2004 Volume 68 Issue 4 Pages 487-510
In this paper, I study the epistemological problem of dealing with the contemporary phenomena of exchange from the viewpoint of anthropology. J-L. Nancy pointed out that our basic modern thoughts, for example "from community to society", and "from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft" or "from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity", are constructed from our contemporary thoughts. "Lost community", he said, is an especially idealistic "fantasme (illusion)" constructed by modern attitudes and mentality. This interesting opinion can also be shifted to the frame of exchange theory in anthropology. We consider the dichotomy of "traditional economy" vs. "market economy" an old one. However, at the same time, we need to ask ourselves why this dichotomy was so influential, and what was the imagination behind its constructs. Why did it have such an effect on cultural and economic anthropology? First, to clarify theoretical problems, we need to resume the studies about "reciprocity" developed by M. Sahlins, and the studies about "system theory" developed by K. Maegawa. The diagram of "reciprocity" by Sahlins treats the relationship between "action" and "social distance". Sahlins tried to connect the dimension of action to the dimension of mentality, but this did not fit his diagram. It is necessary to observe and describe the phenomena from other viewpoints. The frame in which "system theory" is applied to anthropology is too broad for the ethnography facing a "global / local" situation. However, system theory is too difficult to describe directly, solely from a viewpoint of general fieldwork. All anthropologists must feel this difficulty. We can propose that we should capture both sides of an idea and material for a solution of this difficulty. Sahlins also recognized this problem. Therefore, he used the cconcept "practical reason". From this theoritical work, we see that in past studies the dimensions, "norm", "practice" and "explanation", were described in a confusing and complicated manner. It is important to unite the world of ideas and the world of materials systematically. Second, I present and analyze data of "L.E.T.S." (Local Exchange and Trading System) activity in Catalunya. This paper is an anthropological response to L.E.T.S., a growing network of exchange. Generally, Catalunya is a "Comunitats Autonomes (autonomous community)" of Spain; at the same time it is also a "nation" that has its own history. Nation and history, however, are constructs of the imagination. This is also true of global phenomena. Therefore, I use "imagination" as the key concept for the analysis of "L.E.T.S." activity. The main and basic norm of "L.E.T.S." is reciprocity. That is "If you give, you can take." and "If you give more, you can take more". Therefore, it is not just reciprocity. This norm incorporates "accountability" in its practices. When we examine the practice, we see that the people of Catalunya exchange many services for their original currency. This currency is not real money. It is just an imaginary exchange. For example, when you sell a book to someone for 500 "iriz" (iriz is the monetary unit in Catalunya, like U.S. dollars), you write plus 500 on your account sheet, and the buyer writes minus 500 on his sheet. Therefore, L.E.T.S. has a norm like reciprocity and is used in practice like a market exchange, but no currency actually changes hands. Observing this exchange, one might interpretate it as "warm mutual aid". If we analyze this exchange as one "category of daily life" we can clealy see that this is a "pleasant activity". Moreover, if we note the term "contra
(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
