tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5263183685364131312.post1332795905400944398..comments2023-09-16T10:53:49.712-05:00Comments on Round and Square: Seinfeld Ethnography (24)—Exploding WalletRound and Squarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12034747929658750371noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5263183685364131312.post-69119737214041200012011-09-07T21:02:23.094-05:002011-09-07T21:02:23.094-05:00Your thread regarding Ruth Benedict and "Accu...Your thread regarding Ruth Benedict and "Accumulating Goods" reminds me of "The Gift" by Marcel Mauss. Specifically, it brought up the thought of the circumstance of obligation to repay or return favors, services, and gifts for a person.<br /><br />What is the appropriate quantity, time, and value of reciprocal capital (goods, services) needed or desired to compensate for this capital? How much power and status can one attain from any given transfer of greater reciprocal capital?<br /><br />This brings into question the whole concept of reciprocity. If one provides goods, services, and gifts to another and the other person compensates an equal value of capital, is there any need to continue their relationship?<br /><br />Given that these two individuals are not family members, under what circumstances should they continue their relationship other than punctuated and unbalanced reciprocal capital exchanges between them?<br /><br />They may be in what George M. Foster calls "The Dyadic Contract."<br /><br />Links:<br />1. http://englishwithsandragastaldi.pbworks.com/f/FOSTER_The_dyadic_contract.pdf<br />or<br />http://www.jstor.org/pss/666855<br />2. http://www.la.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/global/sources/foster.htm<br /><br />A concept worth exploration.<br /><br />- Best Regards, Eric Koenig"Question Master"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17956270532735684087noreply@blogger.com