Discussion in Session II - Genealogies (2)

Economic spheres of activity being embedded in the social, and the nature of this embeddedness was the overall focus of discussion in the last seminar. Formalist-substantivist debates, consideration of the similarities and differences of the positions of Marx and Polanyi, the need for culturally distinct lenses while examining economic(social) activity in different societies and even notions of the moral economy seem to be addressing this issue; at different levels, in different ways.

Questioning of the utilitarian conceptions of human actors is brought to the fore in Polanyi (Clues to which exist in Malinowski’s work as well). He has argued that the ‘market society’ could not have come into existence naturally, but for the support of the State. The notion of a ‘free market’ is a myth. The State is a necessary condition for the emergence of the ‘market economy’. It also provides a necessary point of intervention, to sustain society in the face of the market’s potential for destruction. Polanyi makes a distinction between the existence of markets and the emergence of market societies. Prior to the emergence of market societies, economic transactions were based on redistribution and reciprocity. This is replaced by utilitarian calculation in ‘market economies’ where ‘fictitious commodities’ come to exist.

One of the fundamental differences between Marx and Polanyi seems to be that while Marx sees all systems of the organisation of production (except perhaps primitive communism) as exploitative, Polanyi seems to see only the ‘market economy’ as exploitative. This does not allow him to see the inequalities in earlier systems of production which he sees as marked by reciprocity/redistribution. Marx’s critique of the State as an institution also seems to raise more fundamental questions than Polanyi addresses through his appeals to State intervention.


We discussed how Polanyi could be read differently- as arguing that the market is embedded in society (as the State does exercise control over its operations) or as dis-embedded. The two readings have radically different political implications. While the first suggests there is no need for transformation (since the destructive potential of the market is controlled by the State), the second argues that the economy needs transformation. While the second reading does seem more radical in its political intent, does the first necessarily feed into neo-liberal logic?

In comparing Marx and Polanyi, one point of contention was whether Marx accounts sufficiently for nature. By arguing that it is human labour that creates value, is Marx not paying sufficient heed to the ‘use value’ of nature, which is also commoditized? Even as we acknowledge that this may not be the primary interest of Marx when he seeks to lay out his theory of value, it is important to read Marx in totality before arriving at an answer.

Sahlins, through his understanding of differing conceptions of ‘affluence’ provides us again, like Strathern, with an argument to re- examine our theoretical lenses from an emic perspective. While this does seem a valid argument, the rhetoric of authenticity may lead us to essentialist deadlocks. Sahlins was writing in response to early Marxist anthropologists who sought to use Marxist frameworks across cultures. Perhaps, the works of later Marxists such as Turner are more productive in using certain lenses, but adapting them to the cultural context under study.

Thompson’s understanding of moral economy within England seems to offer a refreshing take to the binaries that seem inherent to early anthropological work- the differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’; societies with embedded economies as against societies with distinct ‘market economies’. By arguing that notions of morality( such as not profiting from dearth) governed rioters in the bread riots of England, he provides us a glimpse into the understanding that economic behaviour in ‘non-primitive’ societies was not isolated from the social either.

In attempting to understand the ‘moral economy’ today, we felt it was important to understand emergence of morality in economic behaviour in terms of historical moments. Does an ‘Occupy Wall Street Movement’ for instance, result/more likely to result during recession? How does one understand the moral pressures on the economy, in terms of historical and social processes at work at any given moment?

Interspersed in all our discussions was where and how we could continue to locate Graber and his position on structure and agency. While for him value came down to human action (which included both material and ideational dimensions), the motivations for human action still seemed unaccounted for. Perhaps Chapter 4 of his book will help shed some light and take us closer to reconciling the gap and understanding where Graeber intends to locate our inquiries.


- Keya and Savitha