What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mental and the Material: Thought Economy and Society
Groundbreaking examination of the relationship between thought, economy and society.
What is the specificity of the human race within nature? How is its history to be explained? What impact do material realities, natural and man-made, have on human beings? What role does thought, in all its dimensions, play in the production of social relations? How are the human sciences to be advanced today? These are among the crucial questions confronted by Godelier in this key book of contemporary social theory. Its point of departure lies in a fact and a hypothesis. The fact: in contrast to other social animals, human beings do not just live in society; they produce society in order to live. The hypothesis: because they have the unique capacity to appropriate and transform nature, they produce culture and create history.
Drawing on his own extensive fieldwork and ranging over the most diverse ethnographic data, Godelier substantiates his case by attending to the analysis of both social relations of production and the production of social relations. In a sustained challenge to currently dominant schemas, he offers a series of highly original theses on the constitution, reproduction and transformation of societies, recasting the distinction between infrastructure and superstructures, illuminating the relations between economic determination and political/ideological dominance, and clarifying the character of ideology and its central role in the perpetuation of dominance and exploitation.
What is the specificity of the human race within nature? How is its history to be explained? What impact do material realities, natural and man-made, have on human beings? What role does thought, in all its dimensions, play in the production of social relations? How are the human sciences to be advanced today? These are among the crucial questions confronted by Godelier in this key book of contemporary social theory. Its point of departure lies in a fact and a hypothesis. The fact: in contrast to other social animals, human beings do not just live in society; they produce society in order to live. The hypothesis: because they have the unique capacity to appropriate and transform nature, they produce culture and create history.
Drawing on his own extensive fieldwork and ranging over the most diverse ethnographic data, Godelier substantiates his case by attending to the analysis of both social relations of production and the production of social relations. In a sustained challenge to currently dominant schemas, he offers a series of highly original theses on the constitution, reproduction and transformation of societies, recasting the distinction between infrastructure and superstructures, illuminating the relations between economic determination and political/ideological dominance, and clarifying the character of ideology and its central role in the perpetuation of dominance and exploitation.
272 pages, Paperback
First published April 11, 1984
8 people are currently reading
289 people want to read
About the author
Maurice Godelier
89 books41 followersOne of the most influential names in French anthropology who works as the Directeur d'études at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Best known as one of the earliest advocates of Marxism's incorporation into anthropology, he is also known for his field work among the Baruya in Papua New Guinea that spanned three decades from the 1960s to the 1980s.
Among the many honors he has received are the CNRS Gold Medal and the Alexander von Humboldt prize. His major works include The Making of Great Men, The Metamorphoses of Kinship, The Enigma of the Gift, In and Out of the West, and, more recently, Lévi-Strauss: A Critical Study of His Thought.
Among the many honors he has received are the CNRS Gold Medal and the Alexander von Humboldt prize. His major works include The Making of Great Men, The Metamorphoses of Kinship, The Enigma of the Gift, In and Out of the West, and, more recently, Lévi-Strauss: A Critical Study of His Thought.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 30, 2014
Unfortunately Godelier's writings often just sound like rants because of his (French academic) roundabout way of explaining things and the lack of structure in his essays, but this book makes tons of interesting arguments.
For example, one of the errors vulgar Marxists make is to assign all things 'material' to the base and all things 'mental' to the superstructure. Godelier shows (through various ethnographic examples) how mental conceptions can be part of the forces of production: the way a society conceives of its relationship to nature, the way it sees the act of labor, etc, even though these are based on magic/religion and seem like illusions to us. You also need mental conceptions in order to conceive of relations of production, whether these take the form of kin/political/religious relations.
This connects to his other main point, which is that the existence of the 'economy' as an institution separate from politics, kinship, religion, etc, is something peculiar to capitalist society. So when Louis Dumont says Marxism's 'economic determinism' is only applicable to capitalism, and that in other societies one might be moved by religious ideals he is partly right, because Marx wasn't talking about a hierarchy of institutions (the 'economy' determining 'politics') but a hierarchy of functions (relations of production determining...), whatever from these might take in our modern categories of 'institutions'. For example in Incan society, 'religion' was actually a collection of relations of production, organising the centralisation of produce to the cities as well as its redistribution through the direction of a priestly hierarchy culminating in the Inca, who communicated with God. Similarly, in Ancient Athens, relations of production took the form of 'politics', as you had to be a citizen in order to own land. Thus in the former, class struggle took the form of religious struggle, while in the latter it took the form of political struggle.
I also really enjoyed his polemic against Karl Polanyi at the end, showing how he opposed the universalisation of liberal economics, but never actually transcended it, accepting its methodology and its application to capitalism.
For example, one of the errors vulgar Marxists make is to assign all things 'material' to the base and all things 'mental' to the superstructure. Godelier shows (through various ethnographic examples) how mental conceptions can be part of the forces of production: the way a society conceives of its relationship to nature, the way it sees the act of labor, etc, even though these are based on magic/religion and seem like illusions to us. You also need mental conceptions in order to conceive of relations of production, whether these take the form of kin/political/religious relations.
This connects to his other main point, which is that the existence of the 'economy' as an institution separate from politics, kinship, religion, etc, is something peculiar to capitalist society. So when Louis Dumont says Marxism's 'economic determinism' is only applicable to capitalism, and that in other societies one might be moved by religious ideals he is partly right, because Marx wasn't talking about a hierarchy of institutions (the 'economy' determining 'politics') but a hierarchy of functions (relations of production determining...), whatever from these might take in our modern categories of 'institutions'. For example in Incan society, 'religion' was actually a collection of relations of production, organising the centralisation of produce to the cities as well as its redistribution through the direction of a priestly hierarchy culminating in the Inca, who communicated with God. Similarly, in Ancient Athens, relations of production took the form of 'politics', as you had to be a citizen in order to own land. Thus in the former, class struggle took the form of religious struggle, while in the latter it took the form of political struggle.
I also really enjoyed his polemic against Karl Polanyi at the end, showing how he opposed the universalisation of liberal economics, but never actually transcended it, accepting its methodology and its application to capitalism.
October 12, 2016
This is an anthropologist who also dares to be an economist, hence is in a privilaged position to trace the path of a comparative analysis of human beings’ material relations (our “economics” if you wish) in time and space, using the great wealth of anthropological (and historical) data available to him. This is a great book, and Gödelier is sure worth a reading.
The central thesis of the book is that ‘various social relations (kin, religion or politics) become dominant in society if they also inhabit the place of the infrastructure, i.e., if they simultaneously serve as the social relations of production.’ This is a thesis that surely sounds a Marxist one; supporting the idea that productive forces and relations of production has a determinant and primary position in the creation and reproduction of our social realities. In traditional Marxist writing, these latter are together called ‘infrastructures,’ the ‘heart’ of the social systems in place, over which various ‘superstructures’ are built. Traditional Marxism, in many ways, views society and the various social orders we live in as an ‘onion’ of sorts; a social and ideological crust (kin, religion and politics) wrapped around an ‘economic’ core. Gödelier does not reject the distinction between infrastructure and superstructure, but brings in new light to shed upon them, and challenges the usual understanding of the distinction.
His thesis rests on the critical turn that the hierarchy between infrastructure and superstructures can only be thought of as a hierarchy of functions , and not as a hierarchy of institutions. That is, the material conditions for life and the material reproduction of society have irreducably privileged positions in the production and reproduction of social reality. In this, Gödelier reaffirms the Marxist notion of the primacy of productive forces and relations of production. At the same time, though, the distinction between these ‘structures’ lose their descriptive power quite a bit, as it does not imply a hierarchy of human social institutions as such (for instance, it can never imply that the political or religious institutions are less important than institutions we can call 'economic', or that religion merely exists to support a given system of relations of production). The distinction, if you will, is itself buried deeper in theory. In the meantime, valuable insight is gained regarding the place of thought in the creation of our social realities, the origins of the state, on historical necessity (Marx) vs. historical contingency (Levi-Strauss), of the place of property in economic systems, and much more. What makes reading all of this a great pleasure is Gödelier's insistance on trying to represent the data and the evidence as truthfully as possible, without resorting to generalizations from single, specific case (too many authors have done precisely this). Hence, the difficulty of interpreting the available anthropological record is also laid bare before the reader's eyes.
There also lurks in the background the traces of a novel and original theory of ideology, one that is not followed towards its logical conclusion nearly enough, seemingly due to other preoccupations of Gödelier vis-a-vis the roles played by mental representations of reality in our social relations and relations with nature, as distinct from reality itself. This latter contribution is great in its own right, and I feel it opens up spaces for further study and elaboration on human relations and the various social realities we create and live in. It is also a brave effort to lunge into thinking about this, as it is not an easy terrain to navigate. Gödelier does very good, despite being somewhat disorganized.
The chapter on the relations of property in various human communities and societies (among hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists and ) should help those who are interested in property relations in various historical periods and different social structures (hunter-gatherers, nomadic shepherds, agriculturalists, etc). Her, Gödelier -spectacularly- defends the thesis that the relations of human beings with nature mirrors their relations among eachother; i.e., the treatment of nature is closely related to the treatment of other humans.
The chapter on Polanyi is a great review of the contributions and shortcomings of this great economist, and acknowledges the the place of Polanyi in heterodox economic thinking, if you will.
In each chapter, Gödelier is easy to read as the arguments flow well. The only difficulty is that the text lacks overall coherence. Each article, though, has loads to offer, but the book has some difficulty in remaning a cohesive whole. Some ideas that are easier to defend seems to have been repeated as a "central hypothesis", but the book contains much more than those analysis that defend these theses directly. This makes the overall reading of the book a bit of an odd experience, but the task is completely worth the rewards.
I strongly recommend the book to anyone who is interested in the possibilities of thought provided by the intersecting of anthropology and economics. Also, you do not have to intend a complete reading; at least read the preface and decide if the rest is also for you.
The central thesis of the book is that ‘various social relations (kin, religion or politics) become dominant in society if they also inhabit the place of the infrastructure, i.e., if they simultaneously serve as the social relations of production.’ This is a thesis that surely sounds a Marxist one; supporting the idea that productive forces and relations of production has a determinant and primary position in the creation and reproduction of our social realities. In traditional Marxist writing, these latter are together called ‘infrastructures,’ the ‘heart’ of the social systems in place, over which various ‘superstructures’ are built. Traditional Marxism, in many ways, views society and the various social orders we live in as an ‘onion’ of sorts; a social and ideological crust (kin, religion and politics) wrapped around an ‘economic’ core. Gödelier does not reject the distinction between infrastructure and superstructure, but brings in new light to shed upon them, and challenges the usual understanding of the distinction.
His thesis rests on the critical turn that the hierarchy between infrastructure and superstructures can only be thought of as a hierarchy of functions , and not as a hierarchy of institutions. That is, the material conditions for life and the material reproduction of society have irreducably privileged positions in the production and reproduction of social reality. In this, Gödelier reaffirms the Marxist notion of the primacy of productive forces and relations of production. At the same time, though, the distinction between these ‘structures’ lose their descriptive power quite a bit, as it does not imply a hierarchy of human social institutions as such (for instance, it can never imply that the political or religious institutions are less important than institutions we can call 'economic', or that religion merely exists to support a given system of relations of production). The distinction, if you will, is itself buried deeper in theory. In the meantime, valuable insight is gained regarding the place of thought in the creation of our social realities, the origins of the state, on historical necessity (Marx) vs. historical contingency (Levi-Strauss), of the place of property in economic systems, and much more. What makes reading all of this a great pleasure is Gödelier's insistance on trying to represent the data and the evidence as truthfully as possible, without resorting to generalizations from single, specific case (too many authors have done precisely this). Hence, the difficulty of interpreting the available anthropological record is also laid bare before the reader's eyes.
There also lurks in the background the traces of a novel and original theory of ideology, one that is not followed towards its logical conclusion nearly enough, seemingly due to other preoccupations of Gödelier vis-a-vis the roles played by mental representations of reality in our social relations and relations with nature, as distinct from reality itself. This latter contribution is great in its own right, and I feel it opens up spaces for further study and elaboration on human relations and the various social realities we create and live in. It is also a brave effort to lunge into thinking about this, as it is not an easy terrain to navigate. Gödelier does very good, despite being somewhat disorganized.
The chapter on the relations of property in various human communities and societies (among hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists and ) should help those who are interested in property relations in various historical periods and different social structures (hunter-gatherers, nomadic shepherds, agriculturalists, etc). Her, Gödelier -spectacularly- defends the thesis that the relations of human beings with nature mirrors their relations among eachother; i.e., the treatment of nature is closely related to the treatment of other humans.
The chapter on Polanyi is a great review of the contributions and shortcomings of this great economist, and acknowledges the the place of Polanyi in heterodox economic thinking, if you will.
In each chapter, Gödelier is easy to read as the arguments flow well. The only difficulty is that the text lacks overall coherence. Each article, though, has loads to offer, but the book has some difficulty in remaning a cohesive whole. Some ideas that are easier to defend seems to have been repeated as a "central hypothesis", but the book contains much more than those analysis that defend these theses directly. This makes the overall reading of the book a bit of an odd experience, but the task is completely worth the rewards.
I strongly recommend the book to anyone who is interested in the possibilities of thought provided by the intersecting of anthropology and economics. Also, you do not have to intend a complete reading; at least read the preface and decide if the rest is also for you.
June 5, 2014
Big questions in anthropology, economics, history-- Primacy of... ideas and/or behavior; universals and/or particulars; social relations and/or social consciousness; or as he handily phrases the problematic of the Mental and the Material. References from the classic fieldwork ethnography's of the 20th century among "others"-- hunter-gatherering, pastoral nomads, peasants ,slave societies in contemporary, medieval, and ancient worlds. Is the formal analytic framework of the "market" developed by Smith, Ricardo et al, accepted and critiqued by Marx useful for understanding all modes of production and social formation? Great intro to work of Karl Polanyi (1880-1960 or so) who , along with a generation of students answered the question with a substantial and loud NO. Great history of economic thought and debate.
September 4, 2024
so interesting, surprisingly i enjoy anthropology a lot
Read
January 29, 2017The work Suffers from the use of Marxist categories, which requires one to maim
the subject, to force it into that scheme.
the subject, to force it into that scheme.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews