In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:DESIRED POSSESSIONS: KARL POLANYI, RENÉ GIRARD, AND THE CRITIQUE OF THE MARKET ECONOMY Mark R. Anspach CREA, Paris! f '""phe most radical critique of liberal capitalism ever:" that is how JL Louis Dumont describes 7Ae Great Transformation, Karl Polanyi's classic work on the rise of the market system. But the French anthropologist goes on to observe that, when one confronts this same critique with the ethnography of tribal (...) societies, "one may ask whether Polanyi did not in fact come up short; having criticized the economy as an idea, he thought he could retain it as a thing..." (Dumont xiv, xvi). Is the economy indeed a "thing" that has always existed in some form everywhere, and if so, what manner of thing is it? In a word, what is an economyfor? Is there a particular aim that any economy must serve? A specific motive that it necessarily brings into play? We will begin by looking at Polanyi's answer to this question. "No human motive is per se economic," Polanyi tells us. "There is no such thing as a sui generis economic experience in the sense in which man may have a religious, aesthetic, or sexual experience." It is market society, with its dependence on a disembedded economic system, which fosters the illusion that the "economic" motives of hunger and gain necessarily underlie every economic system (1968, 63-4). In reality, however, "human beings will labor for a large variety of reasons as long as things are arranged accordingly." For example, "Monks traded for religious reasons... The KuIa trade ofthe Trobriand islanders... is mainly an aesthetic pursuit. Feudal economy was run on customary lines. With the Kwakiutl," industry appears to have been "a point of honor," and 1 82Mark R. Anspach so on (1968, 68). The trick, it seems, is to "arrange things accordingly." An economic system can be "run on noneconomic motives," Polanyi explains, without linking the process of production or distribution "to specific economic interests attached to the possession of goods," as long as "every single step in that process is geared to a number of social interests which eventually ensure that the required step be taken" (2001, 48). Now, there is a danger in this presentation. It could lead a reader to conclude that other societies arrange things cunningly so that all these social interests are harnessed to ensure the performance of the steps necessary to economic processes in a kind ofelaborate ruse—a ruse which the out-in-the-open operation ofthe economy in our society gives us the ability to see through. Very well, such a reader might acknowledge, the economy is an "instituted process," and, yes, the act of instituting it "shifts the place ofthe process in society" (Polanyi 1968, 148), but ifyou track it down to its hiding place and strip away the social contrivances in which it has been embedded, what you will find is still the economy as we know it—indeed, the economy which market society alone lays bare. In this reading, or rather misreading, the "real" economic aims that market society achieves directly are elsewhere accomplished only in the most cumbersomely indirect fashion. This kind of erroneous conclusion will likely be difficult to counter as long as one posits an opposition between multiple, variable and diffuse social interests, on the one hand, and the apparently straightforward individual interest in the possession of goods, on the other. Wherever the economy is submerged in social relationships, Polanyi says, a man "does not act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession ofmaterial goods; he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets" (2001, 48). The problem with such an opposition between individual and social is that a market-minded theorist can overcome it simply by broadening the individual interest in the possession ofgoods to include the possession ofreified social goods. Once social interests are conceptualized as "social assets," to use Polanyi's own expression—or as "symbolic capital," to cite a more recent formulation—they lend themselves to "economizing" even in the formal sense, and Polanyi's carefully constructed distinction between the substantive and the formal collapses, apparently confirmingthe universality of the market... (shrink)

Sampson’s hypothesis that the entry of Western society into a post-modern era of “globalization” will necessitate a change in the conceptualization of the person is discussed in light of relevant group process research and current world events. While it does not seem likely that any fundamental change in the theory of the person will occur, it is plausible that the present form of individualism will adapt to the conditions of this new era. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Success and Malaise of CapitalismA Mimetic View of the MarketPablo Díaz-Morlán (bio)INTRODUCTIONThis article seeks to contribute to the knowledge that we have on the market as the central institution of capitalism, according to Girard's perspective. Mimetic theory (MT) can explain both the success and malaise caused by the market. Success is measured by the spread of desire, and malaise by the mimetic resentment caused by this spread of (...) desire.In 1979, Paul Dumouchel and Jean-Pierre Dupuy applied René Girard's mimetic theory for the first time to economics in their book L'Enfer des Choses.1 Both authors defended the need to advance toward the construction of a mimetic economic science placing at the center of the analysis the mimetic nature of the human being. They pointed out that the liberal conception of the individual as a being who makes decisions of maximum utility and autonomously is wrong. In short, the point was that the traditionally accepted homo economicus has been replaced with the homo mimeticus.2 In his contribution [End Page 275] to the book, "L'ambivalence de la rareté," Dumouchel establishes that scarcity emerges or is born as traditional bonds of solidarity are abandoned by members of a society that, until then, had ensured that everyone was assisted in case of need. In primitive human society, reciprocal bonds of solidarity prevailed. There was no scarcity, and this internal solidarity limited violence between the members of the group and expelled it to the outside. Scarcity was invented after the creation of the vicious cycle of individualism and the commercialization of social relations: a social institution established by the modern world after the solidarity mechanisms that protected the group against violence were abandoned.3 For both authors, the market arose as the institution that replaced the sacred, containing the violence, in both senses of the word "contain": On the one hand it held the violence within, and on the other it limited the violence.From its publication, L'Enfer des Choses was adopted as the founding treaty of the mimetic economy, even by Girard himself, who referred to it on several occasions when discussing economic issues.4 Both Dumouchel and Dupuy have gone into greater depth with their findings in other subsequent studies that have taken different courses. Dumouchel has clarified his concept of scarcity and has analyzed the relationship between envy and mimetic resentment through the study of Helmut Schoeck's famous envy theory.5 Meanwhile, Dupuy defends that many developments of modern economic science are merely the evolution of homo economicus to homo mimeticus because the autonomous subject is abandoned, giving rise to one that takes into account the behavior of others (game theory, adaptive expectations theory, speculation theory, etc.). Dupuy insists on the concept of the market as an institution that effectively delays the mimetic conflict. However, he adopts a pessimist position, as capitalism, due to its very evolution, has ended up surpassing its own limits (controlling politics), and as a result, it is increasingly more difficult for capitalism to carry out its function of containing violence.6Using the work of Dumouchel and Dupuy as a base, different authors have made contributions to economics from the perspective of MT. Several studies have been conducted on money, trade, and speculation, highlighting the theory of money of Michel Aglietta and André Orléan.7 Although there are differentiating nuances among the authors, they all assume that the money and market institutions are essentially violent and sacrificial. Other examples of this school of thought are Andrew Lascaris (1987), Erich Kitzmüller (1995), Anthony W. Bartlett (2002), John Daniels (2008), and Daniel M. Bell, Jr. (2012).8 Byrne Hobart and Tobias Huber have successfully applied MT to the study of financial bubbles in an economic history study, with promising results.9 And in the criticism of the market system in his book À Charge de Revanche, Mark R. Anspach [End Page 276] favors the need to overcome the perverse logic of revenge that defines both war and the market, transforming it into a positive reciprocity based on gifts.10 Except for Hobart and Huber, the cited authors overwhelmingly and explicitly reject... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A Hypothesis on the Origin of TradeThe Exchange of Lives for Sacrifice and SexPablo Díaz-Morlán (bio)introductionThe primary objective of this study is to propose a hypothesis regarding the origin of trade that will help to solve the enigma of why human groups, normally each other's enemies, stopped exchanging blows in order to exchange things. The complexity of this crucial step forward in the relationships between hostile primitive groups can (...) be summarized as follows. In order for an exchange to take place, both parties must take part in it voluntarily because they see a mutual benefit in doing so. In turn, both parties should be aware that in order to obtain what interests them, which is closely guarded by the other party, in return, they must hand over what the other party is interested in. The perception of the interest of the other plays a crucial role in trade, both today and in its origins. The next step to be taken after a successful initial exchange was its consolidation, after it had been proved that it mutually benefited groups who had, until then, been enemies. Once established, this pacific exchange would have diversified considerably and its complexity would have increased significantly. An added [End Page 165] advantage, which was unexpected but real, was that its subsequent usefulness in curbing violence contributed to its growing expansion. The emergence of a comparative advantage in the groups that adopted trade would have guaranteed their future progress with respect to those that continued to systematically adopt violent conduct toward their neighbors.1Throughout this study, we will come across the old idea that the market prevents war. Without a doubt, trade and war between individuals and groups are closely connected, but the boundaries between them are fuzzy and their demarcation has proven elusive to researchers. Albert Hirschman studied the intellectual climate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in favor of trade and the express declaration of Montesquieu that "peace is the natural effect of trade."2 Since then, this idea has gained ground among researchers of economics and other fields of knowledge. In L'enfer des choses and subsequent works, Jean-Pierre Dupuy and Paul Dumouchel defend that the economy (the market) is a substitute for the sacred, containing violence through violent means. The market contains violence in the two senses of the term contain: It holds it and curbs it; it is both the poison and the remedy. The consumer society makes all objects available to everyone and in this way deactivates mimetic rivalry, deferring violent conflicts. But it is only a temporary remedy. In the words of Girard, "It is always necessary to find new toys."3Following the path initiated by Dumouchel and Dupuy, with their criticism of the free market economy and their proposal for a new notion of scarcity, in his text The Empire of Value, André Orléan claims that money is at the origin of the market. My analysis alludes to a moment prior to that established by Orléan. He maintains that he does not contemplate the historical origin of money but instead uses the expression "the conceptual origin of money." In fact, when he defends the essential monetary base of the market, he refers to an already developed market system, that is, an economic system for which the operation is structured around the institution of the market.4 Mark R. Anspach also criticized the market system in his book À Charge de Revanche. This author proposes the transcending of the perverse logic of vengeance that defines both war and the market that transforms it into a positive reciprocity based on the gift. This constitutes a type of shift away from looking at the past (settling old accounts) to looking toward the future, embracing gratitude, which gives rise to the initial gesture of giving.5 This study analyzes a time prior to that examined by Orléan and Anspach. It was the moment of hominization, that is, mimicry, the subsequent violence that threatened the survival of human groups and, as we will seek to explain, the market as an institution that has accompanied humankind since its conformation as a species... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:INDIFFERENCE AND ENVY: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF MODERN ECONOMY Paul Dumouchel University ofQuébec-Montréal 1. Girard and economics René Girard himself has not written very much on economics, at least explicitly. Though his works are full ofinsights into and short remarks on the sacrificial origin of different economic phenomena or the way in which mimetic relations and commercial transactions are often intertwined and act upon each other.1 Unlike religion, psychology, (...) psychoanalysis, literature and anthropology, the analysis of modem and traditional economies from the point ofview ofmimetic theory has never been carried out by Girard himself, but for the most part by other people, for example, in the French speaking world, which I know best, essentially by Michel Aglietta and André Orléan in La violence de la monnaie (1982) and by Jean-Pierre Dupuy and myself in L'enfer des choses (1979) and as well as others, such as, by Mark Anspach, Andrew Feenberg, P. Lantz, A. Orléan, G-H. de Radkowsky and Lucien Scubla in various works on economy, economic anthropology, or the place and role of money in literary texts.2 In a way, this is somewhat surprising since the relationship between mimetic and economic phenomena, at least in a broad sense, was seen quite early on. For example, soon after the original publication Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque (1961) the French Marxist Lucien Goldman wrote in his Pour une sociologie du Roman (1964) that Girard's work was the most important book to read in order to understand 1 For example, Mensonge romantique (18-23); Des choses cachées (82-88). 2 See Anspach, Feenberg, Lantz, Orléan [passim], de Radkowski. 150Paul Dumouchel the effects of economic alienation on literature since Georg Lukács's Theory of the Novel (1920). Moreover in a footnote in Les origines du capitalisme (1971) Jean Baechler suggested that those wishing to understand the nature of the infinite desire for acquisition which capitalists economies have institutionalized should read Girard's book.3 Whatever the reason for Girard's relative disinterest in economic phenomena others have not been prevented from tackling this problem and it bears witness in a special way to the dynamism and intellectual power ofthe mimetic theory that its application to the field ofeconomics has essentially, ifnot entirely, been due to the work of others rather than to the efforts of René Girard himself. 2. The substantivist-formalist debate In the late 1 940's and early 1 950's a debate began that divided (and still divides) the community ofeconomists and ofanthropologists interested in economic phenomena. It concerns the nature ofeconomy and is generally referred to as the substantivist-formalist debate. It was first formulated in the works of the Austrian economist, Karl Polanyi.4 In The Great Transformation (1945), a book on the history ofthe formation and organization ofthe market economy in Europe from the late 1 8th to early 20th centuries, Polanyi already argued that the modem market economy was a rare historical accident. Furthermore Polanyi said, unlike what liberal and economic ideologies pretend, thatthere is nothingnatural aboutthe market. It does not correspond to any spontaneous human tendency to barter and exchange, and it does not arise by itself as soon as certain conditions are satisfied. Onthe contrary, modem markets have been put into place through sustained and voluntary state policies which consciously destroyed traditional solidarities, authorized the unlimited sale of land and labor and literally created the labor market, for example, in England through the Reform Bill of 1834 that repealed the existing Poor Laws which had prevented the free circulation of labor. The system formed by market economies, the balance of power among European states and the gold 3 Interestingly, 24 years later, in the second vastly enlarged edition of that work, Le capitalisme, (1995) the reference to Girard has disappeared though the text ofthe original work, which now constitutes the second part of the book, is otherwise reprinted in its integrity. 4 Actually Polanyi in The Livelihood ofMan (1977) sees the origin of the debate in Carl Mengers, Principles ofEconomics [1871]. Let us say then that it found its first modern formulation in the work of Polanyi. Indifference andEnvy... (shrink)

René Girard shows that all desires are contagious—and the desire to be thin is no exception. In this compelling new book, Girard ties the anorexia epidemic to what he calls mimetic desire: a desire imitated from a model. Girard has long argued that, far from being spontaneous, our most intimate desires are copied from what we see around us. In a culture obsessed with thinness, the rise of eating disorders should be no surprise. When everyone is trying to slim down, (...) Girard asks, how can we convince anorexic patients to have a healthy outlook on eating? Mixing theoretical sophistication with irreverent common sense, Girard denounces a “culture of anorexia” and takes apart the competitive impulse that fuels the game of conspicuous non-consumption. He shows that showing off a slim physique is not enough—the real aim is to be skinnier than one’s rivals. In the race to lose the most weight, the winners are bound to be thinner and thinner. Taken to extremes, this tendency to escalation can only lead to tragic results. Featuring a foreword by neuropsychiatrist Jean-Michel Oughourlian and an introductory essay by anthropologist Mark R. Anspach, the volume concludes with an illuminating conversation between René Girard, Mark R. Anspach, and Laurence Tacou. (shrink)

The Teubner edition of Festus de Verborum Significatu had scarcely appeared when Professor Anspach announced his discovery of a MS. of Isidore's Etymologies with some Scholia taken from Festus. Last Easter, in the limited time at my disposal, I transcribed from the MS. the greater part of this Isidore Commentary and, later, received a transcript of the remainder from Abbe Liebaert some weeks before his death. Although hampered by the deficiencies of our University Library, I am unwilling to keep (...) this new evidence any longer from students of Festus. (shrink)

Le pendule de Foucault a exercé sur les savants belges une fascination durable. Dès 1852, l’expérience de Foucault suscite l’intérêt de Schaar, Pagani et Gilbert. À la suite des travaux de Mach, Duhamel, Poincaré, Duhem et d’autres mathématiciens, physiciens et philosophes, les publications de la Société scientifique de Bruxelles abritent de vives discussions sur les notions d’espace et de mouvement absolus, entre les savants belges De Tilly, Mansion et Pasquier et leurs collègues français Vicaire et Lechalas. Le cinquantième anniversaire de (...) l’expérience de Foucault est l’occasion d’une polémique entre Anspach et Pasquier, ce dernier défendant les idées de Poincaré. Au vingtième siècle, les études de Janne d’Othée et Bouny sur le pendule de Foucault montrent qu’ils sont définitivement acquis aux idées de Poincaré.Foucault’s pendulum has long fascinated Belgian scientists. From 1852 onward, the Foucault experiment attracted the interest of Schaar, Pagani and Gilbert. Following the work of Mach, Duhamel, Poincaré, Duhem and other mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, the publications of the Société scientifique de Bruxelles contain lively discussions of the concepts of absolute space and motion between the Belgian scientists De Tilly, Mansion, Pasquier and their French colleagues Vicaire and Lechalas. The fiftieth anniversary of Foucault’s experiment is the source of a polemic between Anspach and Pasquier, the latter defending Poincaré’s ideas against the former. In the twentieth century, the studies of Janne d’Othée and Bouny about Foucault’s pendulum show that Poincaré’s thesis has been fully adopted. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Deciding Who Lives: Fateful Choices in the Intensive Care Nursery. By Renée R. Anspach.