I think that when we read ethnography about cultures other than our own, we end up learning just as much about how weird our own culture is. Good ethnography uncovers the social relations that construct meaning in a particular society, calling into question the processes that shape the facts and concepts that we call our own. It makes us realize that we have taken for granted the paradigms that we use daily to understand our world. Our schemas of categorization have become contact lenses that have melded with our eyeballs, but ethnography shows us that those lenses are there, and attempts to describe how they came about.
There is a whole universe of matter. When we look at one organization of matter (one thing) and describe it as it is, without taking into account its relationship to other things, we “thingify” it, animate it with special qualities that emanate from itself, not from anywhere else. And that’s how “things” become reified, animated and then fetishized.
Taussig’s analyses are heavily Marxist. He shows how the transition from precapitalist (peasant) to capitalist modes of production shaped new modes of thought in each society that he studied. And of course, this makes us wonder about our own epistemological frameworks and how they have been shaped by the prevailing economic system as well. Through a very concise and helpful explanation of use- and exchange-values, we are warned against interpreting cultural phenomena in relation to its purported function or utility.
If we look at a shoe, it has two types of values: a use-value and an exchange-value. The shoe’s use-value is found in its comfort, its ease of walking, its pleasure to the eye, whatever. The shoe’s exchange-value is found when we analyze how it can be exchanged for another commodity. In exchange-value, the shoe becomes qualitatively identical to any other commodity. So a shoe can equal 10,000 paperclips, a palace can equal 10,000 shoes, and so forth. But not all cultures have a concept of objects based on their exchange value. Taussig cites Malinowsky’s ethnography of the Trobrianders. You could exchange your tobacco for their pearls. But they don’t quantify tobacco and equate it with a quantitative value of the pearl, because if you wanted one of the really good pearls you would have to trade something qualitatively different. So in terms of Taussig’s South American capitalist-transitioning societies, we see the Peasants aiming to satisfy an array of qualitatively different needs, while the Capitalists are aiming for limitless capital accumulation. Because of this transition, “commonality and mutuality give way to personal self-interest” and then “the exchange ratio of commodities mediates and determines the activities of the people.”
Our western capitalist biases push us to consider social rituals as disguises for obtaining some sort of capital (be it social, financial, whatever), but Taussig stresses that we must instead see each phenomenon as it is experienced by its participants, and how they make sense of that in relation to other phenomena. Because if all sociality is a mask for obtaining capital, why does it take on the particular form that it does, with its wealth of embedded mythologies, rather than another set of ideas or practices?