BANKS+Questioning+A+Text

= =

= Text questioned: Graeber, David. 2011. //Debt//   // : the First 5,000 Years //. Brooklyn N.Y.: Melville House. =

**__ What is the text about – Empirically? __**
What phenomenon is drawn out in the text? A social process; a cultural and political- economic shift; a cultural “infrastructure;” an emergent assemblage of science-culture- technology-economics?

The author is mainly interested in tracing a history (at times it also seems like an archaeology) of debt. How does debt, as a concept but also as a technology of high finance, get entangled in ideas of morality and trust? How did our current conception of debt, and our methods of quantifying it come to be? Who benefits and what are its consequences?

Where is this phenomenon located – in a neighborhood, in a country, in “Western Culture,” in a globalizing economy?

The most interesting part of the book is the “location” of debt. Debt shows up in ancient Vedic texts, the Bible, small villages in present-day Madagascar and ancient Macedonia. One gets a sense, however, that the investigation of debt in all of these locales are in service of understanding debt owed by third world nations to organizations like The World Bank, and individuals’ debts in “The West” to large banks.

What historical trajectory is the phenomenon situated within? What, in the chronology provided or implied, is emphasized -- the role of political or economic forces, the role of certain individuals or social groups? What does the chronology leave out or discount?

The text searches for one of the first mentions of debt: “We can observe the process [of controlling debt] in the very earliest records from ancient Mesopotamia; it finds its first philosophical expression in the Vedas, reappears in endless forms through out recorded history, and still lies underneath the essential fabric of our institutions today… (P. 14)” Emphasis is put on ritual and shared practices embedded in cultural norms. Leaves out a good deal of recent events but explicitly refers readers to other texts like Harvey’s //Neoliberalism// and Klein’s //Shock Doctrine.//

What scale(s) are focused on -- nano (i.e. the level of language), micro, meso, macro? What empirical material is developed at each scale?

It’s mostly a macro level text in that he compares and makes connections across meso-level cases that have very different geographic and temporal boundaries. He also takes up foundational texts and looks to reveal their falsities, try to explain their general appeal, or point out what parts get forgotten. For example, he quotes //Wealth of Nations// as well as present-day Economics 101 textbooks at length, debunking the popular idea that barter preceded cash-based economies. The meso-level cases are usually a synthesis of previous scholarly work but the macro connections are his. By noting that the anthropological record does not show any instance of barter as described by Smith or Econ 101 textbooks, Graeber is able to discuss the rhetorical work the false history does (makes capitalism seem inevitable) and provides a compelling backdrop for his own historical analysis.

Who are the players in the text and what are their relations? Does the text trace how these relations have changed across time – because of new technologies, for example?

The “players” are very diverse but it is generally those in authority that control resources, armies, legitimate use of force, and concepts of morality. There are lots of different changes but the over-arching shift is from small debts with approximate value that get periodically erased, to large debts with very specific values and rates of interest, that never go away. “A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence.” (P.391)

What is the temporal frame in which players play? In the wake of a particular policy, disaster or other significant “event?” In the general climate of the Reagan era, or of “after-the-Wall” globalization?

The book really does try to detail the first 5,000 years of debt (and at 534 pages, it does a thorough job) but the entire book is unmistakably a product of the 2008 Great Recession. It opens with an anecdote involving the global jubilee to eliminate third world debt and some comments on the 2008 Global Great Recession.

What cultures and social structures are in play in the text?

A great deal of the text is devoted to explaining the roles of various religious institutions as the centers of finance as well as worship. Temples in Ancient China, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Greece and Rome were large bureaucracies that brokered trade and acted as central banks for a good deal of major transactions. In what Graeber calls the “Age of The Great Capitalist Empires” that range from 1450-1971 he shows how states and monarchs to stronger control over monetary systems in order to control and maintain militaries.

What kinds of practices are described in the text? Are players shown to be embedded in structural contradictions or double-binds?

Graeber focuses a lot on structure, and some of these create double binds. For example, one long-standing debate across many cultures states asks the question, “Who is worse? The debtor or the creditor?” Proverbs and religious texts seem to contradict themselves quite a bit on this point. Debt keeps people together because it ties others’ well-being to your own, but underlying most debt arrangements are implicit threats of violence.

How are science and technology implicated in the phenomenon described? What structural conditions– technological, legal and legislative, political, cultural – are highlighted, and how are they shown to have shaped the phenomenon described in this text?

Economists have obviously spent a lot of time crafting very precise and utopian models of society and individuals. Their origin myth of barter giving way to capitalism is a sort of historical materialism (Graeber does not describe it in this way but it seems to fit) that situates capitalism as an invention on par with the wheel or agriculture. This naturalization of capitalism contributes heavily to its legitimacy.

How – at different scales, in different ways – is power shown to operate? Is there evidence of power operating through language, “discipline,” social hierarchies, bureaucratic function, economics, etc?

Best answered through example: In order to raise and maintain large standing armies without also carrying heavy stores of food and supplies, it was popular for thousands of years to distribute coinage to soldiers immediately after conquering a land. The conquering general would announce that a tax would be collected from the newly conquered in several days and could only be paid in the coins held by the officers. The officers exchanged these coins for food and services. Taxes were usually things paid by conquered people, not citizens. Graeber writes, “Even within the Persian Empire, Persians did not have to pay tribute to the Great King, but the inhabitants of conquered provinces did. The same was true in Rome, where for a very long time, Roman citizens not only paid no taxes but had a right to a share of the tribute levied on others, in the form of the dole-the "bread" part of the famous ‘bread and circuses.’” (P. 63) In smaller communities, debt is seen as a way of including new families into the community. Gifts are bestowed on the household not because those specific items are useful, but because it established a debt that could later be paid. To reciprocate a gift of equal value was a big snub because it mean you wanted nothing to do with them.

Does the text provide comparative or systems level perspectives? In other words, is the particular phenomenon described in this text situated in relation to similar phenomenon in other settings? Is this particular phenomena situated within global structures and processes?

Debt is a global and transcendental phenomenon, so it is much more a “particular phenomena situated within global structures and processes” than anything else. But if we were to see the text as comparing present-day concepts of debt to all the other conceptualization of debt, then the entire text is one long comparative study.

**__ What is the text about – conceptually? __**
Is the goal to verify, challenge or extend prior theoretical claims?

It challenges popular conceptions of (and the relationship between) debt and morality. It extends, through connecting, existing anthropological and historical claims about the economic relationships between people.

What is the main conceptual argument or theoretical claim of the text? Is it performed, rendered explicit or both?

That debt is fundamental to human interaction and not simply a thing that irresponsible people accrue too much of. It is a name for an intermediary step in a fundamental action i.e. exchanging things. Our current debt regime looks very different from the way it has been in the past and it is

What ancillary concepts are developed to articulate the conceptual argument? How is empirical material used to support or build the conceptual argument?

Through showing the sheer multitude of debt arrangements and how debt has been organized, forgiven, and paid we see that the very concept itself is simultaneously fundamental to human society and not nearly as bracketed as we typically think.

How robust is the main conceptual argument of the text? On what grounds could it be challenged?

It could, and I believe has, be challenged on the basis that he is comparing apples and oranges. Also, (to add another fruit metaphor) he cherry picks examples to suit his thesis. One cannot take the Celtic systems of debt tallying and compare it to Seneca Longhouse in any productive way. Or, there might be prior histories or examples where debt is treated like it is today. I still find his work compelling because he is not making claims towards one-to-one correlation or that the concept of debt is the same. In fact quite the opposite: by simply displaying all of these forms of reciprocity and the morality it defines, is enough to support his argument. The very existence of these recorded events, once shown side-by-side is a compelling argument towards his theory of debt.

How could the empirical material provided support conceptual arguments //other than those// built in the text?

One could argue that social institutions and organizations become, fundamentally, less likely to be egalitarian as they grow. Graeber seems to assume this or take it as possible consequence of his conclusions, but never makes explicit mention of it.

__** Modes of inquiry? **__
What theoretical edifice provides the (perhaps haunting – i.e. non-explicit) backdrop to the text?

The author is known mainly for his anarchist-inspired writing like //Direct Action: An Ethnography// but this text seems to keep the anarchist utopian thinking in a kind of paranormal state: that is just outside of his academic treatment of the case. More on this in the “Where is Theory” question.

What assumptions appear to have shaped the inquiry? Does the author assume that individuals are rational actors, for example, or assume that the unconscious is a force to be dealt with? Does the author assume that the “goal” of society is (functional) stability?

He does seem to have a Rousseauian conception of the basic nature of humans. That when they are freed from basic needs and do not see gross inequality they are generally peaceful. To that end, he sees relative equality of socioeconomic standing as desirable and something to work toward.

Does the author assume that what is most interesting occurs with regularity, or is she interested in the incidental and deviant?

Graeber’s analysis is highly dependent on the regular and the specific. While his unit of analysis is very macro, and the case studies are meso, he is intensely interested in the mundane and every day: “If we really want to understand the moral grounds of economic life, and by extension, human life, it seems to me that we must start instead with the very small things: the every­ day details of social existence, the way we treat our friends, enemies, and children-often with gestures so tiny (passing the salt, bumming a cigarette) that we ordinarily never stop to think about them at all. Anthropology has shown us just how different and numerous are the ways in which humans have been known to organize themselves. But it also reveals some remarkable commonalities-fundamental moral principles that appear to exist everywhere, and that will always tend to be invoked, wherever people transfer objects back and forth or argue about what other people owe them.” (P.89)

What kinds of data (ethnographic, experimental, statistical, etc.) are used in the text, and how were they obtained?

The text relies on ethnographic and historical data, largely taken from studies already done. Seems as though some primary archival research was done, and is compared situated within accounts of daily life. For example: “There were also payments for injury: if one wounds a man's cheek, one pays his honor price plus the price of the injury. (A blow to the face was, for obvious reasons, particularly egregious.) The problem was how to calculate the injury, since this varied according to both the physical damage and status of the injured party. Here, Irish jurists developed the ingenious expedient of measuring different wounds with different varieties of grain: a cut on the king's cheek was measured in grains of wheat, on that of a substantial farmer in oats, on that of a smallholder merely in peas. One cow was paid for each.” (P. 173)

If interviews were conducted, what kinds of questions were asked? What does the author seem to have learned from the interviews?

N/A

How was the data analyzed? If this is not explicit, what can be inferred? How are people, objects or ideas aggregated into groups or categories? What additional data would strengthen the text?

Methods of analysis were not obvious. Seems as though it was mainly archival and library research. Might have been strengthened by original research on present-day global or consumer debt issues. Then again, he makes explicit reference to other books, which he feels do the subject justice.

What is in the introduction? Does the introduction turn around unanswered questions -- in other words, are we told how this text embodies a //research// project?
 * __ Structure and performance? __**

The introduction starts with a conversation between the author and an activist lawyer that are introduced at a party. They begin to discuss third world debt and, despite her progressive politics, is insistent that “one should always pay their debts.” Even when he brought up the fact that most of these countries never benefitted from IMF and World Bank loans because they were taken out and kept by tyrannical dictators who are long dead, she remained steadfast in this one commitment. The book is an inquiry into that powerful belief that debt and morality are closely and inextricably linked.

Where is theory in the text? Is the theoretical backdrop to the text explained, or assumed to be understood?

The text is very light on theory. The “backdrop” consists of an implicit acceptance of the authority of ethnography and the anthropological record. Graeber is an anarchist but anarchist theory hides mostly in the endnotes. Anarchism seems much more of a motivating force for inquiry than an explanatory tool. Chapter 5, which he titles “A Brief Treatise on the Moral Grounds of Economic Relations,” contains the most theory. Here he runs through social exchange theory and various works on communism (not Communism), hierarchy, and mutual aid. He concludes that “a world without debt revert to primordial chaos.” (P. 126)

What is the structure of the discourse in the text? What binaries recur in the text, or are conspicuously avoided?

There are debtors and creditors, but that distinction actually does little discursive or conceptual work. Graeber mentions the prominence and subsequent fall of Levi-Strauss’s three realms of trade (ideas through language, women through kinship, and things through trade) but quickly dismisses it as far too simplistic and universalizing.

How is the historical trajectory delineated? Is there explicit chronological development?

In trying to trace a history of debt, there is certainly a chronological path. Graeber is careful, however to draw causal relationships through long periods of time.

How is the temporal context provided or evoked in the text?

The first seven chapters rely on unconnected vignettes that rely on a sort of self-contained context. Graeber might say, “Consider the case of Neil Bush (George W.'s brother) who, during divorce proceedings with his wife, admitted to multiple infidelities with women who, he claimed, would mysteriously appear at his hotel-room door after important business meetings in Thailand and Hong Kong. (P. 127) And might later mention: “It's not as if it is ordinary for fathers in traditional societies to be able to sell their children. This is a practice with a very specific his­ tory: it appears in the great agrarian civilizations, from Sumer to Rome to China, right around the time when we also start to see evidence of money, markets, and interest-bearing loans; later, more gradually, it also appears in those surrounding hinterlands that supplied those civilizations with slaves. (P. 129) Chapters eight through twelve are much more methodical. Eight highlights the cyclic popularity of bullion and credit-based economies. The last four chapters are one long history of debt, in chronological order, broken into four major time periods, The Axial Age (800 BC – 600AD), The Middle Ages (600AD - 1450AD), Age of the Great Capitalist Empires (1450AD – 1971AD) and (1971- The Beginning of Something Yet to be Determined).

How does the text specify the cultures and social structures in play in the text?

It seems as though anything is fair game. He is seeking out wide variety of examples of debt systems, so the cultures and social structures in play are all those that have something unique to “say” about debt.

How are informant perspectives dealt with and integrated?

Informants are mainly dealt with through existing texts. Original research is mainly document-based.

How does the text draw out the implications of science and technology? At what level of detail are scientific and technological practices described?

Engaging in debt-like relationships is described in effuse detail, but the implications are actually very clear and unqualified. See “what new knowledge is put into circulation?”

How does the text provide in-depth detail – hopefully without losing readers?

By skipping to lots of different examples relatively frequently, Graeber breaks up the monotony. He’s also unafraid to add a few glib asides or amusing anecdotes to illustrate somewhat dull or disturbing points. (See aforementioned answer no Neil Bush.) There’s also a strong emphasis in the beginning that something really important and fundamental has been lost or forgotten. It makes you want to find out who done it: “Rarely has an historical theory been so absolutely and systematically refuted. By the early decades of the twentieth century, all the pieces were in place to completely rewrite the history of money.“ (P. 40)

What is the layout of the text? How does it move, from first page to last? Does it ask for other ways of reading? Does the layout perform an argument?

The text has the feel of one of those “big theory” texts that are no longer seen as appropriate. The book’s first four chapters try to reconstitute the different concepts of debt (beyond the financial forms we usually think of today) before delivering a Treatise in chapter 5 (See “Where is Theory?”). Six and seven focus on major themes of debt that are not explicitly monetary: sex, death, honor, and degradation. This helps the reader understand and appreciate the history that fills the second half of the book. (See “temporal context” question.)

What kinds of visuals are used, and to what effect? What kind of material and analysis are in the footnotes?

There are no visuals with the exception of some reproduced kinship diagrams from early anthropological studies of the Tiv. The end notes are endlessly rewarding and interesting. They usually tell amusing anecdotes, dive deeply into very specific concepts (which can be hit or miss depending on your interests), or provide editorials from the author about the state of anthropology or his personal opinions on some authors, “Nietzsche had clearly been reading too much Shakespeare….” (P. 402)

How is the criticism of the text performed? If through overt argumentation, who is the “opposition”?

The opposition seems to be mainline economics and finance. You get the sense that Graeber believes that such an important and fundamental concept has been hijacked and used to gain power and wealth while prohibiting others from engaging in informal debt relationships. The text seems like an anecdote or a process of “revealing.”

How does the text situate itself? In other words, how is reflexivity addressed, or not?

The book feels book-ended with reflexivity. Graeber situates the book as an effort to understand our present relationship with debt. The majority of the text is on a sort of fact-finding mission that should probably make me suspicious. The text could stand to be a little more self questioning.

**__ Circulation? __**
Who is the text written for? How are arguments and evidence in the text shaped to address particular audiences?

The text seems written for the average educated professional class as an attempt to enrich thinking around debt and basic economic relations. I feel as though he wrote this as a gift to the NGO class. That it basically speaks to the lawyer that he was speaking with at the very beginning of the book.

What all audiences can you imagine for the text, given its empirical and conceptual scope?

The book is very readable (yet long) and anyone who would be interested in a 500 page book on Debt would be able to understand its contents. Some chapters (especially the first 5) standalone quite well and would be suitable for advanced undergraduate study. It isn’t meant for professional economists or anthropologists although both would find the text productive.

What new knowledge does this text put into circulation? What does this text have to say that otherwise is //not obvious//?

It deeply undermines the arguments around gold standards and other radical fiscal programs prescribed by “debt hawks.” It shows that cash economies are largely a system to maintain standing armies, reduce close ties between individuals and establish national character. Debt is not necessarily a bad thing; it is mostly “what happens when some balance has yet been restored.” (P.91) Or “an exchange that has not been brought to completion.” (P. 121) Large debts that are held by very large organizations are typically not morally, ethically, or even economically, productive. For most of human history these sorts of extreme debt consolidation were seen as structural accounting errors that accrue over time and must be periodically eliminated or radically redistributed.

How generalizable is the main argument? How does this text lay the groundwork for further research?

The argument is extremely transportable. The conclusion that debt is not fundamentally a measure of morality is so basic that it can be used to rethink everything from student loan debt to global trade.

What kind of “action” is suggested by the main argument of the text?

Graeber is very explicit in his singular call to action: “In this book I have largely avoided making concrete proposals, but let me end with one. It seems to me that we are long overdue for some kind of Biblical-style jubilee: one that would affect both international debt and consumer debt. It would be salutary not just because it would relive so much genuine human suffering, but also because it would be our way of remind ourselves that money is not ineffable, that paying one’s debts is not the essence of morality, that all these things are human arrangements and that if democracy is to mean anything, it is the ability to agree to arrange things in a different way.” (P.390)