From George Dalton (2 June 1961)
[70] BARD COLLEGE
ANNANDALE-ON-HUDSON
NEW YORK
June 2, 1961
Dear KP:
I must confess that your letter of May 28 (three typed copies of which I enclose) makes me feel like a heretic in receipt of a Papal Bull belling him why he's been excommunicated from the communion of the True Church. I do not mind being hit over the head with the cross I bear; nor do I mind the march to Cavalry, except that I'm not sure the trip is really necessary. I don't mean to deny or pass over the force and cogency of your exposition. Undoubtedly I suffer from the economist's habit of being casual about terms, AS LONG AS HE MAKES CLEAR WHAT HE MEANS BY THEM. It is the cataclysmic consequences of my errors that I find difficult to follow.
Of course I will scrutinize the ANTHROPOLOGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT draft -- and I trust, Paul will too -- in the light of what you say. You may regard this a crucial fault, but frankly I don't feel all that attached to any set of terms to continue using them if you see fateful consequences, although I'll be damned if I can see that it makes all that difference. That you think so, is enough for me, and I'll do my best to change them.
May I point out -- at the risk of seeming presumptuous -- that my translation, so to speak, of your ideas in the Feb. AA piece, seemed well received. I don't mean to imply that my terms are better than yours, but only that there are some difficulties of expression in your which, perhaps, make it not unforgivable to seek simpler formulation. I tried to point out a number of such difficulties in that eight page single-spaced memorandum I wrote you in Jan or Feb. 1960, when we were contemplating a re-write of T&M for English publication.
I understand all that you say; what I do not understand is your chain of reasoning which concludes that dire consequences follow from my use of terms. That my “…undisciplined use of terms would demolish the advances of most of modern anthropology. Middle 19th century fantasies of atomistic individualism as the foundation of political science would be restored with a vengeance.” Enough said. I will change them.
I'm sorry to have horrified you by injecting my utilitarian fantaisies into redistribution. But if redistribution is to be pu into a comparative context, and talked about at a pattern (not a principle) for the Trobriands, for present-day United States (where it is peripheral), and for present-day USSR, something has to be said about the uses to which the centrally disposed goods are put. I'll be double-damned if I can understand why my pointing out that they are used for community services (defense, feasts), emergency subsistence (ever-normal granary), and to reward specific individuals, on my part, utilitarian fantasy. Saying that the goods move to center and out again is true, but it seems to me, insufficient.
George
< Previous letter to G. Dalton (28 May 1961) |
Letter Informations
Reference:
KPA: 52/01, 70