Skip to main content

Mauss, reciprocation and the supplement

Planning to go back to this blog after increasingly large lapses. I´m also hoping to find a way to keep going my portuguese-language podcast Polvos Reais Dentro.

Guess going back to the blog starts out by letting readers catch up with what I´m up to. As I said in my previous post, I´ve finished the manuscript of Deictic Absolutes. My current project which is slowly taking shape and has the very provisional name of the cosmpolitics of capital, is about the metaphysics of the capital flow. It involves both the process of entrenching capital in different societies of people and things and the cybernetics conditions of possibility for such an item (or a concrescence, or a network, or a nexus) to come about. I´m not rushing into the details of how the writing is going to happen or what for it is going to take. Hopefully this blog will help me rehearsing some ideas.

As before I´m benefiting from the courses I´m lecturing at the University of Brasilia. Last year on the CCRU diaspora and the coming of age of accelerationism and this semester in a course on nihilism in Heidegger (and on Levinas´ misgivings) and another one that follows a line from Marx through to Mauss, to Bataille, and then both to Stengers and to Land. In the latter, we´re now reading Mauss´ "The Gift" and we´re now precisely discussing the complicated ties between the Trobriand notions of vaga - the first gift one receives - and of yotile - the first obligation to reciprocate.

All in all, it´s a terrifying, scary book. Its gist is that both the spontaneity and the impulse towards the other are ultimately boiling down to rules of generosity within the (general) economy. To be sure, the social network is initiated by a move towards the other triggered either by a need or by an obsession. The issue arises as to what compels one towards social connections - the insufficiency of the individual in the sense of its openness to supplement.

However, there are many layers to this. Having received a vaga, one is compelled to reciprocate - reciprocation is both disinterested and non-obligatory. The gift as a total social system, integrated economy, religion, law, moral, politics and whatever else, you name it. Mauss analyses the alms giving phenomenon as a mix of sacrifice and gift. In fact, humanitarian aid is a dispute - like in present day Venezuela where Trump and the local Trumpite governments aim to enable the alms to arrive and Maduro want to stop them. Arundhati Roy once coined a good phrase for this: alms race. Once the Venezuelan population accepts the alms, they are locked in a kula (in a social network of obligations towards the donors). Analogously, charity and phylantropy are often ways to include recipients in the cash economy.

The economic transactions that do say their name - the ones studied by economics - are the ones that follow from a decision to enter into an alliance or a network. They are more or less the more or less conscious ones. Economics is the tip of the iceberg, the conscious tip. To further parody Whitehead, to try and understand a society through contracts and conscious negotiations is like to try and understand urban life only looking at traffic signals. There is an underground to any social contract - and it is made of what compells one towards a locking kula.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne