The Anthropology of Economic Anthropology
Political and Economic Anthropology (S_PEA)
Think Piece
Sari Segers 2612776
11-10-2018
, Introduction
When we first started this course I was questioning the need for a separate subfield of
economic anthropology. Since first studying anthropology, I have felt like it is obligatory for
the anthropological discipline to revise those parts within other disciplines, that other social
sciences have failed to perceive and effectively explain. This might not be the case in
application and merely my experience, but when looking at the guide courses of the economic
bachelors at the VU, I noticed that there were almost no courses offered in it that included the
cultural and social aspects of economy, except for one ethics course. Is there a need for an
incorporation and inclusion of these particular aspects within the economic field? And if so,
why is there an established economic subfield within anthropology and not a social and
cultural subfield within economics?
In this think piece, I will critically elaborate on these questions by using readings of
Ben Fine, Prasanta K. Pattanaik, Chris Hann and Keith Heart.
Neo-classical economy and the anthropological concern
According to Fine (1998) the economic field is dominated by a neo-classical idea that relies
mostly on mathematical modelling. Mathematical modelling simplifies and reduces abstract,
complex, multilayered social phenomena and dynamics to tangible outcomes. Hence it is
based on individualism without any concern for society (in which society is the result of
individual behaviour) (Fine, 1998). However, economics is descriptive and objective, not
normative. Besides mathematical theory, economics stems from the idea that humankind and
its agency essentially operates like the agency of a homo economicus; Deb, Kishore, and Seo
assume that individuals are rational, that money is both a medium of exchange and a store of
value, and that the demand for money is a result of intertemporal consumption smoothing. (as
cited in Pattanaik, 2008, p. 6). So when it comes to economics, every choice is made to
'maximize 'value' within budgetary constraints' (Hann & Hart, 2011, p. 7).
But how can we define value when it is such a multi-interpretable concept? Hann and
Hart state that this value is 'conceived of in terms of costs and benefits expressed in monetary
terms' (Hann & Hart 2011, p. 7). However, value is not only expressed in monetary terms.
Fine’s (1998) ideas about value or profit maximization state that human behaviour can’t be
reduced to strategies of maximization, since human behaviours entail a wide range of social
meanings and relational complexities. As an anthropologist, it is not an extraordinary
Political and Economic Anthropology (S_PEA)
Think Piece
Sari Segers 2612776
11-10-2018
, Introduction
When we first started this course I was questioning the need for a separate subfield of
economic anthropology. Since first studying anthropology, I have felt like it is obligatory for
the anthropological discipline to revise those parts within other disciplines, that other social
sciences have failed to perceive and effectively explain. This might not be the case in
application and merely my experience, but when looking at the guide courses of the economic
bachelors at the VU, I noticed that there were almost no courses offered in it that included the
cultural and social aspects of economy, except for one ethics course. Is there a need for an
incorporation and inclusion of these particular aspects within the economic field? And if so,
why is there an established economic subfield within anthropology and not a social and
cultural subfield within economics?
In this think piece, I will critically elaborate on these questions by using readings of
Ben Fine, Prasanta K. Pattanaik, Chris Hann and Keith Heart.
Neo-classical economy and the anthropological concern
According to Fine (1998) the economic field is dominated by a neo-classical idea that relies
mostly on mathematical modelling. Mathematical modelling simplifies and reduces abstract,
complex, multilayered social phenomena and dynamics to tangible outcomes. Hence it is
based on individualism without any concern for society (in which society is the result of
individual behaviour) (Fine, 1998). However, economics is descriptive and objective, not
normative. Besides mathematical theory, economics stems from the idea that humankind and
its agency essentially operates like the agency of a homo economicus; Deb, Kishore, and Seo
assume that individuals are rational, that money is both a medium of exchange and a store of
value, and that the demand for money is a result of intertemporal consumption smoothing. (as
cited in Pattanaik, 2008, p. 6). So when it comes to economics, every choice is made to
'maximize 'value' within budgetary constraints' (Hann & Hart, 2011, p. 7).
But how can we define value when it is such a multi-interpretable concept? Hann and
Hart state that this value is 'conceived of in terms of costs and benefits expressed in monetary
terms' (Hann & Hart 2011, p. 7). However, value is not only expressed in monetary terms.
Fine’s (1998) ideas about value or profit maximization state that human behaviour can’t be
reduced to strategies of maximization, since human behaviours entail a wide range of social
meanings and relational complexities. As an anthropologist, it is not an extraordinary
