TRIBAL ECONOMY
Economic process
cannot be interpreted without culture.
An economic
system is an organized arrangement for producing, distributing, and consuming
goods.
Karl Polanyi an
economic historian had identified three different modes of exchange.
RECIPROCITY
REDISTRIBUTION
MARKET EXCHANGE
The primitive
society have passed through several stages of economic development everywhere
in the world.
The tribes
living in the forests and hills usually earn their livelihood by means of food
gathering, hunting and fishing: Kadar from Kerala, Birhor and Kharia from
Bihar and other states.
Tribes only
dependent on hunting: Naga, Kuki, Bhil, Santhal and Gond.
The tribes
living near rivers and seas usually earn their livelihood by catching fish
Tribes involved
in cattle rearing: Goojars and tribes of Chamba, Todas of Nilgiri Mountains
Tribes involved
in cultivation: Santhal, Gonds, Kamars etc. (basically shifting
cultivation)
Tribals involved
in cottage industries: Naga and Kharias.
Features of
tribal economy:
v Production
without technical aids
v Mixing economic
activities with religion and magic
v Production for
consumption (subsistence economy)
v Absence of
currency
v Absence of
regular markets
v Absence of
specialization
v Community basis
of production
There are vast differences between the economies of
isolated, small, self sufficient societies and large scale societies that are
integrated into the modern system of global commerce.
These differences are not only in terms of the scale
of economies, their systems of production, distribution and exchange as well as
concepts of property ownership are often radically different.
For example the economic organization of a hunting
and gathering society is different from that of an agricultural society.
But all societies in this world have economic
organizations, irrespective of whether it is a tribal, peasant or urban.
To satisfy the basic need of survival food is one of
the most important basic requirement. We either collect it from our surrounding
or produce it manually. But when we lead a social life we need to satisfy the
requirement of all the individuals in the society.
For this the resources have to be used in an
equitable manner, the product be distributed among all individuals and the
whole process be organized for a social cause.
Thus economic organization is essential to ensure
PRODUCTION
COLLECTION
DISTRIBUTIION
AND
CONSUMPTION in
an equitable way.
RAYMOND
FIRTH: Economic organization is a type of Social Action.
It involves the combination of various kinds of human service with one another
and with goods such a way that they serve the given ends
ORIGIN
OF ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY
v It
origins as a subfield of anthropology began with work by the Polish founder of
anthropology Bronislaw Malinowski
and the French Marcel Mauss on the
nature of reciprocity as an alternative to market exchange.
v Post
World War II economic anthropology was highly influenced by the work of
economic historian Karl Polanyi.
v Polanyi
drew on anthropological studies to argues that true market, exchange was
limited to a restricted number of Western industrial societies.
v Applying
formal economic theory (formalism) to non-industrial societies was mistaken, he
argued.
v In
non-industrial societies exchange was embedded in such non-market institutions
as Kinship, Religion and Politics
(an idea he borrowed from Mauss).
v He
labeled this approach Substantivism.
THEORIES
IN ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY
v Till
the 1920s anthropologists did not pay much attention to the study of what later
became ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY or the anthropological study of the working of
economic systems in human society.
v Malinowski’s Argonauts of the
Western Pacific (1922) is regarded as one of the
pioneering works in this sub field.
v The
crux of Malinowski’s argument was that societies like that of the Trobriand
Islanders did not fit the classic economic model.
v Classical
economics emphasizes the fact that free markets lead to an efficient outcome
and are self regulating.
v In
such societies the motive of economic activities was not confined to the satisfaction
of material wants but embraced much more such as gains in terms of enhanced
social prestige—KULA RING.
v Further
the boundaries between economic activities and other aspects like religion were
interlinked and overlapped.
v Malinowski’s
anti economic approach continued to profoundly influence anthroplogists working
in this subfield till about the late 1930s and they made reappearance as a
basic tenet of the SUBSTANTIVIST POSITION of the 1950s.
APPROACHES:
While study
tribal economy economic anthropologist study economic process but their aproach
is different from economists.
Economists
usually restrict themselves to monetary transactions and try to develop formal,
abstract models of economic system.
Economic
anthropologists (while studying tribal economy) usually are concerned with all
forms of production, circulation and consumption, monetary or not.
They are
concerned less with developing formal models and more with trying to describe
and understand economic action in their social and cultural context.
In the study of
tribal economy two main approaches are concerned:
One approach is
concerned with social context-
v what sorts of
people make, give, take or consume
v Which sorts of
things and
v Which sorts of
situation they do so
v For example in Sub
Saharan African village--
v who tend food crops: men or women
v Old or young
v Married or
single and so forth
Another approach
is concerned with cultural context:
v How do different
sorts of people understand their economic activities
v What are the
object involved
v And the people
whom they carry out those activities
v When an artisan
sell something to a buyer how does each party think about their relationship
and the object that they exchange
REDISTRIBUTION
Redistribution
is a form of exchange in which goods flow into a central place where they are
sorted, counted, and reallocated. Commonly it involves an element of power. In
societies with a sufficient surplus to support some sort of government, goods
in the form of gifts, tribute, taxes and the spoils of war was gathered into
store houses controlled by a chief or some other types of leaders. From where
they are handed out again. The leadership has three motives in redistributing
this income:
1.
To
gain or maintain a position of power through a display of wealth and generosity
2.
To
assure those who support the leadership an adequate standard of living by
providing them with desired goals.
3.
To
establish alliances with leaders of other groups by hosting them at lavish
parties and giving them valuable goods.
The
redistribution system of ancient Inca Empire in the Andean highlands of
South America was one of the most efficient the world has ever known, both
in the collection of tribute (obligatory contributions or gifts in the form of
crops, goods and services and in its method of administrative control.
Careful accounts
were kept of income and expenditures. A central administration, regulated by
the Inca Emperor and his relatives had the responsibility for ensuring that
production was maintained and the commodities were distributed.
Holding power
over this command economy the ruling elite lived in great luxury but sufficient
goods were redistributed to the common people to ensure that no one would be
left in dire need or face indignity or pauperism.
Taxes imposed by
central governments of countries all around the world today are one form of
redistribution. Typically a portion of the taxes goes towards supporting the
government itself while the rest are redistributed either in cash or in form of
services.
CONSPICUOUS
CONSUMPTION
A showy display
of wealth for social prestige. It is a strong motivator for the distribution of
wealth.
Excessive
efforts to impress others with one’s wealth or status also play a prominent
role in industrial and post industrial societies as individual compete for
prestige.
A form of
conspicuous consumption also occurs in some crop cultivating and foraging
societies - as illustrated by POTLATCH : hosted by the chiefs of various
American Indian groups living along the Pacific northwest coast including the Tlingit,
Haida and Kwa Kwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl) people.
A Potlach is a
ceremonial event in which a village chief publicly gives away stockpiled food
and other goods that signify wealth.
Traditionally a
chief whose village had built up enough surplus to host such a feast for other
villages in the region would give away large piles of sea otter furs, dried
salmon, blankets and other valuable while making boastful speeches about his
generosity, greatness and glorious ancestor. While other chiefs became indebted
to him he reaped the glory of successful and generous leadership and saw his
prestige rise.
In future his
own village might face shortages and he would fit himself on the receiving end
of Potlatch.
The Potlatch
provided a ceremonial opportunity to strategically redistribute surplus food
and goods among allied villages in response to periodic fluctuations in
fortune.
In Maya
Indians towns in the highland of Guatemala and Southern Mexico in these
traditional communities the higher public offices are those of councilmen,
judges, and mayors, in addition to various ceremonial leadership positions.
Because the people who are called upon to fill these roles are not paid the
positions are known as Cargos. In fact Maya Indian office holders are
expected to personally pay for the food, liquor, music, fireworks or whatever
is required for community festivals or for the feast meals associated with
their particular posts.
After holding a
Cargo position a man usually returns to his normal life for a period during
which he may accumulate sufficient resources to campaign for a higher office.
Each successful male citizen of the community is socially obliged to serve in
the community’s Cargo system at least once and social pressures to do so drives
individuals who have once again accumulated surplus wealth to apply for higher
officers in order to raise their social status ideally. While some individuals
gain appreciably more prestige than others in their community, no one has
significantly more wealth in the long run than anyone else.
By pressuring
members into sharing their wealth in their own community rather than keeping it
to themselves or privately investing it elsewhere such leveling mechanism do
more than keep resources in circulation. They also reduce social tensions among
relatives, neighbors and fellow town folk promoting a collective sense of
togetherness.
Comments