FOLBRE- Maydick

In Nancy Folbre's article "The Black Four of Hearts: Towards a New Paradigm of Household Economics" she speaks about how different types of households deal with their economic situations as they came to them. One specification that particularly stuck out to me was when she spoke about the neoclassical household's approach to their economic situation. "It presumably maximizes the "joint utility” of its members. But the specification of a joint utility function poses a serious problem for neoclassical theory because it requires the aggregation of individual tastes and preferences, a task that is intrinsically problematic."It was interesting to me to see that the members of the household worked together even though it went against the neoclassical theory. It was odd to me that they did not choose the option that would maximize profitability.

CHAYANOV- O.MICHAEL

In Chayanov's book, The Theory of Peasant Farming, he does a great job of describing the farms in great detail. He says that the further away and isolated your farm is from an urban community setting that the less profit you would attain. I agree with what Chayanov is saying. It's common sense, in the fact that the less people that are around your farm to purchase your crops the less profit you will gain. I also agreed with his comment about how family was the center of the farm. Generally, each farm is run by a family and even the two prior generations of the family occasionally assist in the work, or are still residing on the farms property. I also agree that Peasant farmers have a closer bond to one another unlike an urban farmer. What I mean by an urban farmer, is someone who is hired to work on a farm closer to an urban town or city. Peasant farms tend to be more of a family based farm system and "urban" farms tend be a mix of different people. So the question i raise is...Are there different types of farms and are the relationships on these farms different than the ones of the Peasants in Russia.

FOLBRE-O.MICHAEL

One thing that grabbed my attention while reading the article by Nancy Folbre was on page 253 where she says, "Parents may use contingent transfers of wealth to provide children with a long-run incentive to consider the interests of the whole family." What I think Folbre is trying to say is that within the household there are people who have a say and who hold a certain power level, and then there are those who do not hold such prowess. We also find that there are Gender based inequalities within the household. On page 255 Folbre writes, "Gender-based inequalities are inextricably linked to intergenerational income flows, as Caldwell and other have emphasized." Men and Woman share different qualities and responsibilities that complete and construct a household.

Chayanov Ch4 - Fuller

Chayanov contrasts the peasant farms that are linked to the economy nationally, and those that are not. Simply the presence of such economic links factors into the expenditures drastically. I am interested in seeing how the different types of peasant farms, in terms of the family, operates: how does having the ability to spend money in an economically significant way change the way a family is run? With money becoming a far more significant factor in some of these areas of peasant farms, is there a shift in the duties of the house? It’d be interesting to see how time commitments shift to different aspects of the economically involved peasant farmer’s life.

Another aspect I found interesting was the value (fertility) that decreased the further away from a market it was. We see aspects of this in the US today: small towns in rural areas have lower costs of living, whereas urban areas are incredibly expensive. How does this factor into the peasant farmers’ family lifestyle? Is there a shift in what the farmer devotes his energy and time to when he has more of an opportunity to make capital?

chayanov: lize-anne

I also found Chayanov's review of the running of the farm interesting. His point about the agricultural festival taking nearly as much time as labor itself as being counterproductive points out our limitations as anthropologists looking at non-anthropologically based sources to make deductions about family and household. To these people, perhaps the festivals were an integral part of a bountiful harvest. If he so easily pegged this practice as ineffective, I wonder what he left out or imposed bias upon.
The family unit is the very basis of the farm structure, and begins to change as it comes in contact with urban life. Chayanov explains that as this happens the desired standard of living rises for the family and they must then engage in more work in order to supply increased demand. This brings to question how the roles of family members themselves change in order to meet this increased demand. It not only means that more profitably work outside the home must be done, but also the division of labor within the house presumably changes. It would be interesting to look at these and how they shift

Chayanov Chapter 4- WHARTON

In Chapter 4, I found the "Account of the Family Labor Force and Its Consumer Demands" section very thought-provoking. The following quotes were particularly interesting to me:

"The farm family is the primary initial quantity in constructing the farm unit," (128),

"...the volume of economic work and the mechanism for constituting the farm derive predominantly from the family, taking into account all other elements of the economic circumstances," (128),

And then, specifically pertaining to families in proximity of an urban area:

"An increase in these rates (referring to personal needs) depends not only on increased incomes and the larger budget which follows but also on an expansion of the demands themselves due to elements of higher urban culture that penetrate into the countryside," (130),

"As we see, in areas of commodity farming, and especially in areas of crafts and trades, under pressure of new urban habits and a range of new urban demands that penetrate the foundations of country life the structure of consumption and its level are subject to very considerable changes," (131).

It is clear from the above quotes that the economic circumstances of the farm rely on the demands and hard work of the family unit. However, Chayanov repeatedly mentions that economic demands are influenced by urban culture penetrating into peasant life in farming areas in proximity to cities. I wonder, what exactly are these demands? Outside of a greater tendency to produce crops for export to the city in order to turn a profit, how does proximity to a urban area affect the dynamics of a peasant farm? If one is born on a peasant farm, must he remain a peasant farmer throughout his life? Or was there potential for mobility to an urban center? If the cost of running a farm increased when in proximity to an urban area, what made living near a city a lucrative and desirable lifestyle? How much mobility was there within the farming class, not just in terms of peasants moving into urban areas and giving up their agricultural pursuits, but also in terms of peasants moving to different areas of the countryside in order to be more successful? Essentially, if you were born a peasant farmer, did that imply that you remained in basically the same lifestyle and economic situation forever? Or were there examples of lifestyle changes based on personal or economic interests? Also, slightly off-topic, but who is it that makes the decisions within the peasant farm family unit?

Chayanov ch 4-Nastacio

It is interesting to note how Chayanov describes the organization of the peasant farms as having a poor layout. This was due to the fact that the land was divided into sections of equal proportions and given to every member of the commune. (175) It seems as if this would be a good way to divide the land if it were being used for for a particular reason besides for farming. This is because for farming the each zone varies by distance and frequently the most distant pieces are abandoned. It is also interesting to note that the amount of time devoted to festivals is almost the same time spent on agriculture. (179) Keeping with the rest of Chayanov's theory it seems as if more time should be focused on activities which produce an economic gain.
In dealing with work distribution, it seems counterintuituve that the labor intensity remains the same in all work groups. Does that mean that domestic work is seen equally as intense as field work? Does that mean that women should be thought of as equal to men since their domestic work is seen just as intense as men's field work?

CHAYANO--CH 4--CLARK

It was particularly interesting to me to learn about everything that goes into the organization of field cultivation (pg. 134). Of course we learned about the importance of crop rotation in middle school, but I never knew there were so many other factors to take into account when planning a farm. Chayanov mentions the importance of planting “not only commodity crops… but also crops to meet the family’s needs in kind” (134) as well as the significance of keeping an even distribution of labor throughout the year.

However, one of the most interesting charts in my opinion in this data-filled chapter is table 4-14 on page 135: Net income of two-hundred-fifty hectare farm (thousand marks). This table shows how drastically a farms income decreases the farther away from the market they get, regardless of farm system or category of fertility. Apart from pointing out something that I definitely understand but would have never thought of, this table raised some questions in my head: were these farms that were so close to the market also larger farms? But then, isn’t that a bit counter-intuitive if you imagine farms farther away from the city would have more usable land? At what point did the transportation to the market not make such a profound impact on income? Did the farms that were much farther away from the market than others (200 and 400 kilometers, especially) actually hope to make big profits on their crops in that market setting, or did they mainly grow their own food and take the occasional trip by railway to the market?

Chayanov - Ch. 4 - Bao

On p. 142, Chayanov wrote, "We dare suppose that every system....is something artificial and its significance is always only temporary and pedagogic... We personally ascribe great significance to the purposive evaluation of the systems, i.e. evaluation of any system according to how convenient it is for a particular purpose." I thought this was a particularly interesting quote since it seems to relate to what we are attempting to do in the class currently. While Chayanov was researching peasant households for reasons that we discussed last week in class, we are also studying the same topic but simply with different intentions. It brings us back to the very first class in which we introduced ourselves and our reasons for taking this course. What is more striking to me, however, is that we can look at the same body of data and come away with vastly different opinions or conclusions despite having the same starting point.

On another point: Chayanov goes into great detail about the organization of farms and the tools at their disposal. While he mentions additional workers on a farm, I was curious to see how these individuals factored in with the family - did they live with the family during the months they worked on the farm? And how did families deal with having members working on other farms? Similarly, I was curious to see how the peasant, non-market farm related with the surrounding community. Were resources shared, like technology or machines, between neighbors or was each farm just an autonomous unit? How did they interact with the rest of the community? And finally, on the difference between rural communities and urban locales, did farmers view urban dwellers as consumers and did they believe they had some sort of obligation to supply them?

Chayanov Part II--D. Wilson

I came away from chapter four with some similar thoughts to Hana--that one of the key points in making distinctions between economies is valuation. Within the nonmonetary farm, outputs are evaluated completely differently than with the monetary farm, the latter driven by the need to produce profit as the end result as opposed to producing [literally] strictly foodstuff. Note the dynamics at play:

"In the nonmonetary farm the question of whether it is more advantageous to sow rye or mow hay, for example, could not arise, since they could not replace each other and thus had no common scale for comparison. The value of the hay obtained was measured in terms of the need for fodder, and the value of the rye in terms of feeding the family. You could even assert that meadows increased in value the poorer they were and the more labor they required to obtain each pud of hay" (124).

We measure the product by its purpose on the farm for the people who directly benefit. The comparison scale no longer applies, at least in terms of monetary cost of production. I don't think we can separate internal farm production from such measures as opportunity cost, however--no farm makes everything and there are different indicators of success or the moment at which a farm should specialise. Inputs to measure opportunity cost would include need for a product (if you need rye, you'll make it--no relying on a specialised outside labour force) and the length of the working day for producing a particular output (148). But at which point is the farm affected by outside interventions or actors? When are the managerial decisions in running the farm affected by a market economy? Is resistance possible and sustainable?

There's something unique about a farm "producing" a non-agrarian product like profit, a product not from the land directly. How would farmers react to producing something that they'll never touch?

Marcus_ Chayanov

Gregory’s statement that householding was just a phase in history can be applied to Chayanov’s theory of the peasant economy. Generally speaking, the Russian peasant farm exemplifies the kind of autarkic household Gregory contends “has all but disappeared from the scene”. Chayanov’s very thesis is that the peasant household represents an entirely different form of economic behavior than wage-based capitalism: rather than working to increase profits through the investment of capital, the peasant family seeks only to balance the drudgery of their labor input with the necessary output to subsist and survive (labor-consumer balance).To the extent that the peasant family is independent of market forces, it conforms to Gregory’s (Polany-inspired) model; to the extent that “money-making as a principle of economic behavior has conquered the globe,” such an economic system indeed no longer exists outside the pages of history. However, it is important to keep in mind that Gregory accords the term “household” greater elasticity beyond the traditional understanding of it as a strictly non-market phenomenon.[1] Thus encourages sustained attention to household as a form of economic life that is not mutually exclusive with capitalism.

---

[1][1] “Just as money-making is not limited in its historical significance as a principle

of economic behavior to the era when the self-regulating market was the dominant

institutional pattern, so too “householding” as a general category is not

defined solely by its realization as an autarkic form of peasant proprietorship. My own research on markets, merchants, and kinship in middle India (Gregory

1997) reveals that, contrary to orthodoxy, householding is not always autarkic

and is sometimes embedded in market relations. In other words, “householding”

may be either autarkic or non-autarkic, or both.” (143)

Chayanov - Fuller

Chayanov argues that the family and its composition in the peasant farm economy is what determined the “economic situation”. I found especially interesting that the family hadn’t been examined as the defining operative of the economic structure. Chayanov also acknowledges the dynamic nature of the family, and describes a cycle that a family structure goes through. The family has many dynamic aspects to it that I was surprised when Chayanov managed to back his ideas up with numbers. What other aspects of the family (traditions, networks, or lack of, etc.) have an impact on this? This may be partially explained when Chayanov states that, depending on the location (which can also be associated with culture, traditions), the family functionality differs. I’ve been surprised in seeing the dynamic applications of the family – so far, we’ve seen that the family has been a basis for taxation, household structure, a network of miniaturized economic trade, and here, as an equation for economic output on these farms.

Chayanov-Nastacio

It is interesting to note how Chayanov's view of the family is different from the reading last week in which the family was viewed in economic terms. According to Chayanov, the peasant family is not to be viewed as a business or as a capitalistic enterprise. This is because a family does not employ hired wage labor, as opposed to those capitalistic enterprises who hire workers for the sole purpose of earning profits. He also thought of the house as a single economic unit. It is interesting to note that he defines family composition as the upper and lower limits of the volume of its economic activity. However, since his theory is based on the agrarian culture in Russia, that brings up the question of whether or not these economic theories can be imposed in other countries with a different family dynamic. For example, farms in America used slaves as laborers. In this sense Chayanov notes that the slave is only a tool used for surplus product. A flaw to his theory might be that it seems to work better for countries who have a smaller population than those with a large population. To me it seems as if creating one economic theory on which to define a household is nearly impossible. Each city or region within a country has a unique culture which usually helps govern their way of life. For example, he states "in the fifteenth year, the first child comes to the aid of the parents when he has reached semiworking age and the consumer-worker ratio immediately falls..." (59) however, not every culture allows their sons to work at age 15.

CHAYANOV—CLARK

In Chapter 1, Chayanov states, “…The family’s single indivisible labor product and, consequently, the prosperity of the farm family do not increase so markedly as do the return to a capitalist economic unit influenced by the same factors, for the laboring peasant, noticing the increase in labor productivity, will inevitably balance the internal economic factors of his farm earlier, i.e., with less self-exploitation of his labor power. He satisfies his family’s demands more completely with less expenditure of labor, and he thus decreases the technical intensity of his economic activity as a whole” (8).

Though either side can certainly be argued, I believe this is an example of how Chayanov’s concept of household economics cannot co-exist with Gregory’s claim that householding was just a phase of history. If I understand him correctly, Chayanov is basically stating that households, particularly farming/laboring peasant households, are getting more efficient with time, which would (or should…) encourage the structure or concept of a household instead of letting it die out.

chayanov- lize-anne

Chayanov argues that the household functions itself as its own market in the sense that labor within the home levels off once consumption is met. Although the unit functions within the society surrounding it, it functions separately of the larger economic market. Becker argued for a household in which there was a provider, who acts as the link between the household unit and the greater economic market. The two theories can not co-exist because Chayanov argues for the households independence from the larger economy, while Becker argues that there is a link between them. The fundamental and irreconcilable difference seems to be the goal of the household itself. In Chayanov's case, it is the goal of the workers to support the dependents and to continue the unit. Becker seems to argue that the goal of the household is moreso in the direction of societal advancement of that unit.

Chayanov- WHARTON

"As is seen from our incidental analysis, all these instances can be interpreted with the aid of the categories of the capitalist farm based on hired labor. To do this, however, we have to create an exceedingly doubtful concept; we must unite in the peasant both the entrepreneur capitalist and the worker he is exploiting...therefore, I am more inclined to use another hypothesis to explain theoretically the organizational peculiarities that have been observed-- a hypothesis based on the concept of the peasant farm as a family labor farm in which the family as a result of its year's labor receives a single labor income and weighs its efforts against the material results obtained," (Chayanov, 41)

This quote provokes many questions in my mind. For instance, from the description of the peasant farmer given in the introduction, it still seems that the peasant could serve as both entrepreneur and exploited worker. The entrepreneur aspect of the peasant just seems to be forced by the inability to grow a successful crop, therefore it is not by nature capitalist. For instance, Chayanov describes how in years of a bad harvest, peasant farmers would often turn to crafting to produce another means of income, in this way representing an entrepreneur attempting to make ends meet, as opposed to an entrepreneur attempting to turn a significant profit. His use of the term "entrepreneur" made me wonder if the term was in the past always associated with economic ventures and economic success, as in my mind "entrepreneur" implies someone who chooses or is forced to take a business risk, and does not always succeed. In my present day understanding of the term, I believe his first hypothesis has some merit.

Viewing the peasant farm as a family labor farm operating under the parameters of private economy as opposed to national economy sounds to me as if it must encompass the studies and work of an anthropologist, as opposed to an economist. However, never once does Chayanov describe himself as an anthropologist, or even mention the term. This makes me wonder, how could an anthropologist's perspective have changed the understanding of the peasant farm as a family labor farm? What insights would someone studying this system from a purely anthropological standpoint have provided that Chayanov could have potentially missed?

Chayanov - Intro and Chapter 1 - Bao

I found it very interesting in Chapter 1 when Chayanov wrote, "Yet, while acknowledging the fact of this dependence we can dwell on the question of the internal character of this relationship and suppose that it is not family size which determines volume of family economic activity, as we formerly thought; on the contrary, the measure of agricultural activity, let us say, determines family composition. In other words, the peasant provides himself with a family in accordance with his material security" (64). Is this necessarily the case in Russian peasant economy? What about for those families living at the extremes - i.e. extremely high level peasant farmers or extremely low level peasant farmers? I think that the advantages and disadvantages at having more people under the household depends on more than just the material security, but also the goals and desires of the household. Another question I had was whether or not there are parallels in our own society where we see household size being based on "material security." I guess the first task would be to define what we mean by "material security," and whether it differs from the Russian peasants' definition of material security. For many of us, I am sure that this includes having a physical house (since this is a large investment that is worth money), and money itself. Is there a case in which material security is measured by something other than money? The fact that so many of our everyday exchanges deal in money or in currency of some form makes it hard to separate economy from household. Is it really even fair, therefore, to look at the household in terms of economy? Isn't it assumed that the overlap is inevitable? It is perhaps possible to consider this in terms of groups of people living at the same economic level, but I think it would be challenging to try and extrapolate this out to individuals of different economic status.

CHAYANOV--D.WILSON

Can "non-capitalist" economic systems co-exist with Gregory's claim that householding was just a phase of history?

Yes and no.

"We shall be unable to carry on in economic thought with merely capitalist categories, because a very wide area of economic life (that is, the largest part of the agrarian production sphere) is based, not on a capitalist form, but on the completely different form of a nonwage family economic unit" (1)

Defining categories:

Categories for capitalism: price, capital, wages, interest, rent, all interdependent (4)

Categories for the quitrent serf system, ex.: commodity prices, interest on borrowed capital, indivisible labour product of the family, serf quitrent/serf rent (see below) (19)

• Quitrent:
  

1. Combination of family-farm and slave farm
2. Serf is different than slave
3. No wages because no hired help
   
4. "Definite" amount of produce from labour given to owner, called "quitrent"
5. Amount determined by equilibrium influenced by "non-economic" forces
6. Equilibrium is between product generated by labour and demand met by labour (am still trying to determine how this equilibrium is realised!)
   
7. Is quitrent rent or tax on serfs by owner? A new form of tribute?

"Today [1923?], our world gradually ceases to be only a European world. As Asia and Africa enter our lives and culture more and more often with their special economic formations, we are compelled to turn our interest again and again toward the problems of a noncapitalist economic system" (28).

Is this form of understanding economic exchange relevant? What is the reach of market economic? I find it very difficult to think of a current system that does not involve the categories listed for capitalism, but also admit to having little knowledge of many economic systems in the world (28). Chayanov shows a great amount of foresight in predicting the rise of Asia, but I don't think he could have predicted how Asian economies would evolve. The powers that come to mind are China, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan (perhaps Saudi Arabia or Dubai? It feels strange to leave out the Middle East). Each has been influenced immensely by Western practices or values, and are involved in global markets, which are driven by prices if that's accurate to say. It seems that yes, this form of economic organisation was a phase of the past, but we can still use it to understand areas that have not been touched by capitalism. Problem is that there aren't many places like that, what with technology and the ability of information to spread quickly.

BECKER- Wharton

In the Introduction of Treatise on the Family, Becker states "the model developed in Chapter 2 shows that even if a husband and wife are intrinsically identical, they gain from a division of labor between market and household activities, with one of them specializing more in market activities and the other specializing more in household activities," (3). This quote made me wonder if in a successful traditional family, does one spouse always prioritize work while the other prioritizes family? It seems as if this distribution of labor would inevitably create a poor dynamic between husband and wife, or spouse-who-prioritizes-work and children. It also seems that this balance would rely on both husband and wife being productive individuals, and competent within their own allocations of labor, for such a division to work. Becker discusses higher divorce rates within present western cultures, and I think that this rationale for a division of labor between market and household activities may be part of the problem. By dividing labor, spouses become disconnected from each other, as well as disconnected from an entire compenent/side of household life, be it the economic sector or the familial sector.

I think what made marriages work and kept households together was the necessity of all members of the household to contribute to the productivity of the family. What can be said of the dynamic of the household today? Parents work hard to support their children, to pay for their food and education, while children are expected to do very little in terms of economic productivity, besides perhaps succeed in school so as to secure a successful and economically beneficial job in the future. How has the dynamic between the family, with every individual expected to perform an individualized role that does not necessarily benefit the other members, changed from the past, and impacted the successful dynamic of the family presently? What factors inspire people to have children, if the children do not add anything in terms of productivity, and instead only add steep economic stresses on the parents? This may sound morbid, but I am merely curious as to the factors that inspire individuals to reproduce today, as the motives seem very different from what they were historically.

PS sorry this is late; the past week has been very crazy for me.

FOLBRE-DUERR

I understand Thomas Kuhn’s argument that “scientists, as well as experimental subjects, are prone to see what they expect to see.” (p.248) In light of that statement I can see why neo-classical theorists and Marxian theorist would try to explain household economies in terms of their respective theories. As Folbre seems to point out both of these theories fall short when it comes to household. The household economy is an anomaly, like the “black four of hearts.” Economic decisions within the household are different than those made in the market place. In a household self interest can be over ridden by genuine interest for the success of others. While altruism may describe the economics within a household, selfishness on the part of one member or members may also dictate economic inequalities. The unselfish concern for others that exists within households does not neatly fit in either neo classic or Marxian theory. Love is an ingredient in household that does not lend itself to scientific study.

Guyer - Fuller

I found it very interesting to compare the methods that economists use, and the methods that cultural anthropologists use, in analyzing the same institutions. This reinforced my appreciation for anthropology: cultural anthropologists look at a group of people, and attempt to see how the people see their own assets (as abstract as they may seem to an outsider) and to analyze their value culturally, socially, and etcetera. I found it interesting that in a strictly monetary sense, the idea of the poor in need of welfare attempting to have some sort of small-scale assets (for example, as a fallback) is generally very resisted by those contributing to welfare; however anthropologically, the argument for such small scale assets (capable of many functions, depending on the situation) seems very valid. Depending through which lens one looks at the situation, the conclusions vary drastically; melding economics and anthropology seems like an interesting venture, but it seems to be more of a venue of comparing and contrasting results as opposed to an alliance between the two fields.

In terms of investing in assets and its undocumented nature – this state is the transitional state, and has a “before” and “after” at some sort of equilibrium. The transitional state is brief in nature and thus difficult to document thoroughly. Especially in dynamic and shifting households, where these assets can change their function within a household rather quickly, and even the equilibrium states can be brief, it is far simpler to look at the before and after, especially as an economist.

Folbre: Bonhomme

The title of this piece immediately reminds me of a conversation I had with Sidney Mintz about conducting fieldwork in smaller villages in the Caribbean. He told me not to waste any time on the men, make nice with the women. He said I would inevitably find one woman that is considered as the head of the community, its spokesperson. He told me then to see how she runs her household, separate from the community. This household will be exemplary of how the household unit function in the community, perhaps more than any other household will he told me. This was striking to me because I always assumed the opposite was true. Folbre explains that gender inequality becomes apparent in the household in that women devote more of their income to it. This coincides with the advice that Professor Mintz gave me. Although men are largely considered the breadwinners of the household, the women are the ones that take care of using those resources (and often times their own) to run it. In these smaller communities, the role of the household in the larger community is even more overt and the relationship even more intertwined. It is understandable then, that the women would have more insight to these communities as she is in effect, the head of the household.
This tendency of the woman to be the one who runs the household can also be considered in terms of altruism. It can be looked at from the genetic fitness perspective, as Folbre speaks of. Perhaps the women invest more into rearing children and running the household because they invest more into children on a biological level.

Folbre-Nastacio

I think the idea of looking at a household through the viewpoint of economic theories is particularly interesting, however I think it is difficult to use these theories since they do not encompass every important aspect of a household. For example, the Marxian theories focus more on classes and not on individuals. What about households made up of extended families that might not necessary be part of the same "class"? Another aspect that stuck out was the idea that these theories didn't differentiate between gender and age. These two concepts are an important aspect involved in the makeup of the household. I also thought it was interesting that the term "feminization of poverty" was coined (255) in order to refer to the decreasing economic position of households run by females in the US. What about the households in which the woman earns more money vs a household in which a man is in charge but doesn't make as much? Does this imply that even though the man doesn't earn as much money as the woman that he will have a more economically prosperous household?

FOLBRE--D. WILSON

Though this article made many points, it articulated early on the tension that can arise between ethnography and “scientific” research design. Ethnographers can encounter difficulty in translating their findings into a form that other researchers or social scientists want to use—translation that usually involves quantifying research, which can take away from the responses. Consider a survey on patient satisfaction—the most common questions require respondents to rate interaction with health care providers via numerical scales or to note their average wait time for an appointment. What information is lost about the patient’s experience in using this survey to measure satisfaction? Writes Folbre, “Households, like decks of cards, have suits and hierarchies; their members are almost always differentiated by gender and by age” (248). One can say what they’d like about the merits of using gender and age as variables for measuring households—that they’re common characteristics that can describe any given population, that they’re enduring—but the short answer is that gender and age are incredibly easy to measure. I recently attempted to run a regression on data from a survey about the sexual life of prison inmates, but couldn’t get past the lack of continuous variables. Most of the questions called for a “yes” or “no” answer, so offered no meaningful regression, or were too open-ended to be summarized in the data analysis software we were using. Should the understanding of ethnography adjust? Or should what Kuhn terms “normal science” reconsider what its aims should be, being that many trajectories of thought are not contained in neat little survey boxes or lines of code in statistical models?

On this Folbre offers us a treasure trove: “‘scientific’ theories are based on untestable or circular assumptions. They are seldom if ever validated in any conclusive way by empirical research. Even more important, normal scientific research agendas are often limited to questions that can be answered simply by means of technical ingenuity. As Kuhn writes, ‘Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory, and, when successful, finds none’” (249). So much can be lost in seeking to align with new technology—“novelties” can be put on the wayside, such are current models of what is considered success. So how do we approach this? Is there a way for our units of measurement to a more complete picture, especially with something like the household?

(Side note: If you’re interested in the study of prison inmates mentioned above, the study is “Ethno-Methodological Study of the Subculture of Prison Inmate Sexuality in the United States, 2004-2005,” found through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Put “ISPCR” into Google and the main site should come up—handy resource for anyone in need of data sets).

Folbre - Bao

This article really made me consider the economics of my own household - both as functional unit involved in processes outside of the household as well as the economics withing the household itself. The issue of altruism especially stood out because of the difference in the way family members act between other members versus outside individuals. There are some arguments that say there can be no such thing as altruism. And if an individual helps out their family member, couldn't we still see that as them protecting the family or preserving the status of the household? If that's the case, then it is no longer "an unselfish concern" (Folbre, 260). Then again, I would like to believe that altruism does exist - or at least kin-based altruism. I would help out my parents or my younger sister if I were in the position to do so without expecting anything in return. Except perhaps the expectation that they would do the same for me. Does this still count as altruism though? I would like to think so - or at least I believe that mutual cooperation can exist.

I had a few other lingering thoughts after reading the Folbre handout. If there are different levels of household economics dictated by one's age, gender, or generation, how then can we make generalizations regarding household economics on a larger scale that most families fit into? The potential factors affecting these interactions include, but are not limited to, society, culture, and economic status within their environment. I think it would be helpful to try and understand how these things impact the relationships between family members, but I think it is very ambitious to come up with an economic theory of how the household functions.

FOLBRE--CLARK

Something that was particularly interesting about this article to me is the concept that “Economists often pride themselves on practicing the most scientific of the social sciences” (249)—especially since I’ve never really considered economics a science in the first place. I have certainly never thought about economists in that light, but she certainly does make a strong argument for this in her article. It was also interesting how both neoclassical and Marxian theory, though in disagreement on several other issues, both “seem to be wedded to a rosy picture of the household as home, sweet home” (249). Are economists unique in that they see things differently, or are the social scientists the ones who are abnormal in their overly-rosy concept of the household?

Later in the article when Folbre discusses the feminization of poverty she notes, “In some countries women are so economically disadvantaged that raising sons becomes an indispensable survival strategy” (255). However, at what point are multiple children better economically than worse? Taking into account the fact that they can help with labor and often afford tax breaks (like in the Tuscan article), but they also cost money to feed, clothe, and care for. At what point are things economical? Is it better to have many children or few to none from an economic standpoint?

GOODAY-O.Michael

In the reading by Jack Goody "The development of family and marriage in Europe", I was interested to see how the Church had a large part to do with marriage patterns of northwest France. The Church had very strict laws within kinship. Good states that during the tenth and eleventh centuries there was a great struggle and conflict between the Church and State when dealing with marriages. It appeared to me that the Church had very strict rules when dealing with the line of kinship and marriage. To my understanding the State had more relaxed views and rules. An interesting approach that i noticed was that the Church forbade marriage to the brothers and sisters of the dead spouse. Also they frowned upon the remarriage of widows and widowers. After reading this article I have raised a question in that, what would marriage be like today if these rules were still intact?

GOODY--D WILSON

Goody’s description of the exchange of women was of particular interest to me—and remember that “exchange” in this context meant neither trafficking nor coercion! The exchange of brides is a medium that encompasses many powerful forms from our discussions thus far: the expansion of kinship networks, concerns of patrimony and the preservation of wealth, questions of decent, origin and obligation. Within smaller, carefully aligned communities, the loss or outward migration of brides could be devastating. Wrote Goody, “every girl married to an outsider represented, in fact, for the less fortunate among [men], an increased probability of remaining a bachelor and a servant in the house of another…they dissuaded outsiders from associating with the village girls. Furthermore, they proclaimed the dishonour of such girls as became interested in others than themselves. This attitude…met with approval of their parents, who were always perturbed of they saw a girl take away as her dowry a fraction of the patrimony of the village, to bestow it on a stranger who would not pay his share of the fiscal obligations of the parish” (188). Kinship networks were the backbone of social unity or collectivity—the parish could not exist without those that chose to support it or become beholden to it. The stranger becomes a specter, a bride-stealer, and the bride condemned. The futures of bachelors and unmarried girls collide into a mutual experience of duty and social contract. What are the implications if girls continue to move out? At what point are strangers permitted?

Goody – Fuller

In Goody’s piece on the family, we see the development of the French structure of the household in terms of marriages and procreation. I found it interesting that only one couple per household were essentially in charge of carrying on the household line, making the other siblings of the couple in charge of such a task simply the support of the head couple. In another sense, looking at the elite of the society – such as Henry VIII, as well as other royalty – the importance of heirs and maintaining the family line in order to keep political power is prevalent. Where we see the lower-class households maintaining family lines for daily survival, the royalty and other upper class elites focused on family as a means for political and societal survival. Focusing again on the common citizen’s family structure, it was interesting to note that remarrying was a means to maintain economic stability and domestic help. Marriage here serves a huge economic function – and this is especially apparent when Goody mentions the idea of the necessity to keep the women inside the village away from outside males, to prevent the women’s dowry from exiting the community and to keep their own men from “remaining a bachelor and a servant in the house of another” (188).

Goody-Maydick

In Jack Goody's piece "The development of the family and marriage in Europe" he speaks about different types of marriage between non family members and also family members. One part that really stuck out to me was in the second section of the reading "divorce and remarriage", was that the church strictly forbade the marriage of a dead spouses family members. This was interesting to me because sisters and brothers could marry each other and it was allowed, but if they tried to marry any in-laws it is forbidden. The death of husbands and wives was very common therefore it made it harder to find a mate that was not one of your in laws.

Goody-Duerr

The Goody reading reminded me that marriage was often an economic arrangement. Marriage to a close relative was an efficient way to insure that a families’ resources could remain concentrated within the family. I can clearly see how marriage to a cousin eliminated the need to share a families resources with outsiders. Marriage amongst kin in small villages in France also kept newlyweds from moving off to the village of a spouse. While marriage to kin had economic advantages for the family this practice was opposed by the laws of the Church. From the reading it shown that while Church laws existed their practice was not always the norm in higher or lower portions of society, “The rules of the Church gave rise to tensions throughout society since they prevented individuals from doing what they saw as being in the best interests, socially as well as personally, of themselves and their families.”(Goody p.185) In the 11th century primogeniture was another practice used to make efficient use of the family resources, while probably very distasteful to the bachelor sons.

SCOTT- Wharton

In chapter 1, "Economics and Sociology of Subsistence Ethic," Scott immediately describes the peasant family of Southeast Asia essentially as a "unit of consumption and production." While at the core, any family unit of any culture may represent a unit of consumption and production, it seems as if this is all that such a peasant family represents. These people exert significant amounts of physical labor to reap the bare minimum for survival from the land. Personally, just reading the first few pages of this source stressed me out. How can an individual or a family unit enjoy a lifestyle such as this? If on a day to day, year by year basis the family unit is worried about growing the bare minimum of a crop to survive, what enjoyment does such a group of people get out of life? Can one mentally adapt to this lifestyle so as to eliminate day to day stress, or is it constantly looming over these people that if they do not produce enough food, they may not be able to support their family? How does this acknowledgment impact their interactions with family and community members? Does it depend on their personal constitution- be it optimistic or pessimistic- to determine how much enjoyment they are able to get out of life? While I am aware this is an economic-based source, it raised questions in my mind as to the decisions made, extracurricular activities, and modes of enjoyment within the peasant community that existed completely outside the realm of economic and subsistence decision-making.

In terms of economics, there were some terms such as "opportunity cost" and "implicit wages" that I was not familiar with, and was hoping that we could go over.

Goody- Marcus

Oops- somehow this didn't work before.

As a historiographic source, The hidden economy of kinship sheds great light on the de facto life of European families beyond the dominant de juro Church doctrine. In discussing how norms of the Church were variously resisted, modified, or altogether avoided, Goody provides us with a detailed and textured understanding of local variations and contestation in social life in Europe beyond a homogenous Christian ekumene. What I found particularly striking about the forms of resistance discussed is that they can occur at both ends of society, among both the ruling nobles and the peasants

My issue with Goody’s analysis is that it rests on a somewhat simplistic understanding of power, values, and ideology. The Church is presented as a monolithic imposer of doctrine which runs counter to the values or interest of the populace; the populace responds by through accommodation, dissemble, or disregard. Little room is left for possibility of fluidity in interpretation or of mutual . The Church did not emerge in a “cultural vacuum;” rather, its members shared their origins with the selfsame “newly Christian” populations upon which it sought to “impose its rules.” In this sense, I would suspect that there was much more regional variation in how and when Churches sought reshape lay behavior, beyond uniform pan-European ecclesiastical principle. Likewise, Goody seems to pose a mutual exclusivity between what Scott would call the “public transcripts” of the Church and the “hidden transcripts” of the populace, which does not account for how for Church ideology could have been mediated by, incorporated into, or existed side by side with lay beliefs. Ultimately, Goody’s analysis is contingent on a specific ontology of the subject as preexisting ideology, rather than dialogically constituted by it. (For a similar critique see Susan Gal’s article “Language and the "Arts of Resistance" Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 10, No. 3, (Aug., 1995), pp. 407-424)

GOODY--CLARK

One of the main reasons first cousins or other such closely related people are not allowed to marry today is because of the lack of gene variation that results in their offspring. Because this is a strictly physiological issue and in now way related to culture, it can be assumed that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe, severe genetic mutations would still have occurred from such unions. Goody notes many marriages during that time were “between first cousins, while others were between uncle and niece” (187). How is it possible that there were not genetic mutations in their offspring, and if there were, why wouldn’t it have discouraged other such marriages?