The Kula and Generalized Exchange

The Kula and Generalised Exchange: Considering Some Unconsidered Aspects of the
Elementary Structures of Kinship

Author(s): Frederick H. Damon
Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 267-292
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801671 .
Accessed: 30/12/2010 07:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.
http://www.jstor.org
THE KULA AND GENERALISED EXCHANGE:
CONSIDERING SOME UNCONSIDERED ASPECTS
OF
THE ELEMENTARY STRUCTURES OF KINSHIP
FREDERICK H. DAMON
University
of Virginia
As anthropologistsare reading Marx, sociologistsare beginning to read Levi-Strauss.

Based on an analysisof theKula, thisarticleattemptsto place Levi-Strauss'sfirstmajor work
in lightof neomarxistthought.It is suggestedthat'kinship'forLevi-Straussoccupies a place
in some kindsof societiesanalogous to thatof 'capital'in capitalistsocietyaccordingto Marx.
But usingdata fromtheKula it is shown thatsuch a perspectiveignoresthequestionof how
'production' articulateswith 'circulation'.Although certain aspects of the Kula may be
comprehendedin termsof generalisedand restrictedexchange,the postulatedcontradiction
in generalisedexchangedoes not accountfortheKula's dynamics.'Ownership',derivedfrom
the sphereof production,not 'reciprocity',accountsforthe Kula's dynamics.
We live in a societywherethereis a markeddistinction... between

real and personallaw, betweenthingsand persons.This distinction
is fundamental;it is the very conditionof part of our systemof
property,alienation,and exchange.Yet it is foreignto thecustoms
we have been studying(Mauss I967: 46).
The victoryof rationalismand mercantilismwas requiredbefore
the notionsof profitand the individualwere given currencyand
raised to the level of principles.One can date roughly-after
Mandeville and hisFabledesAbeilles-the triumphofthenotionof
individualinterest(ibid.,p. 74).
JosephNeedham ... datesthe momentof European technological
and industrialadvantageover China only at I450 A.D. (Wallerstein
I974: 53).
Ever since the language of The elementarystructures

ofkinshipwas translated
into English it has been noted,not always in print,that the Kula exchange
systemresemblestheformof reciprocitywhich Levi-Strausscalls 'generalised
exchange'.Indeed Levi-Straussseemsto have assimilatedwhat he knew of the
Kula to this form of exchange (i969: 259, n.2). More recently Kelly (i968)
noted the affinity
betweenthetwo exchangeforms,and Ekeh (I974) devotes
Man(N.S.) 15, 267-92.
268 FREDERICK H. DAMON
considerableattentionto the analogy. Ekeh, moreover,observes that since

Kula valuables, mwals ('armshells') and veiguns('necklaces', Malinowski's
soulava),circulatein contrarydirections,the institutionresembles'restricted'
as well as generalisedexchange.It is theintentof thisarticle,basedon my own
researchin thenortheastcornerof theKula Ring,Woodlark Island,to discuss
thewaysin whichtheKula maybe viewed as a systemofgeneralisedexchange,
and to show the limitationsof thisperspective.
This effortwould have littlevalue ifit were confinedto showingmerelythe
correspondence,or lack thereof,of Levi-Strauss'smodel and the structureof
theKula. ConsequentlyI use thisspecificcomparisonto tryto re-contextualise
The elementary structuresof kinshipin the light of recentchanges in social
anthropology.For it is somethingof a paradox thatjust as sociologists,and
some economists (e.g. Heath I976), are beginning to use anthropological
exchange theory,many anthropologiststhemselvesare undergoinga minor
paradigm shift.I mean by this the gradual incorporationof marxism into
contemporaryanthropology (e.g. Bloch I975). For many people, myself
included, marxism seemed to be a way to returnto some of the broader
questionsabout societythatwere, also paradoxically,somewhatobscuredby
theverysuccessof structuralism or symbolism.And as is perhapsthecase with
all paradigm shiftsthe movementis or was accompanied by an attemptto
undermineitsmain predecessor.Thus Levi-Straussis accusedof being,among
other things,ahistorical.But it is time for a sympatheticreading of Levi-
Strauss'sfirstmajor work in lightof the apparentadvances coming fromthe
incorporationof marxisminto anthropology.
Evaluating Levi-Straussas a marxistinvolves a major undertaking.Just
listing,much less discussing,the works in which he claims to be operating
withinthe marxisttraditionis a major bibliographicchore (e.g. I966; I967:
ch. VIII, XII, XV, XVI; I976: ch. VI, XVII). There are, moreover,broader
questions. What, for example, is the relationshipof the whole French
sociologicaltraditionto marxism(see FirthI975; SahlinsI972: ch.4)? If
Levi-Straussis going to be evaluatedas a marxisthow should thisevaluation
proceed in light of other theoreticaltraditionswhich flourishin his work?
And how should it proceed given the more importantempirical advances
between Marx's time and his own? This point is important.For unlikesome
of hiscontemporaries(e.g. Althusser),Levi-Strausshas soughtto make mostof
his theoreticalcontributionswith referenceto specificethnographicrealities.
how is an updatedanthropologygoing to
Finally,irrespectiveof Levi-Strauss,
relateto recenttheoreticaland ethnographicadvancesin marxism(e.g.Ollman
I976; WallersteinI974)? While some anthropologists are addressingsome of
thesequestions(e.g. Godelier I977; I978), thisarticleis confinedto the more
limitedones alreadyposed.
I repeatthemhere.First,it has been suggestedthatthe Kula is like a system
of generalisedexchange.I intendto show how farthisanalogycan be pushed
and to show its major limitations.Second, it is my intentto place Elementary
structuresin the contextof neo-marxistthoughtin anthropology.Since this
questionfollowsthe firstthereare many aspectsof neo-marxistthoughtthat
I do not address. Marx situateshis analysisof capitalismwith the social
FREDERICK H. DAMON 269
category'commodity',thethingthatis producedin thiskind of society.1The

contradictionshe discussesin capitalismfollow fromhis examinationof this
category.To the extentthat one remainsfaithfulto Marx, an analysisof a
different kindof societyshouldbe situatedin lightof what it produces.I claim
to have done thisforthe Kula and forWoodlark societyelsewhere(Damon
I978; in press a). To the extent to which Levi-Strausshas followed an
analogous procedurein Elementary his analysisbeginswith 'incest'.I
structures
am not suggesting,and Levi-Straussdoes not suggest,thatas capitalistsocieties
produce commodities non-capitalistsocietiesproduce incest. The point is
ratherthatas capitalismmoves with referenceto the categorycommodityso,
accordingto Levi-Strauss,do non-capitalistsocietiesmove in relationshipto
incest.The importantquestion as to whetheror not this is correctis not
addressedhere.More obvious parallelsbetweentheLevi-Straussof Elementary
structures and Marx relateto thelatterpartsof Capital,Vol. I, and Capital,Vols.
II and III and thelocus of majorcontradictions in society.This articleconcerns
thisissuein connexionwith theKula.
In thefirstsectionI considertheoverall thesisof Elementary structures.
Over
thelastfifteen yearsthiswork has occasionedmuch argument.I do not repeat
herewhat othershave said.Neverthelessthereis a structure to thebook which
is very much to the point of neo-marxistthought,and which has not been
adequatedly discussed.By interpreting, and criticising,the book from this
perspectiveI am arguingas muchforhow it can be used now as forhow it was
originally written.The second section reviews Levi-Strauss'smodel of a
generalised(continuous)exchange.I show thatthismodel is more complex
than merely a circular exchange system.The third is a point-by-point
comparison of the Kula with Levi-Strauss'smodel. The fourthsubjectsthe
Kula generalisedexchange equation to a critiquebased on informationnot
describedin the early works on the institution(Malinowski I96I; Fortune
I963).2
Theelementary
structures
ofkinship
Long ago Leach criticisedLevi-Strauss'swork forattempting'far too much'
(i 96I: 77). The book seemedto wander acrossall of the Asian mainlandand
even speculatedon the rise of the Indian caste system,complained Leach
(i96I: 8o). While it may have been necessaryto dismiss this aspect of
Elementary structures
as social anthropologywas becoming more empirically
orientedafterthesecondworld war,forour presentevaluationit is important
to tryto figureout what Levi-Strausswas tryingto do with these'extreme
speculations'.To do so it is necessaryto reflectupon the totalstructureof the
book.
As is well known,thebook is designedto extendMauss'sessayon reciprocity
in a more rigorousfashion.For Mauss'sprinciplesofreciprocityare substituted
threedifferent formsof exchange,restrictedexchange and the two kinds of
generalisedexchange,'continuous'and 'discontinuous',articulatedin termsof
matrilateraland patrilateralcross-cousinmarriage.The main argumentsfor
theseformsare presentedconsecutivelyin chaptersXI-XXVIII. The way this

progressiondevelops is importantforit clearlysuggeststhattheseformsare
not to be perceived as institutions, ratheras principlesseveralof which any
particularsocietymay illustrate.Thus restrictedexchange is illustratedwith
the Australiandata until it is shown, vis-a-visthe Murngin, that another
principle is necessary,namely, generalised exchange. This form is then
illustrated'empirically'untilthe Gilyak material(ch. XVIII) presentscertain
anomaliesand the formis eventuallyarticulatedinto two kinds,matrilateral
and patrilateral cross-cousinmarriage.Most oftheseargumentsarewell known
so it is not necessaryto review themmore extensivelyhere.However I do not
think the whole thesiscan be appreciatedunless the opening and closing
chaptersof the book have been considered.
The main argumentsof thebook are bounded in verypreciseways. Much
of the firstten chapters,for example, is designedto seduce the reader into
consentingthat'reciprocity'is a, if not the,centralactivityin (some) human
societies.It is beingpresentedas a heuristicdevice,a pointof departure.As such
it can not be proved trueor false,only acceptedor rejectedon thebasisof that
illusive generatorof social inquiry,experience.Thus incest becomes not a
psychologicalentitybetween human beings biologicallyconceived,but one
side of an 'internalrelation',the negativecomponentof a positiveinjunction
to exchange.But once thispointis made theargumentnarrows.In chapterV,
forexample,Levi-Straussintroducesthenotion,takenfromFirth(I939: 44),
of therebeing ranked'spheresof exchange' in society.On the one hand he
shows how a marriage,an exchange of a woman, articulatesthe mannerin
which otherexchangesare to proceed underit. And on the otherhe suggests
how circulationin theselower level spheres'resultsin' a marriage(ESK: 63-
68). There is thus a dialectical relationshipbetween these spheres; they
reproduce each other. Having establishedthis point Levi-Straussbegins to
abstractthe circulationof women away fromthe other spheresthroughout
most (not all) of the book. It is clear thatthe case could, and perhapsstillcan,
be made thatin a greatmanysocietiesthespherepertainingto the circulation
of men or women encompassesor is otherwisemore importantthanthelower
level spheres(e.g. BohannanI955; Terray I97i). This heuristicdevice,
however, is not designed to discount the lower exchange spheres;it is to
simplifythe discussionforcomparativepurposes.
But Levi-Strauss'spoint here is not just that of a heuristicdevice, a
momentary reduction the purpose of which is a more comprehensive
understandingat some latertime. It is ratherto isolate and featurethe most
importantsocial movementin the societieshe studies.In this contextLevi-
Strauss'sargumentis analogousto Marx's in Capital (vols. I-III). Althoughof
courseMarx eventuallylocatessurplusvalue,i.e.a fundamentally asymmetrical
relationship,at the centreof capitalistsociety,he discussesits metamorphosis
and circulationin a mannerwhich Levi-Straussalmostreplicatescompletely.
I referspecificallyto the discussionof generalisedexchange,and the Kachin,
where once the initialprinciplesof the systemare laid out (chapterXV), its
derivativesand movement in time are discussed (chapterXVI). Time, or
history,is thusa propertyof thissystem,and not theotherway around.Marx,
FREDERICK H. DAMON 27I
who also neverthelessparticipatedin mid-nineteenthcenturynotions of

history,was clearlyaware ofthisbasicethnographicpoint (e.g. Capital,vol. II,
chapterXIV; vol. III, chapterIV), as was Mauss (I967: 34). As for Marx,
where particularpersons,categoriesand things are merely moments or
elementsof a systemof relationships,so forLevi-Straussapparententitiessuch
as 'genealogicalpositions'are elementsor aspectsof a systemof relationships.
'Kinship' seemsto occupythesameplace in theElementary structures
as 'capital'
occupiesin Capital(seealsoGodelierI970).3
Confirmationfor this suggestioncomes from where it might be least
expected: Levi-Strauss'srebuttalof Frazer's'economic' explanationforcross-
cousin marriagein chapterX, 'Matrimonial Exchange'. Frazeris quoted by
Levi-Straussto indicatethat he, Frazer,thinksthat "'economic forcesare as
constantand uniformin theirnatureas theforcesof nature"'(ESK: I 38), and
thenLevi-Straussnotesthatwhat Frazerhas done is to 'give hisprimitiveman
the mentalityof theHomo cEconomicus as conceivedof by nineteenth-century
philosophers'(ESK: I 38). What constitutes the'economic' herehoweveris an
isolatedindividualmakingchoices,nota complexsystemofsocialrelationships;
'Frazerpicturesan abstractindividualwithan economicawarenessand he then
takeshim back throughthe ages to a distanttime where therewere neither
richesnor meansof payment'(ESK: I 39). Now what is particularlystriking
about this passage is thatit is virtuallyidenticalto Marx's own criticismof
eighteenthcenturyphilosophers:
... thiseighteenth-centuryindividual-theproducton theone sideofthedissolution ofthe

feudalformsofsociety, on theothersideofthenewforces ofproduction developedsincethe
sixteenth century-appears as an ideal,whoseexistencetheyprojectintothepast.Not as a
historicresultbutas history'spointof departure.As theNaturalIndividualappropriate to
theirnotionofhumannature, notarisinghistorically,
butpositedbynature.Thisillusionhas
beencommonto eachnewepochto thisday(I973: 83).
For this'economic', isolatedindividual,Marx in hisown day,and Levi-Strauss

almosta centurylater,substitutes society.4
This argumentmakesLevi-Strauss's work,as was Marx's own, 'historically'
specific.Sahlins has recentlypointed to the historicalspecificityof Mauss's
theoriesofreciprocity(I 972: chapter4). Levi-Straussfollowedthesametactic:
at issuenow is themeaningoftheclosingpagesof thefirstconcludingchapter,
'The transitionto complex structures'. By thispointin thebook reciprocityas
Levi-Strausstook it fromMauss is no longer the subjectof inquiry.Instead
Levi-Straussdiscussestheimplicationsof contradiction.Both China and India
have been discussedin termsofhow eachdealtwiththecontradictions inherent
in generalisedexchange,China opting for variationson restrictedexchange
and India evolving the caste system.And in the closing pages of chapter
XXVII (47I-7) it is suggestedthataspectsof a generalisedexchange system
may have also operatedin Europe.Ifthisis so thenit would followthatEurope
too would have had to deal with the structuralcontradictionsof this form.
Whereas China and India play out certainoptionswhich resultin preserving
the significanceof'kinship',Europe optsfora different solution.Levi-Strauss
drawsparallelsbetweentheswayamvara marriageof theMahabharata,and the
Scandinavian legend of Skadhi as discussedby Dumezil. Neverthelessthe

conclusionis clear:
It remainsno less the case that,with the swayamvaramarriage,the threebasic characteristics
of modern European marriage were introduced in, to borrow the Welsh expression,a
'furtive,secret',and almost fraudulentmanner.These characteristics are: freedomto choose
the spouse within the limit of the prohibiteddegrees; equality of the sexes in the matterof
marriage vows; and finally,emancipation from relativesand the individualization of the
contract(ESK: 477, my emphasis).
The European solutionto theproblemsinherentin generalisedexchangeis to

make marriage as exchange insignificant. This is no less than a theoryof
transitionto capitalism.Thus at one end of his book Levi-Strausscastigates
Frazer,as had Marx almosta centuryearlier,forprojectingan epiphenomenon
ofhisown societyonto othersremovedin timeor space,while at theotherend
he offersa theoryforhow thepastof hisown societygeneratedtheconditions
necessaryfor 'capital' in Marx's senseof the word to replace'kinship' in his
senseof the word.5 Perhapsit may be suggestedthatwhen Lowie said of this
work thatit was "'in the grandstyle"' (ESK: xxvi), he was notjust referring
to Durkheim.
Generalised
exchange
I now outline Levi-Strauss'smodel of generalisedexchange.Throughouthis
book Levi-Strausstriesto show thata numberofdifferent kindsofsociological
factsaretiedto thisform.Thus thereis theargumentabout it beingcompatible
only with harmonic regimes; about it being formallycongruentwith the
ideological distinctionbetween'bone' and 'flesh'(ESK: 393); about general-
ised exchange being relatedto generationalrestrictions on exogamy (296).
Although thesesuggestionsgive proofof the complex ways in which Levi-
Straussimaginedthisformof reciprocityto existin specificsocieties,I am not
concernedwith thesecontingenthypotheseshere,but ratherwith the formal
logic ofthesystem,largelyportrayedin chaptersXV, XVI, and XVIII. It is not
my intentionto enterintothewell-knowncontroversies over theKachin (e.g.
Leach I969; LehmanI970) So I will merelylist,anddiscusswhennecessary,
the major featuresof the model as presentedin ESK.
i. A systemof generalisedexchangerelatesgiver and receiverasymmetri-
cally.The exchangeis,in respectof its majoritem,unidirectional.
2. But the systemis also circularbecausea woman given mustbe returned.
3. Points i and 2 are contradictory.The system is founded on an
asymmetricalrelationship, but it also presupposesequivalence.This contradic-
tion is themotive forcein Levi-Strauss's theory.Thus thesystemof long term
debt,or trust,upon which thesystemis built,generates'speculation'.
4. Dialecticallyrelatedto point 3 is themovementof valuablesbeneath,in
the Kachin case, the exchange of women. These are the 'complex rules of
purchase', providing'securities'forthetransfer of a woman, but allowing for
the exaction of more and more goods forthe privilegeof gainingaccessto a
particularexchange circuit.(It is in this context that Levi-Strausspoints to
parallelsbetweenhis model of generalisedexchangeand theKula (ESK: 259,

n. 2).)
positions
5. On a formallevel, at least,the model requiresfiveinterrelated
(ESK: 296-30 i). This is whatdistinguishestheformfromrestricted exchange.
6. If thissystemstrainstowardsthe ever wideningof the exchangecycles
one oftheways it dealswiththecontradictioninherentin thismovementis by
a contrarytendencytowardsrestricted exchange(ESK: 3o5-9).
TheKula
The purposeof the previoussectionis obvious: pointingout thatthe Kula is
apparentlycircularin form,thatgeneralisedexchangeis circular,and therefore
the formeris like the latter,hardlydoes creditto Levi-Strauss'sargument.I
now discussthe extentto which his model adequatelyaccountsforthe Kula
and its dynamicsas I understandthemfromthe point of view of Woodlark
Island people. Over the Kula (unlikeothercustoms)Woodlark people think
thattheirunderstanding of the institutionis correctforthe whole Ring. The
truthof thisperspectiveis not consideredin thisarticle.
The indigenousname forWoodlark Island,itsculturalsurroundings, and its
people, is Muyuw. Elsewhere I have discussed other aspects of Muyuw
interpretations of theKula and therestof theirculture(Damon I978; in press
a; in pressb). Here I note only factsthatbear directlyon thequestionsat issue.
The firstquestionpertainsto the asymmetryin the system,thus roughly
correspondingto the Kachin distinctionbetween 'wife givers' and 'wife
receivers'as Levi-Straussformulatesit. It is complicatedto some extentby the
factthattwo valuablescirculateagainstone another.Neverthelessasymmetry
is clearly articulatedin referenceto the concepts vag ('opening gift') and
gulugwal('closing gift': Trobriand,yotile).The glosseson theseterms,taken
fromMalinowski,aresomewhatinexactbutsuffice forthepresent.Malinowski
describesthe openinggiftas 'spontaneous'and the closinggiftas 'obligatory'
(Malinowski I 96 I: 35 2-7). Mauss acceptsthesedefinitions, butimplicitlyand
correctlycriticisesthemin his importantfootnoteon Malinowki's use of the
word 'currency'(Mauss I967: 93, n. 25). Opening giftsare not spontaneous,
theyare forced.Regardlessof what has precededthegivingof an openinggift,
giverand receivermostofthetimefallintoa clearlyasymmetrical relationship.
The giver oftenstandsabove and shoutsdown to the recipient.The latter
remainssilent,oftenlooking away. Later when the returngiftis given this
patternmay be inverted,but ifso it is much reducedin magnitude.The giver
of the returngift,the closinggift,ifhe does not have anotheropeninggiftto
give,is notin a positionto markhissuperiority over thereceiver.Furthermore,
althoughbad etiquette,the personwho gave the firstgiftcan take its return
withoutit being formallyoffered.This cannothappen with an opening gift.
It mustbe formallypresented.
The identityof a valuable as an openingor returngiftis independentof its
identityas a mwal(armshell)or veigun(necklace).If,however,theopeninggift
is a mwalthe closinggiftmustbe a veigun.But it is not thecase thatone gives
away an openinggiftto receivea closinggift.One givesaway an openinggift
so thatone maygive,afterreceiving,moreopeninggifts.Since thispointseems

and since it is rare to see it illustratedin action,I
almost counter-intuitive,
provide a specificcase:
Sometime in the late I950's or early i 960's Takumboub (actuallyhis predecessorin Boagis
village in western Muyuw) received and passed on to his major partnera large armshell,
Mantasop. Very quickly thisvaluable was senttowards the Trobriandsin returnforwhich
a total of threeveigunswere to come back. By the late I960's however nothingin facthad
come back for Mantasop while it had already nearly circled the Ring, being in Du'au'a
(Normanby Island). Because of this Takumboub was in trouble, and not likely to get
anythingworthyof his rank when he went south forKula. Hence by the use of pigs,other
smaller Kula valuables, and promises for bigger ones, he went straightto Du'au'a to get
Mantasop. He got it.6
Althoughit is correctto say thatTakumboub was in troublebecause he did

not getany veigunsforthemwalMantasop,theissuewas hisabilityto getmore
mwals,more opening gifts,not the returngifts.One gives away an opening
gift,whethermwalor veigun,to give more openinggifts.
Among otherthingsthispoint leads immediatelyinto the questionof the
circularityof the system.Unlike the Matupi Chin, Muyuw do not give
tellthesepartnersto passthemto theirpartners,
roostersto theirKula partners,
and then marvel at the factthatthe roosterseventuallycome back to their
owners(LehmanI970: II9). Muyuw knowthatthesystemis circularand
describeitas suchin variousways.The mostcommonis listingtheparticipating
communities'(ven). At the highestlevel of abstractioninformantslist five:
Muyuw; Ugawag (fromGaw west to the Trobriands); Dobu; Du'au'a; and
Lolomon (thesetof smallislandseastof Normanby,westof Paneate,southof
Alcester,and northof but includingWari). Not surprisingly Muyuw know
farmore about thoseplacesand personsclose to themthanthosefaraway. But
I nevermetanyonewho did not know themajorcircuitsand placesoftheKula
(see fig. I).7
What of more detailedinformationabout the flow of the valuables?Here
the questionbegins to get complicated.Kula valuables are ranked,and Kula
relationships(keds:path,way), by virtueof thekindsof valuablesthatflowon
them,become ranked.Thus while people do not much concern themselves
with how smallervaluablesmove aroundthewhole Ring,thereis a tendency
to follow the larger ones as much as possible. And people in the highest
relationshipsalso tend to know all of theirpartnerson theirmajor routes.
Below is one example of a large Kula relationshipwhich entirelycirclesthe
Ring.
Molotaw's relationship
Person Community Clan
Molotaw Yemga (Muyuw) Leydoga
Tamdak Yemga Malas
Toleyin Yanaba (Ugwawag) Kwasis
Takasoyas Iw Kwasis
Vineyaw Kitava Kwasis
Makalay Sinaketa ?
Andil Dobu Kubay
Mwalubeyay Gaboyin (Lolomon) Kubay
Molotaw Yemga (Muyuw)
Not countingTamdak, Molotaw's son and thepersonmarkedto takeover

the relationshipupon his death (d. I978), only seven people are on thisroute.
This is an exceptionallysmall numbergiven thatit encirclesthe whole ring,
but is about average for most relationships.None of my informantsknew
more than about fifteenpeople on any given route,and these lists usually
compriselessthantwo-thirdsto one-halfoftheringfroma geographicalpoint
of view. More importantthan thesequantitativedimensionsis the kind of
closureeffected on thisrelationship.Accordingto informants, in approximately
I930 what they believe to be the largestmwal,Klibulouboul, and veigun,
Senubet,were pegged togetherto circulateon this relationship.These two
valuableswill not always traveltogether.But barringany dramaticactionby
someone outside the route-action which neverthelessmany people dream
about-these two valuables muststayon thisroute,since over the last ten to
fifteenyears the veigunSenubet has moved twice around the ring while
Klibulouboul has only moved once. Travelling as Senubet'sgulugwal,return
gift,Klibulouboul will have to remainon thispathfora decade or more even
ifSenubetwere to remainstationary, and even ifthesevaluableswere moving
in isolationfromall others. But valuables such as thesetwo do not travelin
is
isolation.Their movement always couched in or hedgedby the movement
of other,usuallylarge,valuables.Thus more valuablesand personsare drawn
into large relationshipslike Molotaw's. For example, in I973 Toleyin from
Yanaba was holdingSenubetand wanted Molotaw (reallyTamdak) to come
for it. Molotaw refused,however, since Senubet had reachedToleyin other
than by this route. Molotaw located the problem somewhere between
Makalay (Sinaketa) and Vineyaw, a Kitavan woman. He said thatVineyaw
owed him fivelarge mwals,and he was afraidthatifshe did not formallypass
Senubet on to Takasoyas (1w), and then to Toleyin, she, Vineyaw, would
refuseto returnthose five mwals(i.e. returnfive veiguns).Molotaw did not
know where all those mwalswent afterVineyaw, but presumablysome of
themwent to someone otherthanMakalay as Vineyaw was makingplaysfor
othervaluables.8
A number of points can be drawn from this example. First,while it is
obviouslythecase thatMuyuw conceiveof theRing as a circlethereis at least
a tendency,realisedhere,to make thecirclesclose with particularpersons,and
sometimesvaluables.One can also understandthatotherpartialrelationships
constantlymove off of and onto the larger ones. A relationshipsuch as
Molotaw's represents a setof debtlinesformedby themovementofparticular
valuables,but not all thesedebtsstayon any particularcircle (see fig. 2). As
Levi-Strausssuggested,a systemlike thisresultsin an accumulationof more
and more valuablesmoving towardsthe top.
There are manydimensionsto thisaccumulation.On theone hand it relates
to the number of Kula valuables on any relationship.Muyuw say that
everybodyparticipatesin theKula. But it is also known thata relativelysmall
number of people handle most of the Kula valuables. The Muyuw men
Takumboub and Molotaw are consideredto be two of the three biggest
people,on two ofthethreebiggestrelationships. Consideredas a setthesethree
men probablyaccountforwell over so per cent.of all the valuablescoming
UGWAWAG THE KULA RING

| L4TROR DIS. Major Districts, Islands, and Villages
Sin KITAVA
G iIWA
MUYUW
KWEYWATAq Moni"eyova
~~~~~~~~~~~YA
GOODENOUGH IS. .
<>_< NABA _8UIBD
FERGUSSON IS. WOODLARK IS. (LAUGHLINS IS.)
YEMGA(EGUMI
~~~~~\/q3
(ALCESTER IS.)
4-DOBU
NORWMANVY VW D R
<r ~~~~~~~~GABOYIN
l
NEW (DAWSON)
GUINE MI*>bSIMA IS.
PANEATE >
SAMARAI.. ..
LOLOMAN WARI IS.
FIGURE I.
FIGURE2. A relationship
anditsappendages.
intoand out of Muyuw. When thenextsevenor so personsare considered,the

numberof valuablesthesepeople controlprobablymoves towardsgo percent.
This controllooks even more impressiveifone considersonly thetop fortyor
fiftyKula valuables.In thiscontext,the controlin the handsof thetop tenor
so people moves towards I 00 per cent.,and the movementof thesevaluables,
and the relationshipsbuilt up-and destroyed-to supportthem,effectively
determinesmostof Muyuw's 'political' realities.
Summaries of the kind made above are consistentwith Levi-Strauss's

deductionsbut they do not prove the truthof the structureswhich he says
determinethem.To make the argumentfor Levi-Strauss'smodel strongerI
now turnto thetravelsofthemwalNonowan. Althoughit is considereda very
large mwal (in the top fiveaccordingto my lists)Nonowan is not as high as
enoughformy informants
Klibulouboul. Neverthelessit is significant to keep
trackof itsmovementsfornearlythirtyyears9(see table i).
TABLE I. Nonowan'stravels.
Veigun Person Community Mwal

Mikdulan Dikwayas(Muyuw) NONOWAN,
Biwbiwkasenay Vekwaya Gaw (Ugwawag) ca. I938
8/75 Yowan Kitava
Takavatay Sinaketa
Andul Dobu (Doba)
Alisaka Dobu
Kabalan Du'au'a
Eliesa Du'au'a
Gavigav Tewatewa(Lolomon)
Kampeyn Boagis(Muyuw)'
Manuwat Boagis
Mesiaw Moniveyova
Gumyoweil Gaw (Ugwawag)
Bokuwous Iw
Aleka lw
Alekdumdum Mwagoul Kitava
t 8/75 Samon Gelieb (Trobriands)
Bwadibwad Dobu
Takumbwalan Andul Dobu
8/75 Wayluba Du'au'a
Wayabum Wol (Wari Is.) (Lolomon)
Tasabweigay Yemga,Muyuw as of I/76
(Sources:Molotaw,Kampeyn,Mesiaw,Tasabweigay. I leftMuyuwin August,I975, but

I976, thatTasabweigay
heardby letterinJanuary, got,as he and otherstold me he would,
Nonowan.Nonowanwas in Yemgabeforeitwas in Dikwayasin ca. I93 8, butthecycleonly
beginsfromDikwayas.Tasabweigay, sonandcloseassociateofMolotaw's,put
a classificatory
Takumbwalanon Nonowan'spath,undera plandetermined longago.I do notknowwho put
Alekdumdum andBiwbiwkasenay on Nonowan'scircuit,butthelattermustgo to Yemgaafter
itgetsto Dikwayas.)
The firstpointto be made heremerelyrestatesthecircularconceptionofthe

Kula. Kampeyn, my major informantfor this account,paused and said, 'it
finishes',at the dividers noted in the list. Note, however, that unlike the
apparentsituationwith Klibulouboul Nonowan does not stay on the same
course.It got to Dikwayas in approximatelyI938 fromYemga, but when it
came back to Muyuw again it went to Boagis (a communitypositionally
equivalentto Yemga), and onto a completelydifferent circuit.This is thecase

with most valuables,But merelyswitchingcircuitsdoes not cancel the debt
relationscreatedwithinany one circuit.Nonowan effectively began thisflow
in Dikwayas, and I was told that Mikdulan (actually,since he is dead, his
replacement, hisyoungerbrother,Aygeol) could claim or takeback Nonowan
if he wanted. This means thatthe debt networkis transitive.In so faras this
valuable is concerned 'Mikdulan' is 'above' Tasabweigay. But there was
almost'0 no desire to claim Nonowan because as it went out of Dikwayas
originallythreevaluables,veiguns,were set up to constituteits returns.This
situationis quite complicated,and very precarious,but is supposedto work
somethinglike this:
In August of I975 the firstreturn(Biwbiwkasenay,a veigun)for Nonowan was located in
Gaw (Vekwaya). This articlewas not supposedto be the 'returngift'forNonowan, but as a
conditionforitsfirstleaving more thantwenty-five yearsearliera new 'opening gift'.At the
same time anothervaluable, Alekdumdum,a veigun,was with Mwagoul in Kitava, which is
to go as thesecond new openinggifton top of Nonowan. Note however thatthisveigunmust
complete part of Nonowan's second cycle and thengo onto the first.Finallythereis a third
valuable, Takumbwalan, with Andul, supposedly,in August of 1975. This article must
complete the second Nonowan cycle beforeit can get onto the first.1
1
The one point thiscase clearlyillustratesis how the exchange rulesof the
Kula resultin theaccumulationof more valuables'on' particularrelationships.
Formally, Nonowan was exchanged such that three valuables would be
returnedforit. Informallyeach of theselatterthreearticleswill occasion and
have done so, theexchangeofother,oftenlarge,valuables.At theleastone can
appreciatethatthereare verysound 'practical'reasonsforknowinghow and
why some articlesare moving around thewhole Kula Ring.'2
I now raiseone of the more innovativeaspectsof Levi-Strauss'stheory,the
oppositionor contradictionbetween'exchange' and 'purchase'.It may be best
to begin with thisobservation:Malinowski notedthatonce one entersa Kula
relationshipit lastsfor life (i96I: 83). Fortune,on the contrary,emphasised
thatthe Kula relationships were veryfragile,and predicatedupon all kindsof
manipulationand deceit (i 963: 2I4-I8). The question here is not who is
right,or whetherthereis some way of findinga happygroundbetweeneach
of thesepositions.It is ratherwhat theseapparentlycontradictorypositions
illustrate.Muyuw, for example, can speak eloquently about relationships
existing beyond the lives of the individuals who firststart them, then,
practicallyin thesame breathof air,say thatthe only way to get ahead in the
Kula is 'to lie'. They accuseeveryoneelseof lyingand saythatbecauseofother
people's deceitsKula relationships constantlyfallapart.I suggestthissituation
is preciselythatwhich Levi-Straussdescribesbetween the simple and almost
mechanicalrules of preferential union and the complex and tentativeways
theseunionsare effectedby purchases(ESK: 259-60).
Empirically,in so faras Muyuw is concerned,the Kula sphereis explicitly
related to a whole set of lower spheres.Activatingthese lower spheresis
conceived to be the way to enterthe Kula. One thusto a large degree'buys'
one's way into the Kula. And it is explicit thatthe greaterthe value of the
lower level articlegiven, or the greaterthe numbersof valuables given, the
larger the Kula relationshipengendered,or the larger the specificarticle

given.13 I distinguishbetween 'relationship'and 'article' here since Muyuw
themselvesformallymake thisdistinction. Ifone makesa siwayoub,in reference
to which the thingsgiven must,eventually,be reciprocated,one is tryingto
make a relationship.If,however,one makes a pok (Trobriandpokala) one is
tryingto get a specificKula valuable. This latter tactic may result in a
relationshipbutpoksare formallyannouncedwhen made,and theintentionis
clear thatwhat is primarilywantedis a specificvaluable,and not necessarilya
long-termrelationship.
More to the point of the questionof trustand speculationis a transaction
Muyuw call a logit.A logitis made by giving a person with a large Kula
valuable a smallKula valuable to informhim thatthelargeone is wantedand
one is workingforit. The articleis given to help convincethepossessorof the
large valuable that one's desiresare supportable.Logitsare frequentlymade,
and I could give examplesof themvis-a-visall of thecasesI have discussedto
this point. The most interesting,however, concerns the first,involving
Takumboub: becauseTakumboub'spartnerhad, so far,failedto get anything
back forthe large mwal,Mantasop,his partneron the otherside lost faith,or
so Takumboub thought,in Takumboub'sKula abilities.ThereforeTakumboub
went to other people to get smallerKula valuables to provide proof of his
strength'.4
At least with the Kula, then,Levi-Strauss'stheoreticalconjectureson this
point are largelysubstantiated. What is interesting about thisfroma broader
perspectiveis thatit suggestshow contradictionsin one particularsphereof
exchangestructureother,and lower,spheres.15The hesitancyengenderedby
thelong timeneededfora turnoverresultsin a demandofarticlesofa different
kind, either qualitatively (e.g. pigs) or quantitatively(e.g. smaller Kula
valuablesas logits)which can be used immediatelyforsome otherproductive
activity.
Levi-Strauss'stheory,applied to the Kula, explainshow different exchange
circuitsare interrelated.Although making logitsto enter a specificcircuit
involves no structuralrules different fromstandardKula rules,otherlower
level spheresoperateon different principles.Exchangesof mwalsand veiguns
are always triadicin formwhereaslower level spheresare dyadic.In so faras
a comparativeunderstandingof exchange is concernedthesedistinctionsare
crucial,and lead us into a considerationof the'five groups'.
I notedearlierthatMuyuw describe,on themostabstractlevel,thecircular
nature of the Kula in terms of five major communities (ven): Muyuw,
Ugwawag, Dobu, Du'au'a, and Lolomon. I do not know whether this
abstractionis formallyrelatedto theKula exchangestructure, but I know that
otherpeoplesin theKuala Ring do not necessarilydivide thearea in thesame
way (personalcommunication,Nancy D. Munn). Muyuw are clearlyaware
thatmany otherlike social groupsrelateto theKula indirectly.
More to the point is the way in which people connectedby exchangeare
conceptualised,and how transactions are actuallythoughtto operate.First,two
termsare used to defineexchange relationsin the Kula. These are veiyou-,
which ego applies to his immediatepartnerson eitherside of him; and -mul
(cf. Mauss I967: 22, Trobriand murimuri), used with referenceto all the
array
partnersof one'spartners.Both termsare reciprocals,but theyeffectively
the categoriesof exchange into five units (fig. 3). Although it might be
objectedthatreallyonly two, or three,categoriesare describedhere,since,for
example, B and D are identical as are A and E, these two identitiesare
distinguishedby the flow of the two Kula valuables: A gives mwals but
receivesveigunfromC, while E receivesmwalsand gives veigunsto C.
ego
- -n- - - -A- - - - W---- -D ---- E ---- -
-mul -mul
FIGURE 3.
This structureis representedin two more ways. First,Muyuw oftentalk

about specificarticlesby mentioninga specificperson'sname to which is
appended'his hand' (naman;e.g. Vekwayanaman).But thisidiom has a formal
structureto it. If B and C are talkingabout a specificarticlethatE sentto C,
throughD, it will be referredto as 'E's hand'. When B getsthearticlehe and
A will referto it as D's hand. I heardseveralcaseswhere not the thirdperson
down theline but thefourthor fifthwas referredto vis-a-visthishand idiom.
The reasonforsuch usage seemedto be thatthethirdpersonwas of relatively
littlestatureso thespeakerswere tryingto emphasisethemostpowerfulperson
associatedwith the particularvaluable. In any case I was specificallytold that
the correctreferenceis the firstmul.And what thismeans is thatthe direct
exchange between any two partnersis always conceived as an exchange
betweenthepeople on eitherside of them.
Confirmationon thispoint,and henceanotherway in which thisstructure
is represented, comes froma more carefuldescriptionof what exactlyis being
exchanged.Muyuw use the Kula valuablesto 'build' or 'make' their'names'.
These names are produced by exchangingthe valuables.But when one gives
away a valuable it is said thatone'sname 'goes down', and one'spartner's'goes
up'. Only when thearticleis givenagainto a thirdpersondoes thefirstperson's
name go up, the desiredresultof Kula action.It is by virtueof thisstructure,
and its repetition,that one's name 'goes around' (touvin)the Kula Ring, it
becomes'known' (literally,'seen'). A personthrowsaway partof himself,his
'hand', and thisselfis only reconstitutedas it is used to make otherselves.
Lower-levelexchange spheresused to gain entryinto the Kula are similar
butnotidenticalto thosejustdescribed.They are similarto theextentthatthey
are conceivedas productiveactivities,thegiver' making'the'intentions'ofthe
receiver,or allowing the receiverto make his own intentions.But theyare
different in that theydo not formallyneed to go to or throughsome third
person.Whereas in the Kula a given ego, C in the above diagram,has both
formalcontroland practicalinfluence-to the extentthathe can retrievehis
article-over what his partners,B and D, and his partnersof partners,e.g.
E-n and A-n, do with his valuables,this is not the case with lower-level
articles.In Muyuw, pigs oftencirculatealong ratherlong linesof people, but
thesechainsare not like the Kula chainstheyare used to setup. Each specific
transactionis independentoftherest.All thatis requiredis thatfora pig given,
forexample,anotherof the same size and sex be returned,and by theperson
who firstreceivedit.
Although the formalplacementof the thirdperson shows that the Kula
does,again,closelyresembleLevi-Strauss's model of generalisedexchange,the
more importantpoint forthe comparativeunderstandingof exchange is its
demonstrationthat the institutionis not predicatedupon alienated labour.
Although Levi-Strauss,so far as I know, never sought to make this point,
Mauss seemsto have been consciouslydrawingattentionto it (i967: 46, 74).
Moreover it is not unreasonableto assume that Mauss derived this point
straightfromMarx. In thefirsttwo partsof Capital,vol. I, Marx goes to great
pains to presenthow the most obvious aspectsof capitalistlifeare conceived,
and by virtueofthisconception,he showswhattheymisconstrue. He describes
how individualsmeetin pairsvis-a-vis contractualrelationships (e.g. I967: 84-
5), but thatthesepairingsare located in larger,and triadic,movements(e.g.
I967: I46-8). Thus, althoughin the capitalistexchangesystemthe conscious
model is dyadic, the 'unconscious' model is more complex. Mauss, on the
contrary, triedto show thatin thesocietieshe analysedin Thegifttheconscious
model was triadic. This means that transactorsmaintain liens over their
'products',theyremainconnectedto them.
Althoughlower-levelexchange spheresare dyadic ratherthan triadicit is
not the case thattheysignifyalienatedlabour.Of the severalreasonsforthisI
note one here.Such exchangesare explicitlymade to gain entryintotheKula,
and ifthisdoes not happen,even thoughthethinggivenis eventuallyreturned
as it should be, no furthertransactions will occur.16 There is a second reason,
which means going into the finalissue of the relationshipbetweenthe Kula
and generalisedexchange.
Althoughtheparallelsdrawn up to now betweentheKula and generalised
exchangeare basedon my own data,it remainsnevertheless thecase thatI have
said littlethatis not in or can be inferredfromMalinowski,Fortuneor Austen
(I945). The issue of the contaminationof generalisedexchangeby restricted
exchange requires,however, that I discuss furthersomethingnone of the
formermen discoveredor wrote about. This is the conceptkitoum.I discuss
kitoumsheremainlyin termsof theirformsof circulation,i.e. how theyseem
to resemblerestricted ratherthangeneralisedexchange.
Unlike mwalsand veiguns,kitoums are individuallyowned. Exactlywhat-
individualor group-owns a kitoumis sometimesambiguouslyphrased,but
the ownershipis always practisedin termsof a specificindividual(gamag).A
numberof pointsneed to be untangledfromthisassertion,but at leastsome of
thembecome clarifiedby the nextpoint.Muyuw claim thateverymwaland
veigunis somebody'skitoum.Thus at one level theconcepts'mwal' or 'veigun',
and 'kitoum'all referto the same materialobject, but they mean different
things.For some personsa given valuable isjust a mwal,or a veigun,while for
the personwho owns it as a kitoum, it is a mwal,or veigun,and a kitoum.We
may now go back to ownershipissue.Ifsomebodyowns a valuableas a kitoum
theymay do anythingtheywant with it,destroyit,sell it,or hold it forfifty
years.It is theirs,and nobody else has anythingbut influenceover what they
do with it. This is not trueof mwalsand veiguns.If a persondestroysor sellsa
valuable that is not his kitoumhe must give to the personwho owns it as a
kitouma replacement.Phrased differently, and in respectto the 'opening
gift/closing gift'(vag/gulugwat) distinctionby which all mwalsand veigunsare
defined,kitoumsare neutral.They are not opening gifts,but they become
opening giftswhen put into circulationas mwalsor veiguns;and theyare not
closing gifts,but, as is perhapsevident,theyare the reason for closing gifts.
Kitoumsmediatebetweenmwals,which Muyuw consider'male', and veiguns,
which correlatively, are considered'female'.17
Who owns anyparticularvaluableas a kitoumis oftennotknown.Although
one or two importantMuyuw men own no kitoums at all, mostown between
threeand seven.But withina given cycleofKula activity,wherethevaluables
tend to move in one big wave, each going in oppositedirections,with some
precedingand othersfollowingthe major wave, men probablyhandleten or
more timesthenumberof mwalsand veigunsthattheyown as kitoums. And of
thepeople who own anyoftheseas kitoums fewwill be known.That somebody
owns them is known, and thishas greatbearingon how thesevaluables are
handled.For no matterwhere a kitoumis,no matterwho holds it as a mwalor
veigun,it can be claimed by its owner, thus violatingthe asymmetryof the
'opening gift/closing gift'distinction,and destroying,or seriouslyimpairing,
a relationship.Only a crisissituationwould lead to thisevent,of course,but
good Kula performers mustkeep thispossibilityin mind.
Beneath the asymmetrical,circular,and triadic exchange of mwals and
veigunsis thebasicallysymmetrical and dyadicexchangeof kitoums. An owner
of a kitoum,marked as a mwal,thus exchangesit with anotherowner of a
kitoum, markedas a veigun.Contraryto what Ekeh writes(I974: 30), it is not
becausethereare two thingsexchangedagainstone anotherthatthereis some
aspectof restrictedexchange in the Kula; it is because a kitoumis exchanged
directlyfor a kitoumthat aspectsof the Kula tend to take on the form of
restrictedexchange.
Kitoums:a critique
The similaritiesbetween the Kula and Levi-Strauss'smodel of generalised
exchange are not superficial.The systemis asymmetrical.It is circular.It
expandssuchthatby virtueof itsformmore and more valuablesget brought
into particularcircuits.The Kula structures
lower level spheresof exchange,
includinglower rankedKula valuablespassedas logits.It is triadicin form,in
so faras mwalsand veigunsare concerned,and thisworks out to fivepositions
being represented formallyin theexchangecategories.Finally,in referenceto
the concept kitoum,a kind of exchange operateswhich contravenes,if not
mediates,the more open exchange of mwalsand veiguns,thustakingon the
exchange.But ifthe conceptkitoumseemsto
likenessof a systemof restricted
round out the generalapplicabilityof Levi-Strauss'smodel, it also exposes its

limitations.For a more complete understandingof the significanceof the
kitoumcalls into questionthe specificcontradictionwhich Levi-Straussseesin
a systemof generalisedexchange; and, more broadlyconceived,questionsthe
placementof reciprocityor circulationas the prime mover in Kula. I now
examine this point. Two conclusionswill emerge from this investigation.
First,thatMuyuw understandthe Kula to be circulardoes not mean thatits
circularityhas the significanceit would be given in Levi-Strauss'smodel of
generalisedexchange.The circularityis a kindofabstractionbasedonlyon the
movementof valuables consideredas mwalsand veiguns,not also as kitoums.
The second followsfromthe firstone. The Kula's fundamentalcontradiction
existsbetweentheconceptionof mwalsand veiguns, and thatof thekitoum.To
explain thismore thoroughlyrequiresa more completediscussionof kitoum.
The mostinteresting featureofLevi-Strauss'smodel ofgeneralisedexchange
is thatit is a social formfoundedon a contradiction,and thatbecause of this
contradiction,societiesemploying it must deal with specificconsequences
throughtime. The contradictionin the model resultsfromthe hypothetical
problem of equivalence. The exchange is asymmetrical,but for a woman
given a like woman mustbe returned.Hence, althoughnecessary, equivalence
is impossibleor highlyproblematic.The problemwith thistheoryin so faras
the Kula is concerned is that with the concept k,9um, equivalence is not
problematicbut certain.When I give away a mwal that is my kitoumthe
relationshipgeneratedby its movementlastsuntilI receivea veigunwhich is
of thesame size,as a kitoum, as the mwalI gave up. The veigun/kitoumendsthe
cycle opened by the mwal/kitoum. I can thenuse thatveigun/kitoumto starta
new cycle in the otherdirectionbut with the realisationthat,barringdebts
fromothervaluables,the old relationshipis finished.Kitoumsopen,close,and
open relationships. Hence with equivalencecertainthe problem is elsewhere,
how to keep the systemsopen, in concreteexistence.Let me illustrate:
A B- C
B owns a kitoum, but givesitas a mwalto C. When C returnsthekitoum/veigun
back B can begin a new cycle with A but the relationshipwith C is finished.
This is recognised as necessarybut bad. Muyuw say that a good Kula
relationshipshould be 'like a marriage',lastinguntilits debtsare completely
over, and the only way to do thisis to increasethe numberof vags,opening
gifts,on the relationship.This thenis why the systemexpands,why itsresults
correspond to Levi-Strauss'sdeductions.In short the contradictionis not
situatedsolelywithinthestructure of themovementof mwalsand veiguns,but
betweenthisstructureand thatof thekitoum.
But thislatterpointraisesthebroaderissueof reciprocity, circulation,as the
primemover in society.For my descriptionof thekitoumin termsof restricted
exchangewas, purposefully, deficientin termsof a totalunderstanding of this
concept. The circulationof kitoumshas affinities with restrictedmodes of
exchangeforone reason,and one reasononly-the way it is owned. And it is
owned in the way it is because it is made. It is a directrepositoryof labour
becausesome specificpersonhasfoundit and made it,and by virtueof thisfact
it comes to standforother,many other,kindsof labouringprocesses.To go
into thispoint in some detail means,among otherthings,going back to the

questionofthekindoflabour,alienatedor unalienated,reflected in lower-level
exchangerelationships.
Kitoumsare broughtinto the Kula by the labour of specificindividuals.As
is well known veigunsare producedoutsidetheKula Ring,generallyon Rossel
Island, and then brought into the Ring in various places. The precise
sociological detailsof thisprocessare unknownsincethe south-eastern corner
of theKula Ring is not yetwell described.I know ofsome valuablesthatwent
more or lessstraightfromMisima, and the islandsto itseast,into Muyuw by
means of what appears to be simple purchasing,but this as an explanation
obscuresmore than it reveals.So let us view the processsolely in termsof
mwals,which entertheRing frommanyplaces,Muyuw included.Everystage
of this process is imprintedwith particularcultural forms,but given the
purposesof thisarticleI cannotdiscussall thesehere.
The firstmatterconcernsthe findingof suitableconus shells.Not all the
conus shellsMuyuw findare thoughtlargeenough to be put into circulation.
But more importantis thatMuyuw do not go out lookingforconus shellsfor
kitoums/mwals. On the contrarytheyonly findthem,and say theycan only
findthem,when theyare doing otherthings,e.g. divingforfishwith spearsor
nets.18Once a valuable is foundtheratherslow and arduousprocessofturning
it into a kitoum/mwal begins.Afterthe animal in the shell has died and been
eatenby variousbugs theowner beginsto grindoffthe shell'snaturalcolours
and cut it intotheappropriateshape,knockingout theinsideof thebroad end
and cuttingoffmuch of the narrow end. This latterprocessin particularis
what is conceivedto be hardwork.Hence people onlywork on theshellsa few
moments or hours at a time, usually in the evening or some period not
occupied by otherkindsof work. Afterthevaluable is thusformedit is given
a 'face', i.e. decoratedwith various beads,strings,shells,doorknobs,or other
odds and ends made available by the sea. Accordingto informants, makinga
valuable'sfaceis necessaryforit to be put into circulation,but thisdecorating
processis not thoughtto effectthe valuable's rank. A valuable's decorations
may be changed,afterit is put into circulation,without changingits rank.
What does make a valuable'srankis itssize,and sinceraw shellsdo not go into
the Kula, thismeansthe labour expendedto put it into the appropriateform.
Thus while it may take some circuitsbeforea large valuable becomes well
known, its value resultsfromits size,the work thatgoes into it,and not the
processof circulation.Only aftera valuable has been formedand given a face
will it be put into circulationas a mwalor otherwiseused as a kitoum.
From theabove it may be realisedthatwhat is circulatingin theKula Ring
is, ratherexplicitly,congealed labour, wealth of a socially determinedand
socially produced form.If certainaspectsof Kula ideology,littlemore than
hintedat in thisarticle,have to do with a metaphoricalrelationshipbetween
personsand Kula valuables,by virtueof theconceptkitoumwe can appreciate
how thatrelationshipis thedirectresultofthemetonymicalprocessofcreating
a kitoum,and from it a mwal.The expressionreferringa valuable to some
person'shand is more thanjust an idiom. Kula valuables are partsof persons
becausetheyare creationsof them.
Kitoumsthusappear to be like a kind of 'capital', in the restrictedsenseof
somethingused to make somethingelse. Confirmationforthispoint of view
can be obtained from one way by which kitoumsare furtherdistinguished
from mwals and veiguns: I mean the way kitoumand mwal/veigun are
differentiallypossessed by Muyuw possession classes.19There are three
possessionclassesin the language,two denoted by prefixes,the other by a
suffix.The possessiveformsforboth kitoumand mwal/veigun are prefixes,but
each of thesewords is in a different class.Thus for the firstpersonone uses
guna- with kitoumand agu-with mwal/veigun. Generallyit seemsthatthe use
of thepossessiveclassnoted hereby guna-involvessuch thingsas tools,boats,
parts of gardens,seeds,and the like, whereas the agu- class contains,often,
finishedthingssuch as matureor cooked food. Semanticdistinctionssuch as
theseare difficultto prove fora varietyof reasons,but thissuggestionbecomes
particularlyinteresting in lightofthefewwordsthatcan be usedin at leasttwo
classes,and changetheirmeaningaccordingly.An example: theword forone
ofthetwo kindsof yams(eitherwould do here)is kuv(Dioscoreaalata). When
one possessesthisby thesameclassin which kitoums are possessed,
gunakuv,one
refersto one'skuv/yamseeds,i.e. thosethingsfromwhich one is going to make
mature yams. But when one uses the other class,the same as mwal/veigun,
agukuv,one refersto eithermature yams or cooked yams.20The semantic
differences between these classesthus seem to be on the order of 'creating
thing'/'createdthing'. That the word kitoumis in the firstclass is again
consistentwith what was noted above: kitoumsrepresentcongealed labour,
theyare what is in otherthings,namelymwalsand veiguns.
This bringsus to theissueofhow kitoums, iftheyare notput intocirculation
as mwals,are otherwiseused. Kitoumsare used to cancel debtsusuallycreated
in non-Kula spheresof exchange.When stoneknivesand axes were produced
in Muyuw, the stone materialswere exported for kitoums.21 The large
outriggercanoesthatply theeasternhalfof theKula Ring,and thatare usually
produced in Gaw and Kweywata, are paid for with kitoums(Munn I977).
Other transactions eventuateor stemfromthe movementof thesecanoes,but
Muyuw say that the real paymentis in kitoums(generallyfive per canoe).
Kitoumsoftenbecome involved in pig transactions.Althoughformallypigs
circulatein theirown spheresuch that for one pig of a given sex and size
another of the same quality is returned,it not infrequentlyhappens that
somebodydefaultson theirreturn.Ifso thedebt is cancelledwith a kitoum, or
a number of them dependingon the sizes of the pigs and kitoums.Similar
conversions can be made with yams,or with European goods,even money.
Thus kitoumsnot only mediatebetween mwalsand veiguns,i.e. the Kula as a
specificsphere,theyalso are usedto cancel'lateral'debtsin lower-levelspheres.
This is why lower-level spheresdo not reflectalienated labour. A person
maintainsa lienon thepig he hasgivensomeonein thesespheres,and ifit is not
returnedthe gap is filled,and must be filled,by a kitoum.Kitoumsalso,
however,cancel'vertical'debtsresultingfromKula activity.It shouldbe clear
that to Kula successfullyan individual must be able to garnerconsiderable
support,'work'. He does this by gatheringaround him people in specific
relationships,people thathe calls'my persons'(agugwamag).(Such personsare
oftenalso in specifickinshiprelationshipsto a givenego, e.g. 'youngersibling',
'child', 'nephew', but kinshipdoes not constitutethebasisof theKula-support
system.)One way theserelationships are paid offis by theseniorpersongiving
thejunior personmwalsand veigunswith which thelattercan startup hisown
relationships.But in the final analysisthese relationshipsare paid offwith
kitoums, thekitoumssymbolisingthereturnon thelabourthejuniorhad earlier
given the senior.
At the core of virtuallyevery facetof the Kula is a systemof debts.22
Kitoumsexplain how debtsarisein some spheresby virtueof thefactthatthey
are used to pay offdebtsin otherrelationships, and thoughtto be the bestor
ultimatereturnon somebody else's labour. The reason for the equivalence-
functionof kitoumsshould be clear: Justas kitoumsare a product of labour
(wotet),so are yams, pigs, outriggercanoes, and general support. Thus the
ofkitoumsstemsnotfrom
significance theirmannerofcirculation,
butfromthe
particular
wayproductionisorientated thecontradiction
intheKulaRing.Ultimately
intheKula Ringis notbetween twomodes ofcirculation, andrestricted,
generalised
butbetween thecirculation ofmwalsandveiguns,
process andproduction
process
wherebykitoums gettheirsignficance.23
If Levi-Strauss'stheoryof generalisedexchangecould be correctlyapplied
to the Kula then one would have to show that all of the data could be
accountedforjustin termsof theoppositionbetweenmwalsand veiguns.In the
precedingpages,however,I have triedto show thatit is the kitoumconcept
which accountsforthecirculationof mwalsand veiguns, why one is an opening
giftand the otheris a closinggift,and why to be successfulone mustexpand
one's Kula activity.What thendoes one make ofthefactthatin manyrespects,
as I showed in the thirdsection,Levi-Strauss'stheoryconformsto much of
what constitutessocial action in the Kula? Although thereare many issues
involved in supplyinga complete answer to this question one of the more
significant, and the one concluded with here,concernsthe circularnatureof
theinstitutionas Muyuw people,at least,understandit.
In spite of the pivotal significanceof the kitoumconcept,it nevertheless
remainsthe case that informantsthinkof the Kula as a circularinstitution
when they view it, as they most oftendo, from the point of view of the
circulationof mwalsand veiguns.The circulationof mwalsand veiguns,rather
than kitoums, allows a personto build his or her name. It is a matterof faith,
based on a lot of empiricalevidence,thatthetwo setsof valuablescontinually
circlearound thesetof islandsthatMuyuw know compose theinstitution. At
thesame time,however,thisparticularview of theinstitution is an abstraction
and-not merely dogma-derived from the concrete relationshipswhich
ultimatelyeffectit. Althoughtheinstitution is circular,itscircularitydoes not
constitutetheessenceof itsform,thecontradictionwhich makesit move.
Let us look at thesepointsmore closelybased on the actual movementof a
specificsetof valuables,thoseoutlinedabove concerningthe mwalNonowan.
Muyuw begin this cycle with Nonowan in Dikwayas (in approximately
I938) because they consider Nonowan to be Mikdulan's kitoum.The
relationshipcreatedby Nonowan remainsintact,and transitive, becauseas of
I975 Mikdulan's replacementhad not receiveda veigunas a kitoumto replace
Nonowan. This then is why 'Mikdulan' remains'above' Tasabweigay, the

thenholderof thevaluable. The setof asymmetricaland circularrelationships
tied to the valuable thusis a functionof Nonowan's definitionnot as a mwal
circulatingcounter-clockwise, but itsdefinitionas a kitoum, which a particular
man, for particularreasons,owns. If and when Takumbwalan arrives in
Dikwayas then Mikdulan will no longer claim ownershipof Nonowan as a
kitoumbecause he will have received Takumbwalan. The debt relationship
thuscreatedby Nonowan will be over,unless,of course,it has been recreated
and intensified by the valuablesmoving underneathNonowan and Takumb-
walan. If forsome reasonthe plan which presentlyarticulatesthe movement
of these four valuables, Nonowan, Biwbiwkasenay, Alekdumdum, and
Takumbwalan, should collapse,thenMikdulan may act in a numberof ways.
Firsthe may tryto reclaim Nonowan outright,probably a difficult option.
Second he may tryto claim eitherBiwbiwkasenayor Alekdumdumas the
'returngift'forNonowan, changingtheirdefinitions fromvags,openinggifts,
togulugwals,returngifts,and thusa kitoum. He mayofcourseonlydo thiswith
one of thesevaluables,and if I understandMuyuw evaluationsof thesetwo
articles,only Biwbiwkasenaywould be consideredlargeenough to substitute
forNonowan. To claim Alekdumdumwould thereforemean takinga loss on
the kitoum,gettinga smallerone, losing a largerone. Finallyhe could tryto
claim Takumbwalan, short-circuiting its cycle since it is supposedto go into
westernMuyuw and thenaroundthewhole Ring beforeitgoesintoDikwayas.
Nobody would want to do any of theseoptions,foras I noted earlier,other
valuablesarepeggedto thesefour,so thatredefining how anyofthesevaluables
are moving may bringdown thewhole edifice.The circulationlogic of mwals
and veigunsfollows from the existenceof kitoums,but having to orientate
everytransactionaccordingto whose kitoumis being exchangedconstitutes a
crisisin one's positionand is somethingto be avoided.
Conclusion
Or, perhaps,the economy concepthas become a fetishwhich is a
source of mystificationservingonly to reinforcethe bourgeois
tendencyto compartmentaliseknowledge of social realityas it
fragments thelatterand shouldbe eliminatedfromthe vocabulary
of Marxism? (Cook I976: 368).
The Introductionposed two questions:how well does Levi-Strauss's model
of generalisedexchangecorrespondto theKula? And what does theanswerto
thisquestiontell us about Levi-Strauss'srelationshipto neo-marxism?
The answer to the firstquestion is now ratherobvious. Although Levi-
Strauss'smodel is incorrect,in so faras the Kula is concerned,it was forme
veryusefulin pointingto manyaspectsof theKula, as conceivedand as acted.
In so faras socialtheorypurportsto beingan aide in and provocationto a more
intelligently empiricalconfrontation withtheworld as men live it,and thishas
always been the intentof French sociology (Levi-StraussI945), then The
elementary structuresof kinshipmust be viewed in a very favourable,if not
uncritical,light.Levi-Strauss's theorydid not preventme fromlearningabout

kitoums,and his formulationof the contradictionin generalisedexchange
forcedme to thinkout a rathercomplex social process.
Levi-Strauss'srelationshipto neo-marxismis somewhat more involved.
Much of the excitementof neo-marxismso farhas focusedon two issues.On
the one hand thereis thequestionof history,which sincefunctionalism of the
I 920's has been littleaddressedby anthropology. On theotherhandthereis the
questionof a 'mode of production',a phrasewhose appeal seemsquite similar
to thatof 'structure'a few yearsago, i.e. it soundsgood.
I findthe firstdifficult to take seriouslygiven thatThe elementarystructures
ofkinshiphas as partof itsargumenttheevolutionof thecastesystemin India
and the transitionto capitalismin the west. Levi-Straussmay be totally
incorrectin his theory,but the mere posing of the issue,and on what many
would considera valid and stimulatinglevel of abstraction, hardlysuggestsan
absence of concern for what is perhaps the major question for the social
sciences.Since both Marx and Maine it has been possibleto point,if crudely,
to some of themajor differences betweencapitalistand non-capitalist
societies.
But pointingto thesedifferences and thensayingthatthe latterchangesto the
formerby 'history'hardlycountsas an explanation.Historyis not a cause,it
is a result.Statingthatsocieties,almostmagically,change,is not thesame thing
as showing how they change. Understandingthe temporal trajectoriesof
particularsocieties,as Marx certainlyshows, is a complex, painstaking,and
basicallyethnographictask.Saying thatthisis what is to be done is not the
same thingas doing it. And doing it means having some theory,necessarily
evolved out ofa dialoguewithempiricalconditions,about thedominantsocial
formsof a particularsocietyor kind of society.There is such a theoryin The
elementary structuresof kinship,and it is of interestthat virtuallythe only
alternativeto this work, even now, thirtyyears afterit was written,is
essentiallya returnto Frazerian individualism: transactionalism(see Ekeh
I974). Friedman'sstimulatingreanalysisof the Kachin materialprovidesno
exception.Friedman(I 97 5) hasdone two things.On theone handhe has taken
over Levi-Strauss'smodel of generalexchange,not advancingit at all. On the
otherhe has used Marx's categories,evolved out of an attemptto understand
a different kind of society,withoutshowing how thesecategoriesare at all
relevantto the Kachin. He thusmakesa methodologicalerroridenticalto the
one anthropologistsmake when they gloss a certain kinshipterm with a
genealogicalpositionand say thatthisglossis itsmeaning.
It has seemedto some,althoughtheyshow littleevidenceof havingtreated
Levi-Strauss'swork with care,24thatthe mode of productionconceptwas a
way out ofsome oftheseproblems.There is now an immenseliteratureon this
category, but it cannot claim to have gone much furtherthan Marx's
fragmentary comments in the'Preface'
to A contribution
toa critique
ofpolitical
economy
(I 970: 20-2I; seeOllmanI979: 5-8). Thispassage,
to theextentthat
it is a 'definition'of thisconcept,bearsabout thesame relationshipto thecore
of Marx's work as do Levi-Strauss's openingremarkson reciprocityto thecore
of Elementary Both are orientating,discursive,passageswhich are
structures.
thenreplacedby concreteanalysis.
In any case Levi-Straussonce wrote,with the aid of a quote fromEngels,

thatthereis no need to be overlyconcernedwith themodes of productionsof
primitivesocieties(i 967: 336). This looks incorrectnow thattheconceptsof
social formationor mode of productionhave been conceived so widely (by,
among others,Althusserand Balibar). But Levi-Straussobviously took this
conceptin a more restricted sense,one presentin Marx, meaningmerelyhow
materialobjects are produced. Yet for most anthropologists, whatevertheir
theoreticalpersuasions,it becomes immediatelyapparentthat the particular
productiveactivitiestheywitness,on an 'economic' level as thistermhas taken
on meaning over the last hundredyears,are encompassedin specificsocial
relationships, thesesocial relationshipsgoverningtheproduction,distribution
and consumptionofthesesocieties'products.It is thenthesesocialrelationships
which need to be understood.It is to these social relationshipsthat Levi-
Strauss'searlierworks have been directed.I do not claim that Levi-Strauss
should not be criticised.But Marxists are on weak ground when they
pontificateon the dialecticalrelationshipbetweenthe forcesand relationsof
production,and thenblame 'the paucityof conceptuallanguagefordescribing
the technicallanguage of non-capitalistmodes of production' (O'Laughlin
I975: 36I) fornot-beingable to carryout theirown programme.This excuse
assumesthatour problemsstemfromand can be solved by terminologies.But
the problem is elsewhere,and that is having some theory about what is
importantin a given kind of society,what the social forcesare that move
particularsocieties.As Marx has such a theoryforcapitalistsocieties,so does
Levi-Straussfornon-capitalist societies.While I have triedto show thata kind
of marxistapproach leads to some valuable criticismsof Levi-Strauss'searly
work, I think it also the case that his approach has much to offerwhat
currentlypassesas marxismin non-capitalist societies.For marxismto prove
itselfan effectivenew force in social theoryit must become more than a
different setof platitudes.
NOTES
I thankChristopherGregory andEdmundLeachforextensive criticismofanearlierdraftof

hasleadto substantial
thisarticle.Whiletheircriticism improvement, I do notclaimthatthey
agreewitheverything I write,andassumefullresponsibility
forerrorsofinterpretation
orfacts.
Researchwas conductedon WoodlarkIslandfromJuly,I973 to August,I975. The research
was partiallyfundedby a NSF Grant(GS-3963i) and a NIMH Fellowship(FOIMH573 37-
OI).
'On thispointI followNicolauson 'thequestionoftheproperbeginning' (Marx,I973: 37
if.)
2 The pointconcerns theconceptkitoum. Itwasdiscovered bymanyoftherecentresearchers
in theKula Ring.Weiner(I976: I29, i8o-i) is thefirst referencein print.My understanding
ofkitoums isbasedsolelyonwhatmyinformants toldme.Theirpointviewmaybeidiosyncratic,
but theyprojecttheirunderstanding of thisterm,and virtuallyeveryotherKula practice
discussedin thisarticle,onto the whole institution. However,kitoums are discussedfrom
differenttheoretical perspectives
and different placesin theKula Ringin theLeach& Leach
volumeson theKula (in press).
3 In suggesting thisI am notasserting thatLevi-Strauss thinksthereis an identity between
'kinship'in non-capitalistsocietiesand 'capital',a specificformof 'commodity', in capitalist
society.The issueis ratherthatoftheplaceofdifferent socialformsin differentsocieties.
4 Did Levi-Strauss haveMarx'spassagein mindwhenhe criticised Frazer?The passagefirst
appearedin Englishin the I904 editionofA contribution tothecritiqueofpolitical
economy. By
I956 Levi-Strauss toothersections

hadreferred ofthesameessay(Levi-Strauss
I967: 330,333).
S The issuehereis notwhether Levi-Strauss is rightor wrong.It iswhathewastrying to do.
RecentlyhoweverBoon and Schneider(I974) havediscussed thesameclosingsectionof this
chapterin an attemptto place Elementary structures in relationto the Mythologiques series.
AlthoughI am sympathetic withmuchofwhatBoon andSchneider writeI believetheyhave
glossedovera majorargument in thebookwhichprovidesfornon-western societiesa theory,
or thebeginnings ofa theory, thathasthesamelogicalstatusas Marx'sforcapitalist societies.
Therefore I thinkit-unwiseto place individualism, or individualised marriage, in thesame
structural universe asLevi-Strauss's 'elementary structures'.Similarly I wouldsuggest thatpatri-
parallel-cousin-marriage does not offertheproblemsmanyhave suggested forLevi-Strauss's
book.The questionafterall isnotcousins, butas ismadeabundantly clearthroughout, forms of
reciprocity, cyclesof exchange.In keepingwiththeend of ChapterXXVIII, patri-parallel-
cousin-marriage mightbe viewedas another wayofdealingwiththeproblems inherent inlong
cycles.A littlegeographical andhistorical imagination mightbe a useful wayofmovingbeyond
anthropology's traditional ethnographic particularism. Patri-parallel-cousin-marriage is not,
afterall,randomly distributed throughout theworld.
6 Otheraspects of thiscaseand how it is thatone can getthreeKula valuablesforone are
discussed in Damon (inpressa).
7 Malinowskistatesotherwise(I96I: 83), and Ekeh (1974: 27) stressesMalinowski's
perspective, presumably trying to drawoutaffinities betweenMalinowskiandLevi-Strauss on
thesignificance ofthe'unconscious'in socialdiscourse. ButifMalinowskifoundnoTrobrianders
who knewofthewholeKula system I thinkitsafeto suggest thathe talkedwithno intelligent
Trobrianders aboutthismatter.
8 Toleyinconsented, personally sailingbackto KitavatogiveVineyawSenubet.By thetime
I leftMuyuwin I975 it had notyetgotbackto Toleyin,butnobodyhad anydoubtsthatit
would.
9 ShirleyCampbell,who recently completed dissertation researchin thesouthern endofthe
Trobriands, alsocollecteda listofNonowan's(Nanoulain theTrobriands) recenttravels. It is
oftendifficult to comparesuchlists,one reasonbeingthatthesamepersonoftenis knownby
differentnamesin different placesin theKula Ring.Nevertheless thereis substantialagreement
in ourtwoaccountsconcerning thesecondcyclein thelist(Kampeyn-Tasabweigay.)
10 'Almost'becausethiscycleis veryprecarious. Since it is highlyunstableMikdulan's
replacement, in I974-75, was considering takingNonowanback.He refrained fromactively
doingthishoweverbecauseof thethreeveiguns-andseveralothersinformally involved-
markedto comebackforNonowan.
11This mancuvreis a formalstrategy: I have discussedit froma logical,ratherthan
empirical, pointofviewelsewhere (Damonin pressa).
12 As Kula exchange rulesleadto accumulation so do theyleadto periodiccollapse,as Levi-
Strauss'stheorywouldsuggest. I do notsubstantiate thepointforit engagesneither themajor
contributions norlimitations ofLevi-Stra'uss's model.
13 Some of the things exchangedin thesespheres:pigs; yamsand taroforsailingwork;
sleepingmatsand skirtsforclay pots; yam seedsfortaro seeds;betelnutforotherbetel
paraphernalia. Thislistis moreor lessin descending orderofvalue.Europeangoods,including
guns,radios,bagsofrice,andmoneyenterintothesetransactions withoutaffecting, atthislevel,
theirorganisational principles. (See Damon I978, andin pressa, formoredetails.)
14 Logits oftenengendercrises,somesmall,otherslarge.Thisis becausein orderto getthe
valuablewithwhichone is goingto makea logitone oftenhasto promise, eitherexplicitly or
implicitly, thatthelargervaluableforwhichthelogitis beingmadeis goingto be givento the
personwho initially providedit. Sincethelogitis alwayssmallerthanthevaluablewhichis
reallydesiredtheoriginalgiverofthelogithasno directclaimson thelargervaluable.Not a few
relationships aresevered, at leastforseveralyears,overconflicts resulting fromtheseoccasions.
SuchwasTakumboub'sfate.
15This pointraisesan interesting historical question.Is theorganically differentiated Kula
Ringa resultofthestructure oftheKula,oristheKulathemediation ofthedifferent productive
activitiesofdifferent islands?
16 Theselowerleveltransactions arenotcalledgimwal(seeTrobriand gimwali), butifthey
were theywould be evidenceforalienationbeingreflected in Muyuw exchangepractices.
Muyuw use the termgimwal,mostlyfor rhetoricalpurposes,to emphasisethe negative
characteristics of practically anykindof exchangebehaviourwheretheindividual(s) merely
replaceshisgoodswiththoseofanother, havingno interest in therelationship itself.
17 Thisis contrary to Malinowski(I96I: 356). Moreoverthisis maleandfemaleas in men
andwomen,notabstract gender.
18 Thispointleadsto
manysimilarities withMuyuwnotionsofconception. Muyuwhave
sexualintercourse forproducing'grease',theamountof greaseproducedbeingindicative of
how good theexperience was. Similarlywithfishing:one of thewaysMuyuwclassify and
judgefishisbyhow muchgreasetheyhave,themorethebetter. Butaswithconusshellsso with
children. Oncetheconusshellor childexists, evenwhenthelatterisstillinthemother's womb,
theprocessoffinishing itis a deliberate,
productive,
activity.
Ownership anduse,in thecaseof
bothkitoums andchildren, followsfromthefactofproduction.
'9 In theethnographic andlinguistic literature
ofthePacifictherearemanyinteresting hints
as to thesignificance of'possession'.Foran earlysurveyandstatement oftheproblemseeCapel
(I949). Fortune(I963: 68) discusses Dobuanpossession classesusingas thesemanticcomponent
distancefromego. Althoughthe threeDobuan classesare similarto the Muyuw classes,
membership in each languagevariesto someextentand I have slightly revisedthesemantic
criteria whichFortuneoffers.
20 Whenone is actually goingto eatthecookedyamtheword,and possession class,again
shifts-ka-.Witha numberofdifferent phenomena I canshowa regulartransformation from
oneclassto another. Forexample,withtheKula itis (guna)kitoum (mykitoum), (agu)mwal(my
mwaO,and yaga (g) (name-my).'Name' is appropriate heresincethisis actuallywhat is
exchangedand madeby Kula activity. Further researchandan articleareplannedin orderto
dealwiththistopicmorecompletely thanI havehere.
21I do not discusshow kitoums theMuyuw kinshipsystembut it is very
interpenetrate
similarto thewayin whichbeku,stoneaxes,seemto operatein theTrobriands (WeinerI976:
I8o-I 83).
22 See Leach (I965: I41), on 'debt' and 'socialstructure'. Thereis considerable similarity
betweenLeach'sassertion, andsubsequent analysis withregardto theKachinandLevi-Strauss's,
corrector incorrect, use of the same Kachin term (ESK: 244). Leach claims (personal
communication) thathe was thinking in thesetermsbeforehehadreadElementary in
structures
I949. Nevertheless thisisan ideawhichremains tobe exploredinconsiderable detailformany,
ifnotevery,society.AndI wouldassertthatit hasnotbeenused,or well used,byeitherloose
or precisereferences to thewestern concept'contract'.
23This is nota contradiction betweena 'modeofproduction' anda 'modeofcirculation'. It
is insteada contradiction betweendifferent aspects,production and circulation,of thesame
modeofproduction, theKula.
24 It is of interest
thatO'Laughlin,in herstimulating reviewarticle(1975), onlyrefers to
L'Hommenu.Yet Levi-Strauss answered hercriticism ofthe'ordersoforders'issue(I975: 344)
nineteen yearsbeforeshewroteit (Levi-Strauss I967: 329-30).
REFERENCES
Austen,Leo I945. Culturalchangesin Kiriwina,Oceaniai6, I 5-60.

Bohannan,Paul I965. Some principlesof exchangeand investment among the Tiv. Am.
Anthrop. 57, 60-70.
Bloch,Maurice(ed.) I975. Marxistanalyses onsocialanthropology.
New York:JohnWiley.
Boon, James& David SchneiderI974. Kinshipvis-a-vismyth:contrasts in Levi-Strauss'
approaches to cross-culturalcomparison. Am.Anthrop. 76, 799-8 I 7.
Capell,A. I 949.The conceptofownership in thelanguagesofAustralia andthePacific.S West.
J.Anthrop. 5, I78-83.
Cook,ScottI 976. Beyondtheformen: towardsa revisedtheoryofprecapitalist formations
and
thetransition to capitalismJ.PeasantStud.4, 360-89.
Damon,Frederick H. I978. Modesofproduction andthecirculation ofvalueon theotherside
oftheKula Ring,WoodlarkIsland,Muyuw.Thesis,Princeton Univ.
1979. WoodlarkIslandmegalithic structuresandtrenches: towardsan interpretation.
Archaeol. phys.Anthrop. Oceania14, I 95-226.
in press.WhatmovestheKula; openingandclosinggiftson WoodlarkIsland.In New
perspectivesontheKula (eds)EdmundLeach& Jerry Leach.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
Ekeh,PeterI974. Socialexchange theory:thetwotraditions.Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniv.
Press.
Firth,RaymondI939. Primitive Polynesian economy. London.
I975. The sceptical anthropologist? Socialanthropology andMarxistviewson society.
In Marxistanalyses onsocialanthropology (ed.)M. Bloch.New York:JohnWiley.
Fortune,Reo I963. Sorcerers ofDobu.New York: E. P. Dutton.
Friedman, JonathanI975. Tribes,statesand transformations. In Marxistanalyseson social
anthropology (ed.)M. Bloch.New York:JohnWiley.
in Das Kapital.In Introduction

and contradiction
Godelier,MauriceI970. Systemstructure to
(ed.) M. Lone. New York: Basic Books.
structuralism
inMarxistanthropology
Perspectives
I977. (trans.)R. Brain.Cambridge:Univ. Press.
societies
Infrastructures,
I978. andhistory. Curr.Anthrop. 19, 763-7I.
Heath,AnthonyI976. Rationalchoiceandsocialexchange: a critiqueofexchange theory.New
York: CambridgeUniv. Press.
Kelly,RaymondI968. L'echangegeneralise a Dobu. Homme8, 54-6 I.
Leach,EdmundI961. The structural implications of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage.In
Rethinking London:Bell.
anthropology.
systems
I965. Political ofhighlandBurma. Boston:BeaconPress.
I969. 'Kachin'and'Haka chin':a rejoinder to Levi-Strauss.Man (N.S.) 4, 277-85.
& Jerry Leach(eds)in press.Newperspectives ontheKula.Cambridge:Univ.Press.
Lehman,F. K. I970. On ChinandKachinmarriage regulations.Man (N.S.) 5, II8-25.
Claude I945. Twentieth
Levi-Strauss, century Frenchsociology.In Twentieth century sociology
(eds)G. Gurvitch & W. Moore.New York: The Philosophical Library.
I966. Thesavagemind. ChicagoUniv. Press.
I967. Structural New York: AnchorBooks.
anthropology.
I969. Theelementary structures
ofkinship. Boston:BeaconPress.
I976. Structural vol. 2. New York: BasicBooks.
anthropology,
Malinowski, BronislawI96I. Argonauts ofthewestern New York: Dutton.
Pacific.
Marx,Karl I967. Capital,vols I-3 (ed.)Frederick Engels.New York: International.
I970. A contributiontothecritiqueofpoliticaleconomy. New York: International.
I973. Grundrisse. New York: VintageBooks.
Mauss,Marcel I967. Thegift:formsandfunctions ofexchange in archaic New York:
societies.
W. W. Norton.
Munn,NancyD. I977. The spatio-temporal transformation ofGawa canoes.J.Soc.OWan.33,
39-5 3.
O'Laughlin,BridgetI975. Marxistapproaches inanthropology.InAnnualreview ofanthropology
(eds)B. J.Siegeletal. Palo Alto: AnnualReviews.
Ollman,BertellI976. Alienation:Marx'sconception ofmanin capitalist
society.Cambridge:
Univ. Press.
Sahlins,MarshallI972. The spiritofthegift.In Stoneageeconomics.
Chicago:Aldine.
Terray,EmmanuelI97 I. Commerceprecolonial socialechezles Dide de Cote
et organization
d'Ivoire.In Thedevelopment trade
ofindigenous andmarketsinwestAfrica(ed.)C. Meillassoux.
Oxford:Univ. Press.
ImmanuelI974. Themodern
Wallerstein, worldeconomy. New York: AcademicPress.
Weiner,A. I976. Womenofvalue,menofrenown. Austin:Univ.ofTexasPress.

The Kula and Generalized Exchange

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Kula and Generalized Exchange

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Kula and Generalised Exchange: Considering Some Unconsidered Aspects of the

Elementary Structures of Kinship

As anthropologistsare reading Marx, sociologistsare beginning to read Levi-Strauss.

We live in a societywherethereis a markeddistinction... between

Ever since the language of The elementarystructures

considerableattentionto the analogy. Ekeh, moreover,observes that since

category'commodity',thethingthatis producedin thiskind of society.1The

theseformsare presentedconsecutivelyin chaptersXI-XXVIII. The way this

who also neverthelessparticipatedin mid-nineteenthcenturynotions of

... thiseighteenth-centuryindividual-theproducton theone sideofthedissolution ofthe

For this'economic', isolatedindividual,Marx in hisown day,and Levi-Strauss

Scandinavian legend of Skadhi as discussedby Dumezil. Neverthelessthe

The European solutionto theproblemsinherentin generalisedexchangeis to

parallelsbetweenhis model of generalisedexchangeand theKula (ESK: 259,

so thatone maygive,afterreceiving,moreopeninggifts.Since thispointseems

Althoughit is correctto say thatTakumboub was in troublebecause he did

Not countingTamdak, Molotaw's son and thepersonmarkedto takeover

UGWAWAG THE KULA RING

FERGUSSON IS. WOODLARK IS. (LAUGHLINS IS.)

GUINE MI*>bSIMA IS.

LOLOMAN WARI IS.

intoand out of Muyuw. When thenextsevenor so personsare considered,the

Summaries of the kind made above are consistentwith Levi-Strauss's

Veigun Person Community Mwal

Tasabweigay Yemga,Muyuw as of I/76

(Sources:Molotaw,Kampeyn,Mesiaw,Tasabweigay. I leftMuyuwin August,I975, but

The firstpointto be made heremerelyrestatesthecircularconceptionofthe

equivalentto Yemga), and onto a completelydifferent circuit.This is thecase

larger the Kula relationshipengendered,or the larger the specificarticle

This structureis representedin two more ways. First,Muyuw oftentalk

round out the generalapplicabilityof Levi-Strauss'smodel, it also exposes its

into thispoint in some detail means,among otherthings,going back to the

Nonowan. This then is why 'Mikdulan' remains'above' Tasabweigay, the

uncritical,light.Levi-Strauss's theorydid not preventme fromlearningabout

In any case Levi-Straussonce wrote,with the aid of a quote fromEngels,

I thankChristopherGregory andEdmundLeachforextensive criticismofanearlierdraftof

I956 Levi-Strauss toothersections

Austen,Leo I945. Culturalchangesin Kiriwina,Oceaniai6, I 5-60.

in Das Kapital.In Introduction

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen