the service of h is l or d is a definite qu antity o f h is o wn pe rsonal lab our p ower. . . the so cial r elations o f individuals i n th e performance of th e ir l a bour appearal all eve nts as their own mu tual personal re la tions, and a re n ot disg uised un derthe s hape o f socia l relations bet ween the p roducts o f labour (M a rx 1 961: 77 ) .

O r again, we have th e mor e gener al for mula th at:

the whole rn ystery of co mrn odities , all the magic a nd necromancy th at s urroun clsthe prcducts o f la bour so lon g, as th ey iake (h e fo rm of co m modi ties , va nishestherefore , as soo n as w e com e 10 ot h er f orms o f p rodu crion ( ibid . p . 76) .

Wh at s uch starernents wo uld see m t o s uggest i s that in th e pr e-capitalistworld the pr oducts o f labour a re no t surrounded b y 'm agic and ne croman cy' - a p roposition wh ich is d ifficult to square with Mau ss's ch aracterization of the gift in pr imitive a nd ar ch aic societies, whi ch hedes cribes - in terrns rem iniscent of M arx ' s d escripti on of th e cornrnod ity_ as 'n o t inert ' b ut ' al ive a nd o ften per soni fied ' (Mauss 1 966: 10).Moreover , M auss's ev idence (ibid . pp . 43-4 ) su ggested th at th e ce remonial 'c oppers which w ere e xchanged in th e potlar ches o f thenorthw est-coast Am erican lnd ians ar e repre sented a s 'be getting ' othercopper s (M auss 19 66 : 43- 4 ) , much as mon ey is said to ' breed ' m oney. Onthe face o f it, then , it wo uld se em th at th e o bjects of exchange a re aslikely to be feti shised in a pr e-capitalist economy as in a capitalist o ne (c f.Cornaroff 1 985: 72-3 ; Josephid es 1985: ch ap o 9) .

It is, howev er , po ssible to ar gue that th e m agical h a lo a cquired by theobjects of e xchange have q uite d ifferent o rigins in the tw o cases. Itmight, for example, be s aid th at th e feti shism of co mmodities deri vesfrom the se paration b etwe en the pr oduct a nd th e pr oducer, w hichconfers o n the commodity th e a ppearance o f a qu asi-independentexistence, wh ile - followin g Mauss - that of th e gift w ould d erive fr omth e lack of se par ation bet ween pers ons a nd thing s, w hich gives it th eappearance o f b eing an imated by the p ersonality of th e don or ( Ta ussig1980 : 36-7). O r , a gain, o ne mi ght d istinguish b etween th e ' fetishism' o r'o bjectificariori' char acteristic o f ca pitalism, wher e for the m ost partperson s ar e s poken of as thou gh they were thing s , a nd the ' pe r sonification' ch aracteri stic of pre-c apitalist economies w he re thin gs a cquirethe attr ibutes of persons ( cf. G udeman 1 986 : 44). Such d istinctionssmack , ho wever, o f a cert ain a rbitrariness and special ple adin g . ' Moneytalks' in a ca pitalist e conomy; pe rsons a re so metimes tr ansf err ed in a


9/19

132 M. Bloch an d J. Parry

remarkably 'thing-like' manner in some pre-capitalist ones, while (togive but on e example) 'the history of cloth in India also shows how thingscould retain the quality of the people who fashioned an d exchangedthem, even in a fulIy monetized economy' (Bayly 1986). It is thereforequite unclear to us that there is any simple divide between the kind ofmystical aura which surrounds the objects of exchange in capitalist andpre-capitalist economies, or that it can be money which explains th e

(alIeged) difference.

The impact of money on 'traditional' worlds

The dominant notion which we have identified in ou r own culturaldiscourse about money - that it represents an intrinsically revolutionarypower which inexorably subverts the moral economy of ' traditional'societies - has often, we believe, been taken over somewhat uncriticallyby the anthropologist. Th e effect of this has been to misrepresent the realcomplexity of th e causal factors at work in the transformations experienced by many cultures as they are sucked into the world of the capitalistmarket. It is perhaps worth pausing over two particularly striking

examples of this kind of misrepresentation.Probably the best-known discussion of the impact of Western money

on a previously non-rnonetary subsistence economy is Bohannan's ...account of the case of the Tiv of northern Nigeria (Bohannan 1955, 1959;Bohannan and Bohannan 1968). The 'traditional' Tiv economy contained three distinct ranked spheres of exchange: a lowest ranking sphereof subsistence goods transacted mainly by market exchanges in whichpeople tried 't o maximize their gains in the best tradition of economicman' (1968: 227); a sphere of prestige goods in which brass rods served asa medium of exchange, standard of value and means of payment; and thehighest ranking sphere of rights in human beings and , in particular, ofrights in marriageable women. Small localised agnatic lineages formed

ward-sharing groups in which rights in the daughters of the group werevested. Th e elder men of the group were the guardians of on e or moregirls whom the y exchanged with outsiders for a wife for themselves or foron e of their close agnates - the only entirely acceptable recompense forthe gift of a girl being the return of another.

Th e vast majority of exchanges were what Bohannan calIs 'conveyances' within the sphere, and these were morally neutral. But undercertain circumstances 'conversions' between spheres were possible, an dthese were the focus of strong moral evaluations - g rudg ing admirationfor the man who converted 'up', scorn for the on e who converted 'dowri'.Conversions between the subsistence an d the prestige spheres occurred,for example, when an individual was forced by an acute scarcity of

Money and the morali ty ol exchange

subsistence products to exchange brass rods for food. Conversionsbetween the prestige sphere and the sphere of rights in women occurred,for example, when aman managed to contract a ke m marriage which didnot involve giving a ward in return, but which did involve a payment ofbrass rods for the wife's sexual and domes tic services and a subseqentpayment for therights of a father over any of the children she bore him.Since such a wife had been acquired without obligation to the ward

sharing group, the y had no c1aim in he r daughter whorn the father couldallocate in marriage as he chose. He had in effect converted brass rodsinto rights over people.

Central to Bohannan's analysis is the importance he attaches to theintroduction of Western money in subverting Tiv spheres of exchangeand converting this 'rnulticentric' economy into a 'unicentric' one. Otherfactors, like external trade , ar e acknowledged to be of significance, butBohannan's main emphasis is on the new medium of exchange whichprovided a common denominator which allowed alI commodities to becompared against a single measure and made them immediatelyexchangeable. 'I t is in the nature of a general-purpose money that itstandardizes the exchangeability value of every'item to a common scale.lt

is pfecisely this function which brass rods, a "limited-purpose rnoney"in the old system, did not perform.' 'Money', he concludes, is 'ene of theshatteringly simplifying ideas of all time, an d like any other new an dcompelling idea, it creates its own revolution' (1959).

This, we believe, considerably overstates th e case for it is not a prioriobvious that by itselfmoney does indeed reduce everything to a commonmeasure, or make it impossible for the Tiv to deny that certain things canbe bought for money - as we deny that academic and political honours,marriage partners, sexual favours and so on can legitimately changehands against a money payment. Nor is it c1ear that such a reduction hasin fact occurred to the extent which Bohannan's more general statementsimply. At the time of his fieldwork, for example, there was little evidencethat land was becoming a commodity. Th e idea of renting or selling it wasregarded as thoroughly immoral, and as tantamount to renting or sellingone's genealogical position (1969: 90-2). No r could it be exchangedagainst anything else at a l l - not even another plot of land - and all this inspite of the fact that for various reasons there was now increasingpressure on what was already a scarce resource.

This is not , of course, to c1aim that nothing has changed - only that thetransformation of Tiv economic behaviour may not have been quite asradical as Bohannan implies. But more importantly we would argue thatthe introduction of Western money does not account for these changes,and that other factors are of far greater significance. Th e first of these wasan expansion of the 'econornic frontier', in significant measure as a result


10/19

14 15M . Bloch an d ] . Parry

of the Pax Britannica, and the penetration of an external market intoTivl and - money being one index of this p enetration though incorporation into the wider market meant far more than the introduction of a'general-purpose ' medium of exchange. What it rneant aboye all was thatTivland beca me a marker for significant numbers of Ibo traders who paidcash (essential to the Tiv for the payment of lax) for agricultural producewhich they then exported - driving up prices and creating shorrages in

Tivland itself. It is small wonder, then, that the Tiv clairn that the Ibo'spoil a rnarket' and try 10 exclude them from ir . What's more, theseoutside traders had no commitrnent to the moral economy of the Tiv , andwere presumably quite ready 10 trade prcstige goods for cash - thuseffectively destroying the barriers 10 conversion between the prestigeand subsistence spheres.

Al the other end of the scale the British effecrively destroyed theimperrneability of the highest sphere by legislative fiar . Traditionallywhat liad inhibited the conversion of prestige goods into rignts overwomen was the institution of exchange marriage which meant thatnormally the only way to obtain a wife was lo offer a girl in exchange . BUlunder missionary pressure and 'what appeared superficially to be popular

demand' (Bohannan and Boharman 1968: 248) the colonial authoritiesmanaged - with surprising success - to outlaw such exchange rnarriages.The result was that instead of brides being exchangeable nly fordaughters and sisrers , they now became freely available on payment ofbrass rods . The effect of this seems lO have been lO deprive the lineageelde rs of much of their power, for they had c1early wielded influence ove rthe young men by controlling their a ccess to women. Unable lo convertthe fruits of their laiourinto marriage payments, the young men hadtradirionally been beholden for wives to the elders of the ward-sharinggroup. ' Popular demand' to do away with exchange marriage was notperhaps so 'superficial' after all. Al any rate it would seem to be areasonable inference that Tiv spheres of exchange buttressed a system of'geronrocratic ' authority , and their subversi n posed a direct threat tothat authority .

It is not surprising , then, rhat whcn Bohannan writes about the Tiv'smistrust of money it always seems lo be the elders who are deploring thesituation. Although we can find no direct evidence that the young meninvoked a differenl discourse about money, we rather doubt that theywere so unanimous or unequivocal in their condernnation. It is, however,c1ear that Tiv elders talk about money in the wa y that we are apt to do -they make it inro a condensed symbol of rnarket relations , fetishise it byartributing to it an innate force independent of human will, and blame itfor all the woes of their world.

Our second, and more recent, example of this tendency 10 represent

Money an d the morality of exchange

money as (he crucial agent of social and economic transformation isKopytoff''s (1986) rich and fascinating paper on 'The cultural biographyof things', in commenting on which we confine ourselves exclusively 10that part of his argument which bears most directly on ou r centraltherne and with which we have the greatest difficulty .

For Kopytof f , the crucial attrib ute of a commo dity is its exchangea bility , and commodity exchange is a feature of a// societies . A perfectly

commoditised world would be one in which everything is exchangeablefor everything else; while in a cornpletely decommodilised one everything would be singular, unique and unexchangea ble. Nei ther ofcourse , is conceivable in practice and al! real world situations fall sornewhere between the two poles - exactly where depending on the balancestruck between two opposing tendencies towards an expansion of thefield of commoditisation and its restriction. While a radical movementin the first direction denies co gnitive discrirnination , and thereb yculture itself , a trend towards complete 'singul arisation' would makeexchange - and thereby sociallife - progressively impossible.

The natural world must therefore be arranged into value classes forexchange, and these value classes - which necessarily exist in every

society - constitute what anthropologists have conventionally called'spheres of exchange' . Acknowledging the difficulties involved in thelabour theory of value, Kopytoff notes its relevance for an understanding of these separate exchange spheres. Produce and items of manufac'" ture, say, yams and pots, can be compared by reference to the labourwhich went into their production , but no such common standard is available in the case of, say , pots and ritual offices, or yams and wives , and itis the absence of any obvious measure of equivalence which forms ' the

I natural basis for the cultural construction of separare spheres ofexchange ' (p. 72) .

The problem, then, as Kopytoff sees it, les not in explaining why theTiv h ad separate spheres of exchange but rather in explaining why theyhad only three spher es and not more. His answer - and this brings us to

, the heart of ou r disagreement with him - lies in the technology ofexchange, for commoditisation is pushed to the lmits which the relatively inefficient exchange technology of the Tiv allowed .

One perceives in this a drive inhercnt in every exchange syst ern towardoptimumcommoditization - the drive ro extend the fundamentally seductiveideaof exchange !O as rnanyitemsas the existingexchangetechnology willcom

" fortablyallow. Hence the universal acceptance of money whenever it has beenintroduced into non-monetized societies and its inexorable conquest of theinterna] economy of these societies, regardless of initial rejection and of individualunhappiness about it - an unhappiness well illustrated by the modernTi\' . Hence also the uniformresults of the introduction of money in a wide


11/19

1 6 M . Bl o ch a n d ] . P arr y Money and the mo ra li ty of ex chan ge 1 7

ra rige o f o t he rwise di ffe re nt so c ie ties : m o re extensive co m mo d itiza tio n a nd them er ger o f th e sepa ra te s phe re s o f exch an ge . lt is as if t he i n terna l logic otex c ha nge itse lf pr e-ad apts all eco no mies lO se ize up on th e ne w oppo rtu nit ies t ha twid e co m m od it iza tio n SO o bviously brin gs wi th it ( p . 72) .

~

Mo ney and th e e nd of evil

A no the r ass um ptio n which run s t hro ug h mu ch o f th e lit er atur e we haverevi ewed , a nd is m ark ed in th e work of both M ar x a nd S imme l , is that

Co nsiste nt with thi s, Kopytoff goes o n to cl aim th at th e ex pansion of th efield o f comm oditi zation which accomp anie s ca pitalism i s not a co nse quence of ca pitalism it self , but of th e ex cha nge te chn ology w ith whi ch

it is assoc ia te d a nd which pl aces 'dr a m a tica lly wid er lim its to m a ximumfeasible co mmoditi za tion ' ( p . 72 ) . In eve ry ec on om y, we a re t old , th er eis a n inhe rent dr ive - rest r a ined onl y by the cultur al need to di scrimin at e- toward ' th e g re a test de gr ee of co mmod itisation th at th e ex cha ngetechn ology permits ' ; a nd in small-scale societies th is d rive is c ritically Iinhi bited by ' the in adequ acies of t he t ec hn ology of e xchange (p . 87) .

A s w ill b e cle ar fr om wh at has gone be for e , we a re e xtremely sce ptica lo f th is k ind o f te chnoJogical determini sm, a nd wo uld in stance B arth 's( 1967) D arfur s tudy as o ne exa mple wh ich cle arly s hows th at it ca n no t b eth e inade quacies o f the technology o f exc ha nge a lone whi ch pr ovides th ebasisfo r sp he res, for h er e we find both. Mo r eo v er , if m oney is rea l lys uc ha 'f undarnentally se ductive idea' it is perh aps s tra nge th at th e co lonial

po w er s i n A frica should h av e rep eatedl y fou n d that th e y needed to taxpeopl e in o r de r t o dr aw them into the w ider economy . It is a lso s urprisingth at a g rea t m any so cieties f ailed to bor r ow th e id ea o f a ge neralised>m edium of exc ha nge fr om more as tute nei gh b ou r s . O ne m ight hav eexpec ted K apau ku o r T olai ingenuit y to s p rea d li ke w ildfire. Th e m ainpoi nt w e wa nt t o s tress , ho wever , is th at by couplin g m oney to ca pita lismin hi s s uggestio n th at i t wa s money - a nd n ot capit alism with wh ichm oney wa s as soc i a te d - th at was resp onsible for a dr am a tic ex pansion o fco mmo ditisatio n, K opytoff ignore s th e e xi stenc e of m oney as we kn ow i tin rnany pr e-c apit alist economies . H e doe s not say exac tly wh en h ebelieves th e 'dr a rnatic e xpan sion' o cc u rr e d, but it is s ure ly cl ea r th atwid espread m onetisation con sider abl y pr e-dates th e d omin ancc of a

cap italist se c tor, w hile ex pe r ience el se wher e in th e world wo uld s uggestth at th e e xistence o f 1110ney do e s no t inexorably r esult in w holesa leco mmod itisation (a nd r ath er se ldom in th e com m oditis ation o f land a ndlab ou r ) . As we h av e pr eviou sly argued , in th e Tiv case a t a ny r at e t heresee m t o be g rounds f or re ver sing K opytoff's p rop osition : t he ex pansiono f co mmoditisation o we d f ar more to a n e xpa nsion o f th e m ark et s ec torth an it did t o th e intr oducti on of West ern m oney . In th e ' ine xorab leco nq ues t o f th e i nt e rn a l economy' o f thi s pr eviously non-rnonetiscdec o no m y, th e he a vy a rmour was not m oney b u t th e new se t o f e xcha ngerelations with whi ch th e Tiv were forced to c om e to ter m s .

money gives ri se to a p articular world view . It oc curs in a pa rticular forrnin a recent paper by M acfarlane ( 1985), o n whi ch we co m m e n t i n ord er tosignal a mo r e gen e ral d oubt.

A s a br o ad cros s- cultur al ge nera lisation, M acfarl ane s uggests that astro ng sense of evil i s und evel op ed in hunt er-g ath er er s ocieties: i s adomin ant as pect of th e va lue sys te m of th e de nsely p opul at ed a gra rian'peasa nt ' so cieties of C hina , In dia , p art s of So ut h A merica a nd Cath olicE uro pe; a nd ha s largely dis ap p eared f ro m ' rnodcrn' soc iety . Hi s centralpr oblem is to a ccount fo r thi s (a lleged) di sap p e a r a n c e , a n d th is h e d oe s interm s of a con t radiction betw een two d ifferent ideo logical c urrents . Th efirst o f th e se is en c apsulated i n St Pa ul's wa rning th at 'th e lo ve o f m oneyis th e ro ot o f a ll evil' ; th e se cond in Ad am S mith's h ard -n osed o bse rvation that ' it is no t f rom th e ben evolence of th e butch er , th e br ew er, or th ebaker th at we expe ct o ur dinn er , but from th eir rega rd t o th eir o wnse lf-interest' (S mith 1904 : 16) . Ava rice, th e root of a ll evi l , becom es the

found at ion o f soc iety; Publick B en efit derives fro m P rivare V ice; th egoo d of th e collecti vity is se r ved b y th e ev i lpr opensities o f th e individu al.In th e face o f thi s co nt radic tion, M acfarl ane a rgue s, th e a bso lutedis tinction between v irtue a nd vice i s e roded, a nd it beco mes impo ssibleto s ustain a n ov erpowering se nse of unmit igated evi l.

While this id eologic al d oubl e -bind mi ght se e m t o be c ulturally hi ghlyspecific, a t va rious p oints M acfarl ane co uches hi s a rgurnent in morege ne r a l t erms . Echoin g Simm el ' s o bse rva tion th at m oney is s u bve rsive of' mo r a l p olar i t ies' , fo r exa mple, h e writ es th at :

' M o ney ' , whi ch is a s hort -ha nd way o f say in g ca pitali st relat ions, ma rket va lues,trade an d e xchange, u she rs in a wo rld of m oral co nfu s io n . . . lit] co rnplicate s them oral o rde r, turn ing wh at was for m erl y b lack a nd whit e in to gre y nes s . . . it i sm oney , m arkets a nd m arkct capi ta lisrn th at cli mina tc abso lute rn or alities . . .( p . 72) .

B urri dg e 's di scussion ( 1969) of th e p reocc upa tion with m oney i n th esy mbolism o f Melan esian ca rgo c ults is c ite d in support of thi s ge neralpr oposition th at 'rnone y dis rupt s th e m or al as well as th e e conomicworld.'

Int ere sting th ough M acf arl ane's a rgument is, we believe it to bese riously fl awed - bot h in its specific a pplication to W cst er n Eur op e an din it s mo r e general for m o With reg ard to th e la tt e r , i t is a bundantJycl earfro m th e dif ferent ch apters in thi s vo lume th at m oney a nd m a rkete xchange a re centr al fea tures of th e po litical eco norny of m an y pe as ant


12/19

1819

M . BJoch and J. Parr yagrarian s ocietie s o f the t ype in whi c h , i n M acfarlan es view, an ideolo gyof ev il is mo st likely lo fi ouri sh. To cite B ayly ( 1985: 31 6) o nce mor e :

Whati s st riking[in Ind ia] is theway in which tb e formala pparatu s of rnarkets anda rnonetized economy molded thernselves to a nd were acco mrnodated b ymentalit es that s till view ed th e relationships between men , commodities , andother men i n te rrns of good (pur e) a nd evil (p olluring).

Not onl y is it entirely ille gitimate to c onflate money with capitalistrelations a nd rn arket v alues, but the exrent to which eith er money or thecapitalist market 'ush ers in a world of m oral confusion' is c ulturallyextremely variable, a nd dep ends - a s o ur co llection repe atedl y showso n the nature of the s ystem th ey confront a nd o n the mech anisms it isable to dev elop for 't arning' a nd ' dome sticating' them . Contrary t oMacfarlane's ass umption, th e co ncern with m on e y we find in m anyMelan esian cargo cults isn ot - Parr y's ch apter ar gues - a concern with itsmor ally peril ous nature o r its subversi ve qu ality, but mer ely withdi scovering the secret of its fecundity, of m aking i t mu ltiply; a p ossibilitywhich appears quite 'n atural' in a w orld in whi ch tr adit ional valuablesre gularly a ttract an increment in ex change .

A s for its specific applicat ion to West ern E urope , wh at we findsurprising a bout M acfarlane 's argument is it s curi ously ahi storicalnature . He writes as th ough St P aul's c ondemnation of av arice .wer e acon stant and unchanging v alue in W estern civilis ation. But whil e it maywell be true th at a n unswerving pur suit of ri ches has been widely frownedupon a r a ll time s, it is c1early the ca se th at the extent l o whichmoney-making a nd m on e y-mindedness have been seen a s a moral per ilha s und ergone c onsiderable shifts of emphasis . Littl e (1978 :34), forex arnple, notes how it'\v as at the end of the thirteenth o r beginning of thefourt eenth centur y th at ' th e p ictorial th eme of men a nd also apesdefecating co ins m ade its a ppea rance in the mar gins o f go thic rn anu scripts' , a nd ex plicitly contr asts the rnentalit y th at pr oduc ed the se dr awings with ' the on e that , in the ninth a nd t enth centurie s, used d epictions

of r oyal a nd imper ial coins to dec orate sa cred books' . It was dur ing th eeleventh (Littl e 1978 : 36) , 01' perhaps the twelfth ( Duby 1 982 : 322),centur y th at a varice suppl anted prid e as th e v ice pa r exce llence , and th isperi od s aw a burgeoning of s atires on the theme of m one y (Murr ay 1978 :72). The timing is significant s ince th is wa s a peri od of r apid urb an g rowthand of a major e xpansi on of rn arket trad e . In other words , the att enti ondev oted to mon ey , tr ade and av arice as a mor al peril grew with thesignificance o f th e mon ey e conomy. So f ar fr om a gener al er osion o f thesense of evil , as M acfarlane' s thes is would suggest, wh at we reall y seemto witn ess is a h eighrening of the sense o f e vil inh erent in mon ey .

Wh at happened in th e W est, we w ould ar gue, i s not th at money

M one y a nd th e mo r aJit y o f ex c hange

subverted a sens e of ev il, b ut r ather that one di scou r se ( amongst o thers )abo ut money mad e mone y-making more a nd m or e m arginal to th e devil'sdornain. and almost (but n ever q uite) succeeded in wre sting it f rom hirnent irely. Hir schman ( 1977) tr aces th e fas cinating story of how , from th elater Middle A ges o n, the s in o f av arice be comes in of fi cial ide ology lessa nd le ss heinous , and i s eventu ally removed from the ca tegory of' passions' t o bec ome a n ' interest ' . C rucial t o th is transf ormation is th eth eory th at o ne 'p assion' can b e se r to tarne an other ; that ' greed, avarice,0 1' lov e o f lucr e , could u sefully be empl oyed to o ppose a nd bridle sucho ther p assions as amb ition , lust f or power, o r sexual lu st' (ibid . p . 40)which wer e seen a s more soc ially disrupt ive. Th e noti on th at PublickBenefit der ives from Pri vate Vi ce was a th eory ab out st atecraft bef ore itbecame a justificat ion for mark et capitalism , fo r money-makin g was see nas a more enl ightened way o f condu cting a ffairs th an 'p assions' of a morebellicose nature. With DI' J ounson's pronoun cement th at 'th er e a re f ewways in which a m an can be m ore inn ocently e mployed th an in ge ttingmon ey' , it becom es a po sitively harmless pa stime . Ind eed , as the m ostdogged a nd per sistent of passions, it ce ases to b e a v ice a t all a ndbec omes a legitimate ' interes!' of the indiv idual, opp osed to hi s 'p assions'by its very pr edictability and r ationality; a nd a so ciety in which men

freel y pur sue the ir intere sts is contrasted ro ' the ca larnitous st ate ofaffairs that prev ails when m en gi ve free reign to their p assion s' ( ibid.p. 32). Th e paradox, howev er , was th at:

.....as soo n as ca pilalism was lriumphanl a nd 'passion' s eemed i ndeed t o berestrained an d perh aps e ven extinguished in the c ornparatively peaceful, tranquil,andb usiness-minded E urope of the perioda fter th e Congresso fVi enna, theworld suddenly appeared ernpty , pc tty. and boring and th e world was set for theRomantic c ritique of the b ourgeois order as incredibly impoverished in relation10 earlier ages _ the newwo rld see med r o lack uobility , grandeur, m yster y, and ,aboye all , passion' ( ibid. p . 132 ) .

The m eanings o f m oney

Wh ile writer s like Simmel a nd Ma cfarlane se e mon ey a s giving ri se ro aparticul ar world v iew, wh at we w ould like ro emph asise is how an ex istingworld view g ives rise to p articular ways o f repre senting mon ey.- A s o ur tw o And eanist ch apters sug gest, i t is T aussig's ( 1980) f ailure to

give du e weight t o th is cultural t emplate that vit iate s much of h isre-interpretati on of N ash 's ( 1979) e thnography on the f olklore a nd ritu alpr actices o f Boli vian tin-min ers. A ccording to th is folkl ore, Ti o - ' thedevil '_ co ntrolsth e fert ility of the m ine, claims the min ers' lives when he

oC

is not pr operly re ciprocated for his gifts o f o re by ap propriate sa crificialofferings, and en ables s ome indiv idual miners to enrich themselv es by


13/19

20 2 1. Blo ch a n d [ . Parry

e ntering int o a sec re t pact with them. A s Ta ussig int erprets it , suchbeliefs repr es en t a n indi genous reflecti on o n th e pow er , danger a ndimm oralit y o f th e n ew ca pitalist econom y, a nd o n th e p eril s which re sultfrom th e fact that wh at is ex tracted as a g ift fr om th e s pirit guardi ans o fthe m ine is then tr an sf or m ed int o a c ommodity . Th i s m akes mi n ing ve r y "different fr om th e tr aditional pe as an t ec on o m y of pr od u ction for use inwhich ther e is a n unprobl em atic and undi srupt ed re ciprocit y between th epe as ants a n d th e s u pe rn a tural source s o f fe rtility .

Wh at H arri s's c hapter shows, howev cr , is th at pe as ants to o m ay bes aid to o we th ei r ric hes to a pa ct with th e 'd evils ' , a nd it is theref or eimplausibl e to int erpr et th e b elief in s uc h ' devi l co nt rac ts ' a s a cornrnentar y on th e e vils o f pr olet arian isation an d capit alist rel ations of pr odu ction . N eith er in s ymb olism nor in ritu al a re ag riculture an d minin gop p o sed . T he f ertility o f th e mi n es is ritu atly rest or ed in a strikin gl ysimilar way to th e fertilit y o f th e fields a nd fl ocks; mi n er als are held togr ow in th e min es like p ot atoes, a nd it i s sa id th at - like land - a min es hould b e left lo lie fatlow lo re cuper al e it s Iertility. A s Sallnow pointso ut, il i s o nly in min ing that de ath a l th e h ands of th e spirits is apermanent oc cu p a t ional h az ar d , bu t thi s is o nly a n ex tre me variant of th erequirem en t o f a sac rificial spilling of bl ood in An d ean ag ricultural ritu al .Since Ande an p e as ant s h av e long be en in cor p or at ed int o th e rn ar k et ,a nd m ar k et relati ons d o no t repre sen t a co mparable s upernatu ral. ..d anger, it is c1 earl y n ot co rnmo ditisa tio n itse lf w hich co nstitutes th epr oblem. R at h e r th e real ex plana ticn f or th e m ystic al d an ge r o f m inin glie s in id eas a bout th e cos mological sig nificance o f pr ecious rnet als assupreme c ornm oditi es , th e prop er us e o f whi ch is to o w upw ar d s astr ibute lo th e s tate . T his t r ibute rep r od u ces a n o rde red rel ation shipbetween thc s tate a nd th e local cornrnunit y - a relati on ship which is th eso urce of lh e lat t er ' s fertilit y a nd pr osperit y , a nd wh ich is thre atened bya ny individu al ap pro priation o f g old an d s ilver th at w ould di srupl th isflow . He n ce th e d an g er s of mining deri ve not f ro m th e facl th at th e o re :

is ex tracted as a gi ft a n d di spo sc d of as a comm odit y - th at is , fr om the imp e rfecta rticulation b et w cen th e di ctares of capit alism a n d t h e n or m s o f Andean cul tur e >-

but rath er f rom w ith in th e c ulture itself . . . Th e s u perna tural peril s o f g oldmining [and b y associa tion o f a l l min ing] ar e a co ns e q ue n c e n ot o f lh e ultim arecomm odili salion o f th e pr od u cl , bul of lh e c ultural l ogic in w hich il i s initi allyembedded.

When lh e a rgumenl lh al mone y brin gs a boul a radi c allransform aliono f sociely i s eXle n de d b y lh e pr oposili on lh al it mu sl lh eref or e le ad 10re volution ary a nd specifiab/e c hanges in w orld view, il is easy lo furth eras s u me th al m oney m e an s w ha t mone y (supp os edl y) d oes. Reg ardless o fculture, il will a lways l en d lo symbolis e mu ch lh e s a me kinds of lhin gs.

M o n e y an d the m or alit y of excha nge

BUl s een as set , wh at th e a uthors in thi s vo lu me a p pe a r lo s ho w i s th at th erne anin gs with wh ich m oney is in vest ed ar e qu ite as mu ch a pr odu ct o fth e c ult ur a l rn atri x int o w hich it is inc orporated as o f th e ec onomicfunctions it perf orm s as a m ean s of ex change, unit of acco unt , st or e o fva lue a nd so on . It is th er efore impossibl e to pr edicl it s sy rnbolicme anin gs from th es e funct ions a lone .

At fir st s ight, ho w ever, it mi ght se e m th at s u ch r elati vism is ca lled intoq uest ion b y s everal o f th e cas es discus sed b y o ur co ntributo rs wh odoc ume nl cas es w he re m on ey d oe s in deed a ppea r 10 carry th e k ind o fsy mbolic load w ith w hich we a re f amiliar fro m ou r ow n tr adit ion . T heShon a s pirit medium s d e scrib ed in L an's chapt er , for exa mple, avo id a ndreject E uropean g ood s as i nco mpa tible w it h th e sac red d om ain ofa ncestral auth ority . S imilarl y, S tirrat report s th at th e S ri L ank an fish e rmen with wh om he w orked associa le m on e y w ith di sord er a nd ad isruption o f th e pr op er h ierar chic al o rder of cast e ; a nd To ren th at th eFiji an s talk of th e world o f m on e y a s the antith esis of th e o rde red m oralworld o f chief s a nd kin ship .

In fac t, howe ve r , th ese a p pare nt si milarities with o ur o wn cultura ld iscourse a re largel y illu sor y . Th ou gh Shona m ediurns mu st avo id allcon t act w it h West er n co rnrnodities lik e s oap, pet r el a nd Coca -Cola , w eun expe ctedly find th at th er e is n o su ch prohibiti on o n m on e y - in p ar tbecause it is sy rnbolically ass imilate d to a tr adit ion al it ern , h oes .Unlik e th ese oth er item s, m on ey d oes no t s tand in o pposi tion l O th erealm o f lh e sacred . A gain , th e see rning farnil iarity o f th e Si nhaleseca se turn s OUl lo r efiect a n e ntire ly d iffer ent set o f m e anin gs, for th efisherrnen 's dist aste for m on ey h as far less lO d o w ith a n h ostilitytow ar d s cornm oditi sation a nd th e m arket th an it h as lo d o with th e faclth at her e th e cont ro l of m oney is in th e han d s o f w omen . T he Fiji anexarnple i s al so a case o f fal se familiar ity, bu t o ne whi ch s ugges ts arather diff erent kind of di fficult y with th ose tr aditi on al a rgume ntsw hich a t t r ibute lo m on e y a speci fic s ignificance r eg ar dless of co ntext : adi fficulty whi ch d eriv es fr om a m isunder st andi ng of th e n atur e o f

sy mbolism itself .Th e Fi jian op p ositi on be twee n m oney (stand ing for a nti-social a cq u isi

tiveness) an d yaqona dr inking (s tandi ng f or co mmunity) do e s a l firs tsight indeed seern redol en t of o ur o wn Op posi lion b el w een co mmerceand in slrum en t ality o n lh e o ne h an d , a nd k inship a nd m or alily o n lheo lher. What T or en m akes cl e a r, h ow ever, is lh al lhi s o p pos ilion h as a smu ch lo do wilh lh e co nl ras l b elwe en cross-cousin s. a nd o ther kinsmen asit h as lo d o w ith th e conlra st bel ween lhe m arket a nd lh e pr e-m on elarycconomy . At th is po inl nol o nly d oe s whal is se emingly f amiliar from o urow n cullure beg in lo loo k very mu ch less f amil i ar , bul il be com esap parent lhat we a re n ol d ealing wilh a s imple op p osit ion of irre concil


14/19

22 23M. Bloch a nd J. Pa rry

ab les, but r ather wit h interco nnecte d co ncepts which are pa rt 01' atr ansformative disco urse .

Thi s is eas iest ro a ppreciate wh en we co nsider th e kin ship as pect 01' th eF ijian con trast which opposes a n image 01' society as o rdered b y a fixe dhierarchical patrern 0 1' co nsanguinity, a ffi nity and chiefship r epresentedin th e ritu al of yaqona drink ing, to a n irn age of th e e phernera l, ega lita

rian, sex ual a nd chaotic re lations 01

unmarr ied cross -cousins. Th ere larionship b etween these two orders is no t , however, o ne 0 1' static a ndabso lute o pposition, f or o ne side 01' the co ntrast is co ntinualIy be ingtr ansf crrn ed into th e o ther in a way w hich, far fr o rn b eing thr eatening,ac tually r epresenrs a n image of the s uccessful r eproducrion 01' theco mmunity. T his is beca usc cross-cousins should b ecome s po uses , a ndhence the c haotic wo rld which is partly co njured up b y money is th enecessary p recursor r o th e wo rld 01' o rdered hi erarchy co njured up byyaqona . W hat we therefore have is a con tinuing dia lectic in whichcross-co usins who are op posed are th en united by marriages w hichbelong r o th e do main 01' hierarchical ki nship, bu t th ese in turn r enew th eoppos ition thr ough the birt h of c hildren who a re aga in op posed ascro ss-cousins. Th issy nthesis is represe nted in the ritual of ' drinkirig cas h'

by the co mbination of th e sy mbolism of mon e y a nd of y aqona dr inking.In th e fi rst p art of th e ritual the su bversive creat ivity 0 1' cross-co usinsassumes the forrn of monetary co rnpe ti tio n , but in th e second part thi schaotic be haviour is harnessed to th e reproduction of the o rdered yaqonad rinking co mmunity when th e result o f th e cas h r ivalry beco mes abe neficial socia l fund oT his type of tr ansforrnation is - as we s halI see - i nno way exce ptional .


15/19

24 25. Bl o ch an d }. Parry

similar pattern of tw o relat ed but separare tran saction al orders : on th eon e hand lr an saction s concerned with the reproduction of the long-terrnsocial or cosmic order ; o n th e o t he r , a 's pher e' of short-terrn transactionsconcerned with th e arena o f individual comp etition.

Among st th e S hona, th e long-lerm transaclional order is s ymbolicallycon structed in terms o f a n im age of an immorlal chiefdom which isrepre sented b y th e spirit mediums who embod y th e a ncestral rulers, whoin turn dispen se fert ility lo th eir descendants in return for obedience ,r e spect a nd tr ibute . In both ou r Andean cases , it again revolves around asa cred and enduring polity wh ich is represerited as th e so urce of lhepr osp er it y a n d in crease w hich flows down to the local comrnunity as longas tribute fiows up . Again, in Fiji , exchanges of yaqona between chiefsa nd th e pe ople co nstruct a n idealised image of an unchanging hiera rchical o rde r; while in th e Sri Lankan case the predictable long-termo rde r o f c ast e with which lhe men identify is opposed to the short-terrnam or al s phere o f the rnark et i n which the women assume lhe crucialroles. With the Merin a of M adagascar, we similarly find an image of lhee te r n a l d escent group symbolised by t he immobi l e s tone tornb , which isseen as o ppose d lO- but al so as partially dependent on - individualisticlr ans acti ons o f a sh ort-terrn ac quisitive nature. Finally, in India, gifts lothe Ben ares Brahm ans a re c oncerned with th e reproduction of th ecosmic and soc ial or de r a nd - by ridding him of his sins - w it h restoring-.th e pilgrim 's place within il. In e ach case this long-terrn transactionalor d er is con cerned with th e a tternpt lo rnaintain a static and timelessor d er .

In e ach , however , cultur al rec ogniti on is a lso explic it ly given to a cycleof sh ort-t errn e xcha nges assoc iated with individual appropriation, competition , s ens uous enj o yment , luxur y an d youthful vitality. This isvariou sly th e world o f c ommerc e , w age -labour or brigandage, and isoft en identified with ex ch ange s betwe en s trangers. In lhe Merina case ,far ex ample, such tr ans actions a re co ncerned with har ena - movablego ods wh ich a re individually acquir ed th r ough co rnpetitive a ctivities likewar a nd trade . In life a legitirnat e so urce o f sensual en jo yment , harenarnu st al a ll COS lSbe dispersed before de at h for the y a re firml y rooted in alr an sient world which defie s a nd n egares th e im age of a p er m anent a ndco llective a nces t ra l e ssence embodied in th e tornb .

As th is might lead o ne t o e xpect, there is a cl ose as sociation bet weenM er ina funer ar y pr actices a nd the two tr an s action al o rders, an d anex plicit c onnecti on is m ad e bet w een a nces t ra l b ody-substance an d inheri ted we alth o n the o ne hand , and bet ween the vital subslance of the livingand harena o n the o ther . Th e ca se is instructi ve for it seems to revealsomething more gener al a bout th e relati onship bet ween th e two c ycles o fexchange . Th e s hort-terrn ind ividualistic tr ansact ions concerned with

M oney an d th e mo rality o f exc h a ng e

haren a are mor ally a cceptable s o long a s they rem ain s ubordinated t o ,and do no t compel e with , th e long-t errn rest or ati ve cycles whi ch focus on

~ the undiffer en t iated collectiv ity of th e a nces to r s . Inde ed s uch ac tivitiesare particularl y d esirabl e wh en th e go ods the y y ieJd a re u sed to m aint ainthis o ver-arching arde r - as , for exa mple, when indi vidually ac quiredwe alth is emplo yed lo restor e th e tornb s o r fund lh e cer emoni esass oc iated with them .

But , of cour se , all thi s is e xtr emely simil ar to w ha t we h av e a lready sa idabou t the F ijian an d M alaysian ca ses wh er e th e rnor a lly e quivocal mone yder ived fr om s hort- term ex change cy cles i s tr ansf orrned by a simplesyrnbol ic o peration into a po sitively benefici al resour ce whi ch su stain sthe ideal o rder of an unch anging commun ity . Much th e same patternemerge s o nce more from P ar r y's Indi an ex ample, w here eve n we althacquired thr ough the mo st d evious me ans by merch ant s , b andits andkings is unprobl emati c so lon g as a proporti on of it is g ifted to Brahmansas part o f th e long-terrn cy cle o f cosmi c pu rificat ion . Ag ain , in Sr i Lankawe find that m oney ce ases to be dirt y a nd bec om e s a legitimate interest ofmen when it is used in c onsumption 10 m aint ain th e s olidarity and classidentity of the fishing vill age and to rep roductthe household; a nd this

kind of conversion is a lso g raphically illustrated b y H arris's v ignette ofimpoverished Bolivi an pea s ant s pouring away their we alth i n lib ations tothe sacred earth, and down th eir thr oats 10 produ ce holy drunkenness.

What we consistentl y find , t hen, i s a s eries of pr oc edure s by whichgoods which deriv e from th e s hort-terrn c ycle a re c on v erted into thelong-term transactional ord er - pr oc ed u re s wh ich inelud e th e 'drinking'of cash in Fiji, the 'cooking' o f m oney in L angk awi, a nd the 'dige sting' ofthe pilgrims' gifts by th e Brahm an s of Be n ares . An d o f course it is noaccident that such tr ansformati on s sh ould so of ten be ex press ed in a nalimentary idiom, for everywh er e this is o ne o f th e m ost pow erful o f a llpossible metaphors for tran sform ati on . It is not th at what is o btained inthe short-term cycle is a kind of ill-gott en ga in which c an be ' laundered'by being converted into soci ally approved c hannels o f ex penditure a ndconsumption . It is rather th at th e tw o cycl es are represented as o rga nically essential lo each othe r. Th is is b ec a use their r elat ion ship form s th ebasis fo r a sy mbolic res olutio n o f th e pr oblem po sed by th e fact th attranscendental so cial a nd s ymbolic s tructures rnu st both dep end o n, a ndnegare , the transient indi vidu al.

It is widel y argued th at o utside th e ideological a rnbit o f th e capit alistrnarket , the econom y is s ee n as being 'embedded ' in society, th at therelentles s indi vidual pu rsuit of mat er ial s elf-gai n is ge n er ally di scountenan ced , and th at collecti ve go als a re norm ally a ccorded prim ac y o verthose o f th e indiv idual. Much of th e s o-called ' formalist- substan tivist'contro versy turned on th e issue o f wheth er m aximizing m an exis ts, either


16/19

2 6 27M . Blo ch a nd ]. P ar r y

in fac t o r th eory, in th e pre- capitalist w orld ; a n d - t h o ug h P olanyi h ims elfwa s a e reditable exc eptio n (see , for exa mple , Po lanyi 1 971)- the a nswerspr ovided have ge nera lly tend ed to tak e th e fo rm of a straightforwa rd' y es ' o r ' no'. Wh at we bel ieve o ur d iseus sion i l lustrates , h ow e ver , is th ata ll th es e systerns m ake - ind eed h av e to m a ke - so me id eol ogical s pac ewithin w hich in dividu al ae quis ition i s a legitimare a nd eve n lau d abl egoa l; bu t th at s uc h ac tivities a re eonsigned to a s e parare sphere w hich isid eologically a rticulated w ith, a nd subor din ated to, a s phere of ae tivityco nce rned w ith th e cycle o f lon g - rerrn rep r od u ction . Th e relationshipbetween th e polit ico-econ omic d omain of a rtha a nd th e mo r al or d er o fdha rma in Hind u th eory pr ovides a n a lmost p aradigmatic case o f thi sk ind of rel ation ship between th e two ey cles. W e th er e for e find it s trangeth at Du m on t ( 1970) sho ulcl see th e wo rld r en ou n eer as m or e o r l ess th esole re pr ese ntat ive o f th e va lues o f ind ividu ali sm in Indi an socie ty, a ndshould a ppa rently de ny a ny r ol e to s ueh v alues i n the sphere o f ar tha,

Th at th is id eological s pace should exis t is , we believe, in evitable - fo rth e m ainten ance o f th e long-terrn o rde r is b ot h pr agrnatically a ndco ncept ually d ep endent o n individual s hort-terrn a cquisitive e n deavo urs . N ot o nly d o th e latt er in fac t pr ovide mu eh o f th e mat eri al

wh er ewith al necessar y fo r th e rep r od u ction o f th e e neo mpass ing o rde r,but it a lso h as to be ae k now ledged th at thi s o rde r ca n o nly p e rpetu areitse lf thr ough th e b iologieal a nd ee onom ie ac tivities o f indivi d ua ls . Wh atwe claim to be describing th en is a n ex treme/y ge nera l set of id ea s ab o ut :....th e pl ace o f th e in dividua l in a socia l o r eo smie o rde r whi ch tr ans e en d sth e indi vidual.

Th e a rticulation betw een th e two sphe res i s, howev er , by n o rneansun p roblem atic . If th e-long-terrn eycle i s n ot to be re du c ed to th e tr ansi en tworld of th e indiv idual, th e y mu st be kept separare - witn es s th e M alaypr eoc cu p ation with in sul atin g th e d om esti c d om ain a gainst eo mmereia lt ransactions. B ut i f th e lon g te rr n is to be s us ta ined b y th e cr eata/ity a ndvit ality o f th e s hort-terrn ey cle, th e y mu st a lso b e relared - h enc e th eco nce rn w i th th e kind s of tr ansforrnative pr ocesses of w hieh th e 'co oking'of mo n ey i n L angk awi is ju s t o ne exa mple.

Th e poss ibility ofco nvers ions b etween th e two or d er s a lso h as mu eh todo with th eir mor al e valuation. While the long-t erm cyc le i s a lw ayspositively assoc iated w ith th e ce nt ra l pr ec ep t s of m or ality, th e short- ter rnor der ten d s to be morally und et er m ined si nee it eo ncerns individualpurpo se s wh ich a re largely irrel e van t to th e long-t er m o rde r. If ,however , th at whi ch is o b tai n e d in th e s hort-te rrn ind ividualistic e ycle iscon ve rted t o se rve th e re pro du c tio n of th e long-t er m cy cle , th en itbecorn es m orally positive - like th e ca sh 'd r u nk ' in Fiji o r th e w e althg ive n as dall a in H indu In d ia . But e qua lly th er e is a lways th e o p pos jtepossibility - a n d th is evokes th e s trongest ce nsure - the poss ibili ty th at

Mo n ey an d t he m orality of ex c ha ng e

ind ividual in volvem ent in th e s hort- te r m cyc le will b ecome a n e nd initself w hieh i s no lo nge r subord ina ted to th e repro duction of th e largercyc le ; o r, m or e h orri fying s till, th at gr asping indi vidu als will di vert th eresou r ces of th e lon g-te rm cy cle for th eir o wn s hort - te rm tr ansaction s.

Th e n ightm ari sh s pec tre o f this las t e ventua lity is i l lustrated b y o u r t w oA ndea n c ases . S alln ow viv idly evokes th e ex treme d anger a nd sec recywith wh ich P eru vian pea s ant s assoc iate th e m ining o f pr ecious m etals.T he r cason s for this a re compl ex , bu t o ne w ay o f un r avelling i ts logic is tostart f ro m H arri s ' rep or t th at - th ough infinitely m or e valu able- pr eciou smetal s a re see n as gr o wi ng in th e e arth like tuber s or potatoes , F ertilit yand in crease o f a ll k i nd s i s a bl essing of th e m ount ain s pirits , a nd norm alerops - li ke p ot a to es - req u ire th e norm al re cipr ocat ion o f lib ati o n s a nda n occas ional b loo d offe ring . O ne wh o o btai ns pr ecious rnet als.however , is o btaining a k ind of su pe r c rop, fo r whi ch th e o nly p ossiblereturn is th e lif e o f th e min er h imself. But th e te m ptation of course i s totr y to coneeal th e a p pr o priation a nd thu s a vo i d th e d ebt ; th ough s uch astratagern i s th orou ghly a nti-social s ince th e m ount ain spi rits will th enex traet th eir re turn a t ran d om . A renegade of thi s so rt w ho th r eat en s toperm an entl y d ivert th e res ou r ces o f th e long- terrn cyc le to hi s ow nshort-term adva n tage , is t he a ntithesis o f th e para gon w ho lib er ally pou r slib at ions o n t o th e ea rt h o r in to h is bod y in o r de r t o tr ansc en d , th r oughdrun ken n ess, h is ca lculating individua list se lf. Th r ou gh h is se lfabnegat ion th e latt er e nsures th at w hat h e de rives fro rn th e lon g-t ermeyc le h as b een retur ned to it eve n b ef or e it h as b een g iven .

Similarly in th e Be nares cas e , th e Br ah m n w ho r eceives da na b ut fa ilsto pass it o n in 1010 is in effe ct d ivertin g wea lt h d estined for th e lon g-t ermeycle fo r hi s ow n s hort- te r m e nds . Th e con seq u ence is not o n ly th at hehim self w ill r ot w ith l ep r osy a nd suffer th e torrn en t s o f h ell , bu t th at since he i s bl ocking th e e hannels of purifi cation w hich fl ow in th eo pposite d ireet ion to d ana - he a lso b rings sin a nd mi sf ortun e to h isunwittin g don or s. Bu t wh en th e munifi cen t m er ch an t co nfe rs dall a on th eB rahmans h e is d oin g exac tly th e o pposite. H e is co nverti ng wealth

accumulate d in sh ort-term ac quisitive activity into a lon g-terrn cycleeo nee rne d b ot h w ith a w hole ch a in o f purifi cati on a nd e limina tion o f s in,and with th e s upport o f B rahma ns wh ose ri tual ac tivities su stain th e

cos mosE qu all y, o ur e thnography al so ill u st r ates th e o the r horr en d ou s p ossi

bility th at th e indiv idual wi ll b ec om e so e mb roi led in th e s hort-term cycleth ar he wi ll ign or e th e d emands o f th e long cy cle . It s eems to be thi sd an g er with which M erin a notions a bout tree -pl antin g a re co ncerned.Sinee th e tr ee o utlasts th e i ndividual w ho p lanted it , it r ep r e sent s a kindof ill icit i mmo rtalisation of th e typ e of wea lt h th at s hould be di s per sedbef or e d eath . Th is a nti- socia l a tternpt to p er p etu at e hi s ow n indi vidu ality


17/19

28 29. Bl o ch a n d J. Parr y

amounts to a deni al of the claims of th e lon g -terrn cycle asso ci ated withthe undifferenti ated collectivity of th e de ad , a nd is therefore liable to bepunished by the a nces tors .

Again, fo r the Sr i L ankan case , Stirr at d ocum ents the e xist ence of twodifferent 'sph er e s o f co nsumption' : o ne c onc erned wi th re producing thebasic via bility of th e hous ehold a nd m ar k ing its e quivalence t o a ll oth erhouseh olds wi t h in t h e communit y; th e o t he r c oncerned with a n intensely

compet itive e xpenditure betw een h ou s ehold s. Though both k inds ofconsumpt ion a re po sitively valued , ex pend iture in the sec on d sphere o fcompetitiv e co nspicuous consumpti on i s mo st fully justified when it i sdirected at s ocial reproduction through m arriage; but it bec om e s d istinctly im m or al wh en it jeopardise s the viability of th e hou seh old a ndthereby subv er t s th e long-terrn or d er. Much th e sa me cons id er ations , wesu gg es t, lie b eh ind th e tir ad e of T oren 's F ij ian te a cher a gainst ' the wo rldo f rnon ey ' . I n o t her circumstances Fij ians r eg ard mon ey as m orallyunpr obl em atic , but wh at the old m an bew ails is th at it t en d s to tak epeopl e ove r a nd enc ou r age them to neglect ch ief ship and kin ship . Whenth e short-t errn cycle threatens to repl ace th e long-ter m c ycle then th eworld is rott en. It is in such circum stances t hat a morally ind et erm in ate

instrument bec omes something mor ally o pprobrious.

""

Money and th e two tr ansactional ord ers

W e have a rgued, th en , th at m oney is a ccorded quit e diff er en t me aningsin d iff erent cultur es , but th at o nce we focu s o n th e bro ad er p atternin g o ftrans action s so rne r ather si gnificant re g ularities begin to e merge . Withhindsight , h ow e ver , this conclusi on is w ha t we might have expec te d tostart with , for th e s ymbolism of m one y is o nly one aspect of a moregeneral sym bolic w orld of transaction s w hich must always com e to termswith sorne abs olut ely fundamental hum an pr oblems. On e of th ese is th erelationship between the indiv idual hu man life and a sy mbolically

constructed im ag e of th e enduring socia l an d cos mic o rder withi n w hichth at l ife is lived ; a relation ship a lso d iscussed i n o ur intr odu ction to D eathand th e regeneration o f lif e ( Bloch and P ar r y 1982), with which th eargument o f the pr evious s ection is ve ry much in l ine o

Th e o bvious coroll ary of o ur r elativistic conclusi on a bout th emeaning s o f m oney is that it is quit e impo ssible to pen et r a te thesemeanings with out a n understandin g of th e -ways in whi ch th e y a reinformed b y th e wider symbolic a nd s ocial o rders, a point which isadmirably dem on str ated by Martiri ' s ( n.d.) di scussion of th e cont rastingsignificance o f m oney in Taiw an a nd the Unit ed States. Such superfi cials imilarities w h ic h d o e merge in the m eanings give n to m on e y in dif fer en tcultur es is, w e wo uld suggest, a kind of cp iphen omen on o f r egularities

Mo n ey an d th e morali ty of exc ha nge

which ex ist a t a deeper le vel . Th at is , th e y a re a con s equenc e ofregul arities i n the w ay in which th e tr ansact i onal wo rld as a w hole i s

syrn bolically co nstructed in t erm s of w ha t we h a ve called long andsh ort -terrn cy cles . Both in M ada gascar a n d in the A ndes, ccrt ain for m s ofmoney a re clo sely identifi ed w ith th e long-terrn o rder o f ex change.Because of the instrumental u ses to which money lend s i tself, the morefa miliar case however is for it to be most closely asso ciated with the

short-terrn o rder (as, for exam plc , in ou r Fijian and M alaysian cases),and it ma y e ve n become a cond ensed symbol of th at o rde r. Suchsimil ari t ies i n symbolic con stru ct io n as e xist , we ar e arg uing, d eri ve fromsimilarities in th e way in w hich th is or der i s con stru cted b y differentcultur es.

It is, as we ha ve s een, a co mmonplace a ssumption that m oney give s r iseto ~ pe c f ic wo rl d v iew a nd t o pa rticular kind s o f soc ial rel ationship, butthis is v e ry du b ious. Th e furth er impl ication of our d iscussion however isth at - wi th in r i gorously cir cum sc r ibcd limits and with o r wi thout moneyth e vast m aj ority of cultur es make sorne space for exc hanges whichdispl ay m any of the feature s wh ich a re some times, as in ou r o wn society,assoc iated with monetary exch ange (a d e gree 01 imper sonalit y, co nsider

able sco pe f or individual gr atification a nd a concern fo r pu re in strumentality , for e xam ple) . Th ose wri ters who cre di t m on e y w ith th e pat ernit y o fthe se fea tures a re th er efore co nstructing a fa lse h ist or y i n w hich w hat i sactuall y a n ex tremely g en er al con t rast within c ultures bet ween thed omains of the long and short-t errn or ders bec omes a co ntrast be tweencultures - a nd it is o n thi s b asis th at th e notion of a 'g rea t d ivide' betweenth e m onet ary a nd pre-monet ary wo rlds has rested. In o ne way o r a notherth e c ha p te rs by Fuller , Harri s , L an a nd Bloch which f ollow a ll m ak e referen ce to thi s kind of historic al fa lsification.

We d o n ot , of course , intend to imply that everything is eve rywherethe sa me, o r to downpla y the grea t va riety o f symb olic sys te ms d ocurnented in th is vo lume . No r do we wis h to s uggest th at the k in d o f sc heme we

have ou tlined is e i ther uni ver sal 0 1' e te rna !. W h il e w e beli eve th e p atternwe have ide n ti f ie d as c om m on to a ll o ur c ase s tu dies is t ypical of a widerange of so cie t ies , it i s ar guabl e th at th e mature id eology o f capitalismwo uld b e a n e xample of so mething en tirely differ ent. By a rem arkableconceptual revolution what h as un iquely happened in c apitalist ideology,the ar gument would run, is th at th e values of the sh ort-terrn o rder havebec om e el ab orated into a th eo r y o f long-term repr oducti on . What our

. culture (lik e o thers) had pr eviou sly m ade room fo r in a se parate andsub ordin at e d omain h as , in sorne qu art ers at le as t , been turn ed into athe or y o f the e nc o mpassing o r de r - a th eory in w hich it is on ly un alloyedpri vat e vice th at c a n s ustai n the publ ic b enefit.

Wh at is al so po ssible , howe ver , is th at the conceptual s hift h as been


18/19

M one y and the mo ralit y o f ex change 3130 M. Bl och and J. Pa rr y

rather less radical , and th at w hat h as really happened - as Ma uss's es sayon th e The Gi]t implied lon g a go - i s ra ther th at W estern ideology has s oe rnphasised th e distin ctiveness of the two c ycles that it is th en unabl e toimagine th e mechanisrns by w hich th ey are l inked . O ne of th e rner its o fthis fo rrnulation w ould be th at it suggests a way of under standin g thequite co ntradictory r epresentations of mon ey - as d evilish a

13Money and Morality

Documents

Transcript of 13Money and Morality