Notes on Session 6: Circulating Objects

The readings, from the last session on ‘Circulating Objects’,  seemed to all convey a similar point about the ‘entanglement’ of objects within different spheres of circulation, although an object-centric approach to explain this has been taken only by Nicholas Thomas in his book ‘Entangled Objects’.  The central point that the readings seemed to be making was the need to historicise and contextualise traditional economies within the context of the colonial encounter, unlike the earlier works in economic anthropology that we read (e.g., Munn, Mauss, etc.) which sought to capture a pristine view of traditional societies and their practices of exchange. However, these works also did not present a simplistic evolutionary account of how traditional communities are transformed by the colonial encounter; but as Thomas puts it, show how new values and meanings emerge through active processes of ‘appropriation’ and meaning making.

Thus, Thomas’ book focused on examining how objects acquired new values through the different stages/projects of colonialism. What stood out prominently for many of us, in discussing how Thomas historicises the processes of exchange was his method. Using a comparative approach, drawing on historical material and combining it with present day ethnography, Thomas tries to arrive at a balance between ethnographic detail and general theory, and uses this to question some of the assumptions central to anthropology  – such as the native desire for Western goods; the romantic notions of how a pre-capitalist  societies were based on non-economic modes of exchange, such as exchange of 'gifts'; the overpowering effects of colonialism and capitalism in doing away with traditional values and practices; the myth of metal/technology as providing the big break central to Western imagination of progress and development; etc. Instead he presents the ‘natives’ as agents who actively participated in these various projects of colonialism,  recognizing that these forms of 'engagement' occurred within asymmetrical situations of power. Focusing on ‘objects’, which haven’t received much attention within anthropology, and reading them differently when compared to material culturists (who do not consider the ‘mutability’ of objects), Thomas tries to present  the social changes in traditional societies and their practices, and their historical linkages with colonialism, through their material culture. 

Discussing his work also raised questions about the role of the anthropologist, and his/her method and sources of data. For example how does the anthropologist present the current moment in its historical context? This raises questions about the sources of the data, the reconstruction of history, reading of historical material through our present post-colonial lens and status, and so on. Other problems it raises is about the ethical position of the anthropologist when he/she is involved in using his/her knowledge to support indigenous claims and rights over land /property/historic objects, when this knowledge may itself reveal how these claims have be ‘re-appropriated’ by ‘neo-traditionals’ (a term that Thomas uses) who may themselves have no direct connections with the land. Thus, ‘Entangled Objects’ produced a rich source to discuss and critique the directions and developments in  economic anthropology as a field, but also related problems of history, method and the position of the ethnographer.  

In discussing the other two works (Humphrey and Jones, and Sharon Hutchinson), we saw how these works also complicate our understanding of ‘commodities’ and ‘gifts’, and the different forms of exchange, by arguing for how both these different forms of exchange can exist within the same society. Undertaking a discussion on barter, Humphrey and Jones drew examples, from both, traditional societies, as well as modern, capitalist societies such as America, to show how barter, as a form of exchange, cannot be understood as a stage that existed before the full development of capitalism. Further, they tried to present a more nuanced account of barter, when compared with economic theory which has viewed it only from a utilitarian perspective,  demonstrating the social rules and conditions that enabled a system of barter – such as the of availability of information, and more importantly the presence of good will and mutual perceptions of ‘trust’ and’ fair trade’. Using these two points as the preconditions for the functioning of barter, they argue that barter exchanges are not one-off commercial or economic transactions, but are long-standing social relationships.  

Similarly, Hutchinson, historically traces the changes in the practices of cattle exchange and bride wealth among the southern Sudanese Neur, and demonstrates how, modern interventions, such as money and markets, do not simply come to replace earlier forms of economies and exchanges, but interact in complex manners to create new forms of exchange.  Through her work, Hutchinson tries to show how the Neur maintain distinctions between ‘the cattle of money’ and ‘the cattle of girls’, and thus, strive to maintain traditional values and meanings against the onslaught of capitalist markets and money (thus, also presenting a counter to Marx’s account of money as a homogenising force). Yet, she also shows how the Neur appropriate the money form in making certain conditions possible (that in the traditional Neur society may not have been possible): for example, by widows or unmarried women in maintaining their own independent households; by a man with no sisters in ‘buying’ cattle to be given as bride wealth.  Thus, in Hutchinson’s account of social transformation, the introduction of markets and money cannot be simply seen as an evolution towards more modern forms of economy. Rather, she demonstrates in a complex and layered manner how social meanings and values enter the economic realm, while economic values and practices of exchange also transform social practices, through the active intervention by human actors.