One of Adam Smith's more famous observations is on the propensity of human beings to "truck, barter, and exchange." But have they always? Some scholars would argue that the claim is overstated. In response, some scholars, while affirming that economic activity in past societies was not identical to our modern commercial societies, say critics are drawing to narrow a definition on what constitutes truck, barter, and trade … often out of ideological motivation.
A couple of weeks ago, economic historian and Adam Smith scholar, Gavin Kennedy, had an interesting exchange with sociologist Dan Hirschman at the University of Michigan at Kennedy's blog. See A Debate About Polanyi and Exchange, Polanyi was Wrong on Exchange and Trade, and On Polanyi Again and a New Critic. Kennedy concludes his third post with:
… The ideas of "commodification" have Marxist roots, though that alone does no disqualify them, but they are part of an ideology – no counter-facts can disprove them – as is the myth that exchange behaviours are alien in tribal societies. They are even present in some animal societies (Chimpanzees, for instance) in reciprocation behaviours, and certainly in human societies from the earliest times and to the present. To deny them is ideological. That is why I say Polanyi invented a theory and then sought evidence. Smith observed; he had no plans to change the world. Neither have I. The most dangerous breed on Earth are philosophers who think they can change the world – they only make it worse.
Smith recognized the importance of the Age of Commerce, and noted how it had collapsed after the Fall of Rome, when warlords took over Western Europe, until it re-emerged, slowly and gradually, a thousand years later and it spread and deepened, not because of the State, but despite it. No state invented agriculture 10,000 years ago.
Laissez-faire played no part in Smith's thinking (he never used such words) – that was a 19th-century invention by propagandists of Mill and Mine owners in Parliament and politics.
I assure David I am an economist who has looked closely at the works of modern anthropologists (and sociologists); I find in them confirmation of Smith's conjectures, and repudiation of Polanyi's narrow, political focus. He should have looked beyond Engels and Marx – as should David.
I recently acquired a new copy of Polanyi's "The Great Transformation," which I think I read more than 25 years ago. It makes me even more intrigued to read it again. The topic interests me partly just out of historical curiosity. But I also think such study has value for theology. The economy of First Century Rome has some parallels to modern economies, but there are radical departures as well … particularly when we move into the conflicted culture of First Century Palestine. Uncritically lifting Jesus' teaching without regard for the economic context continues to subvert productive reflection on our own economic questions. Here works like Douglas Oakman's Jesus and the Peasants provide valuable insight.
Anyway, check out Kennedy's posts on the topic. I'm persuaded by his take.
Leave a Reply