Objects,

commodi.es,
biographies:
from exchange to
entanglement
Lecture 3
15 Oct 2024

A kula valuable of great renown (Weiner 1994)

Concept Toolbox
• Artefact – Commodity – object – gift
• ‘Exchange’ (Carrier 2013)- entanglement
• Movement of things from one social actor
to another (can be individual, people or
groups, or even immaterial entities like
deities)
• Exchange not just of physical
objects/things, but also of services,
intangible enties: ideas, knowledge, and the
like.
• Disciplines: economy and anthropology
• Once a commodity always a commodity?
OVERVIEW of this class
1. Gift and commodity: Mauss and beyond
2. Objects in exchange: example of KULA
3. Weiner: inalienable possessions and keeping-while-giving + other critiques on
Mauss
4. Appadurai and the politics of exchange
5. Kopytoff: the cultural biographies of things
6. Biographical approaches to things: Hoskins, (Strathern and others)
7. From exchange to entanglement: Nicholas Thomas

3
 1. Gi& and
commodity:
Marcel Mauss
and beyond

Marcel Mauss 1872-1950

GIFT (versus COMMODITY): Essay sur le don
by Marcel Mauss
• Response to 2 classic anthropological works on giX exchange:
1. Kula (Malinowski)
2. Potlach (Boas)
• puzzled by early exchange systems that center around the obligaZons to give,
to receive and most importantly, to reciprocate
• A[empt to formulate a ’theory of exchange’ in ‘archaic’ socieZes: why does the
receiver always return the giX?
• looks at how exchange builds relaZonships in and between groups; foundaZon
of society is based on exchange pracZces
• looks at the giX as fait social total (total social phenomenon), the voluntary
and free character of the giX is puzzling Mauss– Is in fact less voluntary,
altruisZc and generous than it first appears - it is a social lie, a ficZon that
conceals economic interests
5
 “What rule of legality and self-interest, in societies of a
backward type, compels the gift that has been received to
be obligatorily reciprocated? What power resides in the
object given that causes its recipient to pay it back?”
Mauss 1990: 4

“[O]ne gives away what is in reality a part of one's nature

and substance, while to receive something is to receive a
part of someone's spiritual essence .... The thing given is
not inert. It is alive and often personified, and strives to
bring to its original clan and homeland some equivalent to
take its place” ([Mauss 1954:10] in Weiner 1985:212).
Gift (versus commodity)

• Reciprocity!
• circulaTon is one moment of permanent contract
• transacTons are voluntary
• rivalry and antagonism at its core
• Example of Kwakiutl POTLACH: (1914)
h]ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_gYjQw9Bf4
• Mauss uses examples of Polynesia (Hau among Maori) and Melanesia
(Kula among Trobrianders and others) to understand why a gie implies
reciprocaTng
 Gi# exchange Commodity exchange
• In archaic pre-industrial societies • In Western industrial socieDes
• Reciprocity • Market based
• Personal contact • No personal contact
• Not individuals but collectivities • Self-interested individuals
• No price • price
• Not only goods but also rituals, women, feasts,… • Exchange of goods / relaDons between
• Relations between people objects
• Things serve social reproduction
• DisDncDon people and things
• Exchange is a moment in a more durable
contract • Exchange is a moment
• Gifts are expressions of individual sentiment • GiK transacDons are purely economic
• Accumulating social wealth • AccumulaDng material wealth

Evolutionary bias
Good summary on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaxjxICgahc
Gift among the Maori

The spirit of the thing given:

1. TAONGA :
• What makes one rich powerful
• Everything that can be exchanged and used as an object for compensaZng
others
• Things that are linked to the person, the clan
• immovable goods, inalienable
• eg fine mats given in wedding (female), talisman, ‘idols’
2. OLOA : artefacts and object related to the man: movable goods (male)
HAU = spirit of the thing given
The taonga and all things termed personal possess HAU or spiritual power
HAU: spirit of all things, all personal possessions have HAU: one is forced to return a gift
because of HAU

Hau follows the one who possesses an object

HAU wants to return to its original place of birth: the sanctuary of the forest
A => B => C
C => B => A

Mauss explains how gift exchange refers to INALIENABILITY

The hau helps to explain why giving necessarily implies reciprocating:
• The person who makes a gift presents a part of himself
• If the person receiving the gift fails to reciprocate, it is as if he amputates the giver of
part of himself
 HAU
Ranapiri explains the meaning of Hau (in Best, quoted by Mauss):
“I shall tell you about hau. Hau is not the wind. Not at all. Suppose you have some
parDcular object, taonga (= item, arDcle, present, good), and you give it to me; you
give it to me without a price. We do not bargain over it. Now I give this thing to a
third person who aJer a Dme decides to give me something in repayment for it
(utu), and he makes me a present of something (taonga). Now this taonga I
received from him is the spirit (hau) of the taonga I received from you and which I
passed on to him. The taonga which I receive on account of the taonga that came
from you, I must return to you. It would not be right on my part to keep these
taonga whether they were desirable or not. I must give them to you since they are
the hau of the taonga which you gave me. If I were to keep this second taonga for
myself I might become ill or even die. Such is hau, the hau of personal property, the
hau of the taonga, the hau of the forest. Enough on that subject [Mauss 1954:89].”
Gift in ‘non-archaic’ societies
• gift also in our ‘modern’ society, but evacuated to particular sphere (is
that so?)
• PARADOX: the real gift does not exist, and yet it is everywhere
• preference to compensate a gift with money or equal gift > ends social
relationship!
• engagement at work, gifts between family members, Christmas presents,
words in the baker’s shop: all based on the gift
• Open source knowledge sharing > raising prestige, social profile
• is the gift the inversion of commodity? NO. see Weiner and Appadurai
below
• builds on and critiques the ideas of Marcel Mauss about gift-giving and
reciprocity.
• the concept of the "gift" is deeply tied to complex social and moral obligations
that challenge the simple division between self-interest and altruism.
• He acknowledges Mauss's insight that gifts create social bonds, but he expands
the discussion by exploring how the distinctions between gifts, debts, and
market transactions are often blurred.
• gifts and debts both shape human interactions but with different dynamics.
While debt tends to focus on fixed, quantifiable obligations that can strain
relationships through a logic of repayment, gifts are more flexible and ongoing,
rooted in trust and mutual recognition.
• gifts are NOT always about reciprocation in a strict sense.
• Sometimes, gifts are given precisely to create a social hierarchy or to
assert dominance, as in "status-giving" or competitive gift-giving (e.g.,
potlatch).
• human economies have been shaped by these moral dimensions of exchange
rather than by simple market logics of profit and loss.
• The gift is a complex social act that cannot be reduced to an economic
transaction.
2. Objects in
exchange:
example of
KULA
 Objects in exchange: example of KULA

Malinowski about Trobriand Islands describes the inter- and intra-

tribal exchange system of KULA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df9BlSbYiKY
Tales from the Jungle: Malinowski Part 4/6
Kula (ctd)
• Kula refers to circle, ring: all groups, mariTme expediTons, objects,
arTfacts, food, ritual and sexual services, men and women, all are
comprehended in a circle through Tme and space
• gie in kula first rejected: one shows disinterest; giver is very discrete
and modest
• objects have presTge, name, history, life histories; objects have sacral
character, have emoTons, are persons
• objects have KEDA: path, road, route
• KULA shows how difficult it is to separate GIFT from COMMODITY
exchange: intercalibraTon of biographies of things and persons
• is processual 19
Kula: essentials (Malinowski)
• Principle of temporary ownership
• The relationship between kula partners is a relation for life
• Inter-tribal relationship on an enormous scale (internal and external trade)
• All items in the kula system are constantly travelling and changing hands; they
acquire value through circulation
• Rooted in mutual trust
• The kula is rooted in myth, backed by customary law and surrounded with magical
rites
• The exchange is not done under stress of any need
• The number of kula partners varies with a man’s rank and importance
• Participation in kula allows high-ranking people to symbolically validate their status
(through number of partnerships, their prestige and the renown of the kula
valuables in one’s possession)

Conclusion: humans do not always act as self-interested profit-seeking individuals

Nancy Munn: The fame of Gawa
• SpaRotemporal transformaRons of the Gawa
canoes
• Malinowsky’s study on kula: too focused on the
funcRonal and transacRonal dimensions of the
Kula, and not enough on the cosmological and
symbolic producing fame and value
• “shells are imbued with value through the
process of circulaRon”
• creaRon of social and personal fame that
extends across Rme and space (she brings in
temporal dimension)
• FoundaRon of commodity-pathway analysis:
diversion is part of commodity pathway (KULA
has “strong path”)
• Munn & Miller looked at moments of
transacRon and display in which an object’s
exchange value is determined 21
3. Annette Weiner:
inalienable possessions
and keeping-while-giving
 Inalienable possessions and keeping-while-
giving
• Dynamics of exchange: keeping, giving, replacement > not all gifts must be returned
• Looking at what is being KEPT: keeping is accorded PRIMACY!
• There is VALUE WITHOUT EXCHANGE!
• some objects remain attached to original owners, have specific titles (such as fine mats),
have secret stories of origin
• these objects are ‘immeuble’ and ‘INALIENABLE ’: are not exchanged or do not circulate
widely; cannot be detached from origin
• are imbued with affective qualities of the owner; comprise man and thing
• age adds value
• The specific and unique identities ascribed to the objects generate a desire to keep, rather than an
impetus to give away: there is the ability to keep those objects against all exigencies
• these objects have the power to define who one is in an historical sense
• have histories of ancestors, titles of mythological events
• important in societies were RANKING occurs: to be able to keep to oneself attests to
one’s power to hold the group intact
 Inalienable possessions and keeping-while-
giving
• HAU is example per excellence that substantiates keeping while giving
• OBJECT (rather than exchange) plays dominant role

• 2 classes of inalienable possessions:

1. those that should NEVER circulate
2. those that only circulate under specific circumstances

• in linking persons to things, things are made into more than their own materiality: they
transcend individual MORTALITY
• Problem is how to keep while giving
• makes keeping them the primary element of value
Inalienable possessions and keeping-while-
giving

We see that value is created by trying to keep certain possessions out of

exchange in the face of obliga9ons to engage in exchange. I call this the
paradox of keeping- while-giving (Weiner 1992). It is through this
paradox of keeping-while-giving that we follow the human strategies
working to create densi9es in objects as these objects resist exchange
and as their value is enhanced by the exchange of other things.
(Weiner 1991)
Inalienable possessions and keeping-while-
giving

“An individual's role in social life is fragmentary unless

attached to something of permanence. The history of the
past, equally fragmentary, is concentrated in an object that,
in its material substance, defies destruction. Thus, keeping an
object defined as inalienable adds to the value of one's past,
making the past a powerful resource for the present and the
future. The dynamics surrounding keeping-while-giving are
attempts to give the fragmentary aspect of social life a
wholeness that ultimately achieves the semblance of
immortality, thereby adding new force to each generation.”
4. Appadurai on
commodiDes in
relaDon to the giE
Appadurai on commodities in relation to the
gift
• Social life of things (1986): objects have histories that can be recovered and
narrated
• Common view on the Gift: act of generosity, without calculation or self-interest
• <>then what is a COMMODITY? part of profit-oriented, calculated spirit of our Western
economy??
• Commodity beyond Marx: away from the preoccupation with production/product
• A commodity is “a thing intended for exchange”
• Simmel: Economic exchange creates VALUE (and not vice-versa)
• in exchange, the value of an object is defined reciprocally

28
Appadurai
• Objects do not have an innate and fixed meaning and idenTty
• Changeable over Zme and across space
• Their status arises out of the interacZon with the context
• Appadurai: Problem lies in dualism: altruisTc gie vs market-based
economy of exchange of commodiTes
• In order to get rid of the problemaTc dualisTc thinking Appadurai
proposes new definiTon:
“the commodity situaZon in the social life of any “thing” be defined as the
situaZon in which its exchangeability (past, present, future) for some
other thing is its socially relevant feature ” (Appadurai 1986:13)
 Commodity situation
• Also defined by:

• Commodity phase (Kopytoff): things move in and out of commodity

state
• Commodity candidacy: standards and criteria that define the
exchangeability of things in any particular social & historical context
• Commodity context: variety of social arenas – link commodity
candidacy of a thing to the commodity phase of its career

30
Appadurai: methodological fetishism
Appadurai looks at the transformations an object passes through, the
paths or life histories of things: leads him to methodological fetishism:
“…we have to follow the things themselves, for their meanings are
inscribed in their forms, their uses, their trajectories. It is only through
the analysis of these trajectories that we can interpret the human
transactions and calculations that enliven things. Thus, even though from
a theoretical point of view human actors encode things with significance,
from a methodological point of view it is the things-in-motion that
illuminate their human and social context.” (Appadurai 1986:5)

-Commodities in motion: study the paths or life histories of things

31
A country auc6on (3 documentaries 1983-2008)
hAps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j1H0E4IPqc

garage sale transacTon are

uncomfortably in gie/commodity
divide,
same with AUCTIONS: owners want to
sell possessions but care about desTny!
Also given as gies
Terminal commodity

33
APPADURAI: the poliDcs of value

• spirit of commodity is not wholly divorced from spirit of other forms of exchange
• we have to look into the social life of commodities
• exchange is the source of value
• POLITICS (in broad sense of relations, assumptions and contests pertaining power)
is what links VALUE and EXCHANGE in the social life of commodities: what politics
allow goods to circulate (overlooked by Malinowski, says Appadurai)

34
Commodity coupon
5. Kopytoff on biographies of things
KOPYTOFF: Cultural biographies of things
• Production of commodities is also a cultural and cognitive process:
commodity is materially produced as a thing but needs to be
culturally marked as a kind of thing
• Commodities can be regarded as having life histories (a
processual view): the commodity phase of an object does not
exhaust its biography
• coincided with interest in transnational movements
• Processual model of Kopytoff: objects may be moved in and out of
commodity state
• different kinds of biographies
• eg. Cars, sand, cement, clothes,…
38
“What is worth more, art or life? Is
it worth more than food? More
than jus8ce? Are you more
concerned about the protec8on of
a pain8ng or the protec8on of our
planet and people?”
(ac8vist Phoebe Plummer, 21, from
London)
Kopytoff: commoditization >< singularization
• saleability is not a condition for something to be a commodity, can be
an indicator, but not necessarily
• COMMODITIZATION is process of becoming, not an all-or-none state of
being: Counter-drive of commoditization is CULTURE
• In our societies: yearning for singularization (sometimes considered
snobbery cfr art works, fashion)
• culture ensures that some things remain SINGULAR
• Singularization: (eg prestige objects among the Tiv)

40
Kopytoff: people <> things

people are seen as the natural preserve for

individua1on/singulariza1on
and things are seen as the natural preserve for
commodi1za1on (this separa1on is intellectually rooted
in classical an1quity & Chris1anity)
= culturally axioma1c in the West

41
6. Biographical
approaches to
things: Hoskins,
Strathern and
others