The wrong coin of our dreams

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The false coin of our dreams (English original title Toward an anthropological theory of value ) is a book by the ethnologist David Graeber , published in 2001 in English and a German translation published in 2012.

content

The work with the subtitle Value, Exchange and Human Action is an examination of the concept of value in the social sciences and economics as well as the theory of action .

Graeber distinguishes three dimensions of the concept of value in his work:

  1. Value in the sense of what is desired as good or right
  2. Value as an economic measure of what one is willing to give away for a desired good
  3. Value in linguistic understanding of a meaningful difference between two elements

According to Graeber, the social and economic sciences did not analyze these three aspects of the concept of value convincingly. The economic perspective leads to the fact that social values ​​are viewed as objectifiable objects and that the social structure is not sufficiently considered theoretically and possibly destroyed in practice. Graeber emphasizes that, conversely, ethnology has collected evidence that the value of things is measured according to the social relationships that arise in production or through exchange.

Graeber himself defines value as a way "how people present the importance of their own actions to others".

Current trends in exchange theory (2nd chapter) pp. 49-83.

Until well into the 20th century there was no independent Marxist ethnology. Marxism was based on Morgan's evolutionism and Engels' sequence of stages of development. In addition, Marxism was based on the cultural standards of the West. That was untenable in the long run. In the 1960s, Althusser developed a more flexible terminology around the term “mode of production”. Ethnologists like Meillassoux and Godelier laid the foundations. The problem with the Marxist view is that it was developed for states-societies. It remains unclear how central terms such as u. a. Exploitation, fetishism, appropriation and reproduction are transferred. Different topics are in the foreground in the individual decades. In the 1960s it was exchange, in the 1970s production, in the 1980s consumption. Reactions to Marxism are economic formalism and neo-Maussianism.

Homo oeconomicus returns with post-structuralism. In contrast to structuralism, post-structuralism wants to dissolve all totalities. He has no coherent structure or hierarchy. It presents a mosaic of disparate surfaces. Society and the individual are both fragmented. For Graeber, Pierre Bourdieu is formalistic through and through. For Bourdieu, the only difference between exchanging gifts and exchanging goods is the delay. The exchange of gifts is also based on self-interest. People are aware of the economic calculation and fundamentally reject it. Nevertheless, their actions are based on it. Graeber believes that post-structuralism (especially Foucault and Baudrillard) put power and domination so much in the center that the idea of ​​a world without power and domination became impossible for them (see comparison on pages 10 and 11).

Arjun Appadurai refers to Simmel and goes even further than Bourdieu. The value arises in exchange. For Appadurai, exchange in the capitalist sense applies in all societies. Accordingly, one cannot “distinguish between gifts and other forms of goods”. The traditional distinction does not apply:

Gift = relationships between people are in the foreground Exchange of goods = equivalence between objects

There are counter-movements to that. Annette Weiner's approach follows Mauss. Their core thesis is that there are inalienable possessions. Even after they were presented, gifts would still be perceived as belonging to the giver ( immeuble ). Gifts accumulate history. The heirlooms have their own names and biographies. The value is measured according to the fear of losing this image of eternity. Everyone tries to prevent the most valuable heirlooms from circulating. At Weiner, value is a measure of how little you want to give away. Simmel's view - the basis of Appadurai - that value arises through exchange is diametrically opposed to this. Weiner's approach follows Marcel Mauss.

Marilyn Strathern explores Mauss' central question: What about a gift makes the recipient feel obliged to return it with something in return of roughly the same value? When given, objects take on human characteristics. The commodity exchange economy treats people as objects, the most obvious example being human labor. Comparison by Christopher Gregory:

Gifts Goods exchange
- qualitative relationships between people - quantitative equivalence of objects
- network of personal relationships - impersonal exchange
- Objects have human characteristics - People are treated like objects
- The donee is indebted to the donor - the things themselves are important
- give away a lot of wealth - accumulate as much wealth as possible

But there is neither a pure gift economy nor a pure exchange of goods. Western society assumes common sense, which is common to all, and the assumption that all are unique individuals. This is completely alien to the Papuans in Mount Hagen. If you put the main focus on the gift, you only see what society itself puts at the center: two great men. What is the hidden other? Who made the gifts? At lavish celebrations, great men give each other important gifts, especially pigs. The women do the field work and care for the pigs. But only men can turn pigs into fame and prestige. From a Marxist point of view, this can be fetishized because it gives the impression that the pigs are produced through barter rather than human labor.

Strathern contradicts this because it implies that a person has some right to what he produces. We believe that, but it is not universal. One cannot conclude that the exchange is to cover up reality unless there is evidence that the local population may see it the same way.

Western thinking ascribes a core essence to every individual. The Melanesians do not know this unique essence. Melanesians would never think of claiming that anyone has the right to define themselves by the product of their labor. Rather, the value lies in the perception of others and people can only arise through social relationships.

The value of a thing or person lies in the meaning that arises from its classification in a larger system of categories. There are six spheres in the Mae-Enga. In the highest are live pigs and cassowaries. The objects in the spheres are classified according to their ability to preserve history. Exchange is only ever in the spheres. Every transmitted story is always unique and therefore cannot be the basis of a value system. Actually exchanging something for the same thing is impossible, because a specific pig is older the next day and therefore a different pig. Accordingly - as Graeber sums up - is worth

1.) a numerical comparison (same monetary value),

2.) a position in the ranking of the objects,

3.) the relation of an object to its origin.

At least in Melanesia, the comparison “between a thing and its origin” is crucial. For Strathern, value is "a significant difference" (Saussure) and it is about placing the object within a category framework. With this, however, value loses much of the explanatory power that made it attractive. This process of comparing unique stories is extremely difficult to grasp in theory. This is not transferable to Mediterranean exchange traditions (ancient Greece, Algeria). There, giving gifts is often about destroying the political opponent.

Nancy Munn studied the kula in Melanesia. The clear ranking of the necklaces and bracelets reflects their ability to preserve history. Munn describes what others call "spheres" as "value levels". Whoever is there receives more control over and greater influence on time and space or the 'intersubjective spacetime' (Munn).

While Strathern assumes a network of social relationships, Munn focuses on human action. Value emerges in actions and is a way people realize the importance of their actions (highest form is 'fame'). This importance has to be recognized by someone else.

For Nancy Munn, value is the power to create social relationships . This approach points in a completely different direction than the value theories presented so far. Graeber sees this as a productive conclusion of his investigation. Accordingly, Munn's ideas break up the dichotomy of gift and commodity. Goods have to be produced and social relationships have to be created and maintained. Both are only possible with time, energy, intelligence and care. This comes close to Annette Weiner's argument that the value of things (“transcendent value”) is simply an effect of people's efforts to preserve, protect and maintain these things.

reception

Michael Adrian sums up in the FAZ that the work Graeber "as a left intellectual who wants to undo the retreat of progressive thinking into the snail shell of disillusioned theory building by storm".

expenditure

  • David Graeber: The wrong coin of our dreams. Value, exchange and human action . Diaphanes, Zurich 2012, ISBN 978-3-03734-242-8 (English: Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams . Translated by Michaela Grabinger, Sven Koch, Andrea Stumpf, Gabriele Werbeck).

literature

  • Melissa Demian: Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. In: American Ethnologist Volume 30, Issue 2, pp. 316-317, May 2003 doi: 10.1525 / ae.2003.30.2.316
  • A Review of David Graeber. 2002. Toward An Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York: Palgrave. pp. xiii + 337. In: Anthropological Theory September 2004 4: 373-379 doi: 10.1177 / 1463499604042818

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Entry at the Library of Congress. Retrieved November 17, 2012 .
  2. ↑ a b c d Michael Adrian: Let the betel nuts circle! In: FAZ. October 3, 2012, accessed November 17, 2012 .