Week 6 · Chapter

Chapter 6 — Exchange and Economic Systems

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~25–35 minutes · Objective 4 (compare how societies make a living and exchange goods: the subsistence strategies as a model, generalized, balanced, and negative reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange, the obligations a gift creates, and documented cases such as the kula and the potlatch), Objective 2 (describe and practice ethnographic methods: participant observation, two-column field notes that keep observation apart from interpretation, interviews, the genealogical method, emic and etic perspectives, thick description, and reflexivity, following the discipline's ethics of doing no harm and obtaining informed consent) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, and the quiz all build on it.

In plain language

Every group of people moves things around: food, help, gifts, and money. Anthropologists call those movements exchange (any passing of goods or help from one person to another), and they sort them into a few kinds. This week you will learn three big forms of exchange as a model, and three kinds of reciprocity (giving back and forth between equals) that differ by how closely people keep count. You will meet two famous documented cases, the kula and the potlatch, and learn why a gift is never quite free. By the end, you will be able to sort an everyday exchange, read a market's tally of exchanges, and say what kind of tie each exchange builds.

Why you already care about this

Picture a holiday gift exchange among cousins (an illustrative scene). 8 cousins draw names from a bowl, each buys 1 gift, and the family sets a limit of 25 dollars a gift. Nobody sends a bill, and nobody pays at the door. Yet by the end of the night, everyone has noticed who gave what, and one cousin quietly plans a better gift for next year.

That evening feels ordinary, and an anthropologist still finds it strange. No money changed hands between the cousins, yet goods moved, feelings moved, and a debt of sorts was left behind. The next morning, the same cousins may buy coffee at a counter, pay the posted price, and walk away owing nothing. Two very different ways of passing goods happened within a day. This week asks what those ways are, how to tell them apart, and what each one does to the ties between people.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

name reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange and sort a new exchange into one of them;
tell generalized, balanced, and negative reciprocity apart by how closely the giver keeps track;
key the illustrative exchange set and explain why its borderline cases stay unkeyed;
describe the kula of the 1910s as exchange for prestige and partnership rather than profit;
explain the three obligations of the gift and use them to read the potlatch;
state Canada's potlatch ban and its end in 1951 as documented history;
tell general-purpose money from special-purpose money and read consumption as a sign of identity;
read the market's coded tally, work its percentages, and state the gap in percentage points.

Carry this sentence with you: a gift is a tie, not a free thing.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1 gave you the anthropological perspective, and Week 2 defined culture as learned and shared. Week 3 taught two-column field notes, Week 4 heard the market's talk as language, and Week 5 asked how people get their food.
This week: the forms of exchange as a model, the three kinds of reciprocity, the kula, the gift's obligations, the potlatch and Canada's ban, money and consumption, and the market's coded tally of 50 exchanges.
How they connect: Week 5 showed what people produce; this week shows how they share, swap, pool, and sell it.
Where we're going next: Week 7, Political Organization, Power, and Inequality, asks who has the authority to collect goods and give them out again.

Week 5 ended at the running fieldwork site, an illustrative, unnamed weekly neighborhood farmers' market of 24 stalls, where a family farm meets buyers who live by wages. This week you stay at the market and watch the goods move. Week 3's field notes already caught several exchanges: coffee poured for neighboring vendors with no one paying, peaches traded for bread, and unsold greens left in a crate marked "Pantry". Week 4 heard the vendors call one of those trades "the swap". Now you get the discipline's words for all of them.

1. Name the model: three forms of exchange

Think about three ways a sandwich could reach you. A parent could make it and hand it over. A club could collect dues and buy sandwiches for everyone at a meeting. A deli could sell it to you for its posted price. In each case a sandwich moves, but the path is different.

Anthropologists sort those paths into a model. Polanyi named three forms of exchange in The Great Transformation, and the course uses his three as a classroom tool:

Reciprocity is exchange between social equals, in which goods or help pass back and forth between people rather than through a center or a market.
Redistribution is exchange in which goods are collected by a central person or office and then given out again.
Market exchange is buying and selling at prices set by supply and demand, usually with money and with no lasting tie expected between buyer and seller.

Here are the three side by side.

The three forms of exchange in this course's model, with the path goods take and the tie each leaves
Form	Path the goods take	Tie left behind
Reciprocity	Back and forth between equals	An ongoing relationship
Redistribution	Into a center, then back out	A link to whoever holds the center
Market exchange	Seller to buyer for a price	Usually none once the price is paid

Worked example — sorting the sandwich paths (illustrative). Use the model on the three sandwiches.

The parent's sandwich. It passes within a family, and no price is named. That is reciprocity.
The club's sandwiches. Dues flow into the treasurer, and sandwiches flow back out to every member. That is redistribution.
The deli's sandwich. You pay the posted price and leave owing nothing. That is market exchange.

In words: the same food can travel by all three paths, and the form of exchange depends on the path and the tie, not on the thing that moves.

Here is the honesty note: the three forms are a model for comparing, and real economies mix all three every day. A limitation of any model is that one real exchange can show features of two forms at once.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of one meal you ate this week. Which form of exchange brought it to you, and who was on the other side of the exchange?
(b) Think of a place where you never pay for what you receive, such as a family table or a shared dorm fridge. What do people there expect instead of money?

Misconception check. Students often think market exchange is the natural or universal way people trade, and that gifts and sharing are leftovers from the past. That is tempting, because most of what you buy in a store comes by market exchange. But the model treats market exchange as one form among three, and real economies mix all three every day. The cure: before calling an exchange a purchase, ask whether a price, a center, or a relationship is doing the work.

2. Tell the reciprocities apart: how closely you keep count

Picture three favors (illustrative). Your older sister lends you her car and never mentions it again. A coworker covers your shift, and you cover hers the next week. A stranger at a garage sale talks you into paying double for a cracked lamp. All three are exchanges between people, with no center and no posted price. Yet they feel very different.

Sahlins (1965), "On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange", split reciprocity into three kinds by how closely the giver keeps track. The title uses the period's wording, which this course quotes only as a title and never uses in its own voice.

Generalized reciprocity is giving with no count kept and no set time for a return, usual among close kin and close friends.
Balanced reciprocity is exchange in which each side expects a return of about equal value within a known time, and both sides keep rough track.
Negative reciprocity is exchange in which one side tries to get more than it gives, including hard haggling with strangers.

The three kinds line up with social distance. The closer the tie, the less anyone counts. The more distant the tie, the closer the count, until a stranger may try to win the trade outright.

Worked example — placing the three favors. Ask one question of each: how closely does anyone keep count?

The sister's car. No one keeps count, and no return is set. That is generalized reciprocity.
The coworker's shift. Each side expects a return of about equal value within a known time, one shift for one shift. That is balanced reciprocity.
The garage-sale lamp. The seller tries to get more than the lamp is worth from a stranger. That is negative reciprocity.

In words: the sister, the coworker, and the stranger stand at three distances from you, and the count gets closer as the tie gets weaker.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Name one person with whom you keep no count at all, and one with whom you keep rough track. What makes the difference?
(b) Recall a time someone tried to get the better of you in a trade. How far was that person from you socially, and did that distance matter?

Misconception check. Students often think reciprocity always means an equal trade, one for one. That is tempting, because "reciprocal" sounds like "matched". But only balanced reciprocity expects an equal return. Generalized reciprocity keeps no count, and negative reciprocity aims for an unequal one. The cure: ask how closely the giver keeps track before you call any trade equal.

3. Key the exchange set: twelve everyday transactions

You now have five labels: generalized, balanced, and negative reciprocity, plus redistribution and market exchange. The course gives you twelve short transactions to practice them on. This is the illustrative exchange set (Dataset C), constructed for this course, and each transaction carries one pinned key.

Dataset C, the illustrative exchange set: twelve everyday transactions, each with its pinned exchange type
#	Transaction (illustrative)	Key
1	Parents feed and clothe their toddler and keep no count.	generalized reciprocity
2	A grandparent pays for a grandchild's school supplies with no return expected.	generalized reciprocity
3	A close friend drives you to the airport at 5 a.m. and neither of you mentions repaying it.	generalized reciprocity
4	Two roommates take turns buying the week's groceries.	balanced reciprocity
5	Two neighbors trade a dozen eggs from one's hens for a bag of tomatoes from the other's garden.	balanced reciprocity
6	Two coworkers agree to cover each other's weekend shift, one for one.	balanced reciprocity
7	A seller haggles a stranger at a flea market into paying far more than a lamp is worth.	negative reciprocity
8	Someone resells concert tickets to a stranger online at triple the price, hiding that the seats are behind a pillar.	negative reciprocity
9	A club collects dues from every member and the treasurer pays for an end-of-term dinner for all.	redistribution
10	A food bank collects donated food and gives it out to families who sign up.	redistribution
11	You buy a phone charger at a store for its posted price.	market exchange
12	You buy a used bike from a stranger at the price you both agree on, and part ways.	market exchange

Worked example — counting the keys. Tally the twelve keys by type.

Generalized reciprocity. Transactions 1, 2, and 3, so 3 keys.
Balanced reciprocity. Transactions 4, 5, and 6, so 3 keys.
Negative reciprocity. Transactions 7 and 8, so 2 keys.
Redistribution. Transactions 9 and 10, so 2 keys.
Market exchange. Transactions 11 and 12, so 2 keys.
The check. 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 12, which matches the twelve transactions.
Reciprocity as a group. 3 generalized + 3 balanced + 2 negative = 8 of the 12 transactions.

In words: twelve transactions keyed as 3 generalized, 3 balanced, 2 negative, 2 redistribution, and 2 market, and 8 of the 12 are some kind of reciprocity.

Some exchanges refuse to sit in one box, and the course says so. The course discusses three borderline cases and never keys them. They are birthday gifts among a group of friends (generalized, or balanced if everyone keeps track?), a tip at a restaurant (market, or a gift?), and a wedding gift registry (a gift, or a purchase list?). A good answer to a borderline case names both readings and the evidence that would decide between them.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Pick one of the three borderline cases and argue for one reading. What evidence would make you switch to the other reading?
(b) Add a thirteenth transaction from your own week. Which key would you give it, and how sure are you?

Misconception check. Students often think every exchange must have one right label, so a borderline case means someone made a mistake. That is tempting, because a table of keys looks like a test. But the model is a tool for comparing, and real exchanges can carry two meanings at once. The cure: key the clear cases, and for a borderline case name both readings and leave the verdict open.

4. Read the kula: exchange for prestige, not profit

Think of a trophy that moves from champion to champion. Each winning team holds it for a season, engraves a name, and hands it on. Nobody sells it, and its value grows with every name it carries.

Anthropologists have a documented case that works in a similar way. The kula was an exchange in which, in the 1910s, Trobriand Islanders and their neighbors carried shell necklaces clockwise and shell armbands counterclockwise around a ring of islands. Each valuable was held for a time and passed on for prestige and lasting partnerships rather than profit. The necklaces were called soulava (Kilivila, shell necklaces). The armbands were called mwali (Kilivila, shell armbands). The account comes from Malinowski (1922), Argonauts of the Western Pacific, written from his fieldwork in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s.

Worked example — reading the kula with the week's tools. Walk the four steps the course uses for every case.

What was observed. In the 1910s, soulava traveled one way around the ring of islands and mwali traveled the other way. Each valuable was held for a time and then passed on.
What it meant to the people involved. Holding a famous valuable brought prestige, and passing it on kept a partnership alive.
What the concept calls it. The kula was a form of reciprocity: valuables passed between partners, not through a center and not for a price.
What a comparison adds. Set beside the deli's sandwich from Section 1, the kula left a lasting tie behind, where the deli's sale left none.

In words: the kula was exchange for prestige and lasting partnerships, so its gain was fame and friendship rather than profit.

Notice the past tense and the decade. Malinowski's account describes what he recorded in the 1910s. Like every community, Trobriand Islanders have changed since then, and they speak for themselves.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Name something in your own life whose value comes from who held it before, such as a team trophy, a family heirloom, or a signed jersey. Why would you not sell it?
(b) Why might a partnership that lasts for years matter more to someone than one profitable trade?

Misconception check. Students often read the kula as trade for profit, as if islanders carried shells to sell them at a gain. That is tempting, because long voyages with valuables sound like a merchant's business. But the valuables were held and passed on, and the gain was prestige and partnership. The cure: ask what each person kept at the end of the exchange, and you will find a name and a partner, not a profit.

5. Explain the gift: three obligations

Imagine a neighbor brings you a pie when you move in (illustrative). You could hardly refuse it at the door. You feel you should thank her, and weeks later you find yourself baking something to bring back. A pie that cost you nothing has left you owing.

Mauss explained that feeling in his essay on the gift, Essai sur le don, first published in French in the 1920s. His argument names the three obligations of the gift: a gift carries three obligations, to give, to receive, and to give back.

To give. In many settings, a person who never gives is seen as cold or stingy.
To receive. Refusing a gift can read as refusing the giver.
To give back. A gift accepted opens a debt that a return gift closes, and the return can open a new one.

Worked example — the three obligations in the cousins' gift exchange. Return to the eight cousins from the opening.

To give. Each cousin draws a name and buys 1 gift; skipping the exchange would be noticed.
To receive. Each cousin accepts the gift handed over, even one they do not love.
To give back. The cousin who received a thoughtful gift plans a better one for next year, keeping the circle going.

In words: the cousins' exchange works because all three obligations hold, and the debt it leaves is what brings the family back next year.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Describe a gift you felt you could not refuse. What would refusing it have said about you or the giver?
(b) Describe a gift you felt you had to return. How did you decide what an equal return would be?

Misconception check. Students often think a gift is free of obligation, since nobody names a price. That is tempting, because "free gift" is a common phrase in ads. But a gift carries three obligations, to give, to receive, and to give back, and those obligations are what turn a gift into a tie. The cure: when you see a gift, look for the return it calls for.

6. Read the potlatch: giving that validates rank

Think of a large wedding where the hosts feed hundreds of guests. The guests are witnesses. By eating at the feast, they help confirm the new marriage in front of the whole community.

The potlatch is a ceremonial feast of the Kwakwaka'wakw (the older outsiders' label, "Kwakiutl", is given once here) and other Northwest Coast peoples at which hosts give away goods to validate names, rank, and rights before invited witnesses. The guests who received the goods were not only guests. They were witnesses to a claim, and by accepting the gifts they recognized it.

Worked example — reading the potlatch with the gift's obligations. Use Section 5's tool on this documented case.

To give. Hosts gave away goods, which showed they could support the name or rank they claimed.
To receive. Invited witnesses accepted the goods, and by accepting they recognized the claim.
To give back. Mauss's third obligation says that accepted gifts call for a return. The course pins no detail of how guests made that return, so treat this step as a question to bring to the community's own account on the Readings page.

In words: the potlatch turned giving into public recognition, so the goods given away bought witness and standing, not nothing.

The potlatch also has a documented history of harm, and the course states it plainly. Canada's potlatch ban was a law under the Indian Act that banned the potlatch from 1885 until 1951, when the law was dropped. After a potlatch held in 1921, people were arrested and ceremonial objects were seized and sent to museums. These are documented facts, not a debate. Week 15 returns to what happened to those objects.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of an event in your life where guests served as witnesses, such as a wedding, a graduation, or a naming. What did their presence confirm?
(b) Why might a ceremony that confirms names and rights in public matter more than a written record to the people who hold it?

Misconception check. Students often read the potlatch as waste, a party that threw goods away. That is tempting, because giving away a great deal at once looks like loss if you count only the goods. A second wrong turn reads Canada's ban as a debated policy. But the potlatch validated names, rank, and rights before witnesses, and the ban was a documented law in force from 1885 to 1951. The cure: ask what the giving secured, and state the ban as history.

7. Distinguish two kinds of money, and read consumption

Picture a county fair (illustrative). At the gate, you trade cash for a strip of ride tickets. The tickets buy rides and nothing else. They will not buy a sandwich at the deli across the street, and they are worthless once the fair closes.

That strip of tickets shows a difference between two kinds of money.

General-purpose money is money that can be used for nearly any exchange, such as one national currency that buys groceries, pays rent, and settles debts.
Special-purpose money is money or tokens that are valid for some exchanges only, such as tickets that buy food at one fair and nothing else.

Spending also says something about the spender. Consumption is what people buy, use, and display, studied by anthropologists as a way people show identity as well as meet needs. A team jersey, a style of sneakers, or a phone case each tells others something about the person who chose it.

Worked example — sorting money and reading a purchase (illustrative). Look at three things in one student's wallet and closet.

A ten-dollar bill. It buys almost anything anywhere the currency is accepted. That is general-purpose money.
A campus laundry card. It runs the washers in one building and nothing else. That is special-purpose money.
A jersey from a hometown team. It keeps the student warm, and it also tells new classmates where the student comes from. That is consumption as a sign of identity.

In words: the bill and the laundry card differ by how many exchanges they can enter, and the jersey shows that what people buy also says who they are.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Find one form of special-purpose money in your own life, such as a gift card, a transit card, or a meal plan. What can it buy, and what can it not?
(b) Name one thing you bought partly to show who you are. What would a stranger read from it?

Misconception check. Students often think all money is the same thing, so any token that buys something is plain cash. That is tempting, because money in your wallet seems to buy anything. But special-purpose money is valid for some exchanges only, and many tokens in daily life work that way. The cure: ask what a token can buy and what it cannot before you call it general-purpose money.

8. Read the market's coded tally

Walk back into the running fieldwork site on a market morning. The market (Dataset A, illustrative, constructed for this course, not a real place) has 24 stalls. On one two-hour visit, an observer watched exchanges happen and sorted each one into a type. A coded tally is a count of observed exchanges in which each exchange is sorted into one type, with borderline cases set aside and discussed rather than forced into a type.

The running site's coded tally (Dataset A, illustrative): 50 exchanges from one two-hour visit, by exchange type, with each type's percent of 50
Exchange type	Count	Percent of 50
Market exchange (purchases at posted prices)	33	66 percent
Generalized reciprocity (coffee shared among neighboring vendors; change and bags lent between stalls)	8	16 percent
Balanced reciprocity (vendor-to-vendor swaps of matched value)	5	10 percent
Redistribution (unsold goods pooled in the "Pantry" crate and passed on by the manager)	4	8 percent
Negative reciprocity	0	0 percent
Total coded	50	100 percent

Worked example — the tally's percentages and the gap. A percent is a share of a total, out of 100. A difference between two percentages is in percentage points.

The total. 33 + 8 + 5 + 4 + 0 = 50 exchanges coded.
Market exchange share. 33 ÷ 50 × 100 = 66 percent.
Generalized reciprocity share. 8 ÷ 50 × 100 = 16 percent.
Balanced reciprocity share. 5 ÷ 50 × 100 = 10 percent.
Redistribution share. 4 ÷ 50 × 100 = 8 percent.
The check. 66 + 16 + 10 + 8 + 0 = 100 percent.
The gap. Market exchange at 66 percent against generalized reciprocity at 16 percent is 66 − 16 = 50 percentage points.
All reciprocity together. 8 + 5 + 0 = 13 exchanges, and 13 ÷ 50 × 100 = 26 percent.

In words: market exchange carried 66 percent of the coded exchanges versus 26 percent for all reciprocity together, so a vendor who counted only sales would miss 13 of the 50 exchanges that kept the vendors tied to each other.

Three exchanges were set aside, discussed, and never counted: free samples at the cheese stall, the free plum handed to a toddler before the parent bought a basket, and a hard haggle with a first-time buyer. Each one could carry two readings. The free samples could be a gift or advertising inside a market exchange. The plum could be generalized reciprocity or a sales move. The haggle could be market exchange or negative reciprocity. That is the honesty note for any tally: a count is only as good as its coding, and the set-aside cases show where the coding was hard.

Here is the reading in plain words. The tally shows a market where buying at posted prices carries most exchanges. Yet vendors who stand side by side every week still share without counting, swap at matched value, and pool unsold goods for a pantry, so all three forms of exchange work in one place.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Pick one of the three set-aside cases. What would you need to observe or ask to code it with confidence?
(b) The tally coded 0 exchanges as negative reciprocity. Why might a market where vendors see the same buyers every week have little negative reciprocity?

Misconception check. Students often treat a gap between two percentages as another percentage, saying market exchange was "50 percent more" than generalized reciprocity. That is tempting, because both numbers end in "percent". But a share of a total is a percentage, and a difference between two percentages is in percentage points. The cure: say "66 percent against 16 percent is a gap of 50 percentage points".

Key terms

Forms of exchange — A model, named in words from Polanyi, of three ways goods move among people: reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange; real economies mix all three. (first used: 1. Name the model: three forms of exchange)
Reciprocity — Exchange between social equals, in which goods or help pass back and forth between people rather than through a center or a market. (first used: 1. Name the model: three forms of exchange)
Redistribution — Exchange in which goods are collected by a central person or office and then given out again. (first used: 1. Name the model: three forms of exchange)
Market exchange — Buying and selling at prices set by supply and demand, usually with money and with no lasting tie expected between buyer and seller. (first used: 1. Name the model: three forms of exchange)
Generalized reciprocity — Giving with no count kept and no set time for a return, usual among close kin and close friends. (first used: 2. Tell the reciprocities apart: how closely you keep count)
Balanced reciprocity — Exchange in which each side expects a return of about equal value within a known time, and both sides keep rough track. (first used: 2. Tell the reciprocities apart: how closely you keep count)
Negative reciprocity — Exchange in which one side tries to get more than it gives, including hard haggling with strangers. (first used: 2. Tell the reciprocities apart: how closely you keep count)
Kula — An exchange in which, in the 1910s, Trobriand Islanders and their neighbors carried shell necklaces clockwise and shell armbands counterclockwise around a ring of islands. Each valuable was held for a time and passed on for prestige and lasting partnerships rather than profit. (first used: 4. Read the kula: exchange for prestige, not profit)
Three obligations of the gift — The argument of Mauss's essay on the gift that a gift carries three obligations: to give, to receive, and to give back. (first used: 5. Explain the gift: three obligations)
Potlatch — A ceremonial feast of the Kwakwaka'wakw and other Northwest Coast peoples at which hosts give away goods to validate names, rank, and rights before invited witnesses. (first used: 6. Read the potlatch: giving that validates rank)
Potlatch ban — Canada's law under the Indian Act that banned the potlatch from 1885 until 1951, when the law was dropped; after a potlatch in 1921, people were arrested and ceremonial objects were seized. (first used: 6. Read the potlatch: giving that validates rank)
General-purpose money — Money that can be used for nearly any exchange, such as one national currency that buys groceries, pays rent, and settles debts. (first used: 7. Distinguish two kinds of money, and read consumption)
Special-purpose money — Money or tokens that are valid for some exchanges only, such as tickets that buy food at one fair and nothing else. (first used: 7. Distinguish two kinds of money, and read consumption)
Consumption — What people buy, use, and display, studied by anthropologists as a way people show identity as well as meet needs. (first used: 7. Distinguish two kinds of money, and read consumption)
Coded tally — A count of observed exchanges in which each exchange is sorted into one type, with borderline cases set aside and discussed rather than forced into a type. (first used: 8. Read the market's coded tally)

Summary

Reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange are a model, and real economies mix all three.
The three reciprocities differ by how closely the giver keeps count.
The exchange set keys 3 generalized, 3 balanced, 2 negative, 2 redistribution, and 2 market.
In the 1910s, the kula moved valuables for prestige and partnership, not profit.
A gift carries three obligations: to give, to receive, and to give back.
The potlatch validated names, rank, and rights; Canada's ban ended in 1951.
Special-purpose money buys only some things; consumption also shows identity.
The market's tally: 66 percent market exchange, a gap of 50 percentage points over generalized reciprocity.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

An illustrative campus bake sale tallied 40 exchanges: 30 purchases at posted prices, 6 treats shared among the volunteers with no count kept, and 4 trades of a cookie for a brownie between volunteers. What percent of the 40 was market exchange, and what is the gap between market exchange and generalized reciprocity?
Key three fresh transactions (illustrative). First, a brother lends you his jacket and never asks about it. Second, the tenants of a building pay into a fund, and the building manager buys a shared grill. Third, a seller at a yard sale tells a stranger a cracked vase is perfect to get a higher price.
A classmate says, "The kula was a way for islanders to make money by trading shells." Using this week's concepts, explain what is wrong with that claim.
Another classmate says, "Whether the potlatch ban was right is a matter of opinion, so the course should present both sides." What is missing from that statement?

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Market exchange: 30 ÷ 40 × 100 = 75 percent. Generalized reciprocity: 6 ÷ 40 × 100 = 15 percent. The gap is 75 − 15 = 60 percentage points, written in percentage points because it is a difference between two percentages. The 4 trades are balanced reciprocity at 4 ÷ 40 × 100 = 10 percent, and 75 + 15 + 10 = 100 percent. This is a fresh tally, not the market's.
The jacket is generalized reciprocity, since no count is kept between close kin. The grill fund is redistribution, since money is collected by a central person and given back out as a shared good. The vase is negative reciprocity, since the seller tries to get more than the vase is worth from a stranger.
The claim reads the kula as trade for profit. In the 1910s, valuables were held for a time and passed on for prestige and lasting partnerships rather than profit, so the gain was fame and a partner, not money. The claim also slips into the present tense; the account describes what Malinowski recorded in the 1910s.
It treats a documented law as a debate. The ban was a law under the Indian Act from 1885 until 1951, and after a potlatch in 1921 people were arrested and ceremonial objects were seized. The course states documented harms plainly and saves the both-sides format for contested questions, such as how to code a borderline exchange.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, the model of power and authority asks who may collect and give out goods.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com