6 ms·
Graeber's background in economic anthropology offers a fresh lens through which to view economic history, highlighting the social and cultural dimensions that t
by weatherlight 3y ago
Graeber's background in economic anthropology offers a fresh lens through which to view economic history, highlighting the social and cultural dimensions that traditional economic theories sometimes overlook. His work has encouraged interdisciplinary dialogue, prompting economists and historians alike to incorporate broader socio-cultural understandings into their analyses. While his approach differs from conventional economic theorizing, it complements it by adding depth to our understanding of economic phenomena.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoRight, but are there _actual_ contributions to economics or the history of economics that were consequences of his “stimulation”? Also, saying that he single-handedly prompted “economists and historians alike to incorporate broader socio-cultural understandings into their analyses” is a huge denigration of institutional economics, behavioural economics, Austrian economics, social economics, etc.
- weatherlight 3y agoIt's a relatively recent addition to the discorse, having been published just over a decade ago. It's definitely apart of the heterodox tradition in economics (without diminishing what's already there), which often takes longer to be integrated into the mainstream. So, I guess time will tell?
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoI would even take any contribution to heterodox economics. But what was actually contributed?
- weatherlight 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology#Barter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology#Barter
- sebmellen 3y agoI don’t say this as an accusation, but your writing is remarkably similar to ChatGPT output.
- ksaj 3y agoMissing the giveaway "However..." clause that nearly all ChatGPT descriptions have in them.
- Natsu 3y agoI made a prediction that I was going to find out that Graeber was a communist thinker before I looked him up just now. I was not surprised.
- ekidd 3y agoThere's a rather unusual strain of Marxism (not communism!) in anthropology. As I understand it, Marx argued that the conditions of the material economy would ultimately dictate what social structures appeared. Ideology was "downstream" of economic production, and less important. Now consider archaeology (which is part of the anthropology department in the US). A high-profile dig may involve many specialist researchers: people who study seeds, people who study pollen, people who study abrasion in stone tools. If the evidence is sufficiently preserved, then a team like this can lean quite a bit about food production and trade patterns. Meanwhile, nobody can tell you much about ideology. Maybe you've got some burials, or some stone statues that might be religious. But you've got zero written records, and anything you say about religion or ideology is likely to be completely made up. So in an anthropology department, "Marxist" may mean, "deeply interested in the means of production, which we have lots of concrete material evidence about, but much less interested in making unsubstantiated guesses about religion." Or at least that's how my anthropology professors explained it.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago> Or at least that's how my anthropology professors explained it. Yeah, that's how they explain it, yet somehow it always ends up being about communism.