A Handbook of Economic Anthropology
Show Less

A Handbook of Economic Anthropology

Edited by James G. Carrier

This unique Handbook contains substantial and invaluable summary discussions of work on economic processes and issues, and on the relationship between economic and non-economic areas of life. Furthermore it describes conceptual orientations that are important among economic anthropologists, and presents summaries of key issues in the anthropological study of economic life in different regions of the world. Its scope and accessibility make it useful both to those who are interested in a particular topic and to those who want to see the breadth and fruitfulness of an anthropological study of economics.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: Property

Chris Hann


Chris Hann One key element in the anthropologist’s approach to property (as to other key concepts) is to ‘relativise’, to question whether the understanding that has emerged in our intellectual traditions can provide an adequate base for understanding others. The English term ‘property’ is closely tied to the history of enclosures and the emergence of capitalism. It may be misleading to conceive the complex, non-exclusive patterns of access and use characteristic of precapitalist land tenure in terms of property relations (Peters 1998). Close inspection of the concept reveals that currently dominant understandings, both academic and ‘folk’, are also a highly distorted representation of how contemporary Euro-American property systems function. Even those committed in principle to the comparative analysis of social institutions may hesitate to make use of a concept which cannot readily be translated ‘one for one’ even into a closely related language such as German. The problems of translation into more remote contexts, say Polynesia, are of course more formidable (Firth 1965 [1939]). The tension is particularly evident in a field such as economic anthropology, which for some of its practitioners implies a commitment to the generalisability of the toolkit of a powerful Western social science, while others vigorously contest the very possibility of such generalisation. How far can a word with a particular history and meanings in the English language be applied analytically in comparative work? If ‘property’ is somehow contaminated, is a more suitable term available? Peters (1998: 370) pleads for ‘the old language of “rights”’,...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.