Finding value: Theory, abstraction, and fieldwork

I am still obsessed with the concept of value.  What is value?  What does it mean to say something has value?  How do we decide what something is “worth”?  How are different ideas about value connected to meaning–and action?  How do our ideas about value, worth, and meaning relate to our actions?  How is value connected to money (in its various forms)?  How are different forms of valorization (economic, cultural, moral, political) connected?  Where and when are they disconnected?

When I started on this exploration of the idea of value, one of my friends told me that if I’m really serious about looking deeper, then I should start with David Graeber’s book on the subject.  I did, and have subsequently read that book–and his book about Debt–and taken tons of notes.  My friend also said that my search for the meaning of value is going to head back to Marx one way or another.  And it did.  But it also led to Adam Smith, Clyde Kluckhohn, David Harvey, Noel Castree, Julia Elyachar, and many others.  This search for value has led me down many different side streets and avenues, and there’s still a lot of ground to cover. The most recent book that I am reading is James Buchan’s book Frozen Desire.  The money/value question, especially as it relates to land, real estate speculation, and development, is what has been keeping me occupied for some time now.  The more I look into value, the more I want to keep looking.  It’s a bit like an endless economic rabbit hole.

Now, I am definitely fascinated with the idea of value, but I am also willing to admit that it’s a massive, if not vague, concept.  Graeber said pretty much the same thing in the beginning of his book.  The word “value” can refer to a range of things: from prices and money values all the way to moral values.  So there’s a bit of fuzziness and abstraction going on, simply because of the wide array of ways in which people use the term.  Sometimes it’s hard to tell when one usage ends and another begins.  There’s a lot of contradiction and overlap going on.  I hate to say it, but the whole idea of value gets complicated–and really, really abstract at times.  Maybe too abstract?

Read the rest on Savage Minds.

Inconsistent Values: some thoughts about money

Money is pretty strange, especially the more you really think about it.  What makes people willing to hand over things like DVDs, steaks, and churros in exchange for a piece of paper with ridiculous little pictures and numbers all over it?  Why would anyone trade a delicious arrachera taco, say, for a grubby little piece of metal with an eagle stamped into it?  Why do sane people accept these transactions as reasonable, let alone desirable?  Well, there are of course a lot of reasons behind these kinds of decisions, including everything from the political power of states to a kind of trust that exists within a community of users.  One question that always gets me thinking is this: what exactly upholds the value of money?  State power?  Trust?  The symbolic meanings  that people attach to money?  Habit?  A big global conspiracy?  All of the above!?!*

I have been working in Mexico off and on since around 2007, and during that time I have had a few interesting run-ins with this thing we call money.  Many of these experiences point to one particularly intriguing fact: the value of money is anything but stable.  Of course, we all know that.  Markets shift, currencies rise and fall.  Inflation happens.  The value of money changes all the time, right?  Yes, it does.  But what I am talking about is how money that is supposedly stable at larger levels can change value depending on specific social situations.  So values shift in the macro sense, but also in micro, very quotidian senses as well.  And the reasons for those micro fluctuations of value are many.  In short, when it comes to the actual value of money, social context matters.  A few examples:

Read the rest on Savage Minds.

Anthropology & Intellectual Reconstruction

Over at the "Democracy in America" blog at The Economist, M.S. has a new post that replies to Florida Governor Rick Scott's recent "we don't need no anthropologists" statement.  The author provides a rehash of the whole debacle, and then quotes Arizona State University president Michael Crow's response to the situation:

[R]esolving the complex challenges that confront our nation and the world requires more than expertise in science and technology. We must also educate individuals capable of meaningful civic participation, creative expression, and communicating insights across borders. The potential for graduates in any field to achieve professional success and to contribute significantly to our economy depends on an education that entails more than calculus.

Curricula expressly tailored in response to the demands of the workforce must be balanced with opportunities for students to develop their capacity for critical thinking, analytical reasoning, creativity, and leadership—all of which we learn from the full spectrum of disciplines associated with a liberal arts education. Taken together with the rigorous training provided in the STEM fields, the opportunities for exploration and learning that Gov. Scott is intent on marginalizing are those that have defined our national approach to higher education.

M.S. argues that Crow's statement is "a solid response," but that something more is needed: "What it lacks are rhetorical oomph and concrete examples."  So what can provide that extra OOMPH and rhetorical power?  Actual examples of anthropologists putting their training and knowledge to work:

Some of the best analysis of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, and of the ongoing follies on Wall Street these days, has been produced by the Financial Times' Gillian Tett. Ms Tett began warning that collateralised debt obligations and credit-default swaps were likely to lead to a major financial implosion in 2005 or so. The people who devise such complex derivatives are generally trained in physics or math. Ms Tett has a PhD in anthropology.

Read the rest on Savage Minds, here.

Wall Street, Economics, Anthropology & Protests

Lorenz has a good new post about the recent "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  Here's a selection:

While the Guardian is sending an anthropologist on fieldwork among bankers to give us insight in the destructive culture of finance, thousands of people in New York are occupying the Wall Street, “the financial Gomorrah of America” and “greatest corrupter of our democracy”.

Inspired by the massive public protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and Madrid’s Puerta del Sol Square, hundreds have slept outside near Wall Street for the past three nights. The campaign “Occupy Wall Street” began on Saturday when thousands gathered in New York City’s Financial District.

As Egyptian researcher Maha Abdelrahman said a few months ago, we might be witness to a global revolutionary movement against neoliberalism.

The post also includes this video of anthropologist David Graeber on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now:

Check out the video, and make sure to read through the entirety of Lorenz's post.  Considering all of the debates about debt these days, it makes sense to look deeper into exactly what it's all about.  I just got Graeber's book recently, and I am looking forward to reading it.  One thing that economic anthropologists add to these discussions that economists tend to forget is HISTORY.

The history of economic thought

Loomnie posted this interesting interview of Bruce Caldwell, an econ professor at Duke University who is working on putting history back into economics.  Here's a short description of the interview:

Who is going to teach fields like economic methodology and the history of economic thought if these fields aren’t taught to current graduate students? Bruce Caldwell is filling this hole in the graduate curriculum. The Hayek scholar is ramping-up the Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University to educate a generation of future professors – a generation that is well-versed in the history of economic thought, and that communicates with other social sciences and the humanities. These are the seeds of new economic thinking.

Loomnie says that he finds this idea "really, really interesting" and I agree.  I wonder if there is any engagement with economic anthropology here--or if that would be a possibility.  In one part of the video Caldwell says that he really appreciates the different perspectives that other humanities and social sciences bring to studies of the history of economic thought.  I know that anthropologists have tried to engage with economists in the past, but that hasn't panned out all that well.  It would be interesting, despite all of the differences, to see more discussions between the econs and the anthros.

The Decision Makers

Why do humans do the things they do? And how can anthropologists explain these behaviors? Are humans rational actors? Or are our decisions culturally determined? Somewhere in between?

You see, this is what I get to talk about all week in grad school land. Sounds fun, doesn't it?

The readings of the week in my Economic Anthropology seminar focus on rational choice and decision making. A couple of the articles talk about something called "experimental economics," which is basically an attempt at finding human behavioral universals through field experiments. Although I understand the underlying intentions, I am not convinced by the results of these tests, which basically "test" human decision making through a series of games. My main problem: how can the information from these "experiments" be extrapolated to other behaviors? Why should we (or anyone else) assume that the tests tell us about human behavior writ large?

What do tests actually test? What do these kinds of experiments actually tell us? I tend to think that they tell us how people respond to test/experiment situations, and not much else. Now, that can be interesting--I suppose--on some levels, but I think it's pretty questionable when researchers start assuming that these kinds of results automatically apply to other behaviors. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.*

*Note: this post will not qualify me for the public anthropology of the year blog. I know. This is more of an internal issue.

Econ/Anth

Yes, I know that economic theory and anthropology are quite different--that's pretty apparent. And it's also apparent that there are plenty of clashes between the two disciplines. The question is: how did this come about?

So that's why I'm reading all about formalists and substantivists and notions of rationality, right?

That, and because economic theory informs a lot more social thought than just economics.