International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 2(6), pp.

104-108, June 2010

Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/ijsa
ISSN 2006- 988x 2010 Academic Journals

Review

Diverse approaches in economic anthropology: Some

reflections
Suguna Pathy
Department of Sociology, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat-395007, India. E-mail:[email protected].
Accepted 4 May, 2010

Anthropology in general has colonial roots and these influences are still in existence. British colonial
policy in Africa and Asia began to change in the 1930s thus, it was suddenly decided to develop the
colonies. This paper is aimed at objectively studying the process of change without committing itself
to any particular policy. The skepticism of colonialism and its arrogant assumption of omniscience and
opposition to the existing social order were analyzed. The colonial regime was engaged in the
expansion of cash economy and missionary approach. Accordingly anthropologists were cast into the
mould of the colonial stereotypes and monolithic notions with functionalist overtones which were the
keynote of the colonial anthropology of that time. The functionalist studies dealt with family life,
customs, folklore, economic activities and religion. Subsequently, several monographs emerged on the
gamut of culture and integration emphasizing diffusionism. The studies were largely based on relations
between the individuals occupying specific roles in social structure. By and large, anthropological
studies have completely ignored the genesis and basis of social relations, class formation, conflict,
contradictions and the question of gender in particular. Precisely this is the crucial point which
economic anthropology-formalism, substantivism, structuralism and materialism approach,
respectively. In the present exercise an attempt is made to briefly appraise these schools of thought.
Key word: Economic anthropology.
INTRODUCTION
There is no conducive, concise and a largely accepted
definition of economic anthropology. Nevertheless it is
true that the unity of a science shows itself in the unity of
the problems it solves, and such unity emerges only
when the relationship among its explanatory terms is
established. Therefore only economic anthropology can
emerge as an exploratory sister branch of anthropology
at large. Be that as it may, economic anthropology is
neither economic in the usual sense of the term nor is it
anthropological (Sedden, 1978). Largely speaking, it is a
branch of predominantly historical materialism that is not
exclusively concerned with the dynamics and structure of
pre-capitalist social formations and the conditions of their
transformation. Due to overwhelming epistemological
orientation of empiricism in anthropology this school of
thought is either misconceived of under represented.
To begin with, in the 1920s only a few scholars devoted
special attention to the general problems common to
economics and anthropology as a study of the ideas that

primitive peoples held about economic matters (Sedden,

1978). Further, it was suggested that the collaboration of
anthropologists could provide those in the economic field
with facts in return for ideas and the fundamental issues
involved in economic activities. Unfortunately these
arguments were not reasonable as the separate
analytical operations distinguished under the rubric of
economic anthropology and anthropological economics
were inconsistently handled while neglecting the diachronic evolutionary perspective in favour of synchronic
functionalist inquiry. It was only under the influence of
Meillassoux, Terray and Godelier that the subject of
inquiry came into focus systematically. The paradigm
shift to economic anthropology in the 1960s took place in
accordance with the movement in ethno-graphy and
ethnoscience. Be that as it may, Grasss notion of
anthropological economics was reemphasized by
Salsibury under the label ethno-economics (Salisbury,
1968). Malinowiskis anti-economic stand prevailed among

Pathy

the anthropologists till 1940s and still persists. Seen thus,

economic anthropology has a chequered history. In this
vein, the pioneering compendium of Herskovits
contributed to a large extent to the establishment of the
sub-discipline as a viable concern, while been
consolidated by Raymond Firth. As a matter of fact it was
only Firth who dealt with the concerned issues of
anthropology and economics by noting that the
recognition of a discrete analytical sphere that could be
titled economic occurred to anthropologists since they
viewed economic phenomena as a given (Firth, 1965).
Meanwhile, substantivists under Karl Polanys
influence reiterate Malinowiskis view as a basic tenet in
economic anthropological discourse, arguing on a prior
basis (Cook, 1970). This resuscitated orientation gets a
push by their advocates even today. This in some way
reflects anthropology inductionism and economic
deductionism that fails in operationalizing the concept
and propositions. Precisely, it is only in operationalization
process that explanatory value of concepts and
propositions will be determined (Godelier, 1972; Cook,
1969). However, it is a fact that the anthropologists in due
course of time became conscious and acknowledged the
gap between economy and science, and subsequently
began focusing on economic processes namely,
allocation of resources and decision making, pattern of
social relations of production, inequality of ownership,
reasons for perpetuating inequality, etc. Perhaps only
then will there be explanatory possibilities of a method of
enquiry that is based on the assumption that knowledge
of what might occur (Problematic) or of what must occur
(apodictic) will lead the investigator to a more
comprehensive knowledge of what is actual or occurring
(assertonic) in a given situation (Godelier, 1972). Seen
more pragmatically, the study of economics provides
increased awareness of rationale for systematic data
collection in general.

FORMALISM
Following formalist analysis, Lee (1969) has adopted the
transactional models of input-output economics to the
analysis of King Bushmanns subsistence economy while
Edel (1967) has applied economics to measure variations
in cooperatives of Jamaican fishing villages. Unlike many
other formalists, Edel (1967) emphasizes three
requirements and limitations of economic analysis (a)
preference function-maximisation of production, maximum utilization of resources and exchange, (b) economic
analysis is purely synchronic and (c) complimentary types
of analyses are required for perceiving social relations.
Thus, formalism views economic anthropology as the
economic process of relating resources to targets with
reference to the social milieu to which it is associated.
Joy (1967) another formalist has attempted to use matrix

105

analysis to understand division of labour and exchange in

the mountain fur economy of Darfur while Orans (1968)
has applied maximization principle to formulate a model
of caste relations in India, Pakistan and Ceylon (Sri
Lanka). Yet some others apply time series and supply
demand analysis, like cook, in a study of price and output
variability in a peasant economy in Mexico (1970). On the
whole formalists observe that economic anthropology is
the study of social relations concomitant to the process of
resource utilization in a socio-cultural setting (Firth 1961;
Nash 1961; Salisbury 1962; Belshaw 1969). The
approach focuses on historical and formal stand, and is
primarily concerned with social performance in
contrasting cultural settings, ignoring the fact of how and
where the culture originates. In brief, formalists perceive
the economy as a unit of economizing (rational) decision
making and an object of study in the social system.
Further, this school emphasizes the non spatial, ideal and
normative aspects and over emphasize on subjectivity at
the expense of objectivity.
In addition, they also argue that the specific structure
of a particular economic system is assumed rather than
the rationality principle of the classical economics. This
principle of liberalism is carried on further on the basis of
generality, as it is assumed that capitalist system is the
natural order of society by all possible means. Besides, it
is also held that with the rise of capitalism, humankind
came back to its true nature that is, from savagery and
barbarism to the age of civilization (Smith, 1881).
Following this school of thought, Lange (1963) and
Rostow (1960) argue that the concept of traditional
economy comprising all social and economic structures
started from the primitive societies to the rise of
capitalism. Lange justifies this stand by referring to
Herskovits, Sombart and Weber arguing that the
individual is taken to be the starting point. This analysis
proceeds from the individual existence of subjective
preferences to a natural psychology that has a tendency
to maximize their satisfaction. It is further assumed that
these individuals compete with each other. Therefore, it is
confirmed as to how these assumed individuals will
exchange their labour and their products in order to
maximize their satisfaction. This is nothing short of
abstract empiricism which assumes that every product
including labour power is an exchangeable commodity
and the relation among the individuals to commodity
exchange holds that these relations are relations of
competition (Godelier, 1972). Thus, formalism argues for
maximization of profit making and regards the
exploitation of working class as rational.

SUBSTANTIVISM
The subsantivists view the economy as the process of
producing goods for the society. They do not consider
any social institution to be economic clearly reinforcing

106

Int. J. Sociol. Anthropol.

traditional anthropological functionalism (Polanyi, 1957;

Sahlins, 1965; Dalton, 1968). Paradoxically, subsantivists
do not attribute what exactly economic is in their view but
emphasize the spatial, sensuous and deterministic
position. The subsantivists approach denies the
existence of discrete economic sphere arguing that
economic activity articulates within itself, its institutional
matrix in a given social system. Further, it is also argued
that no pre-industrial social system has an exclusive
economic institution. Accordingly, economics is viewed in
dealing with social relations that are related to production
of materials means of existence. These relations are
regarded as an integrated whole as the functions are
complimentary. In return, these functions determine the
role and status of individuals in social system which is in
constant equilibrium. To quote Sahlins: A material
transaction is usually a momentary episode in continuous
social relations. The social relation exerts governance
while the flow of goods is constrained in a part by status
etiquette. Further, Sahlins (1960) criticizes the general
theoretical approach relevant to historically recent
evolutionary advanced system of production and
exchange. The assumption being that high productivity
which is predicted upon a suitable ecology and
technological capacity is the cause of differentiated
economy and the increase of power. This assumption
illustrates that the concept are value free and thus, are
cross-culturally general in order to render a structural
problem into a mere technical shape. The generality that
anthological studies make is not from its theoretical
eloquence but from its idealogical premises. To
recapitulate the above, both formalism and subsantivism
equivocally argue in rational support of capitalism. That is
why neither approach provides precise criteria for
delimiting the field as distinct analytical category in the
social system under analysis.
STRUCTURALISM
Structure according to Levi-Strauss constitutes a level of
invisible realities which are visible behind the social
relations. (Levi-Strauss 1963). The logic of visible reality
and the lens of social relations generally depend on the
function of the hidden relations. For structural
functionalists the structure lies with the totality of
empirically given social relations. Therefore it is
coterminous with the totality, a closed stable system
tending towards equilibrium. On the other hand for
structuralists, structure only exists in and through the
human mind (spirit) which is rejected by formalists as well
as subsantivists. Structuralism denotes structure -event
and structure individual in the realm of society. In brief,
an event whether from inside or outside always acts on
the entire structure. The set of known and unknown
properties of the structure always intervene between
cause and effect. The structural causality renders

consciousness and unconsciousness to the event

(Godelier, 1972). Levi-Strausss structural analysis
neglects all possible historicity. Precisely, the structural
approach divides the analysis of the structural relation
from their functions. Subsequently, the problem of the
real articulation of relations and the other concrete social
structures, are not analyzed from the formal system of
structure (ex: Kinship) and the other forms of structural
relations whether similar or different is also not looked
into. Therefore, it is argued here that structural
morphology without analyzing functions is incomplete and
only by combining these two will the comprehension of
the issues of transformation and progress of structure be
achieved. Structuralism invariably defines infrastructure
in terms of the unconscious, teleological, synchronic,
relational, symbolic and universal. Levi-Strauss invokes a
characteristic structuralist argument, that only the
unconscious mind can mediate a mutual understanding
and transcend subjective bias - an unconditional
objectivity (Levi-Strauss 1962). Thus, it seems that LeviStrausss structuralism is based upon a priori assumption
of Mauss who holds that gift exchange is a social fact that
is synthetic, rational and systematic and also a relational
and systematic process. On the whole structuralism is
anti history and undermines axiologival dimensions
(Scholte, 1972; Goldman, 1969).
Among the structuralists, Godeliers stand seems
logical and free from teleology. He outlines a scheme of
different economies which is chronological (historical)
and functional (logical). He undertakes Althussers stand
on social formation as that which unifies the elements of
infrastructure and superstructure (Althusser, 1969).
Elaborating this further Godelier argues that by
identifying the numbers and matrix of various modes of
production, political and ideological structures, the
articulation between various modes and the function of all
the elements in the superstructure, one can comprehend
social formation in general. He has applied this approach
to analyze the social structure of the Inca in 16th century
(Godelier, 1972). Elsewhere he has pronounced that it is
the concept of mode of production which constitutes the
primary concept of economic anthropology (Althusser,
1969).Accordingly, he argues that production process is
related to technology (T), resources (R), instrument of
labour (IL) and men (M) so as to obtain the product(P)
socially. Further, he holds that production is the functional
combination of three set of variables(R -IL - M) which
assume different forms depending on the nature of
variables, while the relation between the variables is
reciprocal (Godelier, 1966). This approach is different
from idealism, as the productivity of a system will be the
measure of the ratio between the social product and the
social cost that it implies. This implies that the less
complex its production pattern, the more effective the
technology which is dependent on the diversity of the
natural conditions in which it operates will be. Godelier
argues that economic anthropology is better understood

Pathy

under the framework of comparative political economy

that is mercantile-machine capitalist economies that
originated in Europe and its subsequent imposition of
superiority and rationality on the non-industrial and
non-European economies.
MATERIALIST APPROACH
The most important landmark in the materialist
conception of political economy is the development of the
category of social-economic formation, the classic
description of which is given to Marxs preface to his
work, a contribution to the critique of political economy,
1859. Upholding Marxs analysis, Lenin wrote that while
explaining the structure and development of the given
formation of society exclusively through production
relations, he nevertheless everywhere and incessantly
scrutinized the superstructure corresponding to these
production relations (Lenin, 1971). In the present paper it
is assumed that broad political economic framework
would enable the explanation of the variety of economic
forms that occur under specific historical conditions; in
other words comprehending the qualitative changes at a
given point of time.
From the materialist approach, the economic process is
divided in three parts: (1) the appropriation of materials
from nature (2) transforming these materials using tools,
techniques and labour and (3) lastly the use of the
product through distribution and consumption. The nature
of these relations in production is complex and the
complexity depends on the level of productive forces
along with technology and the subsequent social
relations between and among different economic classes.
The process exchange enables the producer to acquire
particular products into which he/she wishes to convert
the quantity allocated. In consumption, the products are
individually appropriated for use (Marx, 1904, 1971). It
seems logical to apply this framework to comprehend the
economic and social relations particularly in the context
of pre-industrial and pre-capitalist social formations. In
these societies there were diverse components of
production system corresponding to specific sociocultural adaptation. This approach to the study of culture
and society dates back to the time of Morgan and Engles
(Marx, 1965; Morgan, 1877; Engles, 1963; Meillassoux,
1971; Terray, 1972). Engles interpreted Morgans
schema and argued that there exists a specific relation
between a mode of production and population and this
precisely brought about the integration of economic and
ecological studies in anthropology.
Meanwhile, Meillassoux applied historical-materialist
framework to study the subsistence economy of Guro in
order to analyze the post-colonial changes, commercial
agriculture, the advent of money economy, trade and
exchange. Similar other anthropological studies, like the
Kandh and the Saora in India also throw light on the
method in comprehending typical tribal social formation

107

(Pathy, 1984; Pathy, 1986). In the pre-capitalist societies

like the Kandh, the Bodo,
The Lanjia Saora, etc., the mode of production
operates in three tiers that is; economic, juridico-political
and ideological structure. In these societies, land
becomes a subject of and an instrument of labour.
Human energy is largely the only form of energy available
coupled with primitive tools which require little labour
investment (Meillassoux, 1971). Terray argues that there
is interplay of variables between different modes resulting
in diversity of the political, juridical and ideological
superstructures. Also, there is a reciprocal expression of
the totality of the various parts between elements whose
originality is irreducible.
Be that as it may, in pre-capitalist society, kinship
relations function as relations of production and also
ideological superstructure. Precisely, the low level of
productive forces and minimal technological applications
bring the members closer in that particular society,
thereby showing the significance of group life/village unit.
Thus, in these societies the economy-kinship linkage is
both an internal as well as external feature.
Notwithstanding the rationality and logic of the
materialist method it is argued that this cannot be simply
applied dogmatically to concrete social formations.
This is so because it is assumed that socio-economic
formation in general is the consequence of different
modes of production, the inherent diversities and the
complexities, the articulation between different modes,
the dominant one among them and the subordinate
mode/modes. It is this combination in the dominance of at
least two modes of production, where concrete social
relations that appear in the field, are exactly the product
of complex causality (Taylor, 1972).
Finally, the paper submits that the application of petty
commodity production (PCP) as an analytical category for
the study of socio-economic formation would enlarge
ones comprehension of economic anthropology particularly with regard to pre-capitalist tribal societies (Pathy,
1986).
This is because in these societies the producer
appropriates the means of production while setting the
productive forces in motion which is associated with the
disappearance of community rights to property. However,
the concept needs to be clearly defined and categorized
and thus demands exploratory and explicatory exercise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is extremely thankful for the critical comments
of her late husband, Dr. Jaganath Pathy, on the draft.
However, she alone is responsible for the drawbacks.
REFERENCES
lthusser L (1969). For Marx, London.
Cook C (1969). The Anti-Market Mentality Re-examined : A Further

108

Int. J. Sociol. Anthropol.

Critique of the Substanvist Approach to Economic Anthropology in G.

Dalton Stoneworking Industry in Oaxaxay; Mexico : Analytical Essay
in (Ed.), American Anthropologist.
Cook (1970). Review of Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies:
Essays of Karl Polonyi in G.Dalton (Ed.). op.cit.
Cook (1970). Price and Output Variability in a Peasant-Artisan
Economic Anthropology Am. Anthropol., 72: 776-801.
Edel (1967). Jamaican Fishermen: Two Approaches in Economic
Anthropology. Soc. Econ. Stud. 6: 432-439.
Engles F (1963). The Origin of Family, Private Property and State,
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Firth R (1965). Primitive Polynesian Economy, London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Godelier M (1972). Rationality and Irrationality in Economics, London:
Monthly Review Press.
Godelier M (1972). Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology, London
Godelier M (1966). Structure and Contradiction is Capitalism, in R
blackburn (Ed.) Ideology in Social Sciences, London: Penguin.
Rostow WW (1960). The Stages of economic Growth: A Noncommunist Manifesto, Cambridge: University Press.
Grass NSB (1927). Anthropology and Economics in WFOgburn, AA
Goldenweiser (Ed.). The Social Sciences and their Interrelation,
Bosten: Houghton Mifflin.
Joy (1967). An Economic Homologue of Barths Presentation of
Economic Spheres in Dasfur in R.Firth (ed.) Themes in Economic
Anthropology, London: Tavistock.
Lange O (1963). Political Economy (trans.).
Lee (1969). King Bushman Subsisitence: An Input-Output Analysis in
D.Damas (Ed.) Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays,
Ottawa.
Levi-Strauss C (1963). Structural Anthropology (1962.) Rousseau: The
Father of Anthropology, UNESCO C Ourier, 16: 12-18.
Lenin VI (1971). Collected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx K (1904). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
Chicago Kerr (1965). Pre-capitalist Economic Formations, New york:
International Publishers.

Meillassoux C (1971). From Reproduction to Production: A Marxist

Approach to Economic Anthropology, Econ. Soc., 1: 90-110.
Morgan LH (1877). Ancient Society, Cleveland : Meridian Books.
Nash M (1961). The Social Context of Economic Choice in a Small Soc.
Man., 29: 186-191.
Orans (1968). Maximisingin Jajmaniland: A Model of caste Relations,
Am. Anthropol., 70: 875-921.
Pathy J (1984). Tribal Peasantry: Dynamics of Development, Delhi :
Inter India Publications.
Pathy S (1986). Social Differentiation among the Saora, Ph.D. Thesis,
South Gujarat University, Surat.
Sahlins MD (1965). On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange in H.
Banton (ed.) The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology,
London: Tavistock.
Sahlins MD (1958). Social Stratification in Polynesia.
Seatle (1960). Political Power and the Economy in Primitive Society in
GE Dole and RLC Arneiro (Ed.) Essays in the Science of Culture,
New York.
Salisbury RF (1968). Anthropology and Economics in E.E. Le Clair and
H.K. Schneider (Ed.) op.cit.
Scholte, (1972). The Structural Anthropology of Claude Leevi-Strauss
in John Honigman (ed.) Hand Book of Social Cultural Anthropology,
Chicago : Rand Mc Nally, Co.
Smith A (1881). The Wealth of Nations pp. 111-115.
Seddon D (1978). Economic Anthropology or Political A Economy ? II :
Approaches to the Analysis of Precapitalist Formations in the
Maghreb in J. Clammer. (Ed.) The New Economic Anthropology.
London: Macmillan.
Taylor JJ (1972). Marxism and Anthropology, Econ. Soc., I: 3-9.
Terray E (1972). Marxism and Primitive Societies, London.