Professional Documents
Culture Documents
rs
e-mail: office@cigoja.com
500
ISBN 978-86-7891-047-0
2009
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Homo economicus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
24
27
35
46
54
59
63
70
. . . . . . . . . . 83
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
112
122
131
153
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
, ,
,
,
. ,
,
,
,
. .
()
.
, , 19. .
,
, ,
, , . , ,
,
,
.1
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
1
1982).
(Mos
,
(Barnett 1938: 349). , -
(Mos 1982: 18).
, , ,
.
(Malinovski 1972), : (Mos
1982).
,
, .
,
, .
,
, , :
,
?
,
,
,
20. , .
, ( ) ,
, ( . Billig
2000). , ,
,
, .
,
,
, , () , .
1. ?
, . ,
,
.
. , ,
,
,
, .
, ,
, ,
.
.
,
.
,
. ,
10
,
,
,
.
,
,
, , , , .
,
, ,
. ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
, ,
.
,
20.
, .
,
, .
.
11
,
,
,
status quo,
, ,
. ,
, , , ,
,
( .
LeClair 1962: 1190).
2.
,
. :
?
,
.
,
.
19. 20. ,
,
, ( 1968).
,
. , ,
. ,
19.
. ,
12
,
,
. 2
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
,
( 2006: 103104), . 20. , .
.
, 20. , :
. ,
, .
,
. ,
. ,
. 1987. .
13
, . , // / , , . ,
, , , . ( 2006:
162)
, ,
, , .... ,
,
().
, , ,
/ ,
, ,
.
, ,
. , , ,
.
() . ,
.
, ,
. , -
14
, .
. ,
. , ,
.
,
. ,
, , ,
.
. ( 1907), ,
.
,
.
.
3
.
, ( 44).
.
,
, ,
, , .
3
, ,
, ,
, ( ) .
15
.
,
, ,
. .
( . Kovaevi 1987; 2000)
.
,
ad hoc . , . ,
,
(145149)
,
.
,
, ,
. ,
.
, , , ,
.
,
.
,
.
, .
16
, , .
, (
).
, ,
( 1913). , .
,
,
.
, ,
, . , ,
(146),
.
.
(168), ,
. , ,
(360),
.
, ,
( 1909)
( )
.
, .
,
17
.
. , ,
. , , ,
. ,
, (, ),
;
()
. ,
, . , (
) ,
.
, ,
. . .
,
.
, , ,
( : 1998).
, ,
1995. 2008. . ,
.
18
:
, ,
( ).
, .
, . in situ,
, , .
, ,
,
.
. ,
. , (
), ,
, , , ,
, ,
. ,
, .
.
( 2006: 169171),
,
19
.
.
,
. , .
, ,
- .
4
, ,
.
.
: ,
. ,
, , ,
,
, .
, , , ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
., .
4
(
), , 60 70%
. ,
,
50 60 . .
20
,
,
(Mos 1982: 214) ,
. ,
,
. ,
, ,
,
( - ) ,
.
.
,
.
, ,
.
, ,
. ,
. ,
.
( 2000) , .
,
. , ,
,
.
, -
21
,
,
.
,
.
, ,
. , ,
, ,
, . ,
( ),
,
. , .
.
. , ,
,
, , . ,
.
, ,
, ,
. ,
: , -
22
, , . ,
.
, ,
. , (Billig 2000) .
,
- .
.
,
,
.
, , , ,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
23
, ,
. ,
.
.
. ,
,
, . ,
,
. ,
. , . ,
,
,
, ( ) .
24
1.
(Firth 1967), , . , ,
,
. , ,
, , , , , .
,
.
,
. , ,
.
1927. (Firth 1927: 312)
,
, , .
(314)
.
.
. ,
,
, ,
, . , . ,
,
(). , , ,
25
.
,
. , ,
.
.
, , , , (Firth 1927).
, , .
,
. , ( )
,
. , , .
. , 20. . ( : Salisbury 1973)
, , , . , , (Dalton
1969: 63) 1969.
, ,
, (. ,
, , ,
) . , .
. ,
26
. ( . Redfield 1969:
522; Lee 1993.). ,
, , ,
, . , ,
. , ,
, , ,
. 1961. (Dalton 1961: 19)
. (Dalton 1969: 63)
. , , .
, ,
,
.
, , ,
.5 , 5
.
.
,
, . ,
. ,
.
27
,
,
,
.
2. Homo economicus
(Billig 2000: 773) , ,
, .
,
-
-. ,
19. .
,
.
, homo economicus.
, .
, , , ;
, (Dozier 1955: 188). , , , , , , (
)
.
,
. ,
, , , ,
.
28
, , ,
( : Pearson 2000: 934).
(Persky 1995: 222), ,
, , 19. ,
.
1888. .6
19. , . ,
, . , , ,
.
(Mill 1844).
,
(Mill 1844). ,
,
. , .
, ,
, . .
, .
( ).
, 6
homo economicus , 1906.
.
29
, ,
.
,
, , , , ,
.
,
,
?
, . circulus vitiosus
. ,
. , ,
( : Persky 1995: 227). ,
, , , , . ,
.
.
,
, , ,
. , , ,
, (Persky 1995: 223).
( . Pearson 2000), homo economicus (homo sapiens)
. Homo economicus
30
.
, .
,
. ,
( ?) .
.
(Jenks 1902: 202), ,
(), . ,
.
, , , ,
.
homo economicus ,
,
.
,
. . ,
,
()
, , ,
. ,
. ,
,
, .
, -
31
.
. , homo economicus
,
,
. ,
, : () ,
, ;
.
homo
economicus . , ,
,
. , ,
,
. , , ()
.
(Pearson 2000) ,
, ,
,
homo economicus- homo sapiens-. , , .
,
. (Pearson 2000)
32
.
.
() ,
. ,
20. ,
homo economicus
.
,
,
,
. , .
, . ,
, .
, , , .
.
.
,
. ,
.
,
,
.
.
, ,
homo economicus- , . , ,
. , (Pearson 2000: 951).
.
,
. -
33
, ,
, .
.
,
( . Firth
1927). , - ,
,
.
, , , , ()
( ) . , ,
,
( . Bourdieu 1986;
Bourdieu 1999: 336338).
, ,
,
, , .
,
,
(. , , .), , ,
, , . (Pearson 2000:
957958). , , .
. . , ,
, , ,
( : Wolf 1966: 8189).
,
, -
34
,
,
.
(Pearson 2000: 960). (Firth 1925: 360), ,
, (Mos 1982)
, .
, , . , ,
, , ,
. ,
( ).
. , ,
( : Pearson 2000: 965).
, , , ,
. , (Mos 1982: 55 ) . ,
. (91103)
, . , , ,
, .
,
.
homo economicus- (Herskovits 1952: 488) -
35
, (Firth 1967).
, ,
.
. ( )
.
()
. homo economicus,
, , .
, ,
(: Knight 1952: 512). Homo economicus
homo sapiens-,
.
3.
.
.
. ,
, 20. , .
homo economicus, ,
36
.
. 7 () ,
.
.
,
, .
, , ,
,
.
,
, (
). , , , (Dalton 1961: 5).
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
7
subsistance . , , ;
subsistentia , , .
37
38
, ,
.
, .
, ,
, , ,
. ,
. , . ,
,
() , ,
. , , .
(Burling 1962: 819), ,
,
.
,
.
, ,
, .
.
. ,
.
. ,
.
, ,
39
( : Stigler
1946: 64). 20.
(Persky 1995), ,
.
, . ,
.
, ,
19. ,
. ,
homo economicus. , (
).
, . (: Dalton 1961; Dalton 1969;
LeClair 1962).
. , ,
.
,
( 1944. ),
, .
(, ) .
(Polanyi 1959: 162).
.
, .
,
40
. (Dalton 1961: 56)
.
, , ,
.
. ,
,
.
. .
( ) .
, , . (Isacc 2005)
, , ,
. (Polanyi
1944: 4647)
,
, . ,
.
, , .
, , , .
. ,
. ,
.
(Polanyi 1944)
( ). ,
41
. , ,
, . ,
.
.
(Dalton 1969: 7273) .
, , .
, ,
.
,
, ,
.
.
, ,
, .
,
. , , .
(
),
, .
(LeClair 1962: 1190)
.
.
.
,
,
.
. , ,
.
42
.
, . ,
. ,
,
( : Dalton 1969), .
.
,
. ( )
, ,
.
,
, , , , (Cook 1966: 338),
. , 20. ,
, . ,
.
.
, (Firth 1967; 2).
, ,
, .
, , ,
43
44
, , , . , , , , ,
.
, , : , ,
, .
. , , , , ,
, .
(Burling 1962)
.
(Isacc 2005). , ,
, ,
.
,
-
(Dalton 1961: 6).
(Burling 1962: 802803), ,
. .
, ,
. , .
, , , , .
45
. , ,
.
,
: () , : , : , : , : . ,
:
,
,
,
. ,
,
, . ,
,
.
?
(Onorati 2007: 2).
(LeClair 1962: 1181)
, ,
,
.
, . , 20.
19. .
,
20. . ,
46
, ,
,
,
.
, . ,
20. . .
(Isacc 2005).
20.
, ,
(: Orlove 1986; Salisbury
1973; Sahlins 1972; Gudeman 1978) .
4.
,
, ,
, , , , ,
, . ,
,
,
. ,
.
47
, . , , , ,
.
,
,
. (Pearce 1986: 263)
,
. (Lie 1997:
342) ,
, .
. ,
, .
, , (Mos 1982: 11) ,
, () . (142187) ,
,
,
, - .
, (Dalton 1961)
.
, , . . , ,
.
,
(Geertz 1978). -
48
. ,
,
. , , , , , .
(Dalton 1965: 5152). (. , ) .
, ,
. , , .
, , , , . , , , ,
, , , .
.
,
,
.
, .
, ; ,
.
.
,
.
.
,
, ... :
, ...
(Dalton 1961: 14).
.
, -
49
. ,
. , .
.
, ,
,
.
. . . ,
,
, . , , ( ),
. , , ,
, , ,
.
, .
(Dalton 1961: 2), .
, , ,
. , ,
()
, , .
,
.
, ,
() (Dalton 1969).
, ,
, ,
.
50
, ,
.
( )
.
.
, ,
, . (Dalton 1961: 2)
, , ,
.
, , . 19.
,
.
,
.
. ,
.
. ,
,
. ,
,
. ,
,
, .
,
, -
51
.
(Dalton 1961: 8)
. , ,
.
(Dalton 1961: 9)
,
.
() . (Polanyi 1944: 47) ,
, ,
(. ),
.
.
(Polanyi 1944; : Cook 1966; Burling 1962)
. . , .
, .
, . ,
;
.
,
(49), . , .
( )
(, , ) , -
52
. , ,
.
, ,
, , .
, . , . , ,
, , .
,
, , .
, (4950)
, , . , , ,
.
.
, (Cook 1966: 328)
,
. , , ,
,
, ,
,
.
,
.
, , . , , , , ,
, ,
. , , ,
.
53
?
, ,
( ). ,
( : Sahlins 1969, Mos 1982).
, ,
. ,
,
,
, (:
Gudeman 1978: 365).
, ,
.
. ,
. , ,
, ,
. . ,
, ,
, ( )
.
( ,
)
( : Malinovski 1979; Mos
1982; Klastr 2004). , (
)
, .
,
, .
.
54
(: Cohen 1967; Gudeman 1978),
.
,
.
, , , .
5.
.
,
? , , , ,
?
,
,
. , , , .
, ,
. .
, ,
.
, () ,
() , .
, . , ,
, , ,
.
55
,
.
.
, ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
. , ,
, , .
.
, (Dalton 1965: 44)
. : ( ,
, .), , , . , , .
.
, (Malinowski 1921: 1314),
:
, , ;
. . (Malinovski 1979),
, , , ,
. ,
, ,
. , , ,
56
,
.
, .
, ( : Dalton 1965: 45). (46)
, : () ,
() , ()
() . ,
,
( ), . (Douglas 1967: 120)
,
, .
,
(Dalton 1965: 4647), ,
. ,
,
. .
()
,
, .
. , ,
. .
. (4748)
( ), -
57
.
, .
. , ( )
.
. , ,
.
, , . , ,
. ,
.
, ,
,
( : Douglas 1967; Barth 1967).
. ,
,
, , .
. ,
(.
) . . ,
. ,
. .
(Douglas 1967)
-
58
.
,
, . , ,
, .
,
. , .
.
.
, . ,
.
, .
, .
.
.
,
. (131), (, , ...).
, . , , ,
, ,
. , .
-
59
, ,
. , ,
. ,
. ,
,
. , ,
.
.
, ,
.
,
(: Mos 1982).
, . , , .
,
, . ( )
(Dalton 1965).
6.
, ,
. , ,
,
. , . , (LeClair
60
1962: 11841185),
.
, . ,
,
, .
, (Dalton 1961: 5). . ,
,
. ,
.
,
.
, , .
, , , , ,
. , . ,
. (Dalton 1961:
5; Burling 1962) ,
. , ,
. , , (, .)
.
, ,
, .
?
, ? , ,
61
, .
,
(Burling 1962: 810), ( ) (LeClair
1962: 1185). , (Sahlins 1972) ,
,
.
.
. ,
. (Herskovitc 1952),
, , , .
-
.
, , ?
, , . .
,
,
( ). ,
,
. -
, .
, () , , , , ,
, .,
.
62
. , ,
, . ( )
, , .
,
.
. . , , ,
,
.
.
, ,
. , ,
8 .
, (Gudeman 1978:
368) ,
, .
.
,
.
8
, , , ,
,
(Firth 1927).
63
7.
, , , , .
,
, . ,
, .
. ,
.
.
, (Burling 1962: 811) . ,
,
.
,
. , ,
, ,
.
, . , ,
( , ) ,
, .
, -
64
.
.
, , . ,
, ,
.
,
,
. , , , , ,
,
,
.
,
, , ,
.
,
.
, (
: Burling 1962: 817; LeClair 1962: 1181). , , . ()
, ,
. ,
, . ?
.
65
, . ?
, ,
, , ,
.
. , , (Dalton
1961)
, ,
(Malinovski 1979) (Klastr 2004)
,
.
, . , .
(Dalton 1961: 6).
,
.
, , , ,
. .
, . ,
.
, .
, , . ,
, .
, ,
66
, ,
, , . ,
,
. , ,
.
,
. .
. , .
,
,
. ,
.
.
, ,
.
,
. .
.
. .
67
. .
( ) ,
( : 1998: 356376; Mendras 1986: 229246).
,
, , . , , ,
. ,
, .
,
.
.
.
, ( )
. ,
, ,
. ,
. , , ,
. ,
. , ,
, , ,
.
. , , ,
,
, ( : Geertz 1978; Ortiz 1967), , , -
68
.
,
, , ,
, . ,
, , (,
.), . ( ), , , ,
.
,
. ,
,
, ,
. , .
, , ( )
.
.
. , ,
.
.
,
-
69
. ,
, ,
.
,
,
.
. ,
, ,
, .
( ) , .
( )
. , ,
, , (Klastr 2004).
. , , .
,
.
.
,
,
,
70
,
.
8.
, (Salisbury 1973:
85), 1967. ,
.
, homo economicus, . , ,
20.
,
. .
.
,
. ,
( :
Sen 1966; de Janvry 1991; Thomas 1999).
( . Cancian 1966). ,
.
.
20. , ,
, , . , . -
71
,
. ,
( )
(Orlove 1986: 87). ,
, ( ),
( )
. , , , .
,
. (Salisbury 1973: 85) ,
, : ( , . ),
. , ,
.
, .
9 , , , .
.
().
( : Prattis 1982: 217) .
, ,
, .
9
20.
.
72
, , .
,
. .
,
.
.
, .
, , , , ,
.
.
, . (Salisbury 1973: 89)
, , 20. .
. (Godelier 1982: 302318)
(
) . , ,
.
, (23
15 ) .
. , ;
.
,
73
.
,
, . , ,
.
.
,
. ,
.
,
, ,
(Prattis 1982: 218). ,
.
.
,
(Orlove 1986: 86). ,
. ,
.
,
( ):
1. ( )
, ,
; 2.
; 3.
, ( : Prattis 1982:
219). . -
74
. ,
.
, ,
( ) , ,
.
(. )
,
.
.
,
.
, . ,
( ), ( ).
, , , , .
.
. , , ,
,
. , -
75
, ,
(: Salisbury 1973: 86).
,
,
. ,
.
,
, : 1)
2) ,
.
,
.
.
(central-place theory), , 20.
,
, .
(Smith 1974; Smith 1975)10,
. ,
() . ,
. ,
10
.
,
.
76
.
, .
,
. ,
. ,
, .
,
,
. ,
. ,
.
,
, .
, , ,
, .
,
. , ,
. ,
.
,
,
.
,
77
, .
. (Smith
1974: 177178) . ,
.
, ,
, ,
.
, , .
. , , , ( ) ,
, .
, , . , ,
.
. , ,
, ,
,
.
, . ,
. , .
, .
,
. , -
78
,
.
, , . , ,
. ,
. , , . ,
(Salisbury
1973: 9091).
, ,
. ,
.
, , ,
,
.
, .
,
, .
,
. .
, , ,
() .
.
: (),
79
, ,
. .
, , , .
. ,
.
, . ,
,
. . , , (Orlove 1986: 86)
.
, .
.
,
, (Billig 2000: 779).
, ,
. , ,
.
, .
. (Ortiz 1967), ,
80
: , , , (
- ),
, .
,
,
.
, , , .
, .
-, ,
. ,
.
.
. , ,
, .
, , ,
. .
. ,
,
. .
: 1.
, -
81
, ,
, , , 11; 2.
( )
, ,
.
?
.
,
,
, . ,
. .
, , ,
, . ,
.
.
() , , , , , , ... . 11
( ) .
, .
. ,
, ,
.
82
.
,
,
.
, ,
. ,
,
.
.
,
, .
,
( ?) . ,
.
, . ,
, , .
, .
,
(: Mendras 1986: 2734; Wolf 1966; Feder 1971; Saul 1971; Nash 1971).
83
,
20. , , . ,
,
. ,
,
. () ,
.
,12 20. ,
, , 1966. .
, ,
12
1910. 1930. .
, 3. 1937.
49.
(Hammel 2005).
84
1.
,
, . , ,
,
,
, (Dalton 1965: 52). ,
,
19. 20. . ,
, ,
, , ,
. ,
, ,
.13 ,
(Redfield 1969: 1015)
, , ,
, . ,
13
,
,
.
85
. , , ,
,
,
19. , ,
. , , , , ,
.
Volkskunde14 .
, ,
.
, , .
,
( ). ,
.
,
, ,
, .15
,
, ,
.
, , 14
Volkskunde ,
,
.
15
: Wolf 1966; Feder 1971; Saul 1971; Nash 1971.
86
,
. ( : . Mendras 1986: 3334) , .16
,
.
, (Mendras 1986: 30)
. , ,
.
, . , ,
. ,
, , . ()
, , ,
. , , , ; , ,
, , .
, ,
,
.
, , ,
16
. .
87
.
, ,
. , (Sahlins 1969; Godelier 1982),
.
.
. , (Ellis 1992: 5)
,
.
.
, .
. (Dalton 1969: 74
75) ,
,
, . , ,
.
()
.
. ,
, , , ,
.
, , . ,
, .
, ,
, , , -
88
, .
. (Polanyi 1944: 47) ,
, .
, , , .
,
, , .
, ,
, .
. , ,
, . ,
,
.
. , , , , , ,
.
(Dalton 1969; Dalton 1972) . ,
.
?
, (?) ,
. ,
,
,
89
,
, .
,
, .17 (1972)
, ,
. ,
.
,
. , ,
.
.
( : Dalton 1972: 386).
,
.
.
, , ,
.
(Firth
1927) , , . , ,
.
17
90
. , , . , ,
, ,
(Redfield 1969: 1819).
( )
.
, , .
(Shanin 1971), ,
, . 18 ,
,
, .
.
, ,
.
.
18
(family farm),
, , ,
, .
(Mendras 1986: 85105).
,
.
,
.
( : 1991: 2158).
91
. ,
, ,
. (
: Ozanne 1999: 264). ,
,
.
,
, .
,
. ,
,
.19
(Mendras 1986: 31)
,
. .
. ,
. .
, , ,
.
,
19
. socit englobante .
, .
.
92
, , , .
part society .
,
, .
, , (Wolf 1966:
24), , , , .
.
, .
. , , .
. ,
, .
,
, . , ,
.
, .
. , .
. , , .
. , ,
(Wolf 1966: 910).
93
,
. , , , .
, , ,
.
.
(Redfield 1969: 30;
: Geertz 1978).
. , ,
,
. , , ,
( )
, .
, .
. , ,
,
, .
, , ,
(Redfield 1969: 3031).
(: 27).
,
,
. , , , ,
.
94
.
.
,
, ,
.
,
. (Mendras 1986: 65)
,
.
.
, , , .
, , .,
,
, . ,
, - , .
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
(Mendras 1986: 134). , -
95
.
,
. , , , .
. ,
(Wolf 1966: 910),
. , , , ,
.
. , ,
, ,
, .
, . , , , .
.
, ,
,
. , , , .
,
. ,
,
. , ,
.
,
. ,
,
( -
96
) , ,
.
, .
.
,
. , ,
,
.20
2.
, , .
. , . ,
,
, .
,
.
.
20
(Naumovi 2006).
97
, ,
.
, , , ,
.21
. , ,
(Wolf 1966: 6).
, ,
. . ,
. , , , , .
.
,
. ,
. (Wolf 1966: 79)
,
.
, , .
,
, .
, ,
.
,
. , ,
. ( ) , .
21
( 1965).
98
() .
(Wolf 1966: 13).
, , , ()
; ,
. , ,
.
, . ,
.
.
.
, , . . ,
, .
, . , ,
.
.
,
. ,
.
.
, , . , ,
99
, , , .
. ,
.
.
. ,
.
,
, ( : Kerblay 1971: 152154).
.
, .
.
, . ,
. , . ,
. ,
.
.
,
. , ,
.
. , ,
100
( : Wolf 1966: 1415).
,
,
, . . ,
,
1917. ,
, . .
, . ,
,
, (Hammel 2005). ( )
, . ,
. ,
(Ozanne 1999: 262).
. ,
. , ,
, ,
.
. ,
, ,
101
. ,
.
(
)
. , ,
.
, , () .
, .
.
. ,
.
,
.
, , .
. ,
. (Mendras
1986: 92)
. , ,
,
, , , , .
. ,
(Mendras 1986: 63).
102
. , ,
.
, ,
,
. .
, () ,
. , ,
. , .
,
, ,
.
, ,
. ,
.
. ,
,
, .
.
. .
, . ,
, , , . (Wolf 1966: 4041) -
103
.
,
. .
.
.
.
. ,
.
(Wolf 1966: 4143)
. ,
, , .
, , . , , .
, ,
,
.
, , .
, , .
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
104
,
, ,
.
, .
. ,
. (Wolf 1966:
43). , ,
.
, . () .
.
. ,
,
. ,
, .
,
, . , ,
, . . (Mendras 1986: 6971)
.
.
, . , , .
,
, ,
. . ,
. ,
.
105
.
. ,
, ,
. , .
, , .
, .
.
,
.
, .
,
, (Wolf 1966).
. ,
.
,
(Wolf 1966: 1517). ,
(), . , .
, , ,
, , , ,
.
(, ,
, , .).
,
106
.
. , .
.
,
.
, . ,
. ,
, , , .
. ,
,
, , .
, (Wolf 1966: 7780)
,
, . .
.
. ,
.
, .
, . ,
, , . ,
.
, ,
,
. ,
. -
107
, ,
, ; ,
. ,
,
. .
,
, . .
. 70%
(Mendola 2007: 50), .
, , .
,
(Ellis 1992: 910). , ,
. .
, . , ,
, . , , , , .
. , .
, .
108
,
. ,
, , (Redfield 1966:
65),
, ,
.
. , ,
.
,
.
, .
, ,
. ,
in situ.
, , .
, .
, ,
.
.
, ,
. (Redfield 1966:
3031)
, , .
,
,
. , ,
109
. ,
, .
,
20. , , , , (Mendras 1986: 219220) ,
( . 1998: 204222).
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
, , ,
( )
.
, , ,
, . , ,22
22
.
,
110
.
,
.
.
, .
111
,
, (Ellis 1992; Ozanne 1999; Sarris 1999).
,
(Mosher 1970), .23 .
,
.
, (Lutovac 1962b). , , ,
. , ,
.
,
23
50% . ,
.
.
112
, , .
, .
, ,
. ,
,
,
.
, .
.
1.
,
. , ,
,
. , ,
, , ,
, ,
. .
113
20. 21. , ,
, .
, .
,
, .
,
, .
, , ,
.
, ,
, .
, ,
, ,
,
, ,
, .
,
, .
, .
,
, .
, .
, -
114
, .
, , . , ,
. ,
, . ,
, .
. , ()
, , , . , - ,
, ,
, , ( : Schwartz 1967: 3).
, . 24
.
, .
,
. , ,
.
, 24
115
.
,
, ,
.
.
.
, ,
,
.
( . Wrebner 1990: 268270). ,
. ,
. . ,
, . , , ,
.
. ,
(270), , .
.
116
.
.
(Weiner 1980; : Narotzky 2002: 287288),
, . . ,
, . ,
.
, ,
,
. ,
. ( ) .
modus operandi .
, , , ,
. .
,
. . ,
,
, ,
,
.
.
,
-
117
, ,
.
(Gouldner 1960), ,
, . ,
, ,
.
, ,
().
, .
, ,
.
() .
.
, .
(Gouldner 1960:
174).
, , . ( )
.
, ,
. , , .
,
,
.
118
. , ,
. , .
,
, . , .
() , , , ,
- .
,
, . free gift , , pure gift.
, . ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
.
, ,
, , ,
,
.
,
,
. (Laidlaw 2000)
, ,
119
, .
. ,
.
(Gregory 1980) ()
.
, .
. .
,
.
. ,
, ,
. , , .
, . (Mos 1982: 2648 )
,
,
.
.
, , . .
. ,
.
, ,
. , -
120
(Laidlaw
2000). .
,
. , ,
, . (, , ) . ,
. ,
. , ,
( : Laidlaw 2000: 621). ,
. ,
, .
. ,
, . ,
.
. , ,
.
( ) . ,
,
.
. .
.
.
, ( )
, .
, ,
.
121
. ,
,
. , , ,
, . , . ,
. (, , , , ,
, ), (, ) ( ,
, , , ).25
, . ,
,
,
. , ,
, ( ),
.
, (!?),
-
. . ,
, , ( ),
(, ). ,
, : / . ,
,
. ,
25
:
- 1987.
122
. , ,
.
/ .
, , ,
. ,
. . , . ,
( , ,
)
. - ,
.
.
, .
2.
, , ,
, .
, .
()
.
?
,
, , -
123
, . ,
,
, .
,
,
, ,
,26 .
,
(: Kovaevi 1987; Bjeladinovi-Jergi
1987; 2000).27 ,
,
, .
, . ,
,
. ,
, , , . , ,
,
. (
) .
26
, .
27
( : 2001),
.
124
125
( , , ,
, , , , , ...),
(, , , )
(, , .).
, , ,
.
.
.
. (,
, , , , ...),
(, , , ...).
, ,
. 20. . ,
,
. , .
, ,
.
, , ,
. . . ,
,
.
.
. , .
.
126
, , . . ,
, , , , , .
. , .
.
20. , 2000- . , ,
2006. , ,
.
. .
20. .
,
.
, , , , 29
.
, ( 2000) ,
.
, ,
. ,
.
, , 29
(Gouldner 1960: 172).
.
127
.
, , , .
.
ad hoc . ,
. ,
, , .
, .
, ,
, , .
, , , .30
. , ,
, .
, , .
.
()
. ,
,
, ,
30
,
, , .
128
, .
.
, , , .
,
. ,
,
. , , . , ,
. ,
, , , ,
.
,
. , , , , ,
, .
.
. ,
. , ,
,
.
.
.
, , ,
, .
.
,
129
,
.
( ), ,
(Kerblay 1971; Redfield 1969; Wolf 1966; Hammel 2005).
.
,
. ,
, . , ,
(Weiner 1980)
.
, .
,
(Kovaevi 1987). .
,
, ,
. ,
.
,
. , , ( ),
. , ,
,
.
.
. , ,
130
. ,
. (Wiens 1977).
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
. ,
, .
,
. ,
, , . ,
.
.
,
. ,
,
. .
, . ,
, . , ,
-
131
.
. , ,
.
: 1. ; 2. ;
3. .
, , ,
.
3.
, .
, , , .
, , . ,
. , , , ,
() .
. ,
, ,
.
,
, . ,
.
, ,
132
(Kovaevi 1987) ,
. , ,
. , .
,
, ,
, . , , , .
,
(, )
.
, ,
, , ,
.
, ,
,
,
.
, ,
.
, ,
, .
,
,
. , , ,
. ,
133
,
, 20. , ,
.
. ?
.
.
. .
.
. , , ,
, (: Mos 1982;
Barnett 1938). , , .
,
. ,
,
,
,
.31 ,
31
, , .
, ,
,
.
134
, , .
.
, .
,
.
.
(Sahlins 1972).
.
.
,
.
,
.
, ,
(Weiner
1980). , ,
.
. , ,
.
.
135
, , ( ) .
, ( )
,
. .
,
, .
(: Firth 1967: 1721). ,
(. ).
, , ,
,
. , ,
( : Douglas 1967; Barth 1967;
: Chevalier 2001). ,
.
.
, . ,
.
,
.
.
, .
136
.
, . ,
, ,
. , .
,
, .
,
. ,
.
. , , ,
,
.
. ,
,
. , .
,
,
.
,
.
.
. ,
,
,
, -
137
.
, (: 2000: 194195). ,
,
.
, , .
, . ,
. .
, . . ,
, ,
,
( ) .
(
).
.
,
, , ,
.
?
138
, . .
.
, ,
,
.
. , , , ,
. , ,
, .
,
. ,
. ,
,
.
. ()
, .
139
, . () ,
.
,
. , ,
,
.
. .
.
. ,
, ,
. ,
,
, ,
.
, ,
, , .
(
)
(Kovaevi 1987; BjeladinoviJergi 1987; 2001; 2000). , ,
,
.
.
,
,
.
140
, ,
.
. ,
,
, ,
.
, ,
. , , ,
. .
.
,
, (
) . ,
.
. .
(, , ).
. , ,
, , . ,
,
, , , . , ,
, , ,
.
141
,
, ,
,
. ,
,
. ,
, , ,
, .
, ,
, .
, ,
. , ,
, (
), , ,
,
. ,
() ,
. , , .32
,
. .
,
32
,
, . . ,
.
. (Megastores Electroniki )
.
142
, ,
. , , (
: Khuri 1968: 698). ,
, ,
. .
, , .
(
)
,
. ( ) .
,
,
, , , , .
,
,
,
. ,
, ,
.
,
.
, .
, ,
,
143
. , , ,
, ,
, . , ,
.
.
, .
,
. ,
,
. ,
.
. ,
, .
, ,
.
,
.
, . , ,
,
,
144
. ,
. ,
. , ,
,
,
, ,
.
, , .
, ,
, . 23
, , 6 .
.
. , ,
.
.
, .
, .
145
.
.
. , ,
.
.
, ,
,
, , . 20. ,
,
, , (. ) , .
, . . , ,
, , .
.
,
.
, . , ,
.
.
. -
146
.
, ,
,
, . . ,
. ,
, ,
. , ,
(
), 1.500 2.000 ( . 20 ). ,
.
,
9.000 ( 100 ).
,
.
: , , , .,
.
, .
(, ) ,
.
,
, , .
-
147
, , . ,
,
. ,
, , ,
. , , .
, ,
. ,
,
, . , , , .
,
. , , .
,
, ,
,
.
, ,
.
, .
,
,
,
148
(Wolf 1966:
78).
.
, , . ( ).
,
(: LeClair 1962: 11841185;
Dalton 1961: 5; Burling 1962).
, ,
, , ,
. ,
,
,
, ,
.
,
, .
, ,
,
.
, .
.
20. ,
149
.
,
,
. ,
(Mos 1982: 90 ).
. . ,
.
,
, , .
. , , , .
, , ,
, .
, ,
,
. . .
.
, .
. ,
,
. , .
. -
150
, ( ).
, ,
(Redfield 1969; Wolf 1966; Mendras 1986).
,
( : 1929; 1983).
,
, , , ,
.
(:
Kerblay 1971; Wiens 1977).
,
. ,
.
,
,
( ),
, .
,
.
.
,
.33
33
.
(: 1929).
151
,
. ,
.
34 ( : Wolf 1966: 8189). . ,
, ,
, .
, , , ,35 . .
, , ,
,
,
.
,
. ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
.
, .
34
, .
.
35
, (, ), , ,
.
152
.
, . ,
.
,
.
,
. , ,
, , , .
,
, .
. , ,
.
, ,
.
, , .
.
.
,
, -
153
4.
,
, , .
, ,
. ,
, .
20. ,
,
. , .
, ,
, , . ,
, , , . . - -.
, ,
, ,
20.
.36
36
,
20. .
, .
154
37
, , , . . , ,
. ,
, (
)
(Wolf 1966: 108109; 1998). , ,
,
.
.
, , ,
, .
,
. ,
( , ) .
, ,
.
,
,
1953. . ,
. , 37
. ,
.
155
.
,
,
(
: 1998: 204222).
,
.
,
.
(, ), ,
. ,
.
,
. ,
,
, . ,
1894. . 1953. ,
.
, , ,
.
.
, (: Buchowski 2006)
,
156
.
10 ha
,
.
20. ,
. .
. ,
, .
.
.
, , , , ,
, .
, ,
, , , , , .
+ = .
,
. .
.
, ,
20. .
,
, ,
.
157
,
(Heyman 2003:
142). ,
.
.
,
.
. ,
(Halpern 1973: 13),
.
. ,
.
. (Simi
1973: 75) ,
,
, ,
, (, , .), .
.
.
, - . .
. ,
,
.
158
,
,
in situ. ,
.
. , ,
( :
1955). ,
. , ,
. ,
.
.
, . , ,
. ,
, ,
,
, . , ,
.
, , .
159
, ,
( :
1962; Lutovac 1975). ,
, (, , , .).
, .
. , (.
) .
.
.
,
.
.
.
, .
. ( ,
), ( ), ,
. ,
160
,
, ,
( 1985:
83). , . (
1985; 2007).
20. , ,
.
, 20. ,
. ,
( ). ,
, ,
,
, .
,
,
, .
, , . ,
,
,
.
,
.
20 30 .
161
20. , , .
? ,
,
. .
, ,
20. , . , ,
.
?
. ,
.
,
, , .
, , . ,
( )
,
. ,
.
.
, , .
162
,
. ,
.
. , ,
,
.
,
.
. , ( 1998: 180183).
.
(Simi 1973: 86) .
,
, .
,
.
.
.
.
. ,
,
, .
163
.
. ,
, .
.
( )
.
, .
, ,
.
.
( 1985)
. 20. ,
, 38
() .
, ,
.
(
: Kovaevi 1987),
.
, . 38
: Brati 1982.
164
,
, ,
, ,
.
, . ,
. , . ,
, . , , , , , ,
( )
. ,
,
.
.
,
. , (
)
. () ()
(). ,
, ,
(Ozanne 1999) . ,
, , .
-
165
,
.
.
, 21. .
.
, .
, , .
20. (
),
. .
.
,
, - ,
. 20. 21.
.
, , . . ,
. , , ,
.
, ,
, , , .
, . .
, ,
166
. , ,
, ,
, . , (: Wolf
1966: 14) ,
.
,
, .
.
(, ,
.) .
,
, , , .
,
.
,
, ,
.
.
, , 39 ,
39
( : Sarris 1999;
Ozanne 1999; Swain 2000). ,
, ,
, 20. .
167
. ,
.
, , ,
.
.
. . . . .
20.
.
. . .
. .
. ,
. . .
, .
,
,
. . . ,
. . .
, . , .
. , . . , .
.
. , ,
.
-
168
, .
,
.
,
. , .
,
. , ,
. ,
, .
.
.
.
.
. , ,
. , ,
.
.
, .
20.
169
, , ( ) .
,
.
,
.
.
, , .
,
.
. ,
,
, .
( 2007: 2224)
, .
: 2001. ,
.
, ,
,
-
- . , ,
, .
-
170
, . ,
.
, . ,
(: Palairet
2001).
, , ,
,
. , . . . .
(Naumovi 2006) .
.
,
( : Swain 2000; Sarris 1999;
: Stan 2000; Cellarius
2000). (Kostov 2002: 84)
, .
.
. ,
, ,
,
.
, (Ozanne 1999) ,
. , ,
171
.
(Kostov 2002; Sarris 1999).
, .
,
( ) . ,
. . (Sarris 1999)
. ,
,
,
.
, .
,
. .
.
, , ,
,
,
, .
.
. , ,
. (Bourdieu 1986: 241) , , , . ,
. -
172
.
,
.
, .
(Bourdieu 1990: 8687,
97). ,
. , , , .
, (Wolf 1966: 410),
,
.
,
. ,
. .
,
.
. ,
, . .
(Kostov 2002)
.
. ,
.
173
. , , ,
.
- .
,
,
(: Mendola 2007: 55)
, . ,
. ( ) ,
,
.
, ,
. ,
.
, , .
20.
. .
,
. , .
174
.
,
. , ,
. ,
, . ,
,
. ,
.
. .
,
, .
,
. .
, , .
.
: : .
(, , , .), . ,
. .
.
, . , ,
. , ,
175
. ,
,
, , . ,
, .
.
-
. ,
.
, , .
, ,
. ( )
,
. , ,
. ,
, ,
.
.
,
. . , , ,
, . .
, ,
( ). .
. ,
,
, .
-
176
, ( : 2008).
,
. ,
.
,
.
177
, .
.
, ,
.
.
,
. ,
, .
, ,
. ,
. , .
,
. ,
178
.
20. 21. .
, , ,
, .
(Kostov 2002) . , ,
( ) , ,
.
( 2005) ,
, . ,
( ) 2008.
.
.
,
. , .
,
20. . ,
, -
179
,
() .
.
, , , .
, , . ,
,
,
. ,
,
, , ,
. , .
:
, .
180
Summary
181
182
Summary
183
where all transactions have to pass and in this sense shows the lack of medium.
The evaluation of goods in the transaction is not predefined with any universal
system of measurement, but varies within the socially established system of
benefit perception, the system which includes large number of non-economic
factors. Exchange of goods in the contemporary peasantry definitely knows the
money, but in the transaction by itself is used like universal good, and not like
(market) money or like a resource.
The inventory of goods which can take part in the reciprocal exchange
transaction can look very variegated, but their economic interpretation unambiguously shows the existence of low level of heterogeneity of goods classes,
especially the material ones, so immanent in the rural culture. Crucial sense of
the economic interpretation of goods introduced into the exchange is discernment of two classes of goods. On the one hand, into the exchange are introduced material and social goods, when material goods are clearly correlated with
the existential needs of participants in the exchange. Dominant social good is
hospitality, and besides can appear some services, too. In the second class are
included resources, principally agricultural work, resource the peasantry certainly can completely dispose of. Two discerned classes of goods dont mix each
other; i. e. each of them has its own transaction exchange course. Important
distinction very easily to be noticed is that the material and social goods are
exchanged within the ceremonial situations, meanwhile the work is exchanged
within clearly defined partner relations configured as stabile coalitions. In the
corpus of exchanged objects is included money too, but is treated as universal
gift in the ceremonial exchange and it can be observed like social capital because is not used as resource, but for social positioning of the donor and the
presentee in assigned ceremonial context, and the presentee uses it to transform it into the existential good on his own choice. The money that appears in
the ceremonial exchange is not accumulated economic capital used to make a
profit; i. e. is not used in the entrepreneurial sense. The ceremonial situation is
economically non-profitable enterprise, and doesnt mean a priori that is economically irrational.
Elementary economic calculation of organization of the ceremonial situation in the peasant society is tightly correlated with basic principles of the
exchange of goods. Every organized ceremonial, when wedding ceremonial is
considered as heuristically the most productive case, can be observed synchronically and within the particular ceremonial we can find the equivalence of
total values of offered hospitality and received gifts. But firstly, concrete ethnographic data, especially data concerning the period of crisis and transition,
show that such equivalence mostly doesnt exist. From the perspective of the
level of concrete dyadic exchange relations within the ceremonial by itself, we
can see that the reciprocal balance of offered hospitality and obtained gift was
drastically perturbed right there where the dyadic relation was based on the
184
Summary
high level of social proximity, i. e. the close participants in the exchange donate the gift more valuable than the received banquet, and in this case within the
ceremonial would be established undesirable inverse proportion of social proximity and importance of social relations. Whether the exchange then becomes
socially dysfunctional?
Regulatory norms of custom law concerning the exchange of goods and
discernment of goods in the transaction put every householders group in the
long-term process of giving and receiving. Householders group is indeed in
two parallel chains of exchange chain of giving and chain of receiving. These two chains represent complementary lines of goods transactions, and they
dont mix each other. Volume of transaction indicates that participants have
to guide themselves by the principle of balanced reciprocity and every relation
of values is being positioned in the chronological long-term chain of situations
of the same class (with clearly defined exceptions). Primary balance of values
is computed in the separate chains of transactions and equivalence of values
has to be accomplished within special chains, and hypothetic absoluteness of
chains makes possibility for corrections in the case of the perturbation of balance.
Such construction of the ceremonial exchange of goods can be observed as one of culturally developed methods of social reproduction. Interaction of the goods exchange is the reflection of those classes of material and
symbolic values that society assigns to its reproductive course. Crucial roll in
the exchange as method of social reproduction has the time prorogation of responding and request on responding. Cultural construction of the exchange of
goods often directly reproduces established social relations in the sense that
there is always the tendency to not to be changed in the period from giving to
responding in order to accomplish the equivalence of given and received. Any
perturbation of social relations causes the perturbation of the principle of the
equivalency and vice versa. Existing social relations and the exchange of goods
perpetuate each other. In the peasant economic organization, that operates
with very tenuous balance of production and consumption, each perturbation
of the goods exchange balance cause the perturbation of the balance and affect the existence of the household. The exchange by itself is constructed on
the base of established social relations, but the perturbation of the exchange
relation perturbs social relations. Furthermore, then is directly affected the
economical system of peasant household because in its balance of production
and consumption also are introduced (generally through the ceremonial fund)
goods gained in the exchange transactions.
Observed from the perspective of the neoclassic economy, the organization of one ceremonial for every household represents economic shock, but
consequences of that shock are moderated by the construction of mutual exchange relations. Organization of the ceremonial is the situation where ap-
185
186
Summary
fects the existence of all participants in the coalition. Coalitions are normally
bilateral, but can be trilateral or multilateral, and one household can establish
several bilateral/two-member coalitions.
Processes that have being appeared in peasantry since the middle of 20th
century, so pretty colored ideologically generally can be considered as repressive (agrarian maximum, forced, but not accomplished collectivization, and,
the most important, imposing of forms and ways of life of global society), although it is important to not to forget progressive processes like introduction
of contemporary agro-technical measures, creation of conditions convenient
for a decomposition of peasant economic organization and economic autarchy,
and approximation to the market way of thinking in the domain of economy.
Here peasantry, oppositely to the settled conceptions about conservatism and
inertness, has adapted very quickly to new economic conditions and has been
very keen on participation in economic entrepreneurship. Present economic
organization of peasantry in Serbia can be called intermediary, because it contains synthesis of principles from both economic systems the peasant and the
mercantile.
The transition of the economic organization of peasantry from tenuous and fragile production and consumption balance to the intermediary state
doesnt mean obligatory that the goods exchange changed structurally. Basic
principles of goods exchange conceptualized in the traditional society today
also persist, with certain form modification. In the second half of 20th century,
due to massive rural-urban migrations and due to the inexistence of agricultural work market, work exchange is still developing instead of fading. The
ceremonial exchange of goods is still being implemented under the same principles, but the nominal value of goods in transaction is higher, and because of
the stabilization of production and consumption balance and because of the
increased accumulation of the capital in the peasantry, investments in the ceremonial organization are more severe.
At the end can be propounded the question: what represents the essential strategic characteristic of the goods exchange? The goods exchange in the
peasant economic organization indeed is a clearly structured method of resources and goods distribution. Constructed as the perpetuation instrument of
structural social reproduction, with the domination of principle of obligatory
(and) prorogated compensation, essential characteristic of the goods exchange
is the certainty of process. Because of this certainty, the goods exchange was
very gladly used strategy for dynamic, even and equal distribution of resources
and goods not only the economic ones, but the social and symbolic, too and
the resources and goods distribution indeed is the essence of economic management of the household. In the last unit of the third chapter of the book the
direct topic wasnt only the exchange, because I wanted to show how certain
exchange principles can influence the formation of different methods of eco-
187
188
189
Barnett, H. G. 1938: The Nature of the Potlatch. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 40, No. 3: 349358.
Barth, Fredrik 1967: Economic Spheres in Darfur. Raymond Firth (ed.), Themes in
Economic Anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications; 149174.
Billig, Michael S. 2000: Institutions and Culture: Neo-Weberian Economic Anthropology. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4: 771788.
Bjeladinovi-Jergi, Jasna 1987: O darivanju odeom u drutvenim obiajima u Srbiji. Etnoantropoloki problemi, knj. 2: 5568.
Brati, D., Maleevi, M. 1982: Kua kao statusni simbol. Etnoloke sveske, knj. IV.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1986: The Forms of Capital. John G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook
of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood; 241258.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1990: The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1999: Scattered Remarks. European Journal of Social Theory, Vol.
2, No. 3: 334340.
Buchowski, Micha 2006: Property Relations and Social Identity in Rural Poland.
Working Paper No. 83. Halle / Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.
Burling, Robbins 1962: Maximization Theories and the Study of Economic Anthropology. American Anthropologist, Vol. 64: 802821.
, 1968:
.
. : .
Weiner, Annette B. 1980: Reproduction: A Replacement for Reciprocity. American
Ethnologist, Vol. 7, No. 1: 7185.
Wiens, Thomas B. 1977: Uncertainty and Factor Allocation in a Peasant Economy.
Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 1: 4860.
. 1929: . , .
44. : ; 1598.
190
Wrebner, Pnina 1990: Economic Rationality and Hierarchical Gift: Value and Ranking Among British Pakistanis. Man, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 2: 266285.
Wolf, Eric R. 1966: Peasants. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
, 1983: III: . , . DXLVIII. :
.
Geertz, Cliford 1978: The Bazaar Economy: Information and Search in Peasant Marketing. The American Economic Review, Vol. 68, No. 2: 2832.
Gregory, C. A. 1980: Gifts to Men and Gifts to Gods: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in Contemporary Papua. Man, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 4:
626652.
Godelier, Maurice 1982: Marksizam i antropologija. Zagreb: kolska knjiga.
, . 1909: . , . 14. : ;
1382.
Gudeman, Stephen 1978: Anthropological Economics: The Question of Distri-bution. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7: 347377.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960: The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, No. 2: 161178.
Douglas, Mary 1967: Primitive Rationing: A Study in Controlled Exchange. Raymond Firth (ed.), Themes in Economic Anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications; 119147.
Dalton, George 1961: Economic Theory and Primitive Society. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No 1: 125.
Dalton, George 1965: Primitive Money. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol.
67, No 1: 4465.
Dalton, George 1969: Theoretical Issues in Economic Anthropology. Current Anthropology, Vol. 10, No. 1: 63102.
Dalton, George 1972: Peasants in Anthropology and History [and Comments and
Replies]. Current Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 3/4: 385415.
Dozier, Edward P. 1955: The Concepts of Primitive and Native in Anthropology. Yearbook of Anthropology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press;
187202.
Ellis, Frank 1992: Peasant Economics: Farm Household and Agrarian Development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Isacc, Barry 2005: A Handbook of Economic Anthropology. Northampton: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Cancian, Frank 1966: Maximization as norm, strategy, and theory: A comment on
programmatic statements in economic anthropology. American Anthropologist,
New Series, Vol. 68, No. 2: 465470.
191
Kerblay, Basile 1971: Chayanov and the Theory of Peasantry as a Specific Type of
Economy. Teodor Shanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. London: Penguin Books; 150160.
Klastr, Pjer 2004: Hronika o Gvajaki indijancima. Novi Sad: Kia.
, 1985: - . , . VI: 8187.
Kovaevi, Ivan 1987: Odnos razmene i dara u savremenom svadbenom ritualu. Etnoantropoloki problemi, knj. 2: 3743.
, 2006: . : .
, 2007: . : .
Cohen, Percy S. 1967: Economic Analysis and Economic Man. Raymond Firth (ed.),
Themes in Economic Anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications; 91118.
, 1955: . : .
Kostov, Philip, Lingard, John 2002: Subsistance Farming in Transitional Economies:
Lesons from Bulgaria. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 18: 8394.
Cook, Scott 1966: The Obsolete Anti-Market Mentality: A Critique of the Substantive Approach to Economic Anthropology. American Anthropologist, New
Series, Vol. 68, No. 2: 323345.
Khuri, Fuad I. 1968: The Etiquette of Bargaining in the Middle East. American
Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 70, No. 4: 698706.
Laidlaw, James 2000: A Free Gift Make No Friends. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 6, No. 4: 617634.
Lie, John 1997: Sociology of Markets. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23: 341
360.
LeClair, Edward E. 1962: Economic Theory and Economic Anthropology. American
Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 64, No 6: 11791203.
Lee, Richard 1993: the Primitive as Problematic. Anthropology Today, Vol. 9, No.
3; 13.
, . 1962: . , . 4: 149163.
Lutovac, Milisav V. 1962b: Prigradska poljoprivreda Beograda. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta, br. 18: 155172.
Lutovac, Milisav V. 1975: Prigradska sela. Etnoloki pregled, knj. 13: 131136.
, 1998: . , .
62: 1128.
Malinowski, Bronislaw 1921: The Primitive Economics of the Trobriand Islanders.
Economic Journal, Vol. 31: 115.
Malinovski, Bronislav 1979: Argonauti Zapadnog Pacifika. Beograd: BIGZ.
192
193
Nash, Manning 1971: Market and Indian Peasant Economics. Teodor Shanin (ed.),
Peasants and Peasant Societies. London: Penguin Books; 161177.
, 1965: . : .
Ozanne, Adam 1999: Perverse Supply Response in Peasant Agriculture: A Review.
Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2: 251270.
Onorati, Joseph 2007: Debating Economic Anthropology within Primitive Context.
Emory Endeavours in World History, Vol. I. Atlanta: Emory University.
Orlove, Benjamin S., Acheson, James M., Clammer, John, Crump, Thomas, Gudeman, Stephen, Guillet, David, Harris, Olivia, Rutz, Henry J. 1986: Barter and
Cash Sale on Lake Titicaca: A Test of Competing Approaches [and Comments
and Replies]. Current Anthropology, Vol. 27, No. 2: 85106.
Ortiz, Sutti 1967: The Structure of Decision-making among Indians of Colombia.
Raymond Firth (ed.), Themes in Economic Anthropology. London: Tavistock
Publications; 191228.
Palairet, Michael 2001: The Economic Consequences of Slobodan Miloevi. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 53, No. 6, 903919.
Panof, Miel 1979: Malinovski. Beograd: BIGZ.
Pearce, D. W. 1986: The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Pearson, Heath 2000: Homo Economicus Goes Native, 18591945: The Rise and
Fall of Primitive Economics. History of Political Economy, Vol. 32, No. 4:
933989.
Persky, Joseph 1995: The Ethology of Homo Economicus. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 2: 221231.
Polanyi, Karl 1944: The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart.
Polanyi, Karl 1959: Anthropology and Economic Theory. Morton H. Fried (ed.), Readings in Anthropology, Vol. II. New York: Crowell; 161184.
Prattis, J. I. 1982: Synthesis, or a New Problematic in Economic Anthropology. Theory and Society, Vol. 11, No. 2: 205228.
Redfield, Robert 1969: Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: The University of
Chicago press.
, , , 2001: . :
.
Sahlins, Marshall D. 1969: On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange. Michael Banton (ed.), The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications; 139236.
Sahlins, Marshall 1972: Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine.
Salisbury, Richard 1973: Economic Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology,
Vol. 2: 8594.
194
Sarris, Alexander H., Doucha, Tom, Mathijs, Erik 1999: Agricultural Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Implications for Competitivness and Rural
Development. European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3:
305329.
Saul, John S., Woods, Roger 1971: African Peasantries. Teodor Shanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. London: Penguin Books; 103114.
Swain, Nigel 2000: The Rural Transition in Post-Socialist Central Europe and the
Balkans. Working Paper No. 9. Halle / Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social
Anthropology.
Cellarius, Barbara A. 2000: You Can Buy Almost Anything with Potatoes: An
Examination of Barter During Economic Crisis in Bulgaria. Ethnology, Vol.
39, No. 1: 7392.
Sen, Amartya K. 1966: Peasant and Dualism with or without Surplus Labor. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 74, No. 5: 425450.
Simi, Andrei 1973: The Peasant Urbanites: A Study of Rural-Urban Mobility in Serbia. New York: Seminar Press.
Smith, Carol A. 1974: Economics of Marketing Systems: Models from Economic
Geography. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 3: 167201.
Smith, Carol A. 1975: Examining Stratification Systems Through Peasant Marketing
Arrangements: An Application of Some models from Economic Geography.
Man, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 1: 95122.
Stan, Sabina 2000: Whats in a Pig? State, Market and Process in a Private Pig
Production and Consumption in Romania. Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 25:
151160.
Stigler, George J. 1946: The Theory of Price. New York: Macmillan.
2005: . : , .
Thomas, Benjamin 1999: Rethinking Subsistence Production. Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 24: 99106.
Feder, Ernest 1971: Latifundia and Agricultural Labour in Latin America. Teodor Shanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. London: Penguin Books; 8397.
, . 1991: . .
, (. ). :
; 1890.
Firth, Raymond 1925: Economic Psychology of the Maori. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, No. 55: 340362.
Firth, Raymond 1927: The Study of Primitive Economics. Economica, No. 21: 312335.
Firth, Raymond 1967: Themes in Economic Anthropology: A General Comment.
Raymond Firth (ed.), Themes in Economic Anthropology. London: Tavistock
Publications; 128.
195
196
CIP
,
316.334.55:395.83(497.11)
, , 1970
/ . - : ,
2009 ( : ). - 195 . ; 24 cm.
- ( / , )
500. -
. - : .
189-195. - Summary.
ISBN 978-86-7891-047-0
a) - b)
COBISS:SR-ID 169102092