Economic anthropology is a field that attempts to explain human economic behavior in its widest historic and cultural scope. It is practiced by anthropologists and has a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is critical, its origins as a sub-field of anthropology began with work by the Polish founder of anthropology Bronislaw Malinowski and the French Marcel Mauss on the nature of reciprocity as an alternative to market exchange. For the most part, studies in economic anthropology focus on exchange. In contrast, the Marxian school known as "political economy" focuses on production. Post-World War II, economic anthropology was influenced by the work of economic historian Karl Polanyi. Polanyi drew on anthropological studies to argue that true market exchange was limited to a restricted number of western, industrial societies. Applying formal economic theory to non-industrial societies was mistaken, he argued. In non-industrial societies, exchange was "embedded" in such non-market institutions as kinship and politics.
He labelled this approach Substantivism. The formalist–substantivist debate was influential and defined an era; as globalization became a reality, the division between market and non-market economies – between "the West and the Rest" – became untenable, anthropologists began to look at the relationship between a variety of types of exchange within market societies. Neo-substantivists examine the ways in which so-called pure market exchange in market societies fails to fit market ideology. Economic anthropologists have abandoned the primitivist niche they were relegated to by economists, they now study the operations of corporations and the global financial system from an anthropological perspective. Bronislaw Malinowski's path-breaking work, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, addressed the question, "why would men risk life and limb to travel across huge expanses of dangerous ocean to give away what appear to be worthless trinkets?". Malinowski traced the network of exchanges of bracelets and necklaces across the Trobriand Islands, established that they were part of a system of exchange.
He stated that this exchange system was linked to political authority. In the 1920s and Malinowski's study became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of The Gift. Malinowski emphasised the exchange of goods between individuals, their non-altruistic motives for giving: they expected a return of equal or greater value. In other words, reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting. Mauss, in contrast, has emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivities; these gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation." They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sold, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation and sense of identity of a "corporate kin group," such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, hau, "the spirit of the gift." A good part of the confusion was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the relationship between givers alive.
Based on an improved translation, Jonathan Parry has demonstrated that Mauss was arguing that the concept of a "pure gift" given altruistically only emerges in societies with a well-developed market ideology. Mauss' concept of "total prestations" has been developed in the 20th century by Annette Weiner, who revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands, her 1992 critique was twofold: she noted first that Trobriand Island society has a matrilineal kinship system, that women hold a great deal of economic and political power, as inheritance is passed through the female lines. Malinowski missed this and ignored women's exchanges in his study. Secondly, Weiner has developed Mauss' argument about reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving." Weiner contrasts "moveable goods," which can be exchanged, with "immoveable goods," which serve to draw the gifts back. She argues that the specific goods given, such as Crown Jewels, are so identified with particular groups that when given, they are not alienated.
Not all societies, have these kinds of goods, which depend upon the existence of particular kinds of kinship groups. French anthropologist Maurice Godelier pushed the analysis further in The Enigma of the Gift. Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit with Claude Lévi-Strauss' model of "House Societies". Total prestations are given, he argues, to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain their place in a ranked society; the misunderstanding about what Mauss meant by "the spirit of the gift" led some anthropologists to contrast "gift economies" with "market economies," presenting them as polar opposites and imply
In trade, barter is a system of exchange where participants in a transaction directly exchange goods or services for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money. Economists distinguish barter from gift economies in many ways. Barter takes place on a bilateral basis, but may be multilateral. In most developed countries, barter only exists parallel to monetary systems to a limited extent. Market actors use barter as a replacement for money as the method of exchange in times of monetary crisis, such as when currency becomes unstable or unavailable for conducting commerce. Economists since the times of Adam Smith, looking at non-specific pre-modern societies as examples, have used the inefficiency of barter to explain the emergence of money, of "the" economy, hence of the discipline of economics itself. However, ethnographic studies have shown that no present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists found evidence that money emerged from barter, instead finding that gift-giving was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, sought to demonstrate that markets pre-existed the state, hence should be free of government regulation. He argued. Markets emerged, in his view, out of the division of labour, by which individuals began to specialize in specific crafts and hence had to depend on others for subsistence goods; these goods were first exchanged by barter. Specialization depended on trade, but was hindered by the "double coincidence of wants" which barter requires, i.e. for the exchange to occur, each participant must want what the other has. To complete this hypothetical history, craftsmen would stockpile one particular good, be it salt or metal, that they thought no one would refuse; this is the origin of money according to Smith. Money, as a universally desired medium of exchange, allows each half of the transaction to be separated. Barter is characterized in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" by a disparaging vocabulary: "higgling, swapping, dickering." It has been characterized as negative reciprocity, or "selfish profiteering."Anthropologists have argued, in contrast, "that when something resembling barter does occur in stateless societies it is always between strangers."
Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit. Marcel Mauss, author of'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter. Everyday exchange relations in such societies are characterized by generalized reciprocity, or a non-calculative familial "communism" where each takes according to their needs, gives as they have. Since direct barter does not require payment in money, it can be utilized when money is in short supply, when there is little information about the credit worthiness of trade partners, or when there is a lack of trust between those trading. Barter is an option to those who cannot afford to store their small supply of wealth in money in hyperinflation situations where money devalues quickly.
The limitations of barter are explained in terms of its inefficiencies in facilitating exchange in comparison to money. It is said that barter is'inefficient' because: There needs to be a'double coincidence of wants' For barter to occur between two parties, both parties need to have what the other wants. There is no common measure of value In a monetary economy, money plays the role of a measure of value of all goods, so their values can be assessed against each other. Indivisibility of certain goods If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another's goods, but only has for payment one indivisible unit of another good, worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur. Lack of standards for deferred payments This is related to the absence of a common measure of value, although if the debt is denominated in units of the good that will be used in payment, it is not a problem. Difficulty in storing wealth If a society relies on perishable goods, storing wealth for the future may be impractical.
However, some barter economies rely on durable goods like sheep or cattle for this purpose. Other anthropologists have questioned whether barter is between "total" strangers, a form of barter known as "silent trade". Silent trade called silent barter, dumb barter, or depot trade, is a method by which traders who cannot speak each other's language can trade without talking. However, Benjamin Orlove has shown that while barter occurs through "silent trade", it occurs in commercial markets as well. "Because barter is a difficult way of conducting trade, it will occur only where there are strong institutional constraints on the use of money or where the barter symbolically denotes a special social relationship and is used in well-defined conditions. To sum up, multipurpose money in markets is like lubrication for machines - necessary for the
The Aché are an indigenous people of Paraguay. They are hunter-gatherers living in eastern Paraguay. From the earliest Jesuit accounts of the Aché in the 17th century until their peaceful outside contacts in the 20th century, the Aché were described as nomadic hunter-gatherers living in small bands and depending on wild forest resources for subsistence. In the 20th century, four different ethnolinguistic populations of Aché pacified, they are the Northern Aché, the Yvytyruzu Aché, the Ypety Aché, the Ñacunday Aché. Each of these populations was an endogamous dialectal group, consisting of multiple residential bands, with no peaceful interaction between the groups; the Aché suffered repeated abuses by rural Paraguayan colonists and big landowners from the conquest period until the latter half of the 20th century. In the 20th century under military dictator Alfredo Stroessner, the Northern Aché, the only inhabitants of nearly 20,000 square kilometers of rural Paraguay, ended up confined on just two reservations totaling little more than 50 square kilometers of titled land.
In the process, they were massacred and gathered onto reservations where no adequate medical treatment was provided. This process was carried out to pacify them, to remove them from their ancestral homeland, so that absentee investors could move in and develop the lands that once belonged only to the Aché. Large multinational business groups—e.g. La Industrial Paraguaya. S. A. —obtained title rights to occupied lands and sold them sight unseen to investors, who purchased lands where Aché bands had roamed for thousands of years, were still present. The fact that Aché inhabitants were present and living in the forests of Canindeyu and Alto Paraná on the lands being titled in Hernandarias seems to have been dismissed by cities such as Coronel Oviedo; the Kuetuvy Aché were forcibly removed from the Mbaracayu region in the 1970s, but managed to return to their ancestral homeland in 2000. The Aché are known as the Axe people. In the past they have been called the Guaiaqui, Guayakí, Guayaki-Ache, Guoyagui by Guaraní-speaking neighbors and by early anthropologists, these terms are now considered derogatory.
The earliest published reports about the Aché refer to them as "Guajagui", a term based on the Guaraní root "Guaja" and "gui" a common Aché suffix. The Aché language provides clues to their origin. Current analysis suggests that it is a Tupí-Guaraní lexicon, overlaid on a unique grammar structure not found in sister Guaraní languages. Genetic analyses suggest that the Aché are a group of mixed biological origin containing about 60-65% Tupí-Guaraní genes, 35-40% of genes with affinities to the Macro-Ge language family; the Aché are culturally and biologically distinct from the neighboring Guarani. Early descriptions of the Aché emphasized their white skin, light eye and hair color and Asiatic features as identifying characteristics, their subsistence practices and technology were considered simple, nomadism made them secretive and evasive. The first archeological evidence of native peoples in Paraguay is represented by the "Altoparanense industry" of stone flaked tools found along the Paraná River, Celt-type stone axes similar to those still used by the Aché of the same region.
About 500 CE Guarani horticulturists migrated into the area and began to persecute the Aché hunting peoples causing them to move into forested hills, away from open country and navigable rivers, adopt a more nomadic lifestyle. Written history relevant to the Aché begins with the founding of Asunción in 1524. A few years in 1554, a small village was founded by the Spanish on the Parana river near the site of modern-day Guaira, Brazil. Fr. Luis de Bolaños arrived in Paraguay 1575, mastered the Guarani language and founded 18 Guarani villages in the province of Guaira between 1580 and 1593. Evidence of groups in Eastern Paraguay, that might have been Aché, comes from the earliest Jesuit archives around 1620. Non-Guarani groups that lived from hunting and gathering were referred to as Caaygua or Caigua. Descriptions of some Caaigua match well with 20th-century descriptions of the Aché. For example, Techo describes them as hunter-gatherers who ate only palm pith and fruits and roots, fastened little stones to their lips, which made them look ferocious, he states that they worshipped only thunder.
This is congruous with the Aché, whose economy is indeed based on palm pith and meat, whose spiritual beliefs place "Berendy" in a central position. Lozano provides a seven-page early description of the Aché, using a summary of Jesuit archives from the 17th century; this description includes accurate information about the Aché economy, social organization and belief system. Lozano and Techo described how some Aché bands were captured near the mouth of the Acaray river in the 1630s, forcibly brought to a Guarani Mission; that group of Aché captives all perished from disease within a few months. After the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768, there is no further information about the Aché until the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, when several writers related the knowledge of local Paraguayan populations concerning the Aché, but none observed them directly; these included reports by several foreign scientists as well as the
Inalienable possessions are things such as land or objects that are symbolically identified with the groups that own them and so cannot be permanently severed from them. Landed estates in the Middle Ages, for example, had to remain intact and if sold, they could be reclaimed by blood kin; as a legal classification, inalienable possessions date back to Roman times. According to Barbara Mills, "Inalienable possessions are objects made to be kept, have symbolic and economic power that cannot be transferred, are used to authenticate the ritual authority of corporate groups". Marcel Mauss first described inalienable possessions in The Gift, discussing potlatches, a kind of gift-giving feast held in communities of many indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest: It is incorrect to speak in these cases of transfer, they are true abandonment of possessions. Among the Kwakiutl a certain number of objects, although they appear at the potlatch, cannot be disposed of. In reality these pieces of "property" are sacra that a family divests itself of only with great reluctance and sometimes never.
Annette Weiner broadened the application of the category of property outside the European context with her book Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving, focussing on a range of Oceanic societies from Polynesia to Papua New Guinea and testing existing theories of reciprocity and marriage exchange. She applies the concept to explain examples such as the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands, made famous by Bronisław Malinowski, she explores how such possessions enable hierarchy by establishing a source of lasting social difference. She describes practices of loaning inalienable possessions as a way of either "temporarily making kin of non-kin" or garnering status. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving is a book by anthropologist Annette Weiner. Weiner was a Professor of Anthropology and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts at New York University, served as president of the American Anthropological Association, she died in 1997. The book focuses on a range of Oceanic societies from Polynesia to Papua New Guinea to test existing theories of reciprocity and marriage exchange.
The book is important for introducing a consideration of gender in the gift-giving debate by placing women at the heart of the political process. She finds inalienable possessions at the root such as Hawaii and Samoa, she credits the original idea of "inalienable possessions" to Mauss, who classified two categories of goods in Samoa, Oloa and le'Tonga─immovable and movable goods exchanged through marriage. Barbara Mills praised her investigation of how "inalienable possessions are used to construct and defeat hierarchy", saying it "opens a boxful of new theoretical and methodological tools for understanding social inequality in past and present societies." Weiner states that certain objects become inalienable only when they have acquired "cosmological authentication". Its history is authenticated by fictive or true genealogies, origin myths, sacred ancestors, gods. In this way, inalienable possessions are transcendent treasures to be guarded against all the exigencies that might force their loss.
She gives the example of a Māori Sacred Cloak and says that when a woman wears it "she is more than herself – that she is her ancestors." Cloaks act as conduits for a person's life giving spirit. The hau can bring strength or knowledge but a person may have the risk of losing their hau. "An inalienable possession acts as a stabilizing force against change because its presence authenticates cosmological origins and political histories." In this way, the Cloak stands for the person. "These possessions are the most potent force in the effort to subvert change, while at the same time they stand as the corpus of change". Paul Sillitoe queries the supposed identification of these objects with persons, he states that these objects are "durable wealth is collective property, continually in circulation among persons who have temporary possession of it. In this view, transactable objects belong to society as a whole and are not inalienable possessions associated with certain persons. An analogy in Western culture is sporting trophies, such as championship boxing belts owned by all the clubs comprising the association that controls the competition in which constituent club members compete, which pass for agreed periods of time into the possession of particular champions, changing hands as new champions emerge."Theuws argues that "Over time, objects acquire new meanings and what was once a humble pot may become a sacred vessel."
This transformation in the object is a change in cosmology. In fact, "Ritual Knowledge is a source of political power."However, these possessions may become destabilizing, as elites reconstruct those sacred histories to identify themselves with the past. Inalienable possessions are nonetheless drawn into exchange networks; the subtitle of Weiner's book is "The paradox of keeping-while-giving". These gifts are not like those given in regular gift giving in the West on birthdays for example. Rather, these gifts can't be re-sold for money by the receiver because the value and the significance of the gift cannot be alienated or d
A nomad is a member of a community of people without fixed habitation who move to and from the same areas, including nomadic hunter-gatherers, pastoral nomads, tinker or trader nomads. As of 1995, there were an estimated 30–40 million nomads in the world. Nomadic hunting and gathering, following seasonally available wild plants and game, is by far the oldest human subsistence method. Pastoralists raise herds, driving them, or moving with them, as if with an Apuzzo, in patterns that avoid depleting pastures beyond their ability to recover. Nomadism is a lifestyle adapted to infertile regions such as steppe, tundra, or ice and sand, where mobility is the most efficient strategy for exploiting scarce resources. For example, many groups in the tundra are reindeer herders and are semi-nomadic, following forage for their animals. Sometimes described as "nomadic" are the various itinerant populations who move about in densely populated areas living not on natural resources, but by offering services to the resident population.
These groups are known as "peripatetic nomads". A nomad is a person with no settled home, moving from place to place as a way of obtaining food, finding pasture for livestock, or otherwise making a living; the word nomad comes from a Greek word. Most nomadic groups follow a fixed seasonal pattern of movements and settlements. Nomadic peoples traditionally travel on foot. Today, some nomads travel by motor vehicle. Most nomads live in other portable shelters. Nomads keep moving for different reasons. Nomadic foragers move in search of game, edible plants, water. Australian Aborigines, Negritos of Southeast Asia, San of Africa, for example, traditionally move from camp to camp to hunt and gather wild plants; some tribes of the Americas followed this way of life. Pastoral nomads make their living raising livestock such as camels, goats, sheep or yaks; these nomads travel to find more camels and sheep through the deserts of Arabia and northern Africa. The Fulani and their cattle travel through the grasslands of Niger in western Africa.
Some nomadic peoples herders, may move to raid settled communities or avoid enemies. Nomadic craftworkers and merchants travel to serve customers, they include the Lohar blacksmiths of India, the Romani traders, the Irish Travellers. Most nomads travel in groups of bands or tribes; these groups are based on formal agreements of cooperation. A council of adult males makes most of the decisions. In the case of Mongolian nomads, a family moves twice a year; these two movements occur during the summer and winter. The winter location is located near mountains in a valley and most families have fixed winter locations, their winter locations have shelter for the animals and are not used by other families while they are out. In the summer they move to a more open area. Most nomads move in the same region and don't travel far to a different region. Since they circle around a large area, communities form and families know where the other ones are. Families do not have the resources to move from one province to another unless they are moving out of the area permanently.
A family can move on its own or with others and if it moves alone, they are no more than a couple of kilometers from each other. Nowadays there are no tribes and decisions are made among family members, although elders consult with each other on usual matters; the geographical closeness of families is for mutual support. Pastoral nomad societies do not have large population. One such society, the Mongols, gave rise to the largest land empire in history; the Mongols consisted of loosely organized nomadic tribes in Mongolia and Siberia. In the late 12th century, Genghis Khan united them and other nomadic tribes to found the Mongol Empire, which stretched the length of Asia; the nomadic way of life has become rare. Many governments dislike nomads because it is difficult to control their movement and to obtain taxes from them. Many countries have converted pastures into cropland and forced nomadic peoples into permanent settlements. Nomads move from campsite to following game and wild fruits and vegetables.
Hunting and gathering describes early people's subsistence living style. Following the development of agriculture, most hunter-gatherers were either displaced or converted to farming or pastoralist groups. Only a few contemporary societies are classified as hunter-gatherers. Pastoral nomads are nomads moving between pastures. Nomadic pastoralism is thought to have developed in three stages that accompanied population growth and an increase in the complexity of social organization. Karim Sadr has proposed the following stages: Pastoralism: This is a mixed economy with a symbiosis within the family. Agropastoralism: This is when symbiosis is between clans within an ethnic group. True Nomadism: This is when symbiosis is at the regional level between specialised nomadic and agricultural populations; the pastoralists are sedentary to a certain area, as they move between the permanent spring, summer and winter pastures for their livestock. The nomads moved depending on the availability of resources. Nomadic pastoralism seems to have
Jim Crow economy
The term Jim Crow economy applies to a specific set of economic conditions during the period when the Jim Crow laws were in effect. It includes the intentional effects of the laws themselves, effects that were not explicitly written into laws, effects that continued after the laws had been repealed; some of these impacts continue into the present. The primary differences of the Jim Crow economy, compared to a situation like apartheid, revolve around the alleged equality of access in regard to land ownership and entry into the competitive labor market. During the decade following the Civil War, the freed slaves made gains in political participation, land ownership, personal wealth. In the decades following the closure of the Freedmen's Bureau, in the South, black political participation was curtailed, the potential for acquiring new land was diminished, Plessy v. Ferguson would usher in the Jim Crow era. By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, not only was African American progress halted, it was regressing.
Leading up to and following World War I, the agrarian economy of the South was in dire straits, beginning a slow shift to urbanization and limited industrialization. The 1930s saw increasing industrialization in the South. By the time of the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the scientific racism that had underlain much of the justification for the Jim Crow era legal racism had been discredited, the South had closed its wealth gap with the rest of the nation, America was both urbanized and industrialized. However, the African American struggle to earn economic parity, that had made progress during the first half century of the postbellum era, had been reversed during the second half. Equality was assured, but that did little to promulgate equal conditions in daily life; some of the gains in the South's economic relation to the rest of the U. S. can be explained by population shifts to other regions. In the period when agriculture had formed the basis of the economy and labor were intimately tied together in the ownership of farmland.
Thus, to understand the Jim Crow economy it is required to look to the social and political climate prior to the implementation of the laws, to the economic inertia that continued to impact people's lives after the repeal of the laws. Sources will mention the Jim Crow economy, proceed to discuss only what is specific to the topic being broached by a particular author; the economic impacts of Jim Crow are intertwined with changes in the overall economy of the United States, from the Civil War through the 20th century. There is a temporal rhythm to the economic impacts of Jim Crow. Just in the last decade, "the Jim Crow economy" has been mentioned in the context of 19th century taxi drivers, mid-20th century urban industrialization, post-World War II domestic service, in regard to Lumbee Indians in North Carolina, it is a topic that covers a great deal of breadth. Moreover, there is the risk of applying it to any economic topic in the Jim Crow era, making the phrase meaningless. In the decades following the Civil War, there were steady increases in African American ownership of farmland in the South, from 3 million acres in 1875, to 8 million acres in 1890, 12 million acres at the turn of the century, peaking at 12,800,000 acres in 1910.
Other estimates suggest that total black ownership of land in the South may have been as much as 15 million acres within a half century after emancipation. There were setbacks, due to property being taken illegally. By 1930, the number of black owned farms was 3% lower than what it had been at the turn of the century. After being freed, there were 2 main ways for African Americans to acquire land in the South: either buy it from a private landowner, or stake a claim to public land offered by the federal government under laws like the Southern Homestead Act of 1866, by state governments, such as South Carolina's Land Commission; the Southern Homestead Act opened up the transfer of public lan
Maurice Godelier is a French anthropologist who works as the Director of Studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences. He is one of the most influential French anthropologists and is best known as one of the earliest advocates of Marxism's incorporation into anthropology, he is known for his field work among the Baruya in Papua New Guinea from the 1960s to the 1980s. Godelier was born to a poor family in provincial France in the commune Cambrai. In 1955, Godelier received an associate degree in philosophy, a degree in psychology, a degree in modern literature. During his early education, he was interested in the works of Husserl, he attended the École normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud from 1955 to 1959 and received an agrégation in philosophy. Godelier developed a specific interest in Marxist theory and politics. In 1981, he received an honorary degree from the Université catholique de Louvain. In 1963, Godelier initiated the first program on economic anthropology in France at College de France.
In this program he focused on refining the Marxist ideas of base and superstructure and modes of production. From 1966 to 1969, Godelier conducted his first major anthropological field study on the Baruya in Papua New Guinea, his research provided significant contributions to the limited understanding of New Guinea cultures. In 1982, he used his research to write an ethnography on the Baruya; the book, entitled The Making of Great Men, discusses sex- and gender-based inequality and provided insight into the systems of power in Melanesia. His analysis of the systems of power was further developed in Big Men and Great Men, published in 1991, which he co-edited with Marilyn Strathern. In the late 1990s, Godelier addressed the future of peripheral societies under the effects of world capitalism and a new analysis of kinship theory focusing on gender inequality and sexuality. In 1995, he founded the Center for Research and Documentation on Oceania, which he directed until 1999. From 2000 to 2003, Godelier served on various organizations related to research in social sciences in Europe and his anthropological work in Oceania.
He is president of the Société des océanistes. Karl Wittfogel Rationalité et Irrationalité en Economie – 1969 La production des Grands Hommes. Pouvoir et domination masculine chez les Baruya de Nouvelle Guinée, Ed. Fayard.. Prize of the French Academy. L’idéel et le matériel, Ed. Fayard.. L’énigme du don, Ed. Fayard.. Meurtre du Père, Sacrifice de la Sexualité,1996 La Production du corps. Approches anthropologiques et historiques and Le Corps humain, supplicié, possédé, cannibalisé. Texts edited by Maurice Godelier and Michel Panoff. Amsterdam, Archives contemporaines. Godelier, Maurice. Métamorphoses de la parenté. Paris: Fayard. ISBN 2-213-61490-3. OCLC 61137773. Interview with Godelier Generation Online's presentation of Godelier Jack Goody's book review of Godelier's Métamorphoses de la parenté