godelier, «infrastructures, societies and history»

7/16/2019 Godelier, «Infrastructures, Societies and History»

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/godelier-infrastructures-societies-and-history 1/9

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

ol. 19,

No.

4,

December

978

?

1978

by The Wenner-Gren

oundation

orAnthropologicalesearch

011-3204/78/1904-0003$01.75

Infrastructures,

ocieties,

nd

History'

by

Maurice Godelier

THis

ARTICLE is

a

translation

f my response o a request rom

the reviewDialectiques

or

my opinion

on two

points

funda-

mental o the social sciences,

namely, deology nd class.

For

want of space, I shall merely utline some provisional

on-

clusions hat

have

reached

s briefly

nd as

clearly

s

possible.

I

shall be dealingwithfour opics

n

turn: 1) thedistinction

between nfrastructurend superstructure;2) the relationship

between hedeterminantole

f

he conomy

n the ast analysis

and the dominant ole of any given

superstructure;

3) the

ideel2 spect of social reality and the distinction etween

ideological nd nonideological

when dealing with deelreali-

ties; (4) theroleof violence

nd

consent

n

the workings

fthe

power fdomination f n order

r a

class, tc. can we speak

of

a

paradox

of

legitimacy

egarding he emergence f classes

and the tate?).

Before oing ny farther,

should ike to emphasizemy debt

to the ever-growing-and lready immense-body

of fresh

materialbeing thrownup

by anthropological nd historical

research. s far s historys concerned, am a mere mateur.

My reading as centeredmainly n problems f tate formation

and the transformationfclass relations. am afraid shall

probably disappoint those

of my readers who would have

liked me to spell out moreprecisely he connections etween

mygeneral, bstract ositions

nd thiswealth f anthropologi-

cal

material

MAURICE

GODELIER

is

Professor f

Anthropologynd

Economics

and Directorof

Studies at the Ecole

des

Hautes Etudes

en

Sci-

ences

Sociales

(54,

Boulevard

Raspail,

75270 Paris Cedex

06,

France).

Born in 1934,

he was

educated at the

Ecole

Normale

Superieuren

Paris

(Agrege

de

Philosophie,1959).

He

has done

fieldwork

mong the

Baruya of

New

Guinea (1967-69) under

the

auspicesof the

CentreNationalede Recherche

Scientifique. is

research

interests

are

Melanesia,

economic

systems,

Marxist

analysis,

processes

f

class

formation,nd

ideology.

His publica-

tions

nclude

Rationalite t

rrationaliten

economie

Paris: Mas-

pero,

1966;English

ranslation,

ondon,1973),

Sur les

socieies

re-

capitalistes

(Paris:

Editions

Sociales, 1970),

Horizon,

trajets

marxistes n

anthropologie

Paris: Maspero,

1973;

English transla-

tion,

Cambridge, 1977),

and

the

edited

volume Un

domaine

conteste:'anthropologieconomiqueParis: Mouton, 1974).

The

present

aper,

submitted n final

form 0

III 78, was sent

for

omment o

40

scholars.The

responses re

printed elow

and

are

followed

y a reply

by the

author.

THE DISTINCTION

BETWEEN

INFRASTRUCTURE

AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

For

a

Marxist,

urely, ny examination

f the role

of

deology,

of he onditions

overning

tsformation

nd ts transformation,

or

of its impact

uponthe evolution

f societies

must

nvolve

investigationnto therelations etween nfrastructure,uper-

structure,

nd ideology. ught

we, withAlthusser,alibar,

nd

Establet

(1965), to

call these different

hings

instances ?

Ought

we to regard

hem s levels

of

ocial reality? s

some-

how substantive

istinctions

etweendifferentinds

of

social

reality?

s institutionallices

orcross-sections

f ts substance?

I

don't

think o.

To my mind, society

does

not have a top

and

a

bottom,

r even levels.

This is because

the distinction

between nfrastructure

nd

superstructure

s

not a distinction

between nstitutions.

ts principle,

ather,

sone of distinction

between unctions.

hat,

hen, oes thenotion

f nfrastructure

really over?

It designates

combination-which

xists

n all societies-

ofat

least three eries

of social

and material onditions

hat

enablea society'smembers o produce nd to reproduce he

material

onditionsf

their ocial

existence. hese

setsare:

1. The specific

cological

nd geographical

onditions

within

which society

xists

nd

fromwhich

t extracts

ts material

means

of

existence.

2.

The productive

orces,.e., the

material

nd intellectual

means that the

members

f

a

society

mplement,

ithin he

different

labour processes,

n order owork

uponnature

nd

to

extract

rom

t

theirmeans

f

xistence,

hereby

ransforming

it into socialized

nature.

3.

Social relations

f

production,

hat is,

relations

f

any

kind that assume

one

or

another orall)

of

the following

hree

functions:a)

determininghe

ocial

form

f

ccess

to resources

and

to control

f

the

means

of

production;

b)

allocating

he

labourforce f a society'smembersmong hedifferentabour

processes

which

produce

its

material

base,

and

organizing

these

different

rocesses;

c)

determining

he

social form

f

redistribution

f

the

product

f ndividual

r

collective

abour

and, consequently,

he

forms

f

circulation

r

noncirculation

f

these roducts.

We

should

bear

in mind

that, trictly

peaking,

what

Marx

(1958:13)

called the

economic

structure

f

a

society

was

merely he social

relations

fproduction:

These

relations

f

production

aken together

orm the

economic

structure

f

society. 3

We

should

also

bear

in

mind

that,

althoughpro-

ductive

forces

nd relations

f

production

re distinct

phe-

nomena,

hey

never xist eparately;

hey lways

xist

ogether

in some specific ombination.What Marx calls mode of

1

This article summarizes he main themes of a book due to be

published by Gallimard

under the title Infrastructures,

ocietes,

Histoire. t is a translation f the paper Infrastructures,

ocietes,

Histoire, which ppeared n the ournal Dialectiques o. 21, pp.

41-

53. The translation, y

Rupert Swyers, s by permission f the editor

of Dialectiques.

2

The word deel s a

neologism sed rarely nd almost exclusively

by modernFrenchphilosophers nfluenced y German

phenomenol-

ogy. Rather than coin a freshEnglish neologism, he

translation

remainswith the original.

3

Der

Gesamtheit

dieser Produktions

verhailtnisse

ildet

die

Okonomische

truktur

es Gesellschaft.

Vol.

19

* No. 4

*

December978

763



production

r

social

formof

production

re in fact

the

various pecific

orms f thesecombinations.

hese

definitions

call

for

certain

number f remarks.

First, mong the differentroductive

orces includewhat

I have referred o as intellectual means

of

acting

upon

nature.By this mean ll the knowledge hat given ociety

mayhave ofnature, ut

also

itsbodyoftechnical rocesses,

f

rules governing he manufacture

f

tools,

of

rules governing

the

use

of the

body

n

work,

tc.

t willbe

observed,

hen, hat

right t the heart f man's mostmaterial elationship

ith he

materialnature urroundingim ies a complex odyof repre-

sentations, deas, patterns, tc.,which call ideel realities;

theirpresence

nd

their ction are essential

for any

kind of

material ctivity o be able to occur. Contemporarynthro-

pologyhas started

to

take stock of the ideel realitieswhich

form

part

of

the different aterial

processes

n

the

societies

investigated.t is this thatconstituteshevast field f

ethno-

science, ollecting

ative

taxonomies

f

plants,

animals, oils,

climates, ules

for

the

manufacture f

tools, etc. This

is also

the purpose

of

Needham's 1954-76) studies

of

Chinese

tech-

nologyndscience r ofthework fHaudricourt1962;Haudri-

court

and

Brunhes-Delamarre

955,

Haudricourt nd

Hedin

1943).

Now,

these ideel

realities

may

be

grasped,

n

the first

place, in the speech of the peoplesand social groups hat use

them.They

thus

exist

as

linguistic ealities,

s

facts

that are

indissociable

rom

anguage

and

thought,

nd

it is through

these

that they may be communicated hroughout he social

body

and

transmittedrom ne generation o the next.

Clearly, hen,

he

distinction

etween

nfrastructure,uper-

structure,

nd

ideologymay

be seen as

a

distinction

etween

functions nd not between nstitutions. s we have just

seen,

thought nd language may function s components

f the

infrastructure,s part of

a

society's orces

f

production.

he

distinction, hen, is not between

material and

immaterial,

for fail to see in what way thought ouldbe less material

than the rest

of

social

life.

Nor

is

it

a

distinction etween

tangible nd intangible.t is

a

distinction

f

position

within

those ctivities ecessary o thereproductionfsocial ife.

The secondpoint

on

which should

ike to

comment

s the

notion

of

the labourprocess. irst of all, it should

be

noted

that

the

concept

fwork s

not common

o

all

societies.

Ancient

Greek

has

two

words,poiein

and

prattein,

either

f

which

means

to

work:respectivelyhey

mean

making

nd

doing.

n

Latin,

the

word abor

s used

for

ny

kind of

heavy

activity,

like the wordponos n Greek, nd the wordnegotiumesignates

an

activity

hat

nterrupts

r

counteracts

he

otium,

r

eisure,

that

s the markof a

free

man as well

as being

the condition

permitting

im

to conducthis political

nd

cultural ctivities.

It

is

extremely are, urthermore,hat theword abour,

where

used, s used to connote nd contain he dea of transforma-

tion

of

nature

and of

man.

All

these

representations

orm

partofthe abourprocess, nd they re oined by other epre-

sentations

which egitimize

he

presence

r absence

of a

given

social

group

n

a

given abour process.

These

representations

may,

for

xample, erve o ustify he fact hat t is thewomen

that are

sent out to

gather

wild

plants,

or to

carry

irewood,

and

they may moreover resent uch activities' s being

un-

worthy

f

men, owhom re reserved-as ofright, e may ay-

nobler

activities such as hunting,war, or the

mastery of

rituals.

ut

in

touching

n

thisquestionwe

are

n

fact ouching

on

the

points f ontact etween elations fproductionnd the

division

f

abour.

It is

importantobear n mind, n the question f relations

of

production,hat,depending n the ociety nd the

historical

epoch under consideration, elations of productiondo not

occupy

the same locus, nor do theytake the same form; on-

sequently, heydo nothave the ame effectspon the

evolution

of societies. shall offerwo examples fwhatmight e termed

the topology

of economics-the comparative

topology

of

relations

f

production.

n

hunter-gatherer

ocieties

uch as

that

of

the

Australian

Aborigines,t

has been observed

hat

the social

relations

hat governthe hunting

nd

gathering

territories,

etermine

he composition

fthegroups

doingthe

hunting nd

gathering,

nd decide

howthe product

of

these

activities

s shared

utare relations

f

kinship,

.e., relations

f

descent,

marriage,

nd residence. o be

moreprecise,

we may

observe

hat he somewhat)

bstractondition

f ppropriation

of

nature s membership

n

a descentroup,which

nherits

om-

mon (though nonexclusive ) ights ver theundomesticated

resources

f differenterritories

rom

eneration

o generation.

In

theeveryday

rocess

f oncrete

ppropriation,

hat

happens

is that

consanguineal

ndaffinal

elations

ormhe

cooperative

framework

orhunting

nd gathering

nd for

he distribution

of

produce.

But we need to go

farther till,

for n

practice n

Australian and-a

unit

of direct,

veryday

ppropriation

f

nature-is composite

n structure.

t is

composed f

a central

core

of men

descended atrilineally

rom

number f common

ancestors

nd heirs

o rights

vera given

portion f

territory;

around

this coreis a cluster

of allies,

.e., representatives

f

differentroups hat

have either

ivenor

received

wives n the

course

f

earlier enerations.

his provides

he group

with he

possibility

f using

everaldifferent

erritories

hould

heneed

arise.The chief eature f the ystem,hen,s thefact f hared

ownership

f

resources

y a

number f

kinshipgroups;

these

kinship

groups,

moreover, re not

exclusive

ownersof

these

rights, ince,

n

certain

critical circumstances,

llied groups

also

have rights o

the same territory.

Herewe arrive

t a fundamental

oint,namely,

herelation-

ship

between

henatureof the

forces

f production

nd the

nature

f

ocial

relations

fproduction.

nderlying

his ystem

of hared,

hough

onexclusive,

wnership

f resources,

efind

not

only that the

individual s unable

to reproduce

imself

except

n

groups,

ut also that groups

annot

reproduce hem-

selves

f

they

are

alone and

require

othergroups

n

order o

be

able to do so. This is whereproductive

orces

mesh

with

social

forms f relations

f

production.

We

shall

be

coming

back to thispoint ater,but already t is difficulto escapethe

conclusion

hat,

here,

relations

f

kinship unction

s

relations

of

production

nd that

they

do

so

internally.

he

distinction

between nfrastructure

nd superstructure

s not

a

distinction

between nstitutions,

ut

a distinction

etween

ifferent

unctions

within

single

nstitution.

My

second

xample-based

on

the

work

f

Frankfort

1948),

Oppenheim

1964),

Adams

(1966),

and

others-deals

with

ancient

Sumerian

organization.

t would seem

that,

in

the

city-states

f

Mesopotamia,

he

land was originally egarded

as belonging

o

a

god,the

godwhose

emple

tood

n

the

middle

of the

city.

The economy

worked

s

a

vast

centralized

ystem

withinwhich he

communities

f the

city

nd the

surrounding

countryside

ere

ubject

to

theauthority

f

the

priests

f

the

godwhoowned he and, ndthese ommunitieswed portion

of their

abour

and

their

roduce

o these

priests.

Here,

t will

be observed,

t

was

religious

elations

hat

functioned

nternally

as relations

f

production.

he

example

f

a

Greek

ity-state,

on

the other

hand,

would

show

that

membership-by

irth-

in

a

polisgave

the

free itizen

both

private

nd

public

rights

over

the

city's

and.

Here, politics,

n the

Greek

ense

ofthe

word,

unctionednternally

s

a

relation

f

production.

Before

drawing

ny general

onclusions

rom

his

analysis,

I should

ike

to

return o

one essential

oint,

ne thathas

given

rise o

a

good

deal

ofconfusion

mong

Marxists:

he

distinction

between

abour

process

and

process

of

production.

Certain

anthropologists,

uchas Terray

1969) and

Rey (1971,

1973),

have dubbedthe differentorms f labourprocessthat they

have discovered

n the description

f a particular

ociety-in

this ase,

Meillassoux's

1964) description

fthedifferent

orms

of hunting,

arming,nd

crafts o be found

mong the

Ivory

764 CURRENT ANTITHROPOLOGY



Godelier:

NFRASTRUCTURES, SOCIETIES, AND

HISTORY

oast Guro- mode

of production.

Hence,

we have

hunting,

farming, astoral, tc.,

modes

of

production.

his, however,

s

to confuseforms

f he ivisionf abourwithmodes

f

roduction.

The

practice,within he same relations f

production, f, for

example, arming

ombinedwith nimal

husbandry

nd

small-

scale

domestichandicrafts oes not

imply

the existence

of

several

different odes of

production

with interconnections

thatneedto

be found.

t

is

at this

point

hat ome

people

nvoke

the

concept

f economic nd social formation. n

fact,

what

basically

defines

mode

of

production

re the different

orms

ofappropriationfresources, f means ofproduction,nd of

the

product

tself.

There

may,therefore,

e

severaldifferent

forms

f abour

process

nd

cooperation

which ombine

n

the

basis of

a

single

form f

property.

ne

can

imagine ust

how

profitable

rigorous

eview

f

the vast mass

of

anthropological

and historical

materialnow available would be. But one

can

also see

that

by

no

means

verything

hat

ought

o

be

said has

been aid

regarding

bstract

otions

uch

s force

f

production,

and that venwithin hesenotions here emain ast

unexplored

regionswaiting

o be

opened

up by

theoretical

nalysis.

We

may already

draw one

general onclusion,

t

any

rate.

This is that the

distinction

etween

nfrastructurend

super-

structure

s

not a

distinction etween

nstitutions,

r

nstances,

but between unctions.t is

only

n

certain

ocieties,

nd

par-

ticularlyn capitalist ociety,hat hisdistinctionetweenunc-

tions

happens

o

coincidewith distinction

etween

nstitutions.

This,

in

my view,

s the real reason for

the

epistemological

break

brought

bout

by

Marx's

work;

the

prime

reasonsfor

this

break are

to

be

sought

not

in Marx's

thought

tself,

ut

in

the natureof the

capitalist

mode

of

production, hich,

ar

more han

manyothers,eparated

conomics,olitics, eligion,

kinship,rt,etc.,

nto

o

many

distinct

nstitutions.

Once

thishas been

grasped,

vast new field f

nvestigation

opensup, namely, he

earch

or

he

reasons nd the

conditions

which,

n

history,

ave

brought

bout

shifts

n

the

ocus-and

hence changes

n

the

forms-ofrelations f

production. o

carry

out this

investigation,

hough,

t

is first

necessary

o

eschew

ttempts

o

deduce the

locus and form f

a

society's

economy romomedubious bstract heory. or a Marxist-

as for

nyone else-the

main

thing s to go and

take

a

close

look foroneself. his is

not to say that Marxism

s a kind of

empiricism,

ut

of all

theoretical pproaches t

is assuredly

the one

that s

obliged o

submit tselfmost

thoroughlyo the

concrete

iversity

f

experience.

Marxists

re notentirely narmed

n thisrespect; fter ll,

Marx

did

suggest hat

theremight e some

correspondence

between he

nature f the

forces f production

nd the nature

of

relations f

production. ature

heremeans ocus,form, nd

effect. ut

I

shall make

no secretofthe fact

that find his

hypothesis

ricky o handle, for

several reasons. The term

correspondence

s

unclear. Does it refer o a

relation of

causality

r

a

relation f

compatibility?urthermore,e lackreliable nalyses of forces f production nd their volution.

Only

this

kind of

nvestigation ould allow us to

break out of

the

current

mpasse,

n

which

ll

one can do is say that while

we have

no

difficultyeeing what

specific roductive orces

prevent,

t is

impossible

o

see

exactlywhat hey

ermit,till ess

what

they mpose.

While

there

s

no

question f

our being ble

to

deduce social

forms romforces

of production,we must

neverthelesseek to identify he

limitsof theirrange of pos-

sibilities nd

the

mechanisms

hereby ne ofthesepossibilities

is in

fact

elected. shall

be returningo these

problems t the

end

of

the

second

ection, n which

shallattempt o discuss

the

controversy

etween Marxists and

non-Marxists and

among

Marxists themselves)

oncerning he bases for the

domination,n any society, f whatMarxists ee as a super-

structure:

inship n certainprimitive

ocieties, he politico-

religious phere n

PharaonicEgypt, etc. I shall be

discussing

this controversy,

oreover,n terms f what has

alreadybeen

said

here bout the notion f nfrastructure.ow

can Marxists

reconcile

he

hypothesis

hat it is the infrastructurehich s

determinant

n the last analysis with the fact that n

certain

historical ocieties one finds

a superstructureccupying a

dominant osition?

ECONOMIC DETERMINATION

AND

SUPERSTRUCTUJRAL DOMINATION

One

not

infrequently

omes across anthropologistsnd his-

torians laiming hat the facts fallingwithin heir peciality

refuteMarxism.

or

Radcliffe-Brown

1930-31), t was enough

to show hatkinshipwas

thedominant

actor

mongAustralian

Aborigines o conclude this refutation.

umont (1966) sees

this

efutations furnished

y

theblatantdomination freligion

in India

and

by the fact that

thecaste system akes the form

of an ideological pposition etween

ure and impure. or the

historianWill (1972), the domination

f politics n ancient

Greece shows

clearly hateconomics id not play

the deter-

mining ole

and did not evenamountto a system.

What are

we to make of this?

Reviewing hese examples n the light of our definition f

relations

f

production,

e find hat neach case thedominant

superstructure

unctions imultaneously s

a relation of

production.

n

each

of

the three

ocieties dealt with above,

descent nd marriage re regulated y kinship,

s

in

all socie-

ties; yet kinship

s

dominant

n one case only,that

of

the

Australian

Aborigines n all three,man's relations

with the

supernaturalre regulated y

religion, ut only n one, Hindu

society,

oes

religion redominate.

We

may

thus put forward

the

hypothesis

hat he xplicit unctionsfkinship

nd

religion,

which

are

to regulate ocially

respectively he reproduction

of

life tself hrough he regulation

f marriage

nd

descent

and the relationswith he nvisible

owers upposed o control

the

reproduction

f the

universe,

re

not n themselves

nough

to allowoneor theother fthese superstructures o attain

a

dominant ositionwhere t

in factdoes so. I should herefore

like toputforward

n

alternative

working ypothesis:

For a

social activity-and with it its corresponding

nd

organizing

deas

and

institutions-toplay

a dominant

ole

n

the

functioning

nd

evolution

f a

society,

nd hence

n

the

thought

nd action of the

groups

nd individuals omposing

it, it is not

noutgh

or his activity o fulfilleveral

functions;

it must necessarily,

n

addition o its own

ostensible urpose

and its explicit unctions, unction

irectlyrndnternallys

a

relation

fproduction.

This

hypothesis

makesno

assumptions egarding

he nature

of

ocial relations ligible o function

s relations

f

production.

It merely ssumes omethingbout the reasons or herelative

weight

nd the

unequal mportance

f the various

forms

f

social

activity

n

the

functioning

nd evolution

f

societies;

t

assumes hat thisrelativeweight epends

ess

upon

what

ocial

relations re

(kinship, eligion,

tc.)

than

on what theydo

or,

better,

make

peopledo. If

we

managed

to

verify

hat social

relations ominatewhen theyfunction

s

relations

f

produc-

tion,

then we

should

have

worked

our

way

back

to Marx's

hypothesis

egardinghe determinantole,

n the ast analysis,

of

infrastructure.his

hypothesis

hould

be construed

n

the

senseof

the universal xistence f

a

hierarchyf unctions

o

be

assumed

bysocial relations

n order or society

o

be able to

exist

s such nd

to

carry

n

reproducing;

ut this

hypothesis

does

not

permit

s to

jump

to any

conclusions

egarding

he

nature and the form f relations fproductionn any given

society.

t thus

becomes

mpossible

o

attempt

o

refute

Marx-

ism

by pointing

o the dominance

f a

superstructure.

This viewcontrasts ith he

way Marxists uch s Althusser,

Vol. 19 *

No. 4 * December 978

765



Balibar (1965),

and their ollowers

n

anthropology

nd

history

have conceived

he

causality

f economics

n the ast

analysis.

They view

the

economy

s

selecting

rom

mong

the

different

instances

he one that

s to

occupy

he dominant

osition nd

then

placing

t n that

position.

his twofold

ction s

regarded

as constituting

he infrastructure's

ausal mechanism.

nfor-

tunately, his

view is

incapable

of

explaining

how a

single

institution-kinship,

or

example-can

act bothas a

relation

of

production

nd as a

superstructure.

hatever he

answer

to thisquestion

may be,

we must

eek to

explain

how t

is

that

kinship orreligion) omesto functions a relation fproduc-

tion and hence

to

dominate.

Concerning

inship,

we

may

imaginethat

in

primitive

ocieties

iving

abour force

ounts

formore

than

abour

ccumulated

n the form f

tools,

domes-

ticated

resources,

tc.

We

know that

n all societies he

repro-

duction

of

life s

governed

by

differentorms f

kinship.

t

may be, then, hat we should

ook

for he

ultimate easons or

kinshiprelations'

unctioning

s

relations

f

production,

nd

henceforkinship's

ominance,

n

somegiven tate

of the

pro-

ductive

forces,.e.,

n

some relation

etween

living present)

labourand

dead (past) labour.

Perhaps,on the basis of the

foregoing,

e

can

now

take

a

look at the

question

f

the

distinction

etween he

deological

and the

nonideologicalpheres.

THE

ID1EL

IN REALITY AND THE PROBLEM

OF THE

IDEOLOGICAL

SPHERE

Does the foregoing

uggest new approach o the

problem

f

differentiating,mong

all the

different

deel

realities

hat

any

societycontains,which

are

ideological

and

which

are not?

Apparently, e have done

nothing o alter

the

view,generally

held to be

Marxist, f deologies nd

their omination.We may,

indeed, on

the basis of the idea advanced

above-namely,

that

the dominant

ocial

relationswithin

society

re those

which

regardless

f

which

they are) function

s relations f

production-suggesthat he

deas thatrepresent

nd

egitimize

thesedominantocialrelations ught o play a dominant ole

almostautomatically.

r, if we take social

relations orwhat

they are, namely,concrete

relationsbetween

distinct ocial

groups

ccupying ifferentositionsnrelations

functionings

relations)

f

production-whether hese be relations f

men's

domination

ver women

n

classless

societiesor relations f

one

caste's or class's

domination ver the

others-we may

guess

that

the ideas

that egitimize his

domination f a sex,

caste,

or

class will

virtually r

almostautomatically e the

dominant

deas

in

the

society n question. n the

same vein,

we

may also

anticipatethat the development f

the specific

contradictions

ontained in

different

ypes of relations of

production

nd

social

relationswill bring about

changes

n

the

relations

etweendominant nd

dominated nd in power

relations nd ideological elations;we may equallyanticipate

that

this

will lead

to the

transformationf the dominated

person's onsciousness f

the reality ominating

im.

Once

we

have taken

these customaryMarxist

propositions

into

account, he difficultiesegin.

First, hey ack any precise

criterion

f

what

urns n

idea nto n ideological

epresenta-

tion.

t would

appear

that what s ideological s

any dea that

legitimizes

n

existingocial order,

long with therelations f

domination

nd

oppression hat it contains

within t. One

might ven

go so far s to say that

the dea's content, he fact

that t

is trueor false,

r moreorless true, s irrelevant,nd

that

any dea can

become deological he moment

t enters he

service f

dominantocialgroup nd

presents hisdomination

as a natural

phenomenon. t the same

time, though,

urely

an idea automatically ecomespartlyfalse the moment ts

presents social

order s the onlypossible,

mmutable,

ocial

order?An historicie thus

turns nto a theoretical

rror.

Further,

f we assumetheexistence f dominant deas n

the

service f dominant

lasses,

do

we automatically hereby

ave

to assume the existence f

dominated deas for he dominated

classes?

But

then,

re

not

dominant

deas dominant recisely

because

they are widely sharedby the dominated

classes

themselves? f

course, experience

hows that in any social

system

members

f

the dominated roupentertain deas

that

oppose them

nd

that they

themselves ppose to thoseofthe

dominant

roup.Are we then to

conclude, n referenceo the

foregoing

emonstration,hat these dominated eople's

deas

are whatmight e termed deas against, a sort ofcounter-

ideology, ndhence different

deology? r are we to saythat

they annot

be

called

an

ideology

ince theydo not egitimize

the

existing rder

nd

do not

participate

n

its mendacity? ut

are

all

legitimizingdeas llusory?f

so, llusory orwhom?Not

for

hose-dominant

nd

dominated-who

sharethem.

There-

fore

t must

be for

hosewhoreject his

social order ndwant

to

change

t,

or forus

outside

observers. s can be seen,

then,

it

s

impossible o define

n idea

as

ideological ither nterms f

a

single criterion-truth r

falsehood, egitimization r

non-

legitimization-or

n

terms f a

combination f the two.The

reasoning reaksdown

n

each case. In

fact, f we are to escape

this

dilemma fformal

r

functional

efinitionsf the deologi-

cal

sphere,

we

are going

to have to

develop

a

theory f the

components f the powerof domination nd oppression,

theory

f

relations etween

iolence

nd

consent.

We cannot

develop

uch

a

theory, owever,

f

we continue o

consider deas

merely

s

a

passive reflection,

n

the mind,of

social

relations hat are

themselves

egarded s being born

outside

the

mind, ndependently

f

it

and

prior

to

it. This

brings s

to a fundamental

roblem-a strategic rossroads

n

the

nterpretation

f

ocial

facts nd

history

nd

also

n

practice.

Indeed,

we find

urselves

t

a

parting

f the

ways,at

a

point

where arious

ways

of

being

materialist

iverge.

Here we shall

return

o our

earlier

nalysis

of the

deel

lement

ontained

n

everymaterial

elationship

ith he material ature urround-

ingus. As

we have

seen, ny material

roductive

orce ontains

in

it, right

rom

he

outset, complex deel

lement

which

s

not a passive,a posteriori, epresentationf thisproductive

force

n

the

mind, but,

from he

very beginning,

n

active

ingredient,

n

internal

ondition

f

its

very emergence.

We

should have no

difficulty

n

showing,moreover,

hat this

analysis an

be

extended

o all

social relations.

or

example,

t

is impossible or

kinship

elations o

emerge

nd

to

reproduce

down the

generations

without efinition

f the rules and the

terms

f

descent,marriage,

nd

residence

nd the notions f

kinship

nd

nonkinship;heserules, erms,

nd notions re not

a

posteriori eflections

f

kinship

relations,

ut

an

integral

component

hat has

to exist

right

rom

he word

go.

Needless

to

say,

kinship

elations

annot be reduced

o these

different

ideel

components,

ut

they cannot

exist

without hem.

And

we can

generalize

from his

and advance

the

idea

that

all

social relationsrise nd exist imultaneouslyothnthoughtnd

outside

f

t-that

all

social

relations

ontain,

rom

he

outset,

an

ideel

element

which

s

not an

a

posteriori

eflection

f

t,

but

a

condition

or

ts

emergence

nd

ultimately

n essential

component.

he

ideel

element xists

not

only

in

the

form f

the

ontent

f

onsciousness,

ut

n theform

f ll those

spects

of

ocial relations

hat

make them

elations

f

ignification

nd

make their

meaning

r

meanings

manifest.

A

certain

ype

of Marxism

has all too

often

neglected

he

fact

that

thought

does not

passively

reflect

reality,

but

rather

nterprets

t

actively.

But this s

not

the most serious

point,

for

people

have

also

tended

to

forget

hat

thought

ot

only interprets

eality,

but

actually organizes very

kind of

socialpractice n the basis of thisreality, hereby ontributing

to the production

f new social realities. t is thiswhichmakes

all the differenceetween he several different ays of

being

materialist n scientificnd

politicalpractice.The differences

766

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY



Godelier:

NFRASTRUCTURES,

SOCIETIES, AND HISTORY

ecome ven

moremarked

fwe start

onfusing

an's

relation-

ship

with

nature

with his

relationship

ith

history, or

while

nature

xists,

lways

has

existed,

nd

always

will continue

o

exist

ndependently

f man

and his

thought

nd-where

its

nondomesticated

ortion

sconcerned-without

an's

nterven-

tion,

social relation

an

only

ead

a

double

ife,

both

outside

of man's

thought

nd within

t. Social

relations,

herefore,re

simultaneously

material

nd an

ideel

reality.

To

conclude,

shall

attempt

o

apply

this

analysis

to

the

problems

f the

origins

f class and of

the state. would

take

thisopportunityo remind he readerthat,as Bonte (1975)

has shown

or

he

Kel

Gress

Tuareg

of

Niger,

lass societies

an

exist

without heir

having

to have a state

as

well-without

requiring

distinct,

entralized

nstitution

hrough

which

he

dominant

lass

may

wield

ts

power.

VIOLENCE

AND CONSENT:

PARADOXES

UNDERLYING

THE

ORIGINS

OF CLASSES

AND

THE

STATE

The

power

f

domination

onsists

f two ndissoluble

lements

whose

combination

constitutes ts

strength:

violence

and

consent.At the

risk

f

shocking

certainnumber

f

readers,wouldgo so far as to say that,of these two

components

f

power,

he

stronger

s not

the violence

of

the

dominant,

ut

the

onsent f he

dominated o their

omination.

am

perfectly

awareof

the

differences

etween

onsent

btained nder

uress,

passive

cceptance,

ukewarm

dherence,

nd

shared

onviction.

I

realize

hat n

anysociety, ven a

classless

one,

not

all

indi-

viduals or

groups

re

equally

consenting

n

their

cceptance

f

the

social

order. ven when

ctive,

their

onsent

s not

always

givenwithout

eservations

r

contradictions.

he

reason ies

beyond

the

realm

of

thought,

n

the

fact

that all

societies,

including

he most

galitarian

lassless

nes,contain

mixture

of

common nd

particular

nterests hat

are

constantly

on-

flicting

nd

compromising.

ithout

his,we would

neverhave

had anyhistory. ut although t is enormouslymportant o

the

evolution

f

a

society-and to the

ndividual

r

collective

fateof

ts

members-whether

he

dominated

ersons r

groups

are

deeply

convinced,

half-convinced,

r

submissively on-

vincedof the

egitimacy f

their

ystem r

atently

pposedor

even

overtly

hostileto

this

system, he fact

s that all

these

are

particular

onfigurationsf

a major

historical

orce n

the

preservation

r

transformationf

societies,

namely,

heforce

of

deas, of

deologies,

nd this

forces

bornnot

merely f

the

content

f

these

deas, but

also of

thefact hat

they re

shared.

This

poses a

theoretical

roblem:

nder

what

conditions o

dominated

roups

ome to

share

nterpretations

f the

world

that

egitimize

heexisting

ocial order

not only n

the eyes

of

the

dominant

group,

but also

in their

own

eyes?

Certain

philosophersndanthropologists,uch s DeleuzeandGuattari

(1972)

in

L'Anti-OEdipe

and

Clastres and

Lefort

1977) in

their

nalysis f

La

Boetie's

Discours

ur a

servitude

olontaire,

refer

o

a

certain

number

fsavage

tribes-selected

rbitrarily

but

carefully

einterpreted-in

rder o argue

that

classes and

the

tate

although

hese re by

no means

he ame

thing)

were

born

out

of some

people's

reprehensible ish

to be

served nd

the

remainder's

eprehensible

ish obe

enslaved.

Onthis

view,

the

emergence f

theState,

ofthe

Despot,of

theOne

aboveall

others,

within he

internal

volutionary

rocess

of

primitive

societies

remains

unaccountable. t

doesn'tseem

to me

that

classes

could

be an

avatar of desire,

lthough do

not for

moment

ish o deny

hepower

o desire,

eelings,

r

emotional

forces

n

the ives

of

ndividuals r

ofsocieties.

am

becoming

increasingly ersuaded that we are in fact dealingwith a

paradox

that s

diametrically

pposedto the

viewsof

Deleuze

and

Guattari,

efort nd

Clastres,

t al., namely,

hat

classes

couldonly

have

grown p

in

classless

ocieties egitimately-or,

at

least, that the process of transformation ust have been

slow and the legitimacy f

their formationmust long have

weighed more heavily

n

the balance than such factors s

violence, surpation,

etrayals, tc.

For

example, mong the So,

a

farming ribe of 5,000 in

Uganda (Laughlin

nd

Laughlin 1972), political nd

religious

powerwas concentratedn the

handsof roughly 0 elders,who

were ld menrepresentinghedifferentatrilineal lans. These

elders belongedto an

initiatory ociety called the Kenisan.

They alone had the power o

communicate iththe ancestors

and, through hem,withGod, the masterof the rain and of

health and prosperity.Whenwe examine heir ctivities,we

find hem nvolved n all the

ritualsrequired orrainmaking,

for lessing he sorghum, or

driving way sickness, orhalting

enemies

t

the frontiers-in

word,

n

everythingequired

o

preserve eace, justice,

and

prosperity. here was

no

police

force, ut each noninitiateived under

he permanent hreat

f

going mad and eating his own excrement houldhe seek to

communicatewith the

ancestorshimself

nd

to infringe

he

elders'

monopoly. s

we

can see, here,

onsents

alwaysbacked

by he hreatfvioleice, ven

though

he

atter remains

n

the

horizon, eeping low profile. ut it would be equallyvain to

tryto imagine durablepowerof dominationnd oppression

based solely ither

n

nakedviolence nd terror r on the total

consent

f

every

member f

society.

These

would

be

extreme

cases, highlyephemeral

nd

transitory

n

the

evolution

of

history. ven societiesfoundedupon conquest, uch as the

Yatenga Mossi, so admirably

escribed y Izard (1975), end

up, after time, dopting ninstitutionalattern hatdemands

at least some consenton the

part of the dominated o their

domination.We can see this n the enthronementitual

f

the

new

king,withhis famous ingu ourney: he newking, elected

by

the dominant

roup, ets out dressed

n

rags

to

visit

the

villages

fthe

dominated nd to be

recognized

s

kingby

them.

At the

end of

his ourney, e reenters iscapital,

but

this

time

as king, lothed ntheornamentsf hisfunctionnd riding n

a

white

horse.

I should

now

ike

to

formulate he following ypothesis:

or

relations

f

domination nd

exploitation o have arisen

and

reproduced hemselves urably n formerlylassless ocieties,

such relationsmust have

presented

hemselves

s an

exchange

and

as

an

exchange

f

ervices.his washowtheymanaged

o

get themselves ccepted, nd

this was how they managed

to

obtain

the consent-passive or

active-of

the dominated.

should

further e

inclined to hypothesize hat, among

the

factorseading o internal

ifferentiationf ocial status

nd to

the

more r ess

gradualformationf new

hierarchies

ased

on

the

division f

ociety nto

orders, astes, r classes,

he ervices

rendered

y

the

dominant ndividuals

or group

must

have

involved,n the first lace, invisible ealities nd forces on-

trollingin

the

thought

f these

ocieties)

the

reproduction

f

the

universe nd of ife, nd that

thisfactmust

have

played

a

vital

role.

To

my way

of

thinking,he

monopoly

f the means

(to

us

imaginary)

f

reproduction f the universe

nd

of

life

must

have preceded he monopoly

f the visiblematerialmeans

of

production,.e.,

of

those

meanswhich veryone

ould

and

had

to

produce

n

order

o

reproduce, iven

heir

elative

implicity.

In

the

balance that emerged

between services exchanged,

however,

hose

rendered y the dominant roup appeared

to

be all

the

more

fundamental

nasmuch s they touchedupon

the

invisible

art

of the

world;

the

more

material

nd visible

thetasksperformed y the dominated roups, hemoretheir

serviceswere

regarded s trivial.We may

even

suggest

hat

the

formation

f

classes may have

taken

the form

f

an

unequal

exchange, ne that ookedmore dvantageous

o the dominated

Vol. 19

*

No.

4

*

December

978

767



than

to

the

dominant,

nd it is

perhaps

this that we call

an

extreme

ase

of alienation.

The dominantwere

obliged,

how-

ever, to

provide proof

that the

lives of the

dominated

dependedupon

them.For

example,

certain

kings

n

Africa

were put

to death when

they grew

old or fell

ick,

as it

was

feared

that their condition

laced

their

kingdom

under

the

threat

f bad

harvests,

pidemics,

r some other

atastrophe.

I am

prepared

o

suggest,moreover,

hat these

transforma-

tions occurred

nder

veryprecise

ircumstances,amely,

he

late sedentarization

f

hunter-gatherer

opulations

nd, later,

thedevelopmentffarmingnd animalhusbandry. newkind

of

dependence rewup

during

he

latter

phase: here,

we

are

no longer

dealing

with

savage

man

existing

n

savage

nature

but,gradually,

ith domesticated ature

nd with

civilized

man, whose ask

t was to reproduce

his

domesticated

ature.

It

was

perhaps

n

this context

hat

the

religious phere

de-

veloped

n

such

a

way

as

to

bring

bout the establishment

f

stabilized ocial

hierarchies,

f

aristocracies,

hus

creating

he

conditions

or he

extraction

f

supplementary

abourfrom

he

common

eople.

Firth's

1965)

study

fthe

Tikopia

contains

n

important

xample

that merits

onsideration.

e shows that

the

aristocracy

ossessed

monopoly

f

communication

ith

the

gods

nd the

ncestors,

ut that t

enjoyed-where

material

rewards

nd

place

in the

production rocess

were

oncerned-

onlyminor dvantages.

In

conclusion,

should

ike

to

draw

attention o one final

problem:Ought

we

really

o be

using

words uch

as

class

and

state when

referring

o

hierarchized

recapitalist

ncient

or

exotic

ocieties?

First

of

all, should

point

out

that

Marxists

ught

o

reread

Marx's

Germandeology

erycarefully,

ecause he takes

the

utmost ains to

distinguish etween

rder, r estate

as

in the

expressionThird

Estate ),

and

class, social

group xclusively

defined

y its place

in

relation o the

means of

production.

Such

definition

as not the

case,

for

xample,

or

hierarchies

of

statusor rank

n

exotic ristocraticocieties r for he

ruling

orders

n

the

ancient

Roman or

Greekcity.

Capitalismhas

simplifiedocial relations

o

the

point

where he

status

of

the

individual s defined, irstnd foremost,y economic riteria.

So

what did

Marxmeanwhenhe

used the term

lass

for

what

he knew to be

orders n

antiquityor in the

Middle Ages?

Certainly

ot that

we

ought

o

start

hunting or

lasseshiding

behind

he

orders-classes hat

Marxists lone

wouldbe able to

discover

nd that the

Greeks r the

Romans,history's

ctors,

could

neverhave

seen for

themselves.What

Marx was really

sayingwas that we

oughtto

interpret hese

social differences

by seeking

the

reasons

for them n

material

factors nd in

relations

f

production

nd

by

sheddingight n

theoppressive

character

f

relations f

exploitationf

men

bymen.

Now,

how

does this tie in

withthe

first

wo

sections

f my

analysis?

n

otherwords,

owdoes this

relate omy

definition

of

relationsf

productionnd to

my xplanation

fthedomina-tion of superstructures?n the

example of Athens,

we find

that

the

fact that

political

relations

n

the city

functioned s

relations f

production nd

thatthey

dominated he

thought

and

actionsof

members f

society bothfree

men and slaves)

prevented

ontradictions

etweenfree

men and slaves

from

directly

aking heir

ppearancen the

politicalrena.

We may

say

that

the

locus and the

form f

relations f

production,

and their

ntimate

inkswith

politics,made t

unthinkablend

impossible or the

slaves

themselves o

acquire

political con-

sciousness f

their

ituation nd

thus towage

directlyolitical

struggles

o

put

an

end

to their

lavery nd

their ppression.

Even

so, little

by little the

slave system

piled up internal

blockages

which,

n

the

ongrun,were o

weaken t and

slowly

to reduce t tostagnation. ut it was to take a good dealmore

than that,

and barbarian nvasions

n particular, efore

hese

slave relations

ltimately ave

way to other orms

f

domina-

tion. The

thinkable nd

the do-able thus

reach out

beyond

thought,

ut

they

annot

scape

the

nature f the

relations f

productionnd theproductive orces

xisting

n a

given ociety.

It is

perhaps

histhat s meant

by

historical

ecessity. 4

Comments

byMAURICE BLOCH

Department f Anthropology,ondonSchool of

Economics,

Houghton t., London WC2,England.9 vi 78

Godelier's

paper

s

an extremelylear and powerful

resenta-

tion of a point of view which

has been of immense alue to

Marxism

nd

the social sciences. findmyself n

agreement

with most of it. However,

because it is so wide-rangingnd

because t

covers ome alreadyfamiliar round want o

com-

menton

only one aspect of it: Godelier'sdiscussion f

ideol-

ogy. Behind hisdiscussion, nd

indeed he wholepaper, s the

assumption hat there

re tworadically ifferentypes

of so-

cieties:precapitalistnd capitalist

ocieties,which orGodelier

correspond ithnonclass nd

class societies.Only n the atter

are there

deological nstitutionsr

phenomena.n theformer

ideology s onlyto be thought f

as

a

functionn a seamless

whole.

Furthermore, odelier

distinguishes

etween

heideo-

logical, hatwhich egitimatesnd naturalizes ower, nd the

ideational,which

s

the process

of

conceptformation.

n

pre-

capitalist ocieties,

he

deational s

organised y

the

deologi-

cal, and, s

a result, hetwo depend neach other o

intimately

that

the

nonideological

ecomes

unthinkable;

laves n

ancient

Rome

could not have realised

he

exploitation

o

which

hey

were

subjected

n

a scientific

anner,

nd factors

xternal o

the

slaves' consciousness

ere

required

o

breakdownRoman

slavery.

Only

n

capitalist ocieties,

where

he

ideological

has

a

specificocation,

an

challenge

ccur

through

elf-conscious

action.

Hence the occurrence f Marx's

writing

t

the

nception

of

the

capitalist

ystem.

This

argument

ontrasts

with

one I

have

recently ut

for-

ward Bloch 1977). My argumentonsists ftwomainpoints.

The first

s that ll societies ave some

completely

onideologi-

cal

concepts,

ormed

hrough

he

interaction f

man

and

the

world

t a

given

historical

onjuncture.

he second s

that

n

all

societies

conceptualisation

eformed

y ideology

s to

be

found either

only,

or

at

least

especially,

n certain

ypes

of

ritualdiscourse,

ot

spread qually

throughout.

here s

there-

fore

lways

ome

nonideological

iscourse

nd

always poten-

tial

language

with

which o

challenge deology.

On

this second

point

am

in

sharpdisagreement

ith

Godelier,

who sees this

state of affairs

s

possible only

n

capitalist-dominated

ocial

formations.

am aware that

there

re

manyproblems

n this

position,

ut

have

taken

t

because the

problems

n

the coun-

terview,

hatheld

by Godelier,

eem

to me

even

greater.

Firstly,we do have a lot of evidence f fundamentalhal-

lenge

of the

very

nature f

domination

y

dominated

roups

in

the

types

of

societies

whichGodelier

describes

s

nonclass

societies.

do not

know

about Roman

slavery,

ut the

con-

tinual

peasants'

revoltswhich

punctuated

rench nd

English

feudalism

re evidence f this.

The

spokesmen

or

uch

revolts

I

On the subject

of the thinkable

nd the do-able, should

ike

to

make one

important oint clear.

The fact that

kinship, or

xample,

is dominant

n a given

ocietymeans that everyproblem

r event

s

going

to

take

the form f a problem

f

kinship;

where

politics

domi-

nates, every

problem will inevitably

ssume a

political form

n

order to become

thinkable.

Thus, depending n

the locus and the

form

f

relations f production,

istory's

ctors,

on each

occasion,

develop

a specific orm

f llusion regarding

heir

own conditions

f

existence. ach

mode of production

hus spontaneously

ngenders

specificmode of screening, f occultation-in the spontaneous on-

sciousness f the members

f a society-of

the

content nd

founda-

tions

f their ocial relations.

ar from aking

society's

wn

llusions

about itself

for reality,my theoretical

pproach

seeks

to

lay

these

bare

and to explain their

xistence.

768

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY



Godelier:

NFRASTRUCTURES, SOCIETIES, AND HISTORY

roke

completely

rom

he

deology

f feudalism

nd did

not

simply ephrase

t,

as is evidenced

y,

for

xample, ohnBall's

famous: WhenAdam delved nd Eve

span,

who was then

he

gentleman?

here re

many

ther

xamples,

erhaps

he

most

strikingnd

elaborate

being

he

17th-century

ritings

f

Win-

stanley,who said:

The

best

aws that

England

hath re

yokes

and manacles

ying

ne sortof

people

to be slaves to

another.

The secondpoint s

that,

s

Godelier

ightlyoints

ut,

our

interest

n

ideology

s

concernedwith

ts

role

n the

reproduc-

tionof

domination.

ut f

we define

deology

unctionally,ny-

thingwe sayaboutwhat t does will be mere autology,ince t

will

derive rom ur functional

efinition.n this

way

we

will

be unable to demonstrate

r

explain

ts

historical

ignificance.

byHENRI J. M.

CLAESSEN

Institute

f Cultural

ntdocial

Studies,Universityf

Leiden,

Leiden,

The

Netherlands.

vi

78

It is no easy task

to comment pon

an articlewith

which ne

cannot ut

agree.

The

clear

ynthesis odelier

resentss most

welcome, nd the

way

in

whichhe

clarifieseveral

conceptual

problems s outstanding.

y

comments,

herefore,re partly

for the sake

of argument nd

partly

because the

scope

of

an

essay does not

permitmaking

verythings explicit s

one

wouldwish.

I

wonder

why Godelier, fter

discussing he

nfrastructure,

the

superstructure,

nd the

ideology s different

unctions

within

single nstitution,

oes not use the

wordculture o

characterize

his single

nstitution. have

some problems

with

the

way

in which

he

summarizes

erray'sposition

with

regard o the concept

mode of production.

t seemsto me

that he

does not take

into

consideration hat

Terray's deas

have

undergoneome

evolution n the course

of time, o that,

for

nstance,

is

use

of

this

concept

n

his

study

f

the

Abron

(Terray1975) does not

very

well

fitGodelier's

haracterization.

Godelier

reates

he

mpression f

not

giving

much

weight

o

the

deas of a

minority

hich

does

not

accept

the

dominating

ideology. sWertheim1970) hasargued t length, uiteoften

such

a minority

s

at the

verycenter f

revolutionary

ove-

ments. Of course this

is not to

deny that agreementwith

(slowly

developing) ominatingdeas is characteristic

f

most,

if

not

all,

stable

political

ystems.

his

hypothesis inds

mple

confirmation

n the

data of the

Early

State

Project.

t is

not

the

employment

f

force,

ut

the

high

degree

f

agreement

nd

acceptance

hat

ppears

o be characteristic

ere.

The

exchange

basis

of

services-reciprocity-even

ame

to

be

included

n

the

definitionf the

early

tate

Claessen

and Skalnik

1978:640).

by

DAVID

D.

GILMORE

Department

fAnthropology,

tate Universityf New

York

at StonyBrook, tonyBrook,N.Y.

11794, U.S.A. 16

vi

78

Thought nd

being

re

ndeed istinct,

ut they lso form

unity.

[Marx1956:78]

This is one of the

most timulating

nd imaginative,s

well as

coherent, tatements o

come from he French

Marxistgroup

in

a

long

while.

By goingback

and questioning

asic elements

of

theory, odelierhas

rendered n invaluable

ervice o all of

us

who

feelthat

Marxisms not an

inert r mmutable

octrine

of

belief,

ut

a

living,

elf-correctingcientific

ethod fanal-

ysis.

think

his

papershouldopen new vistas

forresearch n

the

areas

of

religion, inship, lass

formation,ocial

domina-

tion,

false

consciousness, nd the

origin fthe tate. t

is an

authentic

reakthrough

n

that

t

revitalizes ur

understanding

of therole of consciousnessn the social behaviorswhich re

traditionally

he focusofanthropological

nquiry.t is

admira-

ble not onlyforthe new

ight t sheds on the question

f

the

unity f thought

nd being, ut also for ts

refreshing

larity

of expression,

ts ack

of dogmatism,

ts avoidance

of cant nd

jargon,

ts logic. Having

been disappointed y much

of the

work

f the French chool n

thepastbecause of

ts murkynd

obscureanguage,

found his lear, ncisive

aper revelation.

Part

of the creditmay go

to the excellent ranslation,

ut I

think

hat this piece is as impressive

s it is because t is

the

product

f a profound hinker

t the pinnacle

of his powers,

giving s clearly

nd directlyhe best

of his deas.

The work s revisionist n the bestsenseof the word: it

revises

Marx by rediscovering

arx. Its originality

ies in a

return

o origins,o the Marx

of theGrundrisse

nd the Philo-

sophicalManuscripts,

o theMarx

of questions nd not

just

answers. ertain

ogmatistsnsist hat

Marxism e scientific,

but theyforget hat cience

by ts verynature

must lwaysbe

refiningtselfby

elaboratingnd developing

uestionable

le-

ments f theory, y basing

tself n a dialectic

f theory nd

evidence,n short,

y being evisionist.

he recent rend oward

a moreflexible

Marxist pproach

n

the ocial

sciences uggests

that new era is dawning

n Marxist tudies,

timeof para-

digm

reevaluation.

f so,

then

Godelier

must

tand s one

of

the major ntellectualmidwives

o thisnew era,

f onlyon

the

basis of thisshort, rilliant

iece.

Godelierhas set forhimself formidableask: reconciling

theMarxist dentificationf

infrastructuretechno-economic

base)

as

the

primaryfactor

n social domination

with the

mounting vidence

hat t is superstructure

kinship nd

reli-

gion,

pecifically)

hich ffectsominationn many

recapitalist

societies.He does

this by arguing hat

the conceptof infra-

structure

tselfhas been too

narrowlynterpreted

nd mustbe

expanded

o include ll aspects

of the relations f production.

Here

Godelier oes

beyond therMarxists

y ncorporating

he

realmof ethical

deals andvalues (which

he calls the deel,

but which

may

be construed

think s consciousness).

n this

view,

the

ideel

is not simply passive

reflection

f economic

forces,

ut

an active

contributor;

deas

are a

reality,

ma-

terial,

n the sense of a

social

force.This is a

point

which

Marxhimselfmade n theearlywritingsndwhich ertain is-

ciples

ike

Lukaics

ave

emphasized

n discussions

f

false

con-

sciousness

ndmystification.

My only

complaint

s that Godelier

tops

too soon.

He

does

not

tell us how to

apply

his

ground-breakingnsights

lsewhere.

He

does

not relate

his deas to

suitable

thnographic

r

ethno-

historical ata,

although

here re manycontemporary

xam-

ples of

social domination

whichwould benefit

rom he ap-

proachdeveloped

here, forexample,

n the

Middle

East and

Mesoamerica. erhaps

these are

things

which re

taken

up

in

the

forthcoming

ook

fromwhich

his

piece

is

extracted;

nd

I

look forward

o

reading

t.

In

any case,

Godelier

s

to

be

congratulated

or

making

us think bout

these ssues

in the

mostprovocativeway.He has successfullyroached hemost

neglected

ut most

crucial

roblem

n

anthropology

oday:

the

historical

elationship

etween

lass

structure

nd

social

con-

sciousness

n

the

process

f

culture

hange.

by

ORIOL PI-SUNYER

Department

f Anthropology,

niversity f

Massachusetts,

Amherst,

ass. 01003,

U.S.A. 31 v 78

This s

not an article

hat

ends tself

o

easycommentary.

he

whole

pproach

s

very

different

rom

hat

utilized

y

the

ma-

jority

of

American-trained

nthropologists.

he

distinction

s

not

only onceptual

r

theoretical,

ut also

linguistic,

nd

gives

rise

to a situation

hat

may

at times

all for

form

f

mental

interlinearranslation.o getthe most ut ofthis ontribution,

thereader

must

have done

his

homework,

taskwhich

nvolves

not onlyfamiliarity

ith he classicalMarxist

orpus,

ut

also

some

backgroundn contemporary

arxist nthropology.or

Vol. 19

*

No. 4 *

December

978

769



mypart, have

foundGodelier's

wn

Perspectivesn

Marxist

Anthropology1977) well-nigh

ndispensable.

t is also my

m-

pression hat the

translator as too

loyal to the

original ext

and thatthis

mayaccountfor

omepassages of

truly mpene-

trableprose.

Finally, high

degree f

abstraction

haracterizes

the

whole

article, a circumstance

hat left

me

starved for

ethnographic

ocumentation.

I

found hese

difficultieseal

enough o warrant

mention, ut

the ssues

raised

by Godelier

re critically

mportantnes

and

deserve ur

careful

onsideration. t

thecenter f

hisdiscus-

sion is thenature f power n human ocieties: theeconomic

determinants

f

power;

the

degreeto which

modes of social

organization

ct

to

interpret

nd channel

ower

relations;

he

functionf

deology

n

egitimating

omination

nd

exploitation.

Some valid

questions

an

be raised

with

espect o

the

uper-

structure/nfrastructure

odel.

Most anthropologists

ould

agree

that theforces

f production

re embeddedn

the net-

work f social

relations

nd

that he

resulting

tructures

main-

tained and

supported

y ideology.

Also,

I

findno

difficulties

with the

conceptthat institutions

kinship,

olitics,

eligion,

and so

forth)

re

multifunctionalnd that

the

organization

f

production-who gets what,

when, and

why-is

in the last

analysis

ulturally

etermined. n

the

other

hand,

he

ssue

of

causalities,

equences,

nd hierarchies

s more

questionable.

Have we gainedmuchbyhypothesizinghat he mportancef

kinship

n

simple

ocieties

may

be attributed

o the fact

that

living abor

in such

societies

may

count

for more

than

the

products f accumulated abor?

It also seems reasonable

o

ask

whether t is

necessary

o

select

a given uperstructural

orm s the

organizing

rinciple

in a

particular

ociety

r

type

of

society.

One

does

not

have to

deny

he

mportance

f

kinship

n

band-level

ocieties o

recog-

nize

that

kinship

s

typically

alidated

by myths

which

re

in-

tegral

artsof

cosmological

ystems f order nd

classification.

I

am also uncomfortable ith

uperstructure

ategories

hat

appear

deceptively traightforward

ut are difficult

o

confirm

by inspection.

odelier

eems

to take for

granted

he

nferior

status

of

women

n band-level

ocieties,

but a recent

cross-

culturalnalysis f the tatus fwomenn93 societiesWhyte

1978:214-15)

notes

that

it

is

perfectlyossible

orwomen

n one

society

o

have

mpor-

tant

property

ights

hile

eing

xcluded

rom

eyreligious osts

and

ceremonies;heymay

also do mostof

the

productive

ork

or

have

an

important

ole

n

political

ife

while

uffering

nder

severe ouble tandard.

.

.

Aspects

f

what

has

often

een as-

sumed o be

a

unitary henomenon-the

tatus

f

women-turn

out

upon closer

xaminationo be

largely

iscrete

nd

unrelated.

Let

me make

t clear that

do not argue

that the concept

f

sex-based

omination

s invalid, ut

rather hat there

re spe-

cific

matrices,

whichvary

cross-culturally,

ithinwhich

uch

domination

manifests

tself.

Godelier'sconceptof ide'elrealitiesmight erhapsbe ren-

dered as

cognitive

ystems r

semantic

tructures, nd I

doubt

that

there

will

be

disagreement ithhis

claim thatall

social

relations-all

culture,n

fact-containan

ideel

aspect.

My only

cautionhere

s that the

quest for

deep or

hidden

structures

may, in

Geertz's

(1973:30) words,tend

to lose

touch

with

he

hardsurfaces

f ife.

Godelier's

inal

ection n

violence nd

consent s

especially

stimulating.n

reading t I was

reminded f

Orwell's 1961:

109)

observation hatthe

great ppeal of

colonial ervice

for

the

English

ower

bourgeoisiewas

that only n such

contexts

could

they ive

the ideology

heyshared

with the

directing

classes:

The people

whowent there

s soldiers

nd officials

did not

go there o makemoney....

theywent

there

ecause

in India, with heap horses, ree hooting,nd hordes fblack

servants,

t was so easy to

play at being a

gentleman.

his,

too, was

a exchange f sorts-colonial

service

or tatus

deter-

minants-and,

while gain

the ssue s very

much n the

realm

of the hypothetical,he origins f

classes and the state might

be

traced o an exchange f services r at least representedn

thismanner.The degree to

which the stock-in-tradef the

emergent irectinglasseswas invisible ealities robably e-

pendedgreatly n conditionsnd

circumstances.

Such a

system, nce in being,has the capacity o maintain

itself

or longtime.As Harris 1971:406) has written:

The

evolutionaryiability f thestaterests n largemeasure n

the

perfectionf institutionaltructureshat protect he ruling

class from

onfrontationith oalitions f alienated ommoners.

These tructuresall nto wobasic ategories:1) institutionshat

control he

content

f

ideology;

nd (2) institutionshatphysi-

cally uppresshe ubversive,

ebellious,nd revolutionaryctions

of

alienatedndividualsnd groups.

It is such nstitutionaltructures,ogetherwiththe dea sys-

tems hat

give them egitimacy,

hatmake t especially ifficult

forthe

oppressed irectly o confront he conventional rder.

Nevertheless,ven the Mandate

of Heaven can be lost, given

the proper onstellation f events nd causes. At the root of

Marxist

heory s the concept hatwhat activates he process

of transformation

s

the

conflict

etween hematerial orces f

production nd the social relationswithinwhich he forces f

production perate.Anthropologists,nd for our purposes

would ncludehistoriansnd archaeologists,ave at theirdis-

posal

a

range

f societies

nd

a

body

of

data,

n

the

processes

of

change

hat

houldpermit

he

testing

f

hypotheses

n

con-

tinuities

nd

transformations

n

human

ocieties.

imilarly,he

concept

f

exchange,

o central

o

the

Marxist

perspective f

asymmetrical

conomic

elations,s

ground

hat

nthropologists

have cultivated or

a

long time. t is true that,' or the most

part, anthropologists

ave studied

nonmonetary

lassless so-

cieties,

ut

even

this s

changing

ast,

n

part

at least

because

societies

f

this type

re

rapidly isappearing

rom

he

scene.

It may thus

be that the

questions

Godelier

sks

will receive

the attention

hat

they

deserve.

by

ZOLTAN TAGANYI

Bogar u. 5, 1022 Budapest,

Hungary. 0

V

78

The

author f

this

tudy

ries

o

appear Marxist,

ut his

work

shows

the nfluence

f

French

tructuralism,

f which

he does

not

speak.

His thesisdeals

with

superstructure

nd

infra-

structure.

e

sees the

elements f

the

former

s

consisting

f

the

specific cological

nd

geographical

onditions,

he

produc-

tive

forces,

material

nd

intellectual,

nd

the ocial

relations

f

production.

his

analysis

would

be

Marxist,

ut

he

goes

on

to

include

hese lements

n his

analysis

s social

facts

very

imi-

lar to thoseof

classical

French

ociology

nd

Emile

Durkheim;

further,

e sees these

facts as

creating onfigurations-the

superstructure

f

each

society

s

built

by combining

hese

elements.

his

is

noteworthy

ecause

Levi-Strauss

1952)

also

supposes, n discussingherulesof thedevelopmentf socie-

t-ies,

asic

social

building-elements

nd sees

the characteristic

features

f

societies s

being

defined

y

the

configuration

f

these

elements.

A

distinction

ay

be

observed

n

Godelier's ormulation

ith

regard

o

the structure nd

function

f

institutions.

n the

lower

evel

of development,

t

is characteristic

or ach

nstitu-

tion o

have

several

functions,

ut on the

higher

evel

of devel-

opment, specially

n

capitalist ociety,

nstitutions

ay

have

only

one

function.

his

opinion

s

untenable,

ecause

nformal

groups,

uch as the

peer groups

of

the slums

of

towns,

xist

alongside

he formal

roups

n

capitalist ociety Gans 1967).

Further,

e

can

observe,

n addition

o

the

unambiguous

truc-

ture and function f industrial

nterprise,

nformal

roups

within t, such as neighborhoods,riendshipnd visiting ela-

tions, nd cliques.These informal roupsmay have morefunc-

tions than he formal nes Etzioni 1964).

Some terminological atters re as follows:A more ppro-

770 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY



Godelier:

NFRASTRUCTURES,

SOCIETIES, AND

HISTORY

riate expression

han

superstructure

s

social

formation.

The

term

superstructure s unfortunate ecause the socio-

logical iterature ontains ther xpressions or

hese

phenome-

na such as

outside world or global society or

nation.

( Outsideworld

s used

by

the author n the latter

part

of

this

rticle.)

The term infrastructure

s

also

unfortunate,

e-

cause it is

already employedby economists

or

the

service

sector.

Another uestion f detail: Godelier onnects he ppearance

of stateswith

the

rise

of agriculture nd animal husbandry,

emphasizinghisphenomenon ithregard o the statesof the

Third World. f

we examine he question f origins, owever,

we

findthat the appearance of agriculture nd animal hus-

bandrys followed y the rise of city-statesn Neolithic imes,

but not in the

spread of these phenomena romAsia Minor

through he

Balkan

peninsula o CentralEurope.

[Maurice odelier'seply adnot rrived ypress ime ndtherefore

will appear

n

the March

ssue.-EDITOR.]

References

ited

ADAMS, R. McC. 1966. The evolution

furban ociety. ondon: Weiden-

feld nd

Nicolson.

ALTHUSSER, L., E.

BALIBAR,

and R.

ESTABLET. 1965. Lire e Capital.

Vol. 2. Paris: Maspero.

BALIBAR,

E. 1965.

Sur les conceptsfondamentaux

u materialisme

historique, n

Lire le Capital. Edited by L.

Althusser, .

Balibar,

and R. Establet, vol. 2, p. 221.

Paris: Maspero.

BLOCH,M. 1977. The past and the

present n the present.Man 12(2).

[MB]

BONTE,

P. 1975.

L'organisation economique des

Touareg Kell

Gress,

n

Elements 'ethnologie.

dited by R. Cresswell, p. 166-

215. Paris: A. Colin.

CLAESSEN, HENRI

J.

M., and

PETER SKALNfIK. Editors. 1978.

The

early

tate.The

Hague:

Mouton.

[HJMC]

CLASTRES,

P., and

C. LEFORT. 1977. Introduction,

n Discours ur

la

servitude olontaire,y E. de la

Boetie. Paris: Payot.

DELEUZE,

G., and

F. GUATTARI. 1972. L'Anti-Oedipe.

aris: Editions

de

Minuit.

DUMONT, L. 1966. Homo

hierarclhicus.aris: Gallimard.

ETZIONI, AMITAI. 1964. Mode-rn rganizations.

nglewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall. [ZT]

FIRTH, RAYMOND. 1965.

2d

edition.

Primitive olynesian

economy.

London: Routledge nd Kegan.

FRANKFORT,

H.

1948. Kingship and thegods. Chicago:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

GANS,

HERBERT

J. 1967.

The

urban

villagers:

Group nd

class

in the

lifeof

[talian

Americans.New

York:

Free

Press;

London:

Collier

Macmillan.

[ZT]

GEERTZ,

CLIFFORD. 1973.

The

interpretation

f

cultures.

New

York:

Basic

Books.

[OPS]

GODELIER,

MAURICE. 1977.

Perspectives

n

Marxist

anthropology.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University ress.

[OPS]

HARRIS,

MARVIN. 1971.

Cuilture,

an,

nd

nature.

New

York:

Crowell.

[OPS]

HAUDRICOURT,

ANDRE'. 1962.

Domestication des

animaux,

culture

des

plantes

et

traitement

'autrui.

L'Homme

(1): 40-50.

HAUDRICOURT,

A.,

and

M.

JEAN

BRUNHES-DELAMARRE. 1955.

L'homme t a

charrue.

aris:

Gallimard.

HAUDRICOURT, A.,

and L.

HEDIN.

1943.

L'homme

et

les

plantes

cultivees.aris:

Gallimard.

IZARD,M.

1975.

Le

royaume

u

Yatenga, in

Elements

'ethnologie.

Edited by

R.

Cresswell, p.

207-48.

Paris:

A.

Colin.

LAUGHLIN,

CHARLES,

and

ELIZABETH

LAUGHLIN. 1972.

Kenisan:

Economic

and social

ramifications

f

the

Ghost

Cult

among

the So

of

north-eastern

ganda.

Africa

42:9-20.

LEVI-STRAUSS,

CLAUDE.

1952.

Race et

histoire.

aris:

UNESCO.

[ZT]

MARX,

KARL. 1956.Karl

Marx:

Selected

ritingsn

sociologynd

social

philosophzy.

dited and

translated

y T. B.

Bottomore.

New

York:

McGraw-Hill.

[DDG]

-.

1958. 3d

edition.

Zur Kritik

der

politischen

konomie.

erlin:

Dietz.

MEILLASSOUX, C.

1964.

Anthropologie

conomique

es

Gouro

de C6te

d'Ivoire.

aris/La

Haye:

Mouton.

NEEDHAM,

J. 1954-76. Science ndcivilizationn China. 5

vols. Cam-

bridge:

Cambridge

University

ress.

OPPENHEIM,L.

1964.

Ancient

Mesopotamia:

ortrait

f

dead

civiliza-

tion.

hicago:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

ORWELL,

GEORGE. 1961. The

road to

Wigan

Pier.

New York:

Berkley.

[OPS]

RADCLIFFE-BROWN,

A. R.

1930-31.

The

social

organization

f

Aus-

tralian

tribes.

Oceania

(1-4).

REY, P.-P.

1971.

Colonialisme,

neo-colonialisme

t

transition u

capitalisme.

aris:

Maspero.

. 1973. Les

alliances

de

classe.

Paris:

Maspero.

TERRAY,

E. 1969.

Le

marxisme

evant

es

societes

rimitives.

aris:

Maspero.

. 1975. Classes

and

class

consciousnessn

the Abron

kingdom

of

Gyaman,

n

Marxist

nalysis

nd social

anthropology.

dited

by

Maurice

Bloch, pp.

85-135. London:

Malaby.

[HJMC]

WERTHEIM, W.

F. 1970.

Evolutie en

revolutie.

Amsterdam:

Van

Gennep. [HJMC]

WHYTE,

MARTIN

KING.

1978.

Cross-cultural

codes

dealing

with

the

relative

tatus of

women.

Ethnology

7:211-37.

[OPS]

WILL, E. 1972.

Le

monde

rec

t

'Orient.

aris:

PressesUniversitaires

de

France.

Wanted

*

Contributions rom ll

countries

n

which

the problem s

being studied to a

proposedreader

entitledThe

Politics of

Patriarchal

iolence:

A

Systematicnd

Integrated nalysis f

Violence gainstWomen.Among he topicsto be included re

sexualharassment,

ifebattering,

ape, marital ape,

and sex-

ual abuse

of female hildren.

he methodology

ay be thatof

a

case study,

tatisticalnalysis, r

theoretical

ormulation,ut

all

manuscriptsmust

examine heproblem n

feministerms.

While

previously ublished apers

will

be

considered,

he em-

phasis will be on

new contributions.

anuscriptsof 15-25

pages

n

length

double-spaced) or

descriptionsf work

to

be

undertaken

r

in

progress

houldbe sentto Ruth

A. Schwartz,

2509AvenueK,

Brooklyn, .Y.

11210,U.S.A.

a

Collaboration

n

research

on the cross-culturalspects

of

tobacco use and

related ehavior. ocial

SystemsAnalysts as

prepared

fieldmanual forthe

collection f data

on tobacco-

related ehavior,ncludingeasonsforuse,personnelnvolved,

situational

ontext, oundary

efinitionnd

maintenance,

ta-

tus

differentiation,nd

symbolic

meanings.We

wish

to

dis-

tribute he manual

o anthropologistsho

are

currently

r

will

soon be doingfieldwork; ur hope is to gather epresentative

and standardized ata on as many ocieties s possible.We will

fully cknowledge ll contributionsnd will send a summary

of the findingsn request.We would also like to distribute

questionnaireo interestednvestigators ho have been in the

field and can recall relevantdata. For further nformation

please write: Sherwin . Feinhandler nd Kjell I. Enge,Social

SystemsAnalysts,2 Calvin Rd., Watertown,Mass.

02172,

U.S.A.

*

Informationelevant o a study n progress n behavior nd

cognitive ategories n relation o energy se in American o-

ciety.Until now Americans ave been subject to little more

than

warnings egarding ossible energy hortages nd price

increases;

no actual crisis has yet occurred.Other societies

have not been as fortunate. e would ike to know, rom ny-

one currently orking

n

an area in whichfuel s

veryscarce

and/ r prohibitivelyxpensive

n

relation o

household

ncome,

how behavior s altered nd how economic hoicesare made.

We would

also

appreciatehearing

rom

nyone

who has

con-

ducted, r plans to conduct,

imilar

r related

tudies

nAmer-

icansociety. lease write:Sherwin . Feinhandler,

ocial

Sys-

temsAnalysts, Calvin Rd., Watertown,

ass.

02172,

U.S.A.

Vol.

19 *

No. 4 *

December

978

771

godelier, «infrastructures, societies and history»

Documents