Capitalismisn Late Modernity

8/8/2019 Capitalismisn Late Modernity

1/15

Capitalisms in Late Modernity

Author(s): Michael BlimSource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 25-38Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223413

Accessed: 30/01/2010 01:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/223413?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/223413?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2000. 29:25-38Copyright? 2000 by AnnualReviews.All rightsreserved

CAPITALISMSN LATEMODERNITYMichaelBlimCity University of New YorkGraduate Center, New York,New York10016-4309;e-mail: blimmichael@ otmail. om

Key Words capitalism,modemsocieties,neo-Weberianism,eo-institutionalism,neo-Marxism* Abstract This articlereviewsneo-Weberian,eo-institutionalistconomic,andneo-Marxianpproacheso theanalysisofcapitalismnlatemodemsocieties. targuesthatallmake mportantontributionso theunderstandingf theincreasing conomicvariabilityeportedncapitalist ocieties.Theapproacheslsomaybeprofitablyom-bined oassessthedegree o whichspecificcasesidentified eviate n significantwaysfromcurrent egemonicpatterns f capitalistdevelopment. inally, onsumptionhe-oryis assessed orits value n revisingstandardapitalistdevelopmentheory.

INTRODUCTIONAs SalmanRushdiebringsTheMoor's Last Sigh to its shatteringclose, he con-trives a scene of recognitionbetweenMoraes,the Moor,and his father,AbrahamZogoiby, in the penthouseof the CashondeliveriTowers, the father'sBombayskyscraper:

Abrahambecamestone. He was ice, andflame. He was God in ParadiseandI, his greatestcreation,hadjust puton theforbidden ig-leafof shame. "Iama businessperson,"he said. "What hereis to do, I do."Abraham, he blackhole of Bombay.I saw him wrapped n a darkness,acollapsingstarsuckingdarknessaround tself as its mass increased.No lightescapedfromthe event-horizonof his presence.He hadbegunto scare melong ago; now he engendered n me a terror,andat the same time a pity,thatmy wordsaretoo impoverished o describe. Rushdie(1995:336, 341)

AbrahamZogoiby had emergedfrom the wealthy obscurityof the Cochin spicetrade o become a drugrunner,H-bombfinancier, ngineerof uxoricide,and mostof all master-and monster-capitalist of Bombay.His father, he Moorrealizes,has become his enemy and,by implication,that of Indiatoo.

0084-6570/00/1015-0025$14.00 25


3/15

26 BLIMLike the Moor,whether t is our wish or fear,we have all awakenedat the endof the 1990s to find ourgenitors,fictive or no, capitalists n some extendedsense,

and we as anthropologists ppear o sharethis fate no less than the rest.Infact,capitalism's tock nourmarket s rising.The numberof anthropologicalcontributionso theliterature n capitalismhasgrownfourfoldbetweentheperiod1963-1985 and1986-1999, a ratetwice as fast as thegrowthof generalanthropo-logical literatureas a whole. Althoughsince 1986, anthropological ontributionsto studiesof capitalismhave lagged behind olderfavorites,such as kinship,reli-gion, politics, and marriage, heir number n the past 14 yearsexceeds citationsdevotedto themoregeneraltopicof economics.All said,capitalism'sgood run ntheanthropologicalmarket s still no match or thatof gender.Bothtopicsgarneredanalmost even numberof references n anthropologybetween 1963and1985,butin thepast 14 years, capitalismwas theIBM of anthropologywhereasgenderwasthe Microsoftof the field, increasing ts contributionshreetimes faster1This abundanceof new anthropologicalworkon capitalismprovidesrichpos-sibilities for interpretation.Anthropologistsmay write aboutcapitalismwith lessflair thanRushdie,buttheyoften do so with a strongsense of moral andpoliticalengagement.While value preferencesweigh heavily in anthropological nvesti-gations of capitalism,the task here is to sort out the intellectualvalue of theirfindings.Theprincipalobjectivesof thisessay are to providea structuralketchofa decade'sworthof anthropologicalworkon capitalismandto developa tentativeassessmentof the degreesto which variouskinds of investigationscontribute oourgreaterunderstanding f capitalism n the the latemoder world.I showthatthreesets of alternative escriptionsof the newcapitalistworldhaveemergedover the pastdecade.Taken ogether, heyare"neos," hat is they arere-vised strainsof Marxist,Weberian,andinstitutionalist conomicapproachesusedas explanatory chemato guide the outcomesof anthropological ccounts.Takenseparatelyaswell as in comparisonwiththeothers,eachpossessesadvantagesanddisadvantages, s I suggestbelow.At the conclusionof theessay,I brieflyexaminethe degreeto which the new emphasison consumptionas a processof capitalistdevelopmentcould affect whatwe intendconceptuallyby capitalism.

It is important,however,to be mindfulthatthe three"neos"are heuristicsand,thus,not diagnosticof any one scholar'swork.Moretypically,in the face of thefacts, most scholarship s forcedto make its peace not frominside one paradigmoranother,nor fromoutsideallparadigms,butfromamongthe variousparadigmsclaiming to capture he novelties of capitalism'sextraordinarynergiesover thepastdecade.Beforetakingeachin turn, t is useful to establisha commongroundfor analysis.1The omparisonseportedeflectheoutcome f simple ross abulationsfanthropologyandthe othervariablesn the SociologicalAbstractsCambridgecientificAbstract)coveringheperiods1963-1985and 1986-1999.Although eferenceso anthropologycountedncludedescriptionsf authors' cademic epartmentffiliations,potcheckingof items neachof the istsgenerateduggestedhat he numbersrea goodproxy orthelevelsof topicalnterestnanthropology.


4/15

CAPITALISMSN LATEMODERNITY

CAPITALISM ND CAPITALISMS:omeInitial DistinctionsExplosiveeconomicgrowth nAsia,theimplosionof socialism n the formerSovietUnion andthroughout asternEurope,and thepartialrecoveryof thepoliticalandeconomic hegemonyof the United States in the world's marketshave combinedto createa varietyof newfronts of capitalistactivity.To betterunderstandhenewscene, we need to explore capitalismas a phenomenon n both time and space.Weber 1978:164-65) was notbashfulabout maginingcapitalismas aphenomenongrounded n a varietyof morehistoricallyspecific types.Forinstance,he was de-termined o expandthe historicalorientationof capitalisticprofit-makingbeyondthe fabledfree markets or goods, money,andcapitalto includepredatoryprofitsderived rom statemonopolies, politicalfavoritism,and colonialism.Althoughhismodernismcommittedhim to findingthe most rationalized orms of capitalismin the west, he describedwith relativeequanimity he presenceof the othertypesof capitalismin historicalformationsthroughoutboth east and west. Moreover,he envisioned the possibilities of an unlimitednumberof capitalisttypes in ourtime, so long as theiranalysis could pass causal musterin explaining particulareconomicphenomena.Braudel's(1984) conceptof capitalismcombinesthe dimensions of spaceandtime in a way that makes Webermore useful. In Braudel'sview, economies arecomposedof threediscrete,contemporaneous pheresof activity,ranging rom theself-provisioningsof everyday ife, to the fulfillmentof needs in markets, o cap-italism,the locus of monopolistsandpolitical predatorsnterested n eliminatingcompetition n economic transactions.We may use Braudel to more sensiblyre-strictWeber's ypologicalenthusiasmsby adoptinghis view that n any giventimeand space, some mix of the threetypes of economic activityis being utilizedbypeoplein societies. Inone, apeople's economyis summedup by self-provisioningand marketactivitywheresupplyanddemanddetermineprices.In another,cop-ing with thecapitalismof theanti-market-the refugeof financialspeculatorsandprice-fixers-may occupy more economic space than eitherself-provisioningorresorting o markets or satisfyingneeds andwants.

Adoptingthis fusedperspective or thepurposesof this essay providesus withan ample palette of colors with which to paint the contemporaryanthropologyof capitalism.It encouragesfurtherexplorationsof types of capitalismwithoutprematurelylosingoff awarenessof alternatives ocapitalism nany given society.It also binds our creativeendeavors o a value-preference ottom ine, namelythatwhen all is said anddone, capitalistactivities are-and should be-related to thefulfillmentof ourfundamentalneeds,howevergenerouslydefined.

MAKINGTYPESOF CAPITALISM: Neo-WeberianExerciseAlthoughnotalwaysin sympathywith Weber'sprocessof ideal-typification, api-talistexpansion hroughoutheglobal economyhasspurred flurryof anthropolog-ical namegiving.Miller(1997) distinguishesbetween"pure" apitalism,orglobal

27


5/15

28 BLIMnorms,and"organic" apitalism,baseduponlocal consumptionhabits.Overseasinvestment in manufacturingn the People's Republic of China has promptedLever-Tracy t al (1994) to speakof the specificityof a "diaspora apitalism" butsee Cooper& Jiang1998, Oxfeld 1993).The "patronal"r "comprador"orms ofcapitalism,which bindIndonesianstateelites and ethnicChinesebusiness lead-ers in unholycombination,Hefner(1998b,c) finds to have led to the organizationin Indonesia of more "Islamic" orms of business and bankingamong Muslimelites. Bestor (1997, 1998, 2000) findsa "bureaucraticapitalism"embedded nthe daily operationsof Japanesemarkets,whereasVerdery 1996) describes thepostsocialisteconomic successors in EasternEuropeas a form of "politicalcap-italism."Hutchcroft(1998) opts for "booty"capitalismto describebankinginthe Philippines,whereas Yang (2000) characterizescapitalismas ceremoniallyoriented n China.Thislistingsuggeststhedegreeto whichanthropologists reseekingto capturevariation n capitalistactivitiesthrough ypification.The advantageof this strat-egy (see especially Luong 1998, Gladney1998, Li 1998, Peletz 1998, Eyal et al1998, Dunn 1998) is that t usuallyattributes apitalistactivitiesto specific agentsand groups,which adds an importantdose of realism to an exercise that coulddegenerate nto nominalism.The challengenow is to establishthe relative valueof eachtype,whichdependson thedegreeto whichinvestigators an specifyhowthe featurescausally producethe case in question(see below).

Does typologicalease imply it is useful or interesting o speakof capitalismsin theplural?Accordingto Smart 1995, 1999), all capitalisms-as the late HouseSpeaker Tip O'Neill liked to say aboutpolitics-are local. For Hefner(1998a),too, "capitalisms"theplural) inds ts valueinconnoting ocalvariation.AlthoughSmart and Hefner are careful to specify a multicontextual,historicalusage forcapitalism,Sahlins(1994) carriesthis positionto the extremeby postulating hatwith all economicsbeingcultural,and all culturesbeing particular, ll capitalismsareparticular.By takingcapitalism o be an instance of economics,and thereforesubjectto the universal stricturesof culture with a capital C, Sahlins mistakesthe historicallyspecific groundof capitalismfor the abstractanalyticalconceptof economics. In doing so, he reduces "capitalism" o culturallydifferentlocalpractices-a notion that would surprisean agentof the Chase ManhattanBank,not to mention Hefner'sIslamicbanker.The point is not to rest on an axiomaticparticularism f the sort prescribedby Sahlins but to explore the context and meaningof variation n capitalistac-tivities. Local social relations arecriticalcausallyto the operationof the variouscapitalisms.Toillustrate hispoint,guanxi,a set of socialpractices oundin Chinaand Taiwanthatusuallyrefers to the exchangeof gifts and favors to solidify so-cial ties betweencooperatingparties,has beenrichlydescribedby Smart 1993a),Yang(1994), Yan (1996), Kipnis (1997), Mackie (1998), and Hamilton(1998).Does thestructuring f theexchangerelationswithincapitalistactivitiesaffect theoutcome of transactionsover the long haul?If so, a strongcase can be madeforan interestingcapitalist ype indeed.


6/15

CAPITALISMSNLATEMODERNITYTo this shouldbejoined efforts to sort out the causalefficacyof otherrecurrentsocial practicesbeing documented n new capitalistoutposts.Ledeneva's(1998)discussionof blat,the use of connectionsandpersonalnetworks n thepostsocialistRussianeconomy,bearsfurther tudyandcomparisonwithguanxicapitalism.Arelangganan ties between Javanesefood sellers and their customersequivalent nvalue to the maintenanceof exchangeand commerceof guanxities, as Alexander(1998) proposes?If so, at a broaderanalytical evel, typificationmight help solve theproblemofthe relativesignificanceof instititutionalor interinstitutional ifferences in capi-talist economies. An economist with the standingof Stiglitz (1993) can toss offwithoutelaboration he notion that there are institutionaldifferencesbetweenthe

capitalismsof theUnitedStates,Germany, ndJapan,butananthropologyof cap-italisms must undertake moresystematicandcomparativeanalysisof thedegreeto which these kinds of generalizationsare useful. Economist Wade(1998), forinstance,arguesthatin manyof Asia's capitalisteconomies, banks andfirmsarecomposed and relateddifferentlyto each other,which put the banksunfairlyatrisk duringthe 1997 financial crisis and the InternationalMonetaryFund(IMF)Asian bailouts. Sociologists such as Useem (1990), Burt (1992), and Mizruchi(1992) might offer some assistancein describingthe connectionsbetween firmsandinstitutions,and theties of economicorganizationso politics. But these stud-ies are morelikely to interest he moreneo-institutionallynclinedscholarshipofcapitalism(see below).

NORMALIZING CULTURAL DISTINCTIVENESS:The Neo-Institutional ApproachInstitutionaleconomics, i.e. the study of economies as social as well as eco-nomic structures,s makinga comeback(see Hodgson 1994). It has been shornof its Veblenianradicalroots andrefitted o neoclassical economic theory,and its"neo-ness"derivesfrom the now 15-year-old njunctionof sociologistGranovetter(1985) to treatall economiesas embedded n social-structural elations.To anthro-pologicalreaders, hismayseem likePolanyi(1944) redux,butgiventhat ts focusis on capitalisteconomies, the new programdoes not strainto separateand ele-vatenoncapitalist conomies,as did thetrenchantly ocial democraticPolanyians.Instead,the principleof rationalchoice is simply extended to the social domain:Actorsare rationalwhen theypromotethe interestsof kin, kith,group,and firm.Acheson (1994, 2000), a prominent exponent of neo-institutionalism n an-thropology,has developed a comprehensivegenealogy of germanework in theethnographic iterature.His own studies of regulatinglobster fishing in Maine(Acheson & Knight 2000, Acheson 1998) as well as his analysis of householdbudgetsamong the Purepechasof Mexico (Acheson 1995, 1996) provide indi-cations of the value of applying the insights of neo-institutionaleconomics toanthropologicalproblems.

29


7/15

30 BLIMAnd Acheson is by no means alone in his pursuits.Plattner 1989) writes ofthe securitythatpersonalrelationships n marketsprovideactors in the midst of

riskytransactions.Smart 1993b) profitablyutilizes theconceptof "rent-seeking"in describinghow permanentresidentsof Chinese industrialboom towns havefoundways to collect royaltiesfromthebusinessesthathavebroughtdevelopmentto their towns. Bestor (1998, 1999, 2000) finds thatdiscussingthe relative costsof transactionsamong fish sellers and buyers in the Tokyo marketplaceaids inunderstandingheir motivations.He also finds recourse to conceptsof relationaland obligationalcontractinga welcome relief to a culturalessentialism bent onmaking long-standing Japanesebusiness practicesan artifact of the TokugawaBakufu.Hertz(1998) placesthe social intentionsof individuals n the forefrontofheranalysisof theoperationsandoutcomesof aShanghai tockmarket.Shi (1999)shows how ruralwomenmigrants oGuangzhou,China,succeed nobtainingmoreincome and increased social statusas domestic workersdespite the genderandsocial originbarriershey find in difficulturban abor markets.Wilk's (1996) synthesis of economic anthropology,by implication,casts anappreciative lanceat the newinstitutionalist aradigm.He advocates ts principalvirtue,the attribution f rationality o all economicbehavior,but cautionsthatthiscapacity s limited to some degree by the interventionsof place and time.Theaccomplishment f neo-institutionalismn sociologyis robustandgrowing;inanthropology,he effort s smaller,andtime will tell if it is growing.In itsanalysisof localcapitalistactivity, heresearchprogram ffers the benefitsof atransculturalknowledgebase in shapingexplanations. tsaccountsamount o redescriptionsofparticular ocial motivationsandcircumstancesn a framework hatmakes causalefficacy easier to establishand more transparento the reader.It remains to beseen how muchanthropology'sattachment o culturalparticularswill mitigateitsflourishing n ourmidst.

EXPLAINING THE NEW GLOBAL CAPITALISM:The Neo-Marxian TaskAlthough presumablyattachedto more universalistic heories of capitalism-orperhapsbecause of this fact-neo-Marxian analysesof capitalistactivitieswereamongthe firstto highlightthe rise in capitalistvariability n theglobaleconomy.In the early 1990s, anthropologistsdetectedimportantchanges, such as the de-centralization f industrialproduction, he recruitment ndexploitationof womenand formerpeasantsas laboringpopulations,and the connectionof small-scalecapitalistventuresin the peripheryto the global economy. These were centralthemes in ethnographiesby Nash (1989), Cook & Binford(1990), Blim (1990),Benton(1990), andGriffith 1993). Particular ttentionwas drawnto the role ofgenderand householdsin subordinatingwomen's work (see Ong 1987, Stephen1991, Rothstein& Blim 1992, Safa 1995, Harrison1997).The carefulanalysis byGates(1995) of the role of petty capitalism n China'spre-andpostrevolutionary


8/15


economies probablyrepresents he high-watermark of this tendencyto spot in-creasingdifferentiationn capitalistpractice.At work, many of these anthropologistsreckoned,was a new mechanism ofaccumulation.Harvey's(1989) highly useful analysisof the world economic cri-sis of the 1970s andthe subsequentrise of a global era of flexible accumulationled to a numberof interestingstudiesof new formsof capitalistactivities,as Ong(1991) prescientlypredicted t would. Rothstein(1996, 1999) demonstrateshowchildren and women in a Tlaxcalanvillage in Mexico lost both educationalandmonetary tatus n the flexibleredeploymentof household aboraftera successionof Mexican economic crises. Leach(1998) shows similarconsequencesof indus-trialrestructuringn household aborpatternsn Ontario,Canada.Gledhill(1998)arguesthat with respectto Mexico, the North American Free TradeAgreementhas become effectively an instrumentof flexible accumulation.Freeman(1998)shows thatgenderrelationsshapehow Caribbeanwomenrespondto becominganew source of low-paying,downstream abor.Verdery 1996) arguesthat flexibleaccumulation-or the inabilityto adapt o it as a new regime-probably explainsthe collapse of manyeconomicregimes among formerlysocialist countries.Neo-liberalism,which might be called the ideological fig leaf covering thedepredationsof flexible accumulation, inds astute critics as well. Babb (1998)and Buechler & Buechler (1998) describe how the neoliberalemphasison de-veloping petty entrepreneurshipas encouragedstates andnongovernmental r-

ganizationsto engage in micro-lendingto small firmsin societies with cripplednationaleconomies. Susser(1997) also notes how instilled beliefs in the value offlexible accumulationhave led in the United Statesto welfare and homelessnesspolicies thatexploit women as caregiversandpotentialworkers n the low-wageserviceeconomy.The principaladvantageof the neo-Marxianapproach s that its universalistictheoryfacilitatescomparisonacross cases. However,for reasons that areunclear,its use in anthropology s often related to explicatingone case at a time, leavingthe goal of ethnology largelyunrealized.

DISCUSSIONThus far, this essay has treatedthe three "neo"approachesseparately.To makesense of the worldwidetrajectoryof contemporary apitalism,however, t is im-portant o reimaginethem as complementarydevices in the task of understandinga complexphenomenon.Where is capitalismgoing? This questionis not asked out of some misplacedfaithin the positivistprescription hatgood theorymust be able to predictsome-thing.Nor is it asked out of belief in the corollarythatcapitalism s an economicsystem that has some discoverableteleology, an assumption hat runs counter tothe tenorof thisessay.Humanbetterment s thecause for our nquiry,as thedestinyof so manyis now tied to that of capitalism.

31


9/15

32 BLIMMarx and Weber,the moder founders of the study of capitalism,providedprogrammatic nd, finally,inaptanswers. Marxpredicteda succession of crises

that would destroy capitalismthroughproletarianrevolution.Weberimaginedthatcapitalism's nnercompulsionto rationalizeeconomiclife wouldenervate hehumanwill needed foritsreproduction.Bothareadmirable,f less thanapplicable,ideasinthecurrent ontext.But bothMarxandWeber,asArrighi 1994)pointsout,notedhowcapitalismhistoricallyconcentrated conomicandpoliticalpower nthehandsof the few. To recallBraudel,capitalism s thespaceof theanti-market,wherefinanciers,speculators,andthe political powersof statescome togetherto makeprofitswithout the constraintsof competition.The political natureof capitalismandits fitwithin theworldsystemof states,in sum,expands he economiccontextto include the problemof governance.In the currentworld setting, the UnitedStates'politicalandeconomichegemony s a crucialvariable n whatis to becomeof the variationn capitalismsanthropologyhasdiscovered see Arrighiet al 1999;Blim 1996, 1997). This in turnaffects whatis to become of capitalism.According oArrighi t al(1999), the unusualaspectof UnitedStates'hegemonyin the worldeconomy,in contrast o its Britishand Dutchpredecessors, s its un-precedented ontroloverinternational rganizationshatregulate heinternationalflows of capital, banking,and trade.In this context,the significanceof the WorldBank and the IMF after the 1997 Asian financialcrisis can hardlybe underesti-mated.Strictenforcementof US-directednormsgoverningAsian nations'bankingandcorporatepractices n bail-outplans destroyedthe usual elite policy consen-sus and encouragedprominentdissenters such as JeffreySachs, Paul Krugman,andJoseph Stiglitz to describe IMFpolicies not only as wrong-headedbutas in-strumentsof America's self-interestedwill (see Krugman1999:109-117, Sachs1998:81-82). Supposingthat the variabilitydiscoveredby anthropologists s aconsequenceof capitalism'sspreadandgrowing intensitywithin new spacesandterritories,heviabilityof theselocalcapitalismsmayindeeddependon thedegreeto which they are concordantwithUS-inspired nternational orms,or the degreeto which they successfullyresist US hegemonic pressures.Analysis of the new capitalisms'conformancewith internationalnorms leadsinevitablyto a more serious assessmentof the empiricalandcausal significanceof each case. Here, it seems that the neo-institutionalists ffer both a challengeanda simpletest for the neo-Weberians nd neo-Marxians:To whatdegreecan agiven case, claimed as a variant rom the capitalism'sstandard peratingsystem,be successfullyredescribedusingthe modified"socialized" ationalchoice modelof the neo-institutionalists?The greater he degree,it seems to me, the less likelya significantvariant ies revealedin the case, and the more likely a conventional"capitalismdiscovered n anothercounty"descriptionwould do.However,some concession is demandedof theneo-institutionalists s well. Asfunctional and parsimoniousas socialized rational choice theory is, it lacks anobject.Thatis, interestedparties,groups,and so on, focus their ntentions n thiscontext on something he neo-Marxiansand neo-Weberiansike to call capitalism,with its determinate tructure ndprocess.Thus,the contextfor causal evaluation


10/15

CAPITALISMSN LATEMODERNITYmust incorporatea general understandingof capitalism, which consists of theorganizationand utilizationof labor andeffort for profit-the bare minimumof adefinitionto which all arelikely to agree.Turnabouts fairplayforthe neo-Marxiansas well. Insofarastheyareequippedwiththe mostcompletetheoryof capitalism n circulation, hey providetheotherswith a theorythat can bridgeethnographic ontextsin highly relevantways. Yetthe smotheringof variation s a constantdanger,one that wouldbe laid to restbygreateropenness and even adoptionof a more neo-Weberianoutlook. Speakingof "guanxi"or "predatory"r "diaspora"apitalism, o merelyillustrate hepointhere, is not to trade n metaphorsbut to createa possible field andvocabulary ordescribingvariation n a constructive, ausallyinterestingway. Perhaps ollowingBraudel,anthropologistsmight find heuristicvalue in the compositionof localeconomiesby distinguishingbetweenthedynamicsof self-provisioning,markets,and anti-markets.

RESEARCHING THE FUTUREAside from variation,which continues to call for closer study,the mechanismsof capitalist governanceneed anthropologicalattention.Areas often relegatedtopolitical science, such as internationalorganizationsand foreign policy, shouldbecome partof our ethnographicwork. Internationalmarkets for capital, thoseBraudeliananti-marketswhereanthropological mphasison agencyand intentionwouldpayoff inways superioro otherscientificprojects,deservespecialattention.Following Thrift (1998), we might add other agencies of collective change incapitalism,such as the spreadof managementknow-howthrough he diffusion ofgraduatebusinesseducation,which has become a significant orce for institutionaltransformation f business organization.Furtherresearch s necessaryto assessthe extent to which Sklair's (1998) claim of a rising transnational lass can beinstantiatedn the social settingswe study.Is thereany prospectthat the theoryof capitalismper se mightbe undergoingsignificantrevision?Once more from theagencyside, there s a move to argue hatdifferentstyles of popularconsumptionchange patterns n capitalism.Consump-tion, according o Miller(1997, 1998), enablespeople to createalternativeworldsfrom those proposed normativelyby the hegemoniccenter.With an eye more ontheeverydayoriginsof consumerculture,Applbaum 1998, 2000) shows thatpro-fessional marketers or transnational orporationsand consumersurvey groupsdeeply influence the directionof capitalistproduction.Heyman(1997) notes thatalthoughMexican households are swept up in the activities of globalizing cap-italism, local tastes and moral choice flavorthe consumergoods they purchase.In a mannerreminiscentof Mintz's (1984) classic studyof the sweeteningof theworld marketthrough sugar, Roseberry(1996) demonstrateshow the organiza-tion of upper-middle-classAmerican astes forcoffee also organizesa commoditychain of producers,wholesalers,and retailers hatexploit perceiveddifferences n

33


11/15

34 BLIMtaste for superprofits.Schneider 1994) also indicateshow global demandcanbereorganizedas large producers earchforbettermarkets or new goods.

Close scrutinyof the new "consumptionist"viewpoint has already begun.Carrier& Heyman (1997) comment that the emphasison consumptionin cap-italism has thus far been one-dimensionalbecause it has failed to disclose, forinstance, how inequalitiesof race, class, and gender might differentiallyaffectthe productionof capitalistculture.This criticism is symptomaticperhapsof alargerproblementailed n theconsumptionistview that was discussed above withrespectto Sahlins' characterization f the relationshipsbetweencultureandcap-italism. The same risk of erringon the side of axiomaticparticularism xists ifconsumptionistproponentsemphasize solely differential"use" of capitalism bylocal people at the expense of those populations'structural elationshipsto theoperationof capitalismas a world economic system.That said, there is theoreticalroom for growthin our understanding f howconsumption its withincontemporary apitalism.Weber's 1978) convictionthatconsumptiondifferences underlie the developmentof life styles augurswell forfurther xplorationof therole of consumptionpatternsn generatingnew class andstatusstructures.Marxianapproaches raditionally egard onsumptionas a crucialpropto productionand believe thatconsumptiondeficitscreate crises of effectivedemand,and thus eventuallyof overproductionsee Hobsbawm1954, Baran &Sweezy 1966). With Keynes' imminent returnto favor among economists (seeKrugman1999), one can imagineanupswingin interest n "under-consumption"theoryforhelpingexplainfuturecapitalistemergencies.As for the Moor,so for us. Capitalism s now all aroundus. The incentivetostudyit seems never morecompellingthan now.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMy thanks o JaneSchneiderandShirleyLindenbaumor theiradvice andencour-agementandto Alan Smart or his suggestionsof relevantwork forreview.

Visitthe Annual Reviewshomepageat www.AnnualReviews.orgLITERATUREITEDAchesonJ. 1994. Welcome o Nobel coun-try:a reviewof institutionalconomics. nAnthropologyand InstitutionalEconomics:Monographs nEconomicAnthropology, d.J Acheson, 12:3-42. Lanham, MD: Univ.PressAm.Acheson J. 1995. Coase among the Pure-pechas: transactioncosts and institutionalchange in a Mexican Indian pueblo.J. Inst. TheorEcon. 151:358-72

Acheson J. 1996. Householdorganizationandbudgetstructuresn a Purepechapueblo.Am.Ethnol. 23:331-51Acheson J. 1998.Lobster rap imits:a solutionto a communalaction problem.Hum. Org.57:43-52AchesonJ. 2000. The GenerationofInstitutionsand Organizations:The Viewof InstitutionalEconomics. Orono:Univ. Maine,Dept. An-thropol.


12/15

CAPITALISMS N LATEMODERNITY

Acheson J, KnightJ. 2000. Distribution ights,coordination amesand obstermanagement.Comp.Stud. Soc. Hist. InpressAlexanderJ. 1998. Women traders n Javanesemarketplaces: thnicity, gender,and the en-trepreneurial pirit. See Hefner 1998a, pp.203-23

ApplbaumK. 1998. The sweetness of salva-tion: consumer marketingand the liberal-bourgeoistheoryof needs. CurrAnthropol.39:323-49Applbaum K. 2000. Crossing borders:glob-alization as myth and charter n Americantransnational onsumermarketing.Am.Eth-nol. InpressArrighiG. 1994. TheLongTwentiethCentury:Money,Power,and theOriginsof Our Times.London:VersoArrighiG, SilverB, AhmadI. 1999. ChaosandGovernance in the Modern WorldSystem.Minneapolis:Univ.Minn.PressBabbF.1998. Fromcooperatives o microenter-prises:the neoliberal turn n postrevolution-

aryNicaragua.See Phillips1998,pp. 109-22BaranP,SweezyP.1966.MonopolyCapital:AnEssayon theAmericanEconomicandSocialOrder.New York:MonthlyRev.BentonL. 1990. InvisibleFactories: TheInfor-malEconomyandIndustrialDevelopment nSpain.Albany:State Univ. New YorkPressBestor T. 1997. Visible hands: auctionsand institutionalintegrationin the Tsukijiwholesale fish market,Tokyo. In JapaneseBusiness: Critical Perspectives on Busi-ness and Management, ed. S Beechler,KStucker,pp.229-54. New York:RoutledgeBestor T. 1998. Makingthings clique: cartels,coalitions, and institutionalstructure n theTsukiji wholesale seafood market.In Net-works,Markets,and thePacificRim:Studiesin Strategy,ed. W Fruin,pp. 154-80. NewYork:OxfordUniv. PressBestor T. 1999. Wholesale sushi: cultureandcommodity in Tokyo's Tsukiji market. InTheorizing he City,ed. S Low, pp. 20142.New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniv.PressBestor T. 2000. Tokyo'sMarketplace:Culture

and Trade n the TsukijiWholesaleSeafoodMarket.Berkeley:Univ.Calif. Press.InpressBlim M. 1990. Made in Italy: Small-Scale In-dustrializationand its Consequences.NewYork:PraegerBlim M. 1996. Cultures and the problemsofcapitalism.Crit.Anthropol.16:79-93Blim M. 1997. Can NOT-capitalismie at theend of history,or is capitalism'shistorydraw-ing to anend? Crit.Anthropol.17:351-64Braudel F. 1984. Civilizationand Capitalism,15th-18th Century,Vols. 1-3. New York:Harper& RowBuechlerH, BuechlerJ. 1998.Financingsmall-scale enterprises in Bolivia. See Phillips1998, pp. 83-108Burt R. 1992. Structural Holes: The SocialStructureof Competition.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv. PressCarrierJ, HeymanJ. 1997. Consumptionandpolitical economy. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.3:355-73CarrierJ, Miller D, eds. 1998. Virtualism:A

New PoliticalEconomy.Oxford,UK:BergCook S, Binford L. 1990. ObligingNeed: Ru-ral Petty Industry in Mexican Capitalism.Austin:Univ. Tex. PressCooperE, JiangY-H. 1998. The ArtisansandEntrepreneursof Dongyang County: Eco-nomic Reformand Flexible Production inChina.Armonk,NY:SharpeDunnE. 1998. Slick salesmenandsimplepeo-ple: negotiatedcapitalism n aprivatizedPol-ish firm. In UncertainTransition:Ethnogra-phies of Change in the Postsocialist World,ed.MBurawoy,KVerdery, p. 125-50. Lan-ham,MD:Rowman & LittlefieldEyal G, Szeleny I, Townsley E. 1998. Mak-ing Capitalism without Capitalists: ClassFormation and Elite Struggles in Post-CommunistCentralEurope.London:VersoFreemanC. 1998.Femininityandflexible abor:fashioningclassthroughgenderontheglobalassemblyline. Crit.Anthropol.18:245-62Gates H. 1995. China's Motor: A ThousandYearsof Petty Capitalism.Ithaca,NY: Cor-nell Univ. Press

35


13/15

36 BLIM

Gladney D. 1998. Gettingrich is not so glo-rious: contrastingperspectiveson prosper-ity among Muslims and Han in China. SeeHefner1998a,pp. 194-228Gledhill J. 1998. The Mexicancontribution orestructuringUS capitalism:NAFTA as aninstrument of flexible accumulation. Crit.Anthropol.18:279-96GranovetterM. 1985. Economic action and so-cial structure:heproblemof embeddedness.Am.J. Soc. 91:481-510GriffithD. 1993. Jones's Minimal:Low-WageLabor in the United States. Albany: StateUniv. New YorkPressHamilton G. 1998. Cultureand organizationin Taiwan's market economy. See Hefner1998a,pp. 41-77HarrisonF. 1997.Thegenderedpoliticsand vi-olence of structural djustment. n SituatedLives:Genderand Culture nEverydayLife,ed. L Lamphere,H Ragone, P Zavella, pp.451-68. New York:RoutledgeHarveyD. 1989. The Conditionof Postmoder-nity.Cambridge,UK: BlackwellHefnerR, ed. 1998a.MarketCultures:Societyand Moralityin the NewAsian Capitalisms.Boulder,CO:WestviewHefner R. 1998b. Introduction:society andmoralityin the new Asian capitalisms.SeeHefner 1998a,pp. 1-40HefnerR. 1998c. Marketsand ustice for Mus-limIndonesians.See Hefner1998a,pp.224-56HertzE. 1998. TheTradingCrowd:AnEthnog-raphy of the Shanghai StockMarket. Cam-bridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.PressHeymanJ. 1997. Importsandstandards f jus-tice on the Mexico-United States Border.In The Allureof the Foreign:Post-ColonialGoods in LatinAmerica, ed. B Orlove,pp.151-83. AnnArbor:Univ.Mich.PressHobsbawmE. 1954. The crisisof the 17thcen-tury.Past Present5:33-53; 6:44-65Hodgson G. 1994. The returnof institutionaleconomics. In The Handbookof EconomicSociology, ed. N Smelser,R Swedberg, pp.58-76. Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.Press

HutchcroftP. 1998.Booty Capitalism:ThePol-itics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca,NY:Cornell Univ. PressKipnisA. 1997.ProducingGuanxi:Sentiment,Self andSubculturen a NorthChinaVillage.Durham,NC: DukeUniv.Press

KrugmanP. 1999. The Returnof DepressionEconomics. New York:NortonLeach B. 1998. Industrialhomework, eco-nomicrestructuringnd hemeaningof work.Labour Trav.41:97-115Ledeneva A. 1998. Russia's Economy ofFavours:Blat,NetworkingandInformalEx-change. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press

Lever-TracyC,IpD, Noel T. 1994. The ChineseDiasporaand MainlandChina:AnEmergingEconomic Synergy.New York: St. Martin'sPressLi T. 1998. Constitutingcapitalistculture: heSingaporeMalayproblemandentrepreneur-ship reconsidered. See Hefner 1998a, pp.147-72LuongH. 1998. Engendered ntrepreneurship:ideologies and political-economictransfor-mationin a NorthernVietnamesecenter ofceramicsproduction.See Hefner 1998a,pp.290-314MackieJ.1998.Business successamongSouth-east Asian Chinese:the role of culture,val-ues, and social structures. ee Hefner1998a,

pp. 129-46Miller D. 1997. Capitalism:An EthnographicApproach.Oxford,UK:BergMillerD. 1998. Conclusion:a theoryof virtual-ism. See Carrier& Miller1998,pp. 187-215MintzS. 1984. SweetnessandPower:ThePlaceof SugarinModernHistory.New York:Pen-guinMizruchi M. 1992. The Structureof Corpo-rate PoliticalAction:InterfirmRelationsandTheirConsequences.Cambridge,MA: Har-vardUniv.PressNash J. 1989. From Tank Town to HighTech: The Clash of Community nd Indus-trial Cycles. Albany:State Univ. New YorkPress


14/15


Ong A. 1987. Spirits of Resistance andCapitalist Discipline: Factory Women inMalaysia. Albany: State Univ. New YorkPress

Ong A. 1991. The gender and labor poli-tics of postmodemity.Annu.Rev.Anthropol.20:279-309Oxfeld E. 1993. Blood, Sweat, and Mahjong:Familyand Enterprisein an Overseas Chi-nese Community, thaca,NY: Corell Univ.PressPeletz M. 1998. The "great transformation"among NegeriSembilanMalays,withpartic-ular referenceto ChineseandMinangkabau.See Hefner1998a,pp. 173-202PhillipsL,ed. 1998.TheThirdWave fModern-ization in Latin America: CulturalPerspec-tives onNeoliberalism.Wilmington,DE:SRBooksPlattner S. 1989. Economic behavior in mar-kets. In EconomicAnthropology, d. S Plat-tner, pp. 208-21. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. PressPolanyi K. 1944. The Great Transformation:ThePolitical and Economic Origins of OurTime.Boston: BeaconRoseberryW. 1996. The rise of yuppiecoffeesand the reimaginationof class in the UnitedStates.Am.Anthropol.98:762-75RothsteinF. 1996.Flexibleaccumulation, outhlabor,andschoolingin a ruralcommunity nMexico. Crit.Anthropol.16:361-79Rothstein F. 1999. Declining odds: kinship,women's employment, and political econ-omy in rural Mexico. Am. Anthropol.101:579-93RothsteinF, Blim M, eds. 1992. Anthropologyand the Global Factory:Studiesof the NewIndustrializationn the Late TwentiethCen-

tury.New York:Bergin& GarveyRushdie S. 1995. The Moor's Last Sigh. NewYork:VintageSachs J. 1998. Capitalism:a new way forward.Economist(Sept. 12):48Safa H. 1995. The Myth of the Male Bread-winner: Womenand Industrializationn theCaribbean.Boulder,CO: Westview

Sahlins M. 1994. Cosmologies of capitalism:the Trans-Pacificsector of the world sys-tem. In Culture/Power/History,d. N Dirks,G Eley, S Ortner,pp.412-55. Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.PressSchneiderJ. 1994. In andout of polyester:de-sire, disdain,and global fibrecompetitions.Anthropol.Today10:2-10Shi N-W. 1999. Survivalandmobility n urbanlabor markets:a case study of migrantdo-mestic workers n GuangzhouCity,People'sRepublicof China.PhD thesis. NortheasternUniv.,Chicago,Ill. 371 pp.Sklair L. 1998. The transnationalcapitalistclass. See Carrier& Miller 1998, pp. 135-60SmartA. 1993a. Gifts, bribes, and guanxi: areconsideration f Bourdieu's social capital.Cult.Anthropol.8:388-408SmartA. 1993b.Thepolitical economyof rent-seeking n aChinesefactory own.Anthropol.WorkRev. 14:12-21Smart A. 1995. Local Capitalisms:SituatedSocial Support or CapitalistProductioninChina.Dept. Geogr.Occas.Pap. Hong Kong:ChineseUniv.Smart A. 1999. Getting things done acrossthe Hong Kong border: economic culturein theory and practice. In Qiaoxiang Ties:InterdisciplinaryApproaches to "CulturalCapitalism"in South China, ed. L Douw,C Huang, M Godley, pp. 158-86. London:KeganPaul

StephenL. 1991.ZapotecWomen.Austin:Univ.Tex.PressStiglitz J. 1993. Whither Socialism? Cam-bridge,MA: MITPressSusser I. 1997. The flexible woman:regender-ing laborin the informational ociety. Crit.Anthropol.17:389-402Thrift N. 1998. Virtualcapitalism: he global-ization of reflexive businessknowledge.SeeCarrier& Miller 1998, pp. 161-86Useem M. 1990. Business and politics in the

United States and the United Kingdom.In Structuresof Capital: The Social Or-ganization of the Economy, ed. S Zukin,

37


15/15

38 BLIM

P DiMaggio, pp. 263-91. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniv.PressVerderyK. 1996. What Was Socialism, andWhatComesNext?Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.PressWade R. 1998. The Asian crisis:the high debtmodel versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMFcomplex.New LeftRev. 228:3-24WeberM. 1978. EconomyandSociety,Vols. 1,2. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. PressWilk R. 1996. Economics and Cultures:Foun-

dationsof EconomicAnthropology.Boulder,CO: WestviewYan Y-X. 1996. The Flow of Gifts:Reciprocityand Social Networks in a Chinese Village.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. PressYangM. 1994.Gifts,Favors,andBanquets:TheArtof Social Relationships n China.Ithaca,NY: Cornell Univ. PressYangM. 2000. Putting capitalism n its place:economic hybridity,Bataille, and ritual ex-penditure.CurrAnthropol. npress

Capitalismisn Late Modernity

Documents

Transcript of Capitalismisn Late Modernity