Reciprocity, hierarchy, and obligation in world politics: From Kula to Potlatch
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088217751753 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217751753
Journal of International Political Theory
2018, Vol. 14(2) 145 –164
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088217751753
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Reciprocity, hierarchy, and
obligation in world politics:
From Kula to Potlatch
John G Oates
Florida International University, USA
Eric Grynaviski
The George Washington University, USA
Abstract
The observation that agents and structures are co-constituted is now commonplace,
yet scholars continue to struggle to incorporate this insight. Rationalists tend to
overemphasize actors’ agency in the constitution of social order while constructivists
tend to overstate the degree to which structures determine action. This article uses
The Gift to rethink the agent–structure debate, arguing that the model of social relations
Mauss outlines in this work sheds new light on basic concepts in international relations
theory such as reciprocity, hierarchy, and obligation. Mauss’ social theory locates the
generative structure of social order in diffuse exchange relations, what he terms gift
exchange, and assumes that actors are both socially positioned within hierarchical
relations of exchange and reflexive agents who are able to understand and strive to
change those relations. In so doing, he avoids reducing social order to either deeply
internalized social norms or instrumental interests, navigating between agents and
structures to develop a more dynamic model of social relations. This model of social
order permits a richer understanding of hierarchy in world politics that appreciates the
experience of domination and the possibility of resistance. It also provides a distinct
understanding of the nature of social obligation and the “compliance pull” of social
norms, locating their force in the reflexive recognition by actors that they are dependent
on shared social relations for meaningful social agency. This points toward an ethics of
stewardship that opens up new perspectives on the duties that states and others owe
to each other, a duty grounded in an acknowledgment of our mutual vulnerability as
socially constituted agents.
Corresponding author:
John G Oates, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, SIPA RM 407, Miami, FL 33199, USA.
Email: jooates@fiu.edu
751753IPT0010.1177/1755088217751753Journal of International Political TheoryOates and Grynaviski
research-article2018
Article
146 Journal of International Political Theory 14(2)
Keywords
Agents, exchange, hierarchy, Marcel Mauss, obligation, reciprocity, structures
What are the potential contributions of Mauss’ essay The Gift for informing theoretical
debates about world politics? At first glance, there seem to be few uniquely Maussian
insights. Mauss’ central contributions in The Gift, especially related to the social nature
of exchange relations, have been incorporated into international relations (IR) scholar-
ship (Shilliam, 2013: 168) and political and social theory more generally (Granovetter,
1985; Polanyi, 1944; Sahlins, 1972). Onuf (2013), in particular, draws on Mauss’ work
to explore norms of hospitality and the practice of diplomacy in world politics (see also
Onuf, 2008: 464–466). In this sense, Mauss is already built into our disciplinary vocabu-
lary, making a return to Mauss’ original writings seem unnecessary. In fact, it may be
counterproductive because Mauss draws on materials from “archaic” societies whose
rituals and social systems are idealized and most likely misrepresented, with limited
application to international politics (Sampson, 2002).
We disagree. The benefit of returning to The Gift is that it presents a holistic under-
standing of systems of exchange that combines theoretical insights that later theorists
separated. The Gift is an early, important statement about the nature of exchange and its
role in supporting society. Mauss’ central contribution is the identification of relation-
ships between social and material exchange, and between structure and agency, that may
inform current debates in world politics. Whereas later theorists identify one or a few
elements within this holistic system (e.g. reciprocity) and turn that element into the cen-
tral feature of the social system, Mauss was interested in how the theoretical parts of the
whole work together. Doing so requires a more clear-sighted understanding of the rela-
tionships between agents and structures and between exchange and hierarchy.
We focus on two broad implications that Mauss’ perspective on social relations has
for IR theory. First, his model of gift exchange differentiates between two models of
exchange: kula and potlatch. The former describes exchange among equals and is similar
to prevailing models of exchange in IR. The latter, however, describes competitive
exchange by actors who occupy different social positions. This model of potlatch
exchange enriches our understanding of reciprocity in world politics by suggesting that
exchange may generate unequal social relations and hierarchies as often as it generates
relations of mutual recognition and joint gain. In doing so, it has the potential to enrich
our understandings of hierarchy and power in world politics. The second insight con-
cerns Mauss’ understanding of the relationship between agents and structures in the
reproduction of social order. He presents actors as reflexive agents, aware of the conse-
quences that their practices of exchange have for reproducing unequal social structures,
but he avoids overstating actors’ ability to transform those structures. Mauss’ approach
thus provides a richer understanding of social agency and the nature of social obligation,
offering a potential via media between rationalist and sociological approaches to hierar-
chy and social order present in IR scholarship.
The more important reason to return to Mauss, however, is normative. The implicit
social ontology in The Gift allows us to rethink foundational questions related to the
To continue reading
Request your trial