GENERAL A N D THEORETICAL 391

it may be said that the communitarian logic tends toward equality by limiting the differen- tiating effects of the organization of material production, while the mercantile logic tends toward the development of inequality in its es- sence by stimulating production without limit.

Obscurity at times makes it difficult to follow the authors’ line of reasoning. However, this is not something they tried to avoid. They think that we have to face contradictions and proceed by approximations because empirical reality is too complex. Even though they stress their op- position to the functionalist school, most of their argument is directed against the leading Marxist anthropologists in France (especially Meillassoux, Terray, and Rey). They mention the names of Malinowski, Mauss, Bataille, and Baudrillard, as well as Marx. as sources of their inspiration, but they think that Marx’s own work reveals a double aspect, an ambivalence that they see in almost everything. They criti- cize the present-day “Marxist anthropology” for basing all its arguments on the analysis of pro- ductive forces, thus falling into a “utilitarian- ist” point of view, which they consider to be a trap for our minds by the specific social for- mations in which we live. This is a type of re- ductionism they try to avoid by relativizing the importance of productive forces and challeng- ing the universality of rationality (which they define in terms of ends, that is, as a search for profit) and the possibility of perfect causal ex- planations in certain aspects of social life. Ber- thoud and Sabelli are part of a current of anti- economic radicalism in France. They do not think that the communitarian formations are quantitatively important in today’s world. The value of the concept lies in the fact that i t pro- vides an alternative to the capitalistic logic. This is where anthropology derives its critical power. For the authors, it is mainly a way of transcending our own ideologies and helps to suggest solutions to our own problems (which are of course also problems of the formations studied, since the main determinant of their lives today is Western capitalism as well). “Our ultimate aim,” they say, “is not a theory of com- munitarian formations as such, but a critical evaluation of the capitalist system by subjecting it to the anthropological eccentricity.” Many would have respect for this project, but I doubt that their epistemological position is the best starting point. The rejection of the concept of mode of production (a major break with Marx as well as with Marxism), substitution of hazy logics for it, and the extreme stress on flexible research methods can lead one to a historicism

in which nothing but contingencies are seen. Some people do not realize that radical oppo- sition to “objectivism” is as much a Western attitude as positivism itself. Under the strikingly avant-garde phraseology of these theoretical elaborations, some will discern an old face so familiar to American anthropology, that of rel- ativism.

L’Anthropologie economique: Courants et problsmes. Fruncozs Pouillon. Dossiers Afri- cains, Marc Auge and Jean Copans, eds. Paris: Francois Maspero, 1976. 159 pp. FF30.00 (pa- per).

Peter Little Indiana University

The purpose of this collection of essays is to reevaluate some of the accomplishments and shortcomings of economic anthropology in the past 20 years. Many of the issues that have been important in the history of economic anthro- pology are discussed, such as the formalist/sub- stantivist debate or the degree to which the “forces of production” determine social rela- tions. More specifically, however, the book’s orientation is toward problems that need to be reconciled in the subdiscipline. And because of the Marxist orientation of the authors, most attention is given to problems directly associ- ated with Marxist economic anthropology, expecially in the articles by Pouillon and Mar- ie, to the question of material production, and whether or not i t is the main determinant in the formation of a mode of production.

The book can be divided into two sections: (1) essays on the historical development of eco- nomic anthropology and (2) articles on specific theoretical problems in Marxist economic an- thropology. Included in the first part are two papers, one concerned with economic anthro- pology in England and the U.S., and the other focusing on economic anthropology in France. Along with presenting a general historical de- scription of “Anglo-Saxon” economic anthro- pology, the author (Demonio) of the first paper emphasizes two points: that formalists have wrongly identified Malinowski as one of their own, and that a major deficiency of the sub- stantivists is the static appearance of their mod- el, which fails to explain “role changeant de I’economie dans I’histoire.” In turn, Moniot, the author of the second paper (“En France: une Anthropologie d’Inspiration Marxiste”),

392 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 19781

concentrates exclusively on Marxist economic anthropology. Besides discussing the contribu- tions of such well known French Marxists as Meillassoux, Godelier, Terray, and Rey, as well as some of the less publicized scholars such as Gosselin, Couty, and Etienne, the author em- phasizes the necessity of eliminating the false dichotomy between history and anthropology in order to promote an “anthropologie dyna- mique.”

Of the three articles that are concerned with theoretical problems, two of them (Pouillon’s “La Determination d’un Mode de Production: Les Forces Productives et leur Appropriation” and Marie’s “Rapports de Parente et Rapporte de Production dans les Societies Lignggeres”) appear to deal with a similar problem. That is, both scholars are mainly interested in the ques- tion of the relationship between economic ac- tivities and social relations (social organiza- tion). Pouillon especially evaluates how differ- ent forms of technology affect “relations to production.” T o do this, he draws on the work of Salisbury (Siane) and Meillassoux (Gouro), as well as others. His main purpose is to show that a simple correlation cannot be made be- tween social organization and types of technol- ogy. Pouillon’s discussion of Lee’s work on the Bushmen is to illustrate the fallacy of some Marxists who equate material surplus with so- cial stratification. In effect, his conclusion is that many Marxists have falsely seen the forces of production as more important than the re- lations to production in determining the mode of production. He maintains that the forces of production do not determine the relations to production, since the latter actually appear first.

In an interesting fashion, this antimaterialist approach is further developed in the article by Marie. Concerned with the question of kinship, the author concentrates on the work of Meil- lassoux, Terray, and Rey. While he evades a mono-causal explanation, he does emphasize that the bonds (ideological, political, etc.) in kinship entail more than economic relations. Furthermore, in a somewhat unorthodox Marxist way, Marie concludes that “. . .the lin- eage society appears organized in a more com- plex and diversified fashion than solely on the basis of the relations between two classes, the exploiters and the exploited.”

The other essay dealing with theoretical con- siderations (Meunier’s “Forms de la Circula- tion”) is actually far more descriptive than the- oretical. The article details the evolution of currencies from special-purpose monies such as

that of the Tiv to the all-purpose monies of market-oriented systems. While the book itself is published under the auspices of the African Studies Center-Cardin, this article is the work that is most concerned with Africa. The author relies heavily upon the work of Meillassoux, Vansina, Birmingham, and Gray. In essence, the main point which he makes is that the var- iegated forms of African currencies are a func- tion of the fact that these were special-purpose monies, their use restricted to certain social spheres. Thus, according to Meunier, the rea- son that many of these monies continued to ex- ist in the colonial period is because they were essential to the functioning of certain social in- stitutions.

In sum, the book appears to accomplish its main purpose: to reevaluate (not reconcile) im- portant theoretical issues in Marxist economic anthropology. Importantly, it points out some of the issues over which Marxists are divided. Another valuable asset is that it introduces and familiarizes the reader with the work of some of the less well known economic anthropologists in France. Yet , if one is in search of new Marx- ist approaches to economic anthropology, the book is lacking. While revealing the contradic- tions in much of the work in economic anthro- pology, the book fails to “rebuild what it tears down.’’

Regional Analysis. Vol. I: Economic Systems. Vol. 11: Social Systems. Carol A . Smith, ed. Studies in Anthropology. New York: Academ- ic, 1976. xvi + 370 pp. (Vol. l), xvi + 381 pp. (Vol. 11). $19.50/f11.30 (single volume); $32.00 (set).

George A . Collier Stanford University

The 22 contributions to these two volumes permit an assessment of the genre of analyses in our field that spring from models of regional marketing and exchange, particularly those deriving from economic geography and central place theory. Central place theory sets forth how gradually increasing rural demand will elicit regular distribution and hierarchical dif- ferentiation of towns of producers and retailers when transport costs are minimized and when other competitive marketing principles apply. Because of the poor fit of central place predic- tions to the spatial patterning of many land- scapes, economic geographers have proposed alternative models that begin with assembly and distribution costs of firms in towns and ex-