Karl Polanyi (1886–1964) was a Hungarian lawyer turned journalist and economic historian whose
reading of anthropology, especially the work of Bronislaw Malinowski and Richard Thurnwald, led him
to produce work that made major contributions to economic anthropology, classical Greek studies and
post-Soviet eastern European social policy (Polanyi, 1936, 1944). Polanyi attempts to explain the
causes of great depression and the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s (Goldfrank, 1990). His larger aim
was to lay the groundwork for a general theory of comparative economics that would accommodate all
economies, past and present (see Polanyi 1957; Halperin 1988, 1994a; Stanfield 1986, 1990).
In anthropology, his influence was great during the 1960s and 1970s; subsequently, his work became
strongly identified with the ‘substantivist’ side of the strident and irresolvable ‘formalist–substantivist’
debate, and his prominence faded when the formalists largely won the day.
Polanyi’s master work was The great transformation (1944), in which he analysed the emergence and
(in his view, disastrous) consequences of a new type of economy, market capitalism, first in England
during the early nineteenth century and then in the rest of the industrialising world and its global
extensions. This new economy was unique in being disembedded from the social matrix; in ideal form,
at least, it commercialised and commoditised all goods and services in terms of a single standard,
money, and set their prices through the self-adjusting mechanism of supply and demand. At all
previous times, in contrast, ‘man’s economy … [was] submerged in his social relationships’ (Polanyi
1944: 46), and the factors of production were neither monetised nor commoditised. Instead, access to
land and labour was gained through ties of kinship (birth, adoption, marriage) and community. Many
pre-capitalist economies had marketplaces, but they did not have self-regulating, supply-and-demand
market economies. Similarly, many employed money but only in transactions involving a limited range
of goods and services.
By commoditising not only goods but also labour (‘another name for a human activity which goes with
life itself’) and land (‘another name for nature’), the disembedded capitalist (market) economy of
nineteenth-century England threatened to remove ‘the protective covering of cultural institutions’,
leaving the common people to ‘perish from the effects of social exposure’ (Polanyi 1944: 72–3).
Accordingly, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw a ‘double movement’: first, the disembedding
of the economy under the self regulating market, then the emergence of countermeasures ‘designed
to check the action of the market relative to labor, land, and money’ (1944: 76). These
countermeasures accomplished their purpose politically, by partially re embedding the economy,
typically culminating in state socialism or the welfare state.
RECIPROCITY
Reciprocity in Social Anthropology
Reciprocity, in social anthropology, refers to the non-market exchange of goods, services, or
labor (Malinowski, 1922). It is a fundamental principle that shapes social relations and
creates a sense of obligation and interdependence (Sahlins, 1965). Unlike market
transactions based on price and profit, reciprocity focuses on social exchange and building
relationships (Gregory, 1982).
Types of Reciprocity:
Anthropologists distinguish between different forms of reciprocity based on the expectations
of return:
Generalized reciprocity: This involves the exchange of goods and services without
the expectation of immediate or equal return (Sahlins, 1965). It is often seen in
kinship networks and close-knit communities, where trust and long-term relationships
are prioritized. For example, a family member might offer help without expecting
anything in return, knowing that they can rely on others in their time of need.
Balanced reciprocity: This type of exchange involves the expectation of a return,
but the value and timing of that return are not strictly defined (Malinowski, 1922). This
is often seen in bartering or gift-giving practices where there is an unspoken
understanding that a similar favor will be returned at some point.
Negative reciprocity: This is a form of exchange based on competition, rivalry, or a
desire to outdo another person (Sahlins, 1965). It is less common but can occur in
potlatch ceremonies, where chiefs compete to give away the most valuable goods,
establishing social status and dominance.
The Importance of Reciprocity:
Reciprocity plays a crucial role in social anthropology for several reasons:
Social Cohesion: Reciprocity fosters social cohesion by creating a web of
obligations and fostering trust within communities (Malinowski, 1922). It encourages
cooperation and ensures that individuals have access to resources and support when
needed.
Building Relationships: Reciprocal exchange is a key way to build and maintain
social relationships (Gregory, 1982). It strengthens social bonds and creates a sense
of belonging within a group.
Understanding Social Systems: Studying reciprocity allows anthropologists to
understand the underlying social norms, values, and power dynamics within a society
(Sahlins, 1965). It reveals how resources are circulated, social hierarchies are
maintained, and social expectations are shaped.
Beyond Economic Exchange:
Reciprocity extends beyond just the material exchange of goods and services. It can also
involve the sharing of knowledge, skills, or social support (Malinowski, 1922).
Anthropologists analyze how these exchanges contribute to cultural transmission and social
reproduction within a society.
Conclusion:
Reciprocity is a core concept in social anthropology, offering a window into the social fabric
of different societies. It goes beyond a simple exchange system, revealing the complex
interplay of social obligations, relationship building, and cultural values within human
interaction.
Reciprocity: The Flow of Exchange in Social Anthropology
Reciprocity, a fundamental concept in social anthropology, refers to the exchange of
goods, services, or even emotions between individuals or groups, with the
expectation of receiving something in return (Malinowski, 1922). This exchange can
be immediate, like bartering, or delayed, like returning a favor at a later date.
Reciprocity plays a crucial role in building and maintaining social relationships,
shaping social structures, and defining moral obligations within societies.
Pioneering Concepts:
Marcel Mauss, in his seminal work "The Gift" (1925), argued that gift-giving is not
solely a transaction of material goods. He emphasized the social and symbolic
aspects of the exchange, highlighting the creation of a bond and a sense of
obligation between the giver and receiver (Mauss, 1925). This obligation to
reciprocate creates a social flow that strengthens relationships and fosters
cooperation within a community.
Forms of Reciprocity:
Anthropologists recognize different forms of reciprocity, each with varying degrees of
immediacy and expectation of return:
Generalized Reciprocity (Mauss, 1925): This form emphasizes long-term,
informal exchange. Gifts are given without the explicit expectation of
immediate return, creating a sense of trust and ongoing obligation within a
community. For example, sharing food with neighbors in times of need might
be done with the understanding that the favor will be returned in the future, if
needed.
Balanced Reciprocity (Malinowski, 1922): Here, the exchange is more
direct, with a return expected in a relatively short timeframe. The value of the
returned item or service is expected to be roughly equivalent to what was
given. Barter systems and trading goods for services often exemplify this type
of reciprocity.
Negative Reciprocity: This form involves an exchange motivated by
competition or a desire to gain advantage over another party. Gifts might be
given with the expectation of extracting a concession or gaining leverage in a
future situation.
Understanding Social Order:
By studying reciprocity, anthropologists gain insights into how societies function. The
specific forms of reciprocity practiced in a culture reveal its values, social norms, and
power dynamics. For instance, the emphasis on balanced reciprocity might indicate
a society that prioritizes fairness and equal exchange. Conversely, a culture with
strong norms of generalized reciprocity might suggest a more communal and
cooperative social structure.
Conclusion:
Reciprocity is more than just an economic transaction. It is a cornerstone of social
interaction, shaping relationships, creating social obligations, and maintaining a
sense of order within societies. By analyzing the different forms of reciprocity,
anthropologists gain a deeper understanding of the social fabric of human
communities around the world.
Citations:
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of their
venture, their adventures, and their tradition. Routledge.
Mauss, M. (1925). The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic
societies. W.W. Norton & Company.
