Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Incentives to Work in Primitive Communities- Hsu

Hsu, Francis L.K.
1943     Incentives to Work in Primitive Communities. America Sociological Review 8(6): 638-642.

So, I'm behind... last week was crazy busy, and so this week I'm attempting to do two shorter articles. I’ve selected another Francis L.K. Hsu, of whom I’m becoming quite fond. This article is written nearly twenty years previous to the other one I’ve posted about, and I could see some of the seedlings of his later ideas. I was surprised at his use of ‘primitive’ in the article until I realized that this one is much older. I also assumed by the title that it was about an anthropologists motives to go do work in ‘primitive’ communities. It is not. It is about rural/ pre-literate/ non-industrial people’s motivations to do their work, and about the concept of self- interest.
            Apparently early on, there was the notion that ‘primitive’ people were generous, had no concept of property, always helped their neighbors out of some sort of altruism, and that the incentives to do economic work were inexorably tied to rituals, or feelings of community, and that they were not self-serving. I am guessing that this was linked to the ‘noble savage’ idea, but I’m not sure on that.
            He also points out that this is typically contrasted with the Euro-American community where commerce drives the markets, people sell what others buy regardless of their thoughts about it, and that people are friendly only in-so-much as it helps business.
            Hsu says that’s a load of crock. He calls the contrast between Europe and ‘primitive communities’ an “anthropological myth” at least in regards to ones incentives to work. He says that the contrast is really between rural and urban communities, and that ‘country-folk’ or those in small towns in England or France fall into the category with those in African villages. He notes that in London, if one were to refuse to go to work due to a spirit, they would be labeled a crazy person. However in the countryside, there are various levels of superstition and folk-knowledge still at work. Additionally he says that in a small town, the pharmacist may not sell a certain new product simply because he “doesn’t believe in them” despite the fact that he could be making money.
            Hsu talks about how in rural communities, people talk about how they help each other out often.  Typically, the help comes from some sort of extended relative, or a neighbor; and the help given and received is serious stuff, like lending a horse, digging graves, etc. Is this out of altruism? Not really. You help others out, because you don’t know when you will need a favor from them. There is a support network similar to insurance. You pay in with your help, and in your hour of need, you withdraw help from the community.
            “In all societies is found some kind of ownership of property, women, tools or magical practices” (640). Most things are done with the goal of gaining something for you, your family or the group you belong to. It just isn’t always money or something physical. Things are done out of self-interest, only the method varies, and who is included in ‘self’.
            Hsu says that self-interest is socially conditioned and that it is really two components. The first is individual interest. This oftentimes includes ones family. The other is common interest. He says that under this, there are the things that are beneficial for all members of the group, and then there is the limitation of an individual to act ‘selfishly’ in their pursuits because it would do harm to the group. “Nowhere is there a generosity as an abstract virtue, but in all it is a means to further self-interest” (641).  Reciprocity is a result of self-interest.
            He also talks about hopes and aspirations. They are also conditioned socially. An example he uses is among the Ngoni people. The poor do not desire fancy stuff because ones rank determines how much is ok for you to have. If a low ranking person had a ton of materials, they would be accused of witchcraft. Due to this, low ranking people do not scramble for material goods.
            Among the English and French laborers, he was told often by people that they knew people that were poorer than themselves and that they were more or less satisfied with what they had. Hsu discusses how people generally do not wish to dramatically increase their social standing. “He does not wish to take much more than his socially determined want (if he does, he is either a bandit or a revolutionary) but he is also not satisfied with much less than what he in is social situation ought to want…” (642). Ones standard of living is created by society. This is a powerful force of stability. When people to the bottom of the scale desire things from the top, usually a revolution of some kind is afoot.
            This was a short article, which had several good points. Those being that pre-literate/rural/non-industrial people the world over have the same motives to do work as fancy businessmen. They just go about it in a different way. The way in which they do this is determined by the class and culture to which they belong.
            Hsu says that further data is needed to complete the picture. What makes up and determines one concept of ‘self’ is of interest. The means by which self-interest is served varies as well; “money, food, women; or honour, patriotism, righteousness” and that these in extreme have a profound effect upon the economic system.
----------

In theory, I will post another article this week to make up for not doing one last week. So cross your fingers, and hope I'm not lazy!

No comments:

Post a Comment