How to understand international society differently: Mauss and the chains of reciprocity
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Author | Frédéric Ramel |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088217751514 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217751514
Journal of International Political Theory
2018, Vol. 14(2) 165 –182
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088217751514
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
How to understand
international society
differently: Mauss and the
chains of reciprocity
Frédéric Ramel
Sciences Po, Paris, France*
Abstract
In international relations, reciprocity means a phenomenon based on international law
that maintains equality, continuity, and stability of cooperation between states. Most
of the time, the logic of contract and rationalist perspectives prevail to deal with it.
Nevertheless, reciprocity does not exclusively embody a contractual mechanism that
aims at a symmetrical balance between two partners. Marcel Mauss was one of the first
sociologists to observe the existence of group cohesion when studying reciprocity in his
gift-giving model. Beyond a dual relationship, Mauss unveils an intergenerational solidarity
that he calls “alternating and indirect reciprocity.” Implicitly, this refers to chains of
reciprocity developed earlier by Malinowski. Yet, it enriches the notion by also including
intergenerational links. This article proposes to extend the Maussian framework to the
international level because sociology is not limited by borders of national societies as
Mauss underlined himself. International chains of reciprocity are significant in several
areas such as environment, cultural heritage, and economic development. By describing
these chains, international relations scholars de-center the studies on reciprocity and
explore the constitution of a world society. The chains of reciprocity are also very
helpful to enter into a dialog with the English School both analytically (extension of
the mechanisms that set up world society) and internally (contribution to the debate
between pluralists and solidarists).
Keywords
Chains of reciprocity, English School, intergenerational relations, international society,
Mauss, solidarity
*Sciences Po is a member of USPC.
Corresponding author:
Frédéric Ramel, Sciences Po, CERI, CNRS, 56, rue Jacob, 75006 Paris, France.
Email: frederic.ramel@sciencespo.fr
751514IPT0010.1177/1755088217751514Journal of International Political TheoryRamel
research-article2018
Article
166 Journal of International Political Theory 14(2)
La réciprocité n’est pas toujours l’égalité.
Mauss (1969: 301).
Introduction
In international relations (IR), neo-utilitarian theories have monopolized the analysis of
reciprocity for decades. Inspired by economy, rational choice approaches define states as
egoistic players. They insist on a form of reciprocity that could be described as specific:
that is, a situation in which partners have identified things of equivalent value and
exchange these in a limited period of time. Neo-liberalism and, more particularly,
Keohane’s research embody a second theory that deals with reciprocity. In 1986, he
reaches beyond the previous approach by integrating another form of reciprocity called
“diffused” meaning “to contribute one’s share, or behave well toward others, not because
of ensuing rewards from specific actors, but in the interests of continuing satisfactory
overall results for the group of which one is part, as a whole” (Keohane, 1986: 20).
This reciprocity grows in public spaces where a logic of obligation exists. Constructivists
tend to reject these approaches (Ruggie, 1992; Wendt, 1994). They provide a new interpre-
tation of diffuse reciprocity, which emerges only between agents who share the same norms
and values. They describe reciprocity as a mechanism that differs from a tit-for-tat logic.
However, both approaches are limited for two reasons. First, reciprocity is not yet
analyzed in its own right but rather as a component of other concepts, including trade
regimes such as the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade or multilateralism. Second,
the connection to classical sociology and anthropology as an explanation of this logic of
obligation concerning reciprocity is thin. For instance, in his well-known article on the
subject published by International Organization, Keohane (1986) quoted the French soci-
ologist Marcel Mauss only once without taking into account his substantial understanding
of reciprocity. Overall, IR theories suffer from reductionism when analyzing reciprocity.
They focus on symmetry and quantification of rights as the main dimensions of reciproc-
ity within a rationalist framework that stipulates equality. Thus, they display a rationalist
bias. Constructivist approaches are restricted insofar as diffuse reciprocity is linked to the
logic of appropriateness based on collective identifications (constructivist restriction).
However, as Marcel Mauss shows in his seminal book dedicated to the gift, reciproc-
ity is a fundamental social mechanism. The three obligations to give, to receive, and to
return or “the obligation to reciprocate” (Mauss, 2002 [1925]: 23) are the pillars in every
society. What does this mean? How may his approach enrich our understanding not only
of reciprocity in IR theory but also of international society?
Two further comments must be considered before addressing these questions. First of
all, it is Mauss’ intention to extend his observation of the mechanism of society based on
the gift beyond the archaic societies he deals with. He states that “we have found one of the
human foundations on which our societies are built” (Mauss, 2002 [1925]: 5). The social
mechanism of solidarity he detects in reciprocity is constant across societies. For Mauss,
archaic societies depict something more general or fundamental which concerns any soci-
ety.1 According to him, “the cycling gift system is the society” (Douglas, 2002: xi).
To continue reading
Request your trial