Exchange as a Basis of Social Life

Exchange as a Basis of Social Life Why, and how, have anthropologists argued that exchange is the basis of social life? Exchange is an act of giving something to somebody or doing something for somebody and receiving something in return.[1] According to the Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, exchange is the transfer of things between social and actors.[2] Things can be human or animal, material or immaterial, words or things. The actors can be individuals, groups, or being such as gods and spirits.[3] In wide interpretation, trade and barter are examples of some kinds of exchange. In this essay, I assume that the gift-exchange is the basis of social life. From the 18th and 19th century, anthropologists became more interested in the topic of exchange. In the past century, there is a growing concern on the complex societies, i.e. the West. It leads to a more critical investigation for the anthropologists on exchange in West, when anthropologists such as Gregory discovered that exchange is linked to economy. By now, exchange is a universal activity. Moreover, anthropologists realized exchange is central to all peoples lives. Mauss stated that, exchange is a total social phenomenon.[4] In the following, I will discuss why anthropologists argued that exchange is the basis of social life. Exchange and Reciprocity The ideological pure gift is very rare in primitive societies. In most of the time, it is a moral to return the gift to the giver. Parry (1986) take the point that the gift is always am Indian gift, which means an equivalent term in return is required.[5] Parry took this point from his investigation on the gift contains some part of the spiritual essence of the donor. And this constrains the recipient to make a return.[6] Thus, we can see that the exchange is related to reciprocity. According to Mauss, gift are the primitive analogue if the social contract, then they clearly carry a social load which in centralized politics is assumed by the state.[7] This is the reason why anthropologists argue exchange is the basis of social life. Let us take the classic example of gift-exchange: the Maori hau. Logically, the hau explains why gifts are repaid. Mauss traces different forms of exchange in order to make out the relation between exchange and reciprocity with the social life. In this essay I will trace different form if In this essay, I will discuss about different types of gift-exchange in different types of society, ranging from tribal societies, i.e. the Trobrainders and Kabre, to the modern daily lives exchange, i.e. Christmas gift exchange and garage sale exchange. These rituals shows how anthropologist argue the statement with the observation or fieldwork The Trobrianders Kula During Malinowskis fieldwork in Trobriand, he clearly examined the essentials of the Kula for Trobrianders and other Melanesia islands in Papua New Guinea. The Kula is a form of intertribal exchange between the Melanesia Islands. It is different from the Oceanic form of exchange. The Kula is based primarily upon the circulation of two articles of high values, but of no real use. The gifts are carried in a circular route which covers miles away over many communities inhabiting a wide ring of islands. All the main transaction in the Kula is public and ceremonial, and it is carried out according to its definite rules. One of the major characteristics of the Kula exchange is that the two items are travelling in different directions: the necklaces (soulava) travel in the direction of clock hand; while the armshells (mwali) in opposite direction. According to Malinowski (1920), both articles never stop for any length of time in the hands of any owner; they constantly move, constantly meeti ng and being exchanged.[8] Kula is essential for the Melanesian because of its sociological function. Sociologically, Kula creates partnership for a lifelong relationship. It is based on a fixed and permanent partnership and relationship which binds people from different tribes into couple some thousands of individuals. As Malinowski observed, the partnership implies various mutual duties and privileges, and constitutes a type of inter-tribal relationship on an enormous scale.[9] Malinowski stated that two Kula partners have to Kula with one another and exchange other incidentally; they behave as friends, and have a number of mutual duties and obligations, which vary with the distance between their villages and with their reciprocal status.[10] He also mentioned that the Kula partnership is one of the special bonds which unite two men into one o the standing relations of mutual exchange of gifts and services so characteristics of these natives.[11] There is a network of relationships in the Kula ring which men know and exchange with each other. In some situation, they will meet in the inter-tribal meetings. Thus, Malinowski pointed out that men are bound together by one common passion for Kula exchange and also, many minor ties and interests. What keeps the relationship long-lasting is the reciprocity of gifts to the giver in the Kula ring. It is expected that the receiver will give back a fair and full value of gift to the giver. Similarly, a fine article must be replaced by the one with equivalent value, not by several minor ones. Gift economy in Kabre In Exchange (1999), Piot explore the understandings about persons, hierarchy and agency that operate in the exchange context in the Kabre society. Same as the Trobrianders, people in Kabre are expected receiver will have to return the gift to the giver. In society, especially in Piots situation he could not understand French when he first came to Kabre gift-giving is a kind of surrogate language. From his experience, Piot suggested that the gifts were attempts to communicate, to bridge the gap between us, to express relationship.[12] He realized that the gift-giving is a type of moral inquiry, which is an interrogation of the other.[13] Despite, there are various forms for exchange in the Kabre society, all forms of exchange are motivated by the practical need of one of the parties.[14] There is a desure to establish social relations behind the Kabre exchange. They are likely to begin ?kp?nt?r? with another person through exchange. Thus, all the exchange in Kabre society is to do with relationships as with utilities. Moreover, through further exchange of items with greater value or quantity, the relationship grows. It is a great sign of friendship. Sometimes, when the relationship of two families grows bigger, there will be an arrangement of marriage so that the relationship will not be broken. If this works, then there will be another marriage in the next generation and so on. As a result, the relationship between the two families will last forever. Economically, Piot argued that the Kabre gift exchange system generates the increased involvement in the wage and commodity sector. He pointed out that by allowing labours to participate more fully in the gift-giving by making money, social relations will then be expanded.[15] Piot take the point that persons use things to gain access to persons rather than that they use persons to gain access to thing.[16] Piot also claims that any gift given establishes a relationship between two persons, hence giving is always tied up with control, power and the appropriation of an other.[17] In the Kabre, exchange does not only form friendships. In the meantime, it forms another basis of social life the formation of marriage, kinship groups and affinity. Gifts Exchange in Christmas Now, let us look at how modern anthropologists argued the statement through their observation of peoples behaviour in the West, capitalist societies. The exchange of gifts is very popular in many parts of the world. In the following, I take in the account that exchange takes place with a generalized medium of exchange, i.e. money. Thus, in order to facilitate trade, barter give way away to selling (C-M), and then the money is then used to buy other commodities (M-C).[18] Carrier examined peoples mindset on exchanging Christmas gifts and he found that it does related to their social relations. The heightening sociality of Christmas highlights the importance of exchanging of gifts, and it reflected peoples Christmas shopping behaviour to the basis of social life. According to Caplow, parents and young children exchange gifts in an unequal value and quantity. In most of the time, the gifts from the parents to their young children have more in quantity and also in value. There is no expe ctation of equivalent return in this relationship. Whereas, for gift exchange between the spouses, there will be an active concern on the gifts are approximate equal in value.[19] Carrier (1993:58) suggested that it is more likely for people to show their affection to their family within a close kin by exchanging Christmas present. As the relationship become more distant, people are less likely to show their affectionate. Rather, it would be a more alienated giving and marks the relations which will be fairly impersonal utilitarian.[20] As mentioned above, apart from exchanging Christmas gifts in Christmas Eves feast, shopping for Christmas gifts is also a highlight for the exchange and it also maintain the basis of social life. Carrier (1993:63) takes the point that the range of social relations will be greater than normal when purchasing for the items. He suggested that this would be an annual ritual to convert commodities into gifts. This ritual allows us to celebrate and recreate personal relations with the anonymous objects available to us.[21] Moreover, Boxing Day allows merchants to celebrate the hierarchical relations outside their households. Seemingly, Christmas is just exchanging Christmas gifts between family and friends. In reality, through exchanging Christmas gifts, it celebrates relations with family, and also those who are distinct from relation in the outside world. Carrier (1993:69) take the point that Christmas is also a reunion of families sanctified and chastened by tender memories and associat ions; and let the social intercourse of friends, with pleasant reminiscence, renew the ties if affection and strengthen the bonds of kindly feeling.[22] Garage sales is American society Some anthropologists look at peoples daily life activities in the West to argue that exchange is the basis of social life. Similar to Christmas gifts exchange, most of the commodity exchange in the West belongs to the category sell-in-order-to-buy in peasant markets which money act as the generalize medium of exchange, i.e. C-M-C. Herrmann looked at the US garage sale exchange culture in order to investigate the social relationship built between the buyer and seller. Herrmann (1997:915) suggested that garage sale exchange allows the neighbours in the neighbourhood come to know each other, as the neighbors are attracted by informal open invitation to the public to stop by and look over the garage sale goods.[23] Moreover, Herrmann (1997:915) also take the point that some neighbourhood garage sale takes place in order to attract the neighbor out of their houses for social interaction. Furthermore, exchange in garage gift generates gift relations. According to Stone Age Economics by Sha lins (1974: 193-194; Gregory (1992:926)), exchange between family members or close kins usually belongs to generalized reciprocity. Thus, in garage sale exchange, the items are given to generalize others. By giving inexpensive garage as a gift, personal networks will then be solidified. In this case, social relations value more than profits. Aside from bringing social interaction and relationships, garage sale ethos also includes friendliness and social egalitarian. Garage sale provides the participants the sense of justice. Low price is the hallmark of garage sales exchange. Thus, a just price for an object is constructed through exchange.[24] Besides, Herrmann (1997:915) bring up the point that social inequalities are reproduced in the garage sales exchange, but it this social inequalities will be muted by the face-to-face egalitarian. This is because social markers such as gender, status, races could act as the factor affecting the transaction of garage sale exchange.[25] Thus, we can see that exchange shows the social basis of the society. Bibliography Carrier, James (1993): The Rituals of Christmas Giving, in Unwrapping Christmas by Miller, D. (ed), Oxford, United kingdom: Clarendon Press, pp.55-74 Carrier, James (1996): Exchange, in Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology by Barnard, Alan and Spencer, Jonathan (1996), USA and Canada: Routledge, pp. 218-221 Drucker, Philip: The Potlatch, in Tribal and Peasant Economies by Dalton, George (1967), Austin, USA: University of Texas Press, pp.481-493 Gregory, C.A.: Exchange and Reciprocity, in Comparison Encyclopaedia to Anthropology by Ingold, Tim (1994), London, United Kingdom: Routledge, pp. 911-939 Herrman, Gretchen M. (1997): Gift or Commodity: What Changes Hands in the U.S. Garage Sale?, American Ethnologist Vol. 24. No. 4 (Nov., 1997), Blackwell Publishing, pp.910-930 Hornby, A S (2000): Exchange, in Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary of Current English, New York, USA: Oxford University Press, pp. 433 Malinowski, Brownislaw (1920): Kula: The Circulating Exchange of Valuables in the Archipelagos of Eastern New Guinea, in Tribal and Peasant Economics by Dalton George (1967), Austin, USA: University of Texas Press, pp. 171-184 Malinowski, Brownislaw (1920): Tribal Economics in the Trobriands, in Tribal and Peasant Economies by Dalton George (1967), Austin, USA: University of Texas Press, pp.185-223 Malinowski, Brownislaw (1922): The essentials of the Kula, in Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London, United Kingfom: Routledge, pp. 81-104 Mauss, Marcel (1970) [1954]: The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, London, United Kingdom: Cohen West Parry, Jonathan (1986): The Gift. The Indian Gift and the Indian Gift', in Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. 21. No. 3 (Sept., 1986), pp. 453-473 Piot, Charles (1999): Exchange, in Remotely global: village modernity in West Africa, Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press, pp. 52-75 Shalins, Marshall (1974): The Spirit of the Gift, in Stone Age Economics, Chicago, USA: Aldine-Atherton, pp.149-183 Shalins, Marshall (1974): On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange, in Stone Age Economics, Chicago, USA: Aldine-Atherton, pp. 185-275 Weiner, Annette B. (1988): Introduction, in The Trobrainders of Papua New Guinea, New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publication, pp. 1-15 Weiner, Annette B. (1988): The Trobrainders: Past and Present, in The Trobrainders of Papua New Guinea, New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publication, pp. 17-31 Weiner, Annette B. (1988): Marriage and the Politics of Yams, in The Trobrainders of Papua New Guinea, New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publication, pp. 81-96 Weiner, Annette B. (1988): Men Working for Women, in The Trobrainders of Papua New Guinea, New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publication, pp. 111-123 Weiner, Annette B. (1988): Kula and the Search for Fame, in The Trobrainders of Papua New Guinea, New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publication, pp. 139-157 Hornby (2000:433) Carrier (1996:218) Carrier (1996:218) Gregory (1994:911) Parry (1986:454) Parry (1986:456) Parry (1986:467) Malinowski (1920) Malinowski (1922:85) Malinowski (1922:91) Malinowski (1922:91) Piot (1999:54) Piot (1999:54) Piot (1999:56) Piot (1999:73) Piot (1999:62) Piot (1999:70) Gregory (1992:912) It is one of the categories of production-of-exchange, i.e. commodity exchange Karl Marx developed. This type of commodity of exchange is identified as selling-in-order-to-buy in the peasant markets. Carrier (1993:55) Carrier(1993:58) Carrier (1993:63) Carrier (1993:96) Herrmann (1997:915) Herrmann (1997:916) Herrmann (1997:915)

Rural American Family Farms :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Oxfam America is a supporter of small family farm based business, according to Laura Rusu the US government spends up to 16 billion dollars a year on farm payments. Most of those funds from the US government go towards large commercial farms. Oxfam America is supporting the act called the Rural America Preservation Act, which will help smaller based farms with funding. Since there are so many loopholes in the current government system that are only helping the larger commercial based farms, this Act will help prevent these loopholes and help the smaller farms with more funding. There are many misleading ideas about the small scale farms, some of which are that small scale farms cannot support a family, that they need to grow into large scale farms to make money, and that small scale farming is usually just a hobby or for extra income. After researching the agribusiness, most of these accusations and most because small scale farms could be more successful if they w ere provided the support from state and federal governments like they should be.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the statement of Barbara Fiorito (2005), the US government spends up to 16 billion dollars each year on farm payments, and 70 percent of the money goes to the farms that are already receiving government funding either through different federal grants or state funding. The article discuses how the large commercial farms also hurt smaller farms abroad. Since a large farm can mass produce a product they can sell their product at a much lower price because of the supply they have, verses the smaller farm that can not produce as much so it must then have higher prices. Even though this example that Oxfam give us is using farms from abroad it is the same kind of situations small American agribusinesses are facing. Andrea Perera of Oxfam said that the Rural America Preservation Act if passed will limit the subsidy payments to industrial farms and corporations and will help family farmers make a living. If passed, this Act will now have a cap on payments the farms will receive; the payments will be lowered by 30 percent from $360,000 to $250,000 said Perera in her article and most loopholes in the current government allow the largest farms to collect enormous subsidies, which can exceed $1 million will also be taken care of too.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In doing research it seems that most â€Å"common† people or people that grew up in larger cities have been mislead to what a small farm is.

A Christian View of Beauty Essay

Beauty, a term once revered in ancient days as the pinnacle of physical attributes embodied in worldly entities, has seemingly in this day lost much of its meaning. Phrases like â€Å"beauty is in the eye of the beholder† have surprisingly become commonplace, and even Christians have begun to subscribe to the notion of aesthetic relativism. Specifically, this is the idea that beauty is purely contained within the observer and objects on their own have no aesthetic value in and of themselves. It is what has effectively stripped the main essence from the old ideal of beauty, and in my opinion a primary reason why there are so many who cannot see or refuse to see God in the world today. â€Å"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder†, the oft-heard phrase today, refers to one’s belief in the subjectivity of beauty—that is, aesthetic relativism. This prevailing belief dictates that my own perception of what is beautiful does not necessarily correlate to others’ perception of what they find beautiful. Simply because I find a song inspiring and relaxing does not necessarily mean that everyone will and it’s even pretentious and rude of me to insist so. And since everyone has their own particular tastes in all types of art, it is inferred that those tastes correlate to true beauty in their own eyes. But, this whole concept of beauty in each man’s own perception is severely lacking: it gives our own God far too little credit for the creation itself. In my opinion, a greatly preferable view for one who professes to believe in a divine creator is the belief in the objectivity of beauty. Perhaps the ancient Greeks were on to something after all when artists such as Polykleitos sought the perfect proportions of beauty. Such a pursuit required one to see beauty as objective: something contained within the object itself. Especially farseeing was Plato’s belief in the â€Å"idea† realm, in which perfect prototypes of every living and nonliving thing existed. It was a transcendent realm which we could never quite reach in terms of achieving this perfect â€Å"idea form†. Such a theory, old as it is, is not very far from the truth in my opinion. The real truth of beauty lies in none other than our own God. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary to divide beauty into two types to see how God influences it. There is a physical beauty in each living and nonliving thing; something which can be perceived by the eye. Such beauty, I think, aligns with Plato’s â€Å"idea form† concept—that is, we perceive things as the most beautiful when they are closest to that ideal shape from which they were wrought. Among my beliefs is that God really does have ideal forms in His own mind, from which spring forth every single precious creation. God’s creations are often universally seen as beautiful to us—forests, rivers, grasslands, domestic animals and wild animals alike are loved by us and sometimes even worshipped for their beauty. Their forms tend to be very similar among their own kind, and many different organizations strive to find the perfect proportions, coloring, and other attributes of them. A well-known example is the American Kennel Club, which appoints judges in dog shows who determine the ideal proportions of many breeds of dogs. In such competitions, we are striving to find the ideal, most beautiful form of dogs, which strongly hints at a belief in an archetypal â€Å"idea form†. Perhaps the human form itself could even have its archetypal roots in Adam and Eve; but regardless, humans who most closely fit this prototypical form are perceived as most beautiful by others. Ugliness is the disfiguration or mutilation of this form, such as severed parts or scars or even obesity. Even so, there is always some degree of the supreme beauty in each and every creation, for God’s own light can shine through even the darkest of places. Indeed, God’s original beauty shining through us and our own creations is the main source of aesthetic pleasure in this world. God revealed this to us in Ezekiel 16:14, when He declared â€Å"And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect†. This constitutes a second kind of beauty, a nonphysical and more conceptual beauty. Such beauty is what normally would be seen in man’s creations and his very personality. It can be witnessed in personalities such as a warm and inviting host, a charitable man who goes out of his way to help others, or something as simple as one who laughs often. And, of course, a massive demonstrator of this kind of beauty is creations of man’s own design such as music, paintings, and sculptures which frequently grab hold of our emotions. The reason these things are so beautiful is simple: God’s immense love when He created us and our intellects is still shown brilliantly in things which we produce. These do not necessarily have to be direct reflections of God’s own exquisite creations (as in the Realist style of art); His magnificence can be shown in abstract art as well. A good example is the Asian kanji form of writing, which for centuries has been considered highly artistic and stylized. The Japanese kanji ai, or â€Å"love† (Appendix A) has a very smooth and majestic feel, and is capable of triggering human emotions of wonder and calmness on its own. It is a mere thirteen strokes of a brush, yet because of God’s own love and inventiveness shining through the artist onto the paper, we can consider it beautiful. Truly, God’s creativeness can be seen in every single thing which man has created, and therefore we can see some degree of beauty in everything. Looking at the world in this objective way is doubtlessly far greater than the popular aesthetic relativist stance in contemporary culture. It introduces a sense of wonder in the individual in everything he perceives, because he has the knowledge that it was specifically created by the supreme God and personally beheld in all its glory as â€Å"very good† (Genesis 1:31). Hiking through mountainous forests can fill a man with such a sense of sheer majesty that it can be a religious experience, and I have personally witnessed even unbelievers profess to see a glimpse of God in such prime examples of His glorious creation. Even more typical occurrences such as a snowy night under a star-speckled sky or waking up to a dazzling sunrise peeking through lush treetops can in a person bring forth extreme awe if that person accepts aesthetic objectivity through God. Maybe the subjectivity of beauty is not as enlightened as it appears to countless millions in our culture. The beauty in that captivating mountainous forest or star-speckled sky becomes fully dependent on the individual. It’s reduced to a matter of taste, and if a person finds such things wondrous, that in itself does not make them truly and rapturously divine as it does in one who believes that God Himself has blessed such occurrences. Beautiful entities are simply something which an individual deems â€Å"nice† or â€Å"quaint† to which someone else might readily disagree, in contrast to a glimpse of the utter splendor of God. Some things are beautiful, some are ugly, and it all depends on preference; whereas objectivity of beauty proclaims that beauty is to be found everywhere in varying degrees. Aesthetic relativism ultimately leads to a sense of incuriosity towards much of the world and blocking out what does not â€Å"suit your taste†, a sort of omnipresent mild malaise of the subconscious. It would be wiser to consider that â€Å"the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect† (Ezekiel 16:14), and approach the magnificent world with an ever-growing curiousness and a watchful eye for the inherent beauty present in each and every creation.

Comparing the Ways in Which a Tabloid Newspaper and a...

Comparing the Ways in Which a Tabloid Newspaper and a Broadsheet Newspaper Treat the Same News Story The death of John Thaw was announced in national newspapers on the Friday 22nd of February 2002. In my essay I am going to compare the story of John Thaws death from two newspapers. These newspapers are the Mirror, which is a tabloid and the Times which is a broadsheet. Tabloid newspapers include the Sun, Star, and Mirror. Broadsheet newspapers include the Gaurdian, Times, and the Daily Telegraph. The differences between a broadsheet and a tabloid are the size, a tabloid newspaper is half the size of a broadsheet. You need a lower reading age to read a tabloid because there are shorter articles,†¦show more content†¦However the broadsheet also covers minority sports, like polo and archery. In the times newspapers the article about John Thaws death is at the bottom of the page. Its not very noticible, its not the lead story, the lead story is about politics. Also the article doesnt contain any pictures. It consists of six, two inch columns. In the Mirror the article is the lead story. They dedicate almost half the front page to John Thaw plus the whole of page seven, also there are seven photos of John Thaw throughout his life. The headline in the Times is small and doesnt stand out, it gives the main details and its factual, the headline is also present tense John Thaw dies, this is present tense so that readers think they are getting the latest news. The headline in the Mirror is huge, black and bold, its also short and stark, and not a complete sentence. The headline is emotive Morse star John dead, this stirs the emotions of the readers. The headline contains all one syllable words and it is also in the present tense. In the opening paragraph of a newspaper article the journalist usually uses the four ws which are who, what, where, and when. This is the key information of the article, readers usually make the decision whether to read ahead if they want more detail, based on the photographs, headlines, and the first