Critical realism and economic anthropology (original) (raw)

This paper discusses basic critical realism within the context of economic anthropology and develops an approach to studying material relations between people. A diachronic form of analysis, following the work of Bhaskar and Archer, is described as a practical means of analysing property rights. This new approach emphasises epistemic relativism and ontological realism in order to compare disparate forms of human interaction across cultures. The aim of doing this is to develop a philosophical framework that allows for the comparison of economic practices without resorting to judgemental relativism. The implications are significant for institutional economics and anthropology alike, particularly for researchers examining multiple overlapping practices such as market and gift exchange. The words shown above are used in everyday language, by laypersons and academics alike, to describe ways in which humans interact. The history of anthropology reminds us that these concepts are often culturally specific rather than universal. For instance, if we speak of 'giving', we may be referring to giving presents, giving alms, giving time, giving up, giving in, giving out, giving things, giving ideas, giving permission, giving dowry, giving blood, or even giving people, depending on when and to whom we speak. Defining universal forms of human interaction is therefore challenging because meaning often appears to be situational or dependent on local variables. Indeed, issues of classification are the primary reason that some anthropologists have discouraged comparison between cultures, and – in doing so – have fundamentally challenged the basis of the discipline (see, for instance, the recent debate in HAU Journal – 'Incomplete regu-larities', da Col 2015). If social practices can only be understood by means of localised historical accounts, after all, why bother comparing cultures? This question, and our rebuke, form the basis of this article. It advances an argument which entails that comparisons of human interaction are not only possible, they are imperative if anthropology is to provide a full and proper account of the way economies form. The basis of the comparative