Search results

Karl Polanyi's "substantivist" critique of market society has found new popularity in the era of neoliberal globalization. The author reclaims this polymath for contemporary anthropology, especially economic anthropology, in the context of Central Europe, where Polanyi (1886–1964) grew up. The Polanyian approach illuminates both the communist era, in particular the "market socialist" economy which evolved under János Kádár in Hungary, as well as the post-communist transformations of property relations, civil society and ethno-national identities throughout the region. Hann's analyses are based primarily on his own ethnographic investigations in Hungary and South-East Poland. They are pertinent to the rise of neo-nationalism in those countries, which is theorized as a malign countermovement to the domination of the market. At another level, Hann's adaptation of Polanyi's social philosophy points beyond current political turbulence to an original concept of "social Eurasia"

The paper offers a perspective on the history and epistemological status of economic anthropology, ranging from the contributions of Bronislaw Malinowski in the early 1920s to the state of the field today. The focus is on the substantivist tradition, associated in the history of anthropology primarily with Karl Polanyi. The deep-rooted confusion that results from what he termed the "two meanings of 'economic'" is already visible in the earlier oeuvre of Bronislaw Malinowski. The substantivist tradition initiated almost unwittingly by Malinowski continues to flourish and is compatible with a variety of theoretical approaches. Tensions will always exist between the relativist, empiricist thrust of substantivist economic anthropology and the allegedly universal reach of the deductive models that dominate in mainstream (neoclassical) economics. These theoretical tensions may in some places acquire a political tinge, but they can always be mitigated through meticulous ethnography. The point is illustrated in this paper with reference to work on property relations in the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe.

Abstract: The bridging concept of moral economy has been productively deployed in various disciplines but recent inflationary adaptations, in line with the burgeoning anthropology of morality (or ethics), neglect the material economy (the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services). Following a critical literature review, the moral dimension of economic life is illustrated with reference to work as a value between the late 19th and early 21st centuries in Hungary. This moral dimension is highly susceptible to politicization, as becomes clear in the passage from "reform socialism" to neoliberal capitalism and ensuing changes in welfare entitlements. The present right-wing government (in power since 2010) has laid great stress on workfare in its economic and social policies. The paper considers the functioning of these schemes in two local settings and shows how discourses of work and fairness are extended into new ethical registers to justify negative attitudes toward immigrants. Investigation of the moral dimension of economy complements the paradigms of classical political economy and the neoclassical synthesis that dominates in modern mainstream economics. While all three have a role to play in economic anthropology, investigation of the moral dimension through ethnographic methods is the hallmark of a specifically anthropological contribution to the more general programme of renewing a holistic social science.

Hann's essay takes a parochial academic anniversary in Britain as an occasion to reflect on ensuing changes of paradigm in social anthropology, notably the rejection of evolutionism and the neglect of history that accompanied the 'fieldwork revolution' led by Bronisław Malinowski. In the light of this discussion it is argued that the 'anthropology of postsocialism' of recent years should not content itself with ethnographic studies of transformation but would benefit from engaging more seriously with multiple layers of history as well as with adjacent social sciences. It is further argued that social and cultural anthropologists should form a common scholarly community with the 'national ethnographers', since these two styles of enquiry complement each other; but such integrated communities remain rare, in Britain no less than in Central and Eastern Europe. These propositions are discussed from a variety of standpoints by ten colleagues. Finally, Hann responds to their comments and criticisms and restates his position on the central intellectual and institutional issues.