Gifts, Commodities, and the Encompassment of Others

IF 0.4 Q1 HISTORY Critical Historical Studies Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.1086/708255
E. Lipuma, M. Postone
{"title":"Gifts, Commodities, and the Encompassment of Others","authors":"E. Lipuma, M. Postone","doi":"10.1086/708255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"T his article attempts to outline an alternative account of the distinction between the gift and the commodity. It does so from the view that clarifying their relationship is a good idea because the distinction between gift and commodity has deeply informed the way in which the scientific field comprehends those who live(d) within the compass of kinship and community. The pairing of gift and commodity has served as a metaphor, trope, and conceptual opposition in the construction of the comparative discourse of who our others are, and it is also reflexively one of the critical oppositions through which the cultures of capitalism imagine themselves (e.g., as evidenced by the museology of primitive art). The relationship has an equally powerful historical dimension in that the progressive displacement of gifts by the commodity is central to understanding the ways in which capitalism is subsuming the economic breath of others. An analysis on this order is inescapably a tribute to Mauss, whose work on the gift is still present in its consequences, and in a different register to the power of capitalism to socially replicate itself through forms of self-recognition that only enhance a deeper concealment. Beginning in the 1970s, theorists began to realize that because theory and ethnography are inherently comparative we must organize our thoughts as a confrontation between the social logic of the commodity and that of the gift. The key claim here is that the epistemological integrity of the ethnographic project depends on appreciating the character of this opposition because science can only understand others when we interrogate the “metaphors” through which we think our analyses.","PeriodicalId":43410,"journal":{"name":"Critical Historical Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":"167 - 200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/708255","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Historical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/708255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

T his article attempts to outline an alternative account of the distinction between the gift and the commodity. It does so from the view that clarifying their relationship is a good idea because the distinction between gift and commodity has deeply informed the way in which the scientific field comprehends those who live(d) within the compass of kinship and community. The pairing of gift and commodity has served as a metaphor, trope, and conceptual opposition in the construction of the comparative discourse of who our others are, and it is also reflexively one of the critical oppositions through which the cultures of capitalism imagine themselves (e.g., as evidenced by the museology of primitive art). The relationship has an equally powerful historical dimension in that the progressive displacement of gifts by the commodity is central to understanding the ways in which capitalism is subsuming the economic breath of others. An analysis on this order is inescapably a tribute to Mauss, whose work on the gift is still present in its consequences, and in a different register to the power of capitalism to socially replicate itself through forms of self-recognition that only enhance a deeper concealment. Beginning in the 1970s, theorists began to realize that because theory and ethnography are inherently comparative we must organize our thoughts as a confrontation between the social logic of the commodity and that of the gift. The key claim here is that the epistemological integrity of the ethnographic project depends on appreciating the character of this opposition because science can only understand others when we interrogate the “metaphors” through which we think our analyses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
礼物、商品和对他人的包容
这篇文章试图勾勒出礼品和商品之间区别的另一种解释。它这样做的观点是,澄清他们之间的关系是一个好主意,因为礼物和商品之间的区别深刻地影响了科学领域理解那些生活在亲属关系和社区范围内的人的方式。礼物和商品的配对在构建“我们的他人是谁”的比较话语中起到了隐喻、比喻和概念对立的作用,它也是资本主义文化想象自己的反思性批判对立之一(例如,原始艺术的博物馆学证明了这一点)。这种关系具有同样强大的历史维度,因为商品逐渐取代了礼物,这对于理解资本主义如何吸纳其他国家的经济气息至关重要。对这一秩序的分析不可避免地是对莫斯的致敬,他对礼物的研究仍然存在于其后果中,并以不同的方式记录资本主义的力量,通过自我认识的形式在社会上复制自己,这只会增强更深层次的隐藏。从20世纪70年代开始,理论家们开始意识到,由于理论和民族志本质上是比较的,我们必须将我们的思想组织为商品的社会逻辑与礼物的社会逻辑之间的对抗。这里的关键主张是,民族志项目的认识论完整性取决于对这种对立的特征的欣赏,因为只有当我们询问我们思考分析时所使用的“隐喻”时,科学才能理解他人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Colonialism, Surplus Population, and the Marxian Critique of Political Economy Hayek against Malthus: Julian Simon’s Neoliberal Critique of Environmentalism Temporalities of Emancipation: Women, Work, and Time in 1970s America Reactionaries Marching Forward: On Worldmaking and Its Enemies Enclosed Futures: Oil Extraction in the Republic of Congo
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1