Melanesian Journal of Theology 3-1 (1987) 74 GOD AS THE SOURCE OF WEALTH (original) (raw)
There are no primal (or so-called “primitive”) societies which fail to celebrate their material blessings. When the animals are plentiful; when the tubers grow fat in the ground, or the maize tall and strong in the field; when the women are pregnant, and the men vital in war or negotiation, a small people has the elbow-room to be confident. It is a guarantee of self-respect if one has beasts and harvests good enough to meet one’s round of obligations, or answer the needs of a feast, and it is the fruit of a group’s identity that its members delight, shame, or frighten, out-bargain, or satisfy, its natural competitors. Wealth in primal society is group wealth. There are undeniably individuals, families, or castes more noticeably well-off, and “primitive capitalism ” can indeed exist, so that, among the Tolai of New Britain, for example, it is harder for a native rope to pass through the eye of a bone needle than for a poor man – a man who has failed to accumulate shell-money – to ent...
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Economic Thought, Ritual, and Religion
The Palgrave Handbook of Anthropological Ritual Studies, 2021
Introduction: Economic Biases in the Anthropology of Ritual and Religion Describing Northwest Coast potlatch ceremonial gifting as if it was part of a consumer strategy of accumulating material goods, or trying to understand the Melanesian kula gift-exchange as if it was market transaction: One of the main purposes of anthropological thought is to prevent us from such pitfalls. The same holds for the religious domain: Treating religious rules of purity as if they were simply bureaucratic rules without deeper layers of meaning or treating ritual as if they were irrationally complicated ways of pursuing utilitarian goals have been the kind of biases against which the anthropology of religion has rightly positioned itself (see Douglas 1985; Rappaport 1999). But what about tackling biases that cut across domains? What about discovering biases in the economic domain that inhibit our view on religious phenomena? This contribution attempts to provide an outline how we might succeed to recognize and counter biases that cut across domains. I propose that many misconceptions of religion and many problems of understanding religious phenomena result not only from religious biases but also from a narrow view of economic transfers. More specifically, I suggest that much of our analysis of religion and ritual relies on ideas about economic markets and about reciprocal exchanges where they, in fact, are unwarranted and where notions of sharing would be
Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful
2013
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
This article examines the widely reported phenomenon of the efflorescence of magical beliefs and practices, often explained as a response by some societies to their incorporation into the cash and market economy. Rather than accepting this view that the phenomenon is a generalizable response to modernity, I seek to understand it in its own terms as a singular response to the introduction of new forms of wealth into a specific cultural framework. Taking the example of a particular society, the Lelet of Papua New Guinea, I show how the expansion of forms of wealth has led to a loss of control over the processes by which sociality was previously regulated. This discussion proceeds through consideration of Lelet management of valuables and desires, and the importance of visuality in this.
Introduction to an anthropology of wealth Introduction to an anthropology of wealth
In this introduction, we aim to demystify the concept of wealth, too entangled in financial discourses, which have generally reduced it to ‘accumulated assets’. This is at odds with the intricate cultural history of wealth as a concept, as well as with abundant anthropological accounts, instead defining wealth as a question of reproduction, relational flows and life vitality. When we view wealth as firstly a product of relational capacities, we begin to understand the processes wherein it is constantly being pulled at from forces that demand appropriation, be that finance, community or state. We therefore outline wealth as a triangular phenomenon between capital, the commons, and power. Careful at the dynamics between such forces, we structure our analysis around the paradoxical social processes where wealth, originating in every day relationships and human reproduction, is continually exposed to claims – such as market alienation, but also ‘commoning’, or governmental state control.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.