Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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
270 FREDERICK H. DAMON
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
FREDERICK H. DAMON 273
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
274 FREDERICK H. DAMON
Sin KITAVA
G iIWA
MUYUW
KWEYWATAq Moni"eyova
~~~~~~~~~~~YA
GOODENOUGH IS. .
<>_< NABA _8UIBD
YEMGA(EGUMI
~~~~~\/q3
(ALCESTER IS.)
4-DOBU
NORWMANVY VW D R
<r ~~~~~~~~GABOYIN
l
NEW (DAWSON)
PANEATE >
SAMARAI.. ..
FIGURE I.
FIGURE2. A relationship
anditsappendages.
TABLE I. Nonowan'stravels.
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)
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
FREDERICK H. DAMON 279
(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.
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
282 FREDERICK H. DAMON
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
FREDERICK H. DAMON 283
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
288 FREDERICK H. DAMON
NOTES
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