Anthropology, Culture and Society Series Editors: Dr Richard
A.
NEW DIRECTIONS IN ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY
Wilson, University of Sussex
Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen, University of Oslo
Women if a Lesser Cost: Female LAbour, Foreign Exchange and Philippine Development SYLVIA CHANT AND CATHY McILWAINE
SUSANA NAROTZKY
Ethrlicity and Nationalism: Awhropological Perspectives THOMAS HYLLAND ERIKSEN
Small P laces, Large Issues: An IHtroduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology THOMAS HYLLAND ERIKSEN
Anthropology, DevelopmeHt aHd the Post-modem Challenge KATY GARDNER AND DAVID LEWIS
Power and its Disguises: AHthropological Perspectives OH Power J OHN
GLEDHILL
Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship LADISLAV HOLY
Anthropology if the Self: The Iudividual iu Cultural Perspective BRIAN MORRIS
Humau Rights, Culture and Coutext Anthropological Perspectives Edited
by
RICHARD WILSON
Pluto
4�
Press
LONDON· CHICAGO, IL
First published 1 997 by Pluto Press 345 Archway Road, London N6 SAA and 1 436 West Randolph Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA Copyright © Susana Narotzky 1 997 The right of Susana Narotzky to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1 988. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0 7453 07 1 7 5 hbk Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ' Narotzky, Susana, New directions in economic anthropology/Susana Narotzky, p. cm. - (Anthropology, culture and society) Includes index. ISBN 0-7453-07 1 7-5 (hardcover) 1 . Economic anthropology. I. Series. GN448.N37 1997 306.3-dc2 1 96-48054 CIP Designed and produced for Pluto Press by Chase Production Services, Chadlington, OX7 3LN Typeset from disk by Stanford DTP Services, Milton Keynes Printed in Great Britain
A Jose Antonio, s6lo
CONTE NTS
IX
AckHowledgemetzts IHtrodHction:
1
;
� . .
Distribution and Exchange
42 42 52 71 86
Consumption
99 99 1 14 1 29 1 38 1 47
Social Reproduction
Production and reproduction Social reproduction
1 58 158 1 69
.Conclusion: Local Culture and Economic Models
1 90
Defining consumption The consumption unit What happens within the consumption unit? Beyond the domestic group boundaries Producing while consuming
4
,"
8 8 18 25 35
Forms of reciprocity and redistribution Exchange Circulation Market culture or market system?
3
.
1
Production
The ecosystem Technological processes Access to resources The question of 'work' in Western societies
2
/
Beyond Economic Anthropology
' ' The case study: local processes in the construction of labour/ capital relations VB
191
VIll
New DirectiMls in Economic Arllhropology
Models of analysis for a 'New , EconomIC · 0rgamsa . tIOn . W ork e�pen. ences and labour !capital relations . Rethm kmg proletarianisation and clas s
Rife rences Index
203 211 216 224 242
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Some years ago, Richard Wilson, editor of this series, suggested that I write a book on economic anthropology. The challenge was appealing because the book was meant to be both an introductory university level textbook and a thought-provoking work at the scholarly level as well. It has taken a long time for me to write a book that, I hope, comes close to the initial intentions. I have done my best and I alone am responsible for the results. Many people, however, have made this book possible often without being aware of it. I want to thank my first teachers who contributed early on to give me a certain turn of thought: Mercedes Molleda, J.P. Kloster and Jean Feutray. I also want to thank very specially some university professors who where crucial in my development as an anthropologist: Jesus Contreras, who introduced me to economic anthropology; Rayna Rapp, who pointed to the significance of feminist and gender issues in anthropology; William Roseberry, who introduced me to a particularly enriching perspective of the Marxist tradition in anthropology. But many other social scientists, teachers, friends and colleagues, have to be thanked: Dolors Comas, Joan Frigole, Alberto Galvan, Maurice Godelier, Marcial Gondar, Elizabeth Handman, Nieves Herrero, Ubaldo Martinez Veiga, Lourdes Mendez, Paz Moreno, Isidoro Moreno, Pablo Palenzuela, Reyna Pastor, Juan Luis Pintos, Gonzalo Sanz, all of them gave me the opportunity to develop my thoughts in seminars and discussions. Finally, I want to thank very specially those friends who have read or discussed parts of the book: Roberto Blatt, Jesus Contreras, Gavin Smith and Ignasi Terradas. I am also deeply indebted to Richard Wilson who has been a very patient and thorough editor and without IX
x
New Directions in Economic Anthropology whom the book would not eXIS. . t B oth h'ISand Jeff Pratt ' s suggestIOns . have been a great help In the revision of the fimaI manuscn. pt. . My famIl. y, Jose, AntonIo, Bruno and Lucas, my parents, Mercedes and Norman and my sister Viviana, have been a constant source of Support and happmess and many other thing s. I thank them all. .
BEYOND ECONOM IC I NTRODUCTION: ANTHROPOLOGY
First, a word of caution. This is not a book on the History of Economic Anthropology. It is not an exhaustive presentation of the theoretical perspectives that have been associated with the 'economic' field of study within the academic discipline of Anthropology (for a view on these see Ortiz 1983; Clammer 1985, 1 987; Kahn and Llobera 1981, Moniot 1976, Roseberry 1988). Most theoretical perspectives will be clarified along the route, however. This book intends to be ajourney. It wants to bring closer to a wider public the main concepts, debates and questions that have been relevant to the understanding of how people organise themselves for the production and reproduction of the material goods and services that make life possible. Its aim is threefold: first, to provide the conceptual tools necessary to follow most of the 'economic' anthropology debates; second, to present some of these debates; third, to put forward my view of what the present challenges are in 'economic' anthropology. In this chapter I will try to define, briefly, the scope of the term 'economic' in anthropology as it has developed in academic discussions during the last fifty years. This will be followed by an attempt to narrow the area of discussion to a context where local and global material processes are embedded in historical concrete social relations. More specifically, the subject of this book will be presented as the drive toward an all-inclusive approach to material, life-sustaining processes, through the use of the concept of ' social reproduction'. The reasoning behind the emph asis on social reproduction is that it contributes to bridging dualisms such as those between micro and macro approaches, material and cultural perspectives and, more generally, between ' economy' and 'society ' . Indeed, these dualisms have become a major obstacle to social scientists' understanding of life-sustaining processes.
New Directions in EcoHomic Anthropology
2
But first let us try to get a rough idea of how anthropologists have been trying to deal with realities encountered in the field, realities that relate to the material facts of living in any society and to how these are organised through social relations in a regular although changing way. The domain of 'economic anthropology' and the definition of the 'economy' by anthropologists has generated much debate for over fifty years .For
R. ,�h (1 970) economic anthropology focuses primarily
on resource allocation and product distribution and rests on the 'acceptance of the view that the logic of scarcity
is operative over the
whole range of economic phenomena' .Moreover:
while the material dimension of the economy is regarded as a basic feature, the significance of the economy is seen to lie in the transactions of which it is composed and therefore in the quality of relationships which these transactions create, express, sustain and modifY. (1 970:4) This view of the scope and method of economic anthropology tenned 'fonnalist' has been criticised on the grounds that it applies theoretical criteria developed from the analysis of capitalist societies (scarcity of resources, alternative allocation processes, marginal utility motivation) to all societies all over the world, past and present Although relationships . between individuals are highlighted as the significant aspect of the economy to anthropologists, these are conceived in a 'transactional' mode (Blau 1 982). The basic problem of this perspective is that social relations are perceived as an exchange of social 'values' or, alternatively, as attributes of exchange acts, being therefore treated as 'utilities' to be maximised in the same framework of scarcity and alternative allocation as any other resource. Another view of what economic anthropologists should focus on is suggested by �olanyi
(1 957)
and his followers. They propose two
distinct meanings of the concept of 'economy'. One is the 'formal' meaning which is a theory of rational action involving choice between alternative uses of scarce resources (Firth's definition). For them, however, this meaning can only be applied in a society where the market, mechanism is the dominant means of allocating land, labour and goods.The real (or substantive) concept of economy should be meaningful for any society, whatever its fonn of allocation (or distribution) is. Accordingly, in the 'substantive' sense the economy can be defined as: - - ,.
an institutionalised interaction between man and the environment that provides a sustained provision of material means for the satisfaction ofwants.
3
In troduction
'material' when it requires the use of material means ' n 0 f wants is . r: lactlO Satls (Polanyi 1 957:293; see also Dalton 1 97 1 a [1 965] : 3 1 ) to 0bta!l' 1 the ends. within a means-ends/wants-satisfaction This definition remains implicitly to an abstract demand/supply refer to . seems logtC which . and th'JS renders , umversal' and activity . for economic 1 motlvat'on . . historical and social - the condltlOns of productlOn, . 'natura1, - not tion of material goods and servlces. It �resents, distribution and consump g points: first, the focus on m3�Yl al ne�ds however, several interestin the idea of the economy as a process that sustams and means; second, . . . l'lsed and social cotltinuity; and third, that this is done in an mstltutlona , r, Polanyi and his followers therefore socially structured way. Moreove the economy pointed to the fact that in �o�-mark�t integrated societies, as a analysed be cannot and s mstltutlOn sOClal other in d is embedde realm. separate .. , Godelier takes over most of the substantlvlsts proposltlOns and ,
redefines them within a !yiarxist framework. The economy is defined then as a series of social relations present both in a specific domain of activities - that of the production, distribution and consumption of material goods - and as a 'particular aspect of all human activities that do not belong in themselves to that domain but the functioning of which involves the exchange and use of material goods'
(1 974: 1 40).
In Godelier's view, it is the social structure of a society, the 'logic of its social relations', the 'realisation of the socially necessary ends', 'the better functioning of all social structures, kinship, politics, religion, etc.' that sets material 'needs' and the means of 'satisfaction' in a concrete social ground. The historical conditions of emergence of a particular social context are not explicitly integrated in his theory, however (Khan and Llobera
1 98 1 :299) .
Social relations become the
centre of economic analysis within a context of social reproduction.
If that which is produced, distributed and consumed depends on the nature and on the hierarchy of needs in a society, then economic activity is organically tied to the other political, religious, cultural, family activities that compose with it the contents of life in that society and to which it gives the material means of realisation. (Godelier 1 974:1 47) However, although in Godelier's view all sorts of social structures might have an 'economic' aspect, the economy should be analysed starting from the social relations obtaining in the properly economic
domaiH
of production, distribution and consumption
(1974: 1 5 1 ) .
4
New Directiotls in Ecotlomic AHthropology
Critiques of Godeli er's view (Kahn and Llobera 1981; Asad 1 974) have pointed out several problems with his approa ch. First, it is claime d that hjstory is not taken into accoun t. The concre te conditions of production of an existing social structure,the way in which presen t 'bundles of relationships' relate to past ones has no place in his theory . Secon d,their critique under lines a proble m concerning anthropology more generally: that is, the assumption of the universal relevance of some categories such as 'economy', 'kinship', 'politics', 'religion' that ha�e becom e bound ed doma ins of study of the academ ic discipline. ThIs leads to the assumption that ' a distinct field ofsocial activity which can be carved out of the totality of social relations' exists and can be studie d in isolation (Kahn and Llobera 198 1 :309), later to be related to the other categories in a 'structured', 'organic' or 'system atic' �ne o� the perennial issues in anthropology is unquestionablyway. the dIscussIOn about the status of the categories that social scientists have forged in the '·ourse ofacademic debate as compared to other ' common sense' categories that they encou nter or to the real lived relationships that they must explain. The last critique might appear as a paradoxical . formulatIOn of the former ones; that is, Godelier's relativism (Asad 197 4:2 � 4) where each society is conceived as an auton omous system . settmg Its needs and hence organising economic activit y in a mann er unrelated to other societies' logics . This is particularly releva nt because as Wallerstein (1 974,1 980),Frank (1 967),Wolf (1982) and others hav� shown, the logic of accumulation that originated in Europe and set forth the organisation of economic activities in specifi c ways reach ed directly or indirectly all over the world and profoundly transformed wha�ever social structures or economic systems might have existed prevI ously and whatever relations might have obtain ed betwe en relatively distinct polities or groups. Other F�ench Ma ist anthropologists have been more preoccupied � by the realIty of the Impact of Western capitalist economies in non capita list socie ties throu gh colon ial and neoco lonia l proce sses (Meillassoux 1 982 [ 1 975]; Rey i 97 1 ; Terray 1 969). Their view is that in t�ese social formations (that is, concrete histor ical realities) several �ode� ofproduction (that is,abstract structured totalities) are articulated m a hIerarchical way: the capitalist mode of produ ction subordinates the non -capitalist mod es. The main theoretical question which arose revol ved around the status of autarlomy of the distinct socially organised life-s ustaining proce sses
Itl t roductiotl
5
(te rme d 'modes' or 'forms' of production) that were articulated. in a SOCIety) . concrete ' social formation' (that is,a real,complex,historicaI modes different the whether was �r for�s Put simply, the question theIr o gamsmg for path tinc di s mo ton � � of production retained an a� ? � � com a tlecessanly ImplIed �on, continuity,or whether theIr artlCulanon re roductIOn. social of p interdependent and mutually transforming path a broader m embedded was debate the later, out point briefly will I As hilosophical argument dealing with abstract models and concrete ealities of society, and with the interface between the abstract and the concrete. Two aspects of the French Marxists' debates should be highlighted he re. On the one hand I want to stress their increasing theoretical reocc upation with social reproduction or the 'laws ofmotion' of social otalities . On the other hand, the problem of thinking iH the abstract concre te historical social realities continues to be, in my opinion, an unresolved methodological issue. The fascination with abstract models reading of Marx (Althusser 1 969, is directly related to Althusser's n' a structuralist fashion where a mode of 1 974; B alibar 1 969) i production'S structure is a set o(fixed connections between agen�s of production and means of production which can be defined as relatI ?nS of production. In order to exist in the cOHcrete, the structure reqUIres a superstructure of political and ideological relations. But because these relations are deemed necessary to the CMlcrete existence of the structure they also have to be accounted for in the abstract model. There is then an opposition between the abstract and the concrete expressed in the base/superstruct ure model and in the need of an abstract predefinition of a concept of ' the economic' as an autonomous instance (or level) of any social structure. The model poses beforehand a set of predefined social relations (economic,political,ideological) that appear as conceptual objects,and thus it achieves the reification of'localised' and 'bounded' regions �evels, instances). These 'levels' are subsequently, but necessarily, articulated in a totality which is historical (Althusser 1 969: 1 92-3). Althusser and his followers, however, also felt strongly the need to transcend, this fragmentation through the emphasis on 'reproduction' of the totality (Balibar 1 969:282-3, 289). I do not wish to enter more deeply here into the Althusserian debate. I will just point to its influence in Marxist anthropology on the one hand through its excessively theoretical emphasis on abstract structures which are then treated as objects; on
�
�
6
New Directions in Economic Atlthropology
the other hand, paradoxically, through its idea of the fundamental role of 'overdetermination' by non-economic instances (ideological, political, etc.) in all concrete historical formations (Althusser 1 974: 1 1 2- 1 3,240- 1 ) . And, following Banaji I will propose that: modes of production are impenetrable at the level of simple abstractions. The process of ' true abstraction' is simultaneously a process of 'concretisation' of the definition of specific historical laws of motioll. (Banaji 1 977:9)
Thus, I am more interested in highlighting social reproduction, the movement through which a concrete historical social reality sets the conditions for its continuity and contains transformations within the limits of a dominant logic. Up to this point I have briefly presented the main debates that shaped the field of economic anthropology: the formalist/substantivist debate and the debate within Marxist anthropology. Now I will focus on the basic ideas that form the context in which my own theoretical perspective is embedded. I want to briefly present two currents of thought that will be more fully dealt with in Chapter 4. The first current centres around the work of E.P. Thompson and R. Williams who developed a certain strand of Marx's and Gramsci's thoughts. Their emphasis on human experience and agency points to the materiality of consciousness, to the importance of culture and of the personal environment in the construction and transformation of the social relations that make life-sustaining processes possible. The second current deals with the tension between local and global material processes. In this respect it should by now be clear that a capitalist logic of accumulation has reached the farthest corners of the world. How, in this several centuries long process, it has transformed the ongoing local and regional logics should be the main interest of present-day 'economic' anthropology. From this perspective the dispute about whether exchange relations in a worldwide context (Frank 1 967; Wallerstein 1 974, 1 980) or production relations in a local context (Laclau 1 97 1 ) are the key to conceptualising 'capitalism' and thus asserting the degree of penetration of the capitalist logic into a social formation, seems to me now a vain and casuistic exercise. Moreover, capitalist relations of production might find expression in multiple concrete forms drawn to capital accumulation but different from the'classical' free wage labour relation (Goodman and Redclift
7
Introduction
as part of the concrete 1982:54) and this should also be understood nce for�s) that �ake place. As W.olf processes (creative and/or resista must thmk ( 1982) has shown in Europe and the People WIthou t HIstory, we ed all appen understand what � both globally and locally if we want to that: book ally. Wolf says of hIS over the world, we must think historic
_
work in mercantile and capitalist It hopes to delineate the general proces s at . I1g their effects on the mlcro followl time same the at development , while . . 0f view sts. My ulations studied by the ethnohistorians and anthropologi as an history of sense the in but e processes and their effects is historical, al relatIO ns, mov1l1g analytical account of the develo pment of maten and on the ffi1crosystem passlI1g encom the of level simultaneously on the level. (1 982:23)
��:S
deal with And this is what I think'economic' anthropologists should . 44-7) 983:3 1 Smith in the concrete cases they study (c. mic' What, then, is the framew ork I propose for this 'econo e separat a of idea the of n rejectio anthropology? On the one hand, the or s relation social ic econom of economic level or bounded region , I activities seems to me a first and necessary step. On the other hand: : feel it is useful to narrow the scope of the 'economic' to the SOCIal relations involved in the production and reproduction of material life, '. through the organised interaction of humans and nature. And, l�st, I , would want to put forward the idea that for human populatlOns material relations cannot be theoretically separated from their cultural expressions which, in turn, are materially produced and embodied. I propose, then, to take a somewhat paradoxical route that will start with the 'classic' analytic division of the economic process into the distinct moments of production, distribution and exchange, and consumption, and will end in the all-encompassing field of social reproduction. At every point I will present the concepts and issues that have been addressed in'economic anthropology' and I will try to show how the original self-enclosed categories break down and give way to one another in concrete historical social processes.
Production
1
PRODUCTION
This chapter will begin by presenting what is often thought of as the most inescapably material and objective part of the production process: the environment. The argument will develop eventually into a critique of the naive ahistorical notions of a'given' natural environment. I will support instead the perspective that the environment is always the product of social historical processes. A similar critique will be presented for 'technology', the very material mediation between humans and their environment. The last two sections of the chapter will focus on social relations that effect differentiation around 'production'. Here also I will try to show, for example, that gender-linked divisions of labour are not natural. The chapter will end with a long discussion about the concept and the realities of'work' in contemporary societies. This will bring us unhesitatingly, I hope, to the conclusion that the bounded region of'production' should give way to a more wide-ranging framework. THE ECOSYSTEM
Space; resollrces; populations Economic activities are those which are directed toward the satisfaction of ma�erial needs in human populations. This perspective presupposes the eXIstence of a given'natural' context, an environment, where human groups dwell, which is there to be acted upon and from which they can extract what is needed for a living. The environment in turn will respond to human action triggering feedback responses affecting in one w�y or anot�er the different species that share a defined space. From th�s perspectIve humans are mainly treated as just one species interacting WIth other species in space and through time. Exchanges of energy 8
9
are the link which relates living beings, and these occur in a certain, predictable way. The methodological framework is that of a system, where clearly distinguishable elements are related in what is meant to be a functioning totality. The underlying idea is that, left to itself, the system tends toward equilibrium, although not static equilibrium. It follows from this that the species adapts in the ecosystem to environmental changes brought about by the effective energy exchanges through time and the unpredictable catastrophes - discontinuities - that can befall any system. Adaptation to the changing environment leads to a renewed unstable equilibrium. Transformation is thus part of ecosystems. It is regular, however, because the effects of elementary exchanges can be described, and quantitative variations thereof may then have predictable results in the overall system. These assumptions should be thought of as the most materialistic pole of an approach to economic anthropology. It is both a useful starting point and a methodological device. We will see in the following chapter how, in fact, the context that constrains and is acted upon by human beings in their search for a livelihood is a social and historical one, where cultural and material forces are entangled in a dialectical process of continuous transformation. From this human ecology perspective, then, the environment can be defined as a space where human and other species' populations exchange energy. For humans, this exchange becomes a matter of harnessing resources. What is understood as 'space' and'resources' must be related to hUmall populations, that is, social processes - as distinct from any other species' populations - if the ecological approach is to be meaningful in economic anthropology. For human populations space is not so much a given objective material fact as a lived experience. Geographical barriers can become paths of communication with the use of certain technological knowledge. A river, for example, might either be an isolating obstacle or a waterway enabling transport over long distances. A chain of mountains is not the same sort of obstacle for a human society that masters aviation techniques as for one that does not. Distance in a flat country depends on the means of transportation available, etc. The material constrictions of space for human groups must be related to the knowledge and availability of technology (that is, material artefacts derived from human intellect). For economic anthropology, therefore, space cannot be devoid of human interaction.
10
New Directions in Economic Anthropology
Something similar happens to resources : a resource is not one until it is knoum to be one by a human group. For example, the mere existence of some mineral in the inhabited realm of a human group does not make it a resource. First, its presence must be known, second, its useful aspects .cor human life must be understood, third, the means to harness this aspect must be discovered and fourth, the social organisation of society must permit the exploitation of the resource. All of these conditions may not be present simultaneously in a human group. Moreuver, probably they will not be shared hom*ogeneously throughout the group and the differential access to resources will express political and economic differences. On the other hand, although resources are located in space and would therefore seem to be ascribed to the human populations inhabiting a particular space, this is not generally so. For example, we could consider the many instances in which Western industrial societies have exploited resources located in Thirld World countries. Once again, technological knowledge and relations bet",:een hur.nan so�ieties, dwelling in different spaces but always mobIle and mteractIve, must be taken into account. Demands on resources and stress on the limiting factors of an environment must therefore be approached as a complex political economic process. Humans get energy from resources - other species and material elements in space - but humans also produce energy and might be themselves sought after as resources by other humans. The control of human labour is one of the main forces in the organisation of societies. An important aspect of the ecological perspective is the influence o� space and resources on human populations. A population can have dIfferent �ates of �owth or decline as a result of the availability of resour�es m a certam location. On the one hand, population growth may tngger the expansion of a human group into neighbouring areas when resources become scarce. This might encroach into some other group's established location and will result in conflict. However, if a human group is severely constrained by geographical barriers, population growth mIght lead to technological change in order to harness local but hitherto unattainable resources (Carneiro 1 970). On the other hand the availabili:r of certain nutritional resources affects female fertility : A certam ratIO of fat in body weight must be attained in order to get regular ovulat1. �n cycles. This will depend not only on the general amount oHood mtake but also on the proportion oHat to other nutrients in the diet.
Production
11
Therefore we must account for variation in fertility rates among f di ferent societies but also within the same society, depending on differential access to food resources. This means we should explore polit ica l issues. in order to understand much 'ecological' variation. Moreover, an Important aspect of human populations is that growth nught be consciously controlled in several ways. We must bear in nUnd that control might refer not only to practices restricting but also to those eni1arlcing population growth. Among those restricting population growth, prolonged lactation periods after each birth seem to be a fairly common method. Two factors seem to contribute to decreased fertility during lactation: the lower ratios oHat to body weight and the presence of the hormone prolactine. Other restrictive methods include delaying marriage age for women; ritually prohibiting intercourse during prolonged periods; infanticide (especially female infanticide) and warfare. Practices enhancing fertility include nutritional habits aiming at lowering the age of menarche; shortening lactation or suppressing it altogether through the use of food substitutes or wet nursing; early marriage age for women; certain forms of marriage such as monogamy (as opposed to polygyny) which increase the chances of intercourse occurring during the fertile period of ovulation cycles. Emphasis on prolonged lactation periods in many societies may also aim at increasing the chances of survival of babies in environments where substitute food is unavailable or scarce. Human populations, then, respond to environmental factors such as scarce or bountiful resources but never in an 'objective' mechanical way. We must think in terms of a politics ofpopulations which will take into account the structure of power influencing fertility, morbidity, mortality, migration, expressing differential access to local resources and the control of space.
Energy irlputloutput; the questiMI ifproductivity: ecological value vs. eCOIlOmic value Human ecology seeks to explain the relations between resources and populations in a given space. The relation is expressed in terms of energy exchanges. The amount of energy that a human group spends in subsistence and other activities is balanced against the amount of energy obtained for subsistence and other social purposes. This has
12
New Directiotls in Economic Atlthropology
permitted quantitative studies measuring human energy input in subsistence activities against output retrieved among different societies, an interesting asset for comparative reasons. The detailed study of time allocation to diverse activities shows difference in work loads following gender and age lines within all societies, to which class, ethnic or national divisions must be added in some cases. Energy input! output analyses present, on the one hand, work energy expenditure in reference to the energy produced, showing thus if any definable group is more energy-efficient. On the other hand, work energy expenditure in reference to the energy allocated to different activities, and consumed and controlled by different groups of people (that is, adult male, adult female, elderly and youngsters, etc.) can be assessed. Measuring energy exchanges gives us interesting 'hard' data on a number of factors relating to the social organisation of economic processes in societies. Some drawbacks should be mentioned, however. In most anthropo logical studies the energy accounted for is only related to the obtaining of food, neglecting such crucial activities as food processing, shelter construction and maintenance, dress, pottery and other instrument manufacture, as well as infant care, which are necessary to the material reproduction of any human group. One of the very interesting aspects of the human ecology energy exchange perspective has been to question the concept of productivity. It is a central theoretical concept in most economic models. Moreover, it has become the measure of economic development as expressed by increased productivity through technological innovation in Western industrial societies. This position might be questioned in the light of an 'energy' model. On the one hand, productivity of labour should be differentiated from land productivity in agricultural systems, for instance. Productivity is defined as an input!output ratio, but while produce - measured in energy or otherwise - is generally taken as the output unit, the input unit can be human energy or total energy, but also time, land or money Oochim 1 98 1 :65-90). Increases of the input/output ratio will express alternatively rewards to average labour expended, total energy expended, or to the amount of time, land or money used. Different interpretations of economic relations will result from stressing efficiency in relation to different measure inputs. As a rule, 'people tend to work no harder than they have to at production unless constrained by overriding shortages of time, land or money' and,
Production
. .
.
'
13
thus, labour efficiency seems to be 'a major decision objective when neither land nor time seem to be limited' Oochim 1 98 1 :72). On the other hand, if we think about energy productivity we will get a ratio of total energy spent (including human, chemical, mechanical ener gy) against total energy retrieved. Where 'classical' productivity indexes might point to an increase (�f output per acre in agriculture, or product per work hour in industry), thus expressing 'economic development'; a total energy productivity index might show a sharp decrease, therefore implying an involution in the effective use of energy. For example, agriculture produces a higher output per acre when employing irrigation, chemical fertilisers, pesticides, specific genetically engineered species, etc. The resulting cost!benefit monetary value, that is, a strictly market-oriented definition of 'economic productivity', might improve, especially if long-tenn soil regeneration and water supplies are not included as costs and depletion of non renewable energy sources such as fuel are not taken into account. However, from an Olergy input!output viewpoint, where it is not the market value of energy inputs and output that counts (we must take into account that many energy inputs are not marketed) but the total energy balance (whatever its market value), the more technically 'developed' an agricultural system is, the lower its total energy productivity seems to be Oochim 1 981:34). Productivity is a complex and ambiguous concept which appears strongly related to the idea of 'economic development', that is, the expression of a more efficient way of gaining access to material goods. For every account of 'development', however, we might ask a few questions: which input/output ratio is being stressed - time, money, energy - and why? Whose definition of material well-being is being used as the aim to be attained? Why should'efficiency' - that is, getting to the goal with 'economy of means' - be posited as a universal drive at all? The ambiguity of the concept of productivity shows that it is highly loaded with political implications. The use of such a concept in a mechanical, abstract way obscures in fact the fields of power, local and global, within the community and between nations that construct the aims of a group of people as being those of all. A clear example of the problem of applying mechanical efficiency models to human societies can be seen in the concept of'carrying capacity'.
New Directions in Economic A nthropology
Human populations use resources localised in space. There is a relationship between populations, resources and space which is mediated by technology. The concept of carrying capacity tries to study that relationship and to point at factors specifically significant in a given society. The technological efficiency index tries to measure the energy input/output ratio for subsistence activities in societies using different technologies. Societies can then be compared from a human ecological perspective, seeking to understand the transformations of populations, resources and the use of space within a systemic model of energy
1 986:1 94-2 1 4, Ch. 11).
maximum size of human population is the
envir onment (Boserup 1 965 ; Cohen 1 977). The restriction of opulation mobility due to geographical barriers might have been a o_ de termining factor in the search for and adoption of more labour intensive techniques. Technological innovation is thus related to the
�
need to overcome a limiting factor in a given environment. However, as cri tiqu es of the carrying capacity concept point out, pressure over r esources might be a result not of population increase but of production increase due to market demands (Martinez Alier 1 992). Technological innovation should not be confused with greater technological efficiency. Energy efficiency may not increase with technological innovation.
The capacity of the resources located in a given area to carry a
carryitlg capacity
of that
In fact, as previously mentioned, some new technologies might be
geographical space. Resources depend on technological achievement.
energetically inefficient. Moreover, the capacity for a society to maintain a larger population is not a sign of a greater technological
When population increases above the carrying capacity of the area,
efficiency nor is it a self-evident positive value.
resources are depleted and returns to labour diminish. Moreover, the environment is substantially transformed. Some resources are considered
limitingfoctors because populations cannot
survive if deprived of them
below a certain limit, for a certain time. Water is such a limiting factor in many societies; protein resources or land for cultivation might be
Of particular relevance are the critiques that point to the limited understanding of a society that an exclusive ecological perspective might produce. The best example is the study by Lee
(1979) of the Kalahari (1 989) on the same
!Kung San as compared to the study by Wilmsen
of
area . Lee's is a thorough and detailed ecological study where the environment - considered as an ahistorical given context - and its use
limiting factors during the annual seasonal variation cycle sets the
by the !Kung people are extensively described. The caloric and protein
maximum population that an environment may carry given the
content of foods made available by foraging and hunting is compared
limiting factors in other environments. The
mitlimum availability
technological achievement of the society considered. Human populations will try to react when reaching the carrying capacity of their environment. Several strategies have been used, alone or in combination. Restriction of population growth through various techniques is one. Expansion into neighbouring spaces to increase the absolute amount of resources or the crucial availability of a limiting factor is another strategy. Temporary or definitive migration of some of the population is yet another possibility aiming at re-establishing the previous population/resources balance. Other options, however, seek to adapt to environmental transformation through technological innovation. This implies the use of old resources in a new way and the discovery of new resources in the old environment. Both these processes generally result in an intensification of labour and a different organisation of social relations. Historically, the adoption of slash and
_?
culture first, and later the intensification of agriculture through bum agri and manuring techniques, seem to be technological adapta ons on ti irriga . . se to population pressure on the carrymg capacIty of a gIven pon es in r
�
Carryhlg capacity; techtlological ifjiciolcy
exchange (Harris
15
productiorl
_____ __
to the energy requirements according to age/sex and work load needs and a positive energy balance is found on average
(1 979:269-72).
Although some nutritional stress is acknowledged, it is found to be much smaller than that of agriculturalists and is related to the lack of mobility of some people at the main waterhole after a period (dry season) of intense use of the surrounding resources, when better resources are now (rainy season) to be found by dispersion at temporary waterholes
(197 9:301-2)
.
In a conclusion, a model of foraging adaptation is proposed where
'size of groups, use of space and work effort are systematically interconnected' variables
(1 979:443) and 'the constant, or given, in
this simple model is the productive system: the tools, knowledge and organisation necessary to make a living in that environment' ( 1 979:444). Mo reover, 'the collective, nonexclusive ownership of land and
16
New Directions in EcorlOmic Atlthropology. resources: widespread food sharing within and among local groups', (1979: 117) should be added to this 'system of subsistence' together with the fact that mobility'sets limits to the amount of material wealth a family can possess' (1979: 117). Thus,foraging is not only a 'mode, of subsistence' (that is,a technique,a system) but a'mode of production', a 'full fledged way of life' (1979:116-17). � The impression one gets is that !Kung foragers have been basically isolated from other forms of subsistence provision and organisation, from other peoples' social, political and economic endeavours. The !Kung's way of life appears strictly as a product of ecological adaptation to'nature' - an ahistorical environment - which produces an egalitarian form of acceSS to and distribution of resources. Only in two moments (1979:76-86 and 401-31) is this impression challenged. First, when speaking of 'a history of contact' Lee situates'early contacts' around the 1870s when the Tawana, Tswana-speaking cattle people settled nearby and Lee tells us that'!Kung-operated cattle posts in the interior was the main business of the period 1890-1925' and'according to the !Kung version of events, it was they who played an active role in bringing cattle to the interior on a year-round basis' (1979:79). Moreover the !Kung seem to have been involved in the Tswana sharecropping majisa system (1979:79-80). The second occasion is when speaking of the'economic and social change in the 1960s and 1970s'. Here we are surprised to learn that these ecologically well adapted foragers were,by the time Lee did his first fieldwork (1963),doing mcifisa work in cattle posts,planting crops (up to 55 per cent of men prior to 1966 had been at some point involved in agriculture), owning some cattle,working for wages, hunting with (borrowed) firearms (1979:403-12). None of this has been taken into account when describing the !Kung's foraging way of life! When, finally, these multiple and complex economic, social and political 'non-foraging' relations come up, they are presented as the sudden effects of change,of the transformation of a 'foraging way of life' that has'remained the same' for'thousands of years' (1979:438). Even as mcifisa-type relationships in herding have been acknowledged since the beginning of the twentieth century (1979:79), the 1960s and 1970s situation is presented against a background of an all-foraging system. Hence,the contradictions that can be observed between !Kung 'who have begtUl to f�.rm and herd' and those who 'contirlue the foraging life' is presented as a result of the tension between'two ways of life': farming
