Exchange of Values

Marxist Capital Value vs. Yonggom Social Value

The exchange of values can be interpreted in many ways.  These values, or commodities, vary in worth by the culture in which they occur.  As shown by political economy, specifically that which has been outlined by Karl Marx, and perhaps more primitive societies like the Yonggom, commodities can have both capital and social value, respectively. 

Exchange value, according to Marx, is the amount of labor that would be required in order to produce a certain commodity.  This allows economic systems to value anything that has been created so that it can be reasonably exchanged between two parties.  For example, if a gold watch takes fifty hours to produce, and a skateboard only takes two hours, the watch could be valued at twenty-five times that of the skateboard.  Marx also argued that a commodity cannot be valued by labor time or money alone.  Social desirability also influences value quite powerfully in the market.  This fetishism of commodities alters value based on demand by consumers.

In the Yonggom culture, good’s are commonly exchanged in a way that places the value of a commodity on social relationships rather than an actual item.  This system seems to closely resemble the credit structure of modern America.  Rather than require the recipient to pay with a form of currency, a person or group of people, will instead “gift” items under the assumption that they will be reimbursed with a desired object at a later time, thus allowing the creation of social relations.  Those who successfully fulfill their transitive obligations develop a higher personal worth.  However, failure to do so is viewed as a dehumanizing act by those who are neglected (Kirsch 2006, 80). 

Stuart Kirsch gives a wonderful example of the how the Yonggom culture views the exchange of goods through their arat pig feast festivities.  Gatherings that can range from a simple meal between families to a huge assembly with hundreds of people, attendants are expected to bring an adequate gift to match the share of pig they will eat.  Historically, the most sought after gift is that of Cowerie shells.  In return for these gifts, the main organizer raises the pigs, invites potential guests, and divvies specific sections of the meat.  If a guest is unable to present the host with a gift of shells, he may still be entitled to feast if his relationship is valued (Kirsch 2006, 80).

These two distinct perspectives can be understood similarly in some ways.  As shown by the current structure of the United States economy, we can purchase goods and services by direct payment or trade, a Marxian ideal, or simply use a credit card with the promise that we will pay the value back at a later time. This credit system can closely relate to the Yonggom system of exchange.

The two perspectives however, are not completely compatible with each other. In today’s Western culture, with exchange, we must be utterly persuaded of quick compensation of equal value. If we are not certain of the other’s responsibility, we choose not to exchange. Also, if one does not fully compensate for their debt, their item of purchase becomes repossessed. In contrast, under Yonggom beliefs one will only been seen and valued differently. In the Yonggom culture by not demonstrating mutual recognition and returning a gift, one may be dehumanized and risk sorcery (Kirsch 2006, 80).

While the two systems have similarities, the differences are too immense for a resolution of the two. The Yonggom ideas of gifting and social exchange are just not strict enough for the Marxist beliefs of capital value. The two theories are unable to come to a resolution because of their views of loss and compensation. I do not believe that Marxists will ever be able to completely identify with the Yonggom’s views of loss and compensation because of the lack of action taken in spite of it with Yonggom exchange. Although they are far from it, I suppose the Yonggom people may one day be able to understand the Marxist ideals of loss and compensation. Evidence that they could be headed for change is the fact that they have exchanged more recently with money (Kirsch 2006, 82).

  Bibliography

Kirsch, Stuart. Reverse Anthropology Indigenous Analysis of Social and Environmental Relations in New Guinea.                                                 New York: Stanford UP, 2006. Print.