Judy,
You wrote
> The image of a transaction doesn't work for me -- i think of
> transaction as a 1-way process, therefore, not EVEN circular
causality.....
To the contrary, I think that transactions can readily be seen as 2-way
processes, as relations. Consider the relation of reciprocity, for example.
Since Marcel Mauss this has been a favorite subject of anthropologist. But
while the structuralists saw this relationship as one promoting community,
social solidarity, relationship, numerous anthropologists point out its
interested, transactional character. Bourdieu showed most clearly how
calculating, self-serving reason can occur within the framework of
reciprocity. Even Malinowski recognized that the return of the gift needed
to occur after a suitable period of time, in an appropriate situation, and
that the selection of these was motivated by self-interest. An apparent
combination of one-way and two-way process. More importantly for me, Marx
presented the analysis of the paradigmatic transaction (commodity exchange)
as a relationship within a larger set of relationships that constitute the
circulation of capital. Could it be that a transaction appears as a 1-way
process when all of the relationships in which it occurs are not fully
accounted for?
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:38 PDT