The Kula Ring Kula, also known as the kula exchange or kula ring, is a ceremonial exchange sys tem

conducted in the Milne Bay Province of Papua New Guinea. The Kula ring was m ade famous by the father of modern Anthropology, Bronislaw Malinowski, who used this test case to argue for the universality of rational decision making (even a mong 'natives'), and for the cultural nature of the object of their effort. Mali nowski's path-breaking work, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922),[1] directl y confronted the question, "why would men risk life and limb to travel across hu ge expanses of dangerous ocean to give away what appear to be worthless trinkets ?" Malinowski carefully traced the network of exchanges of bracelets and necklac es across the Trobriand Islands, and established that they were part of a system of exchange (the Kula ring), and that this exchange system was clearly linked t o political authority. Malinowski's study became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don," 1 925).[2] Since then, the Kula ring has been central to the continuing anthropolo gical debate on the nature of gift giving, and the existence of "gift economies. " Trobriand.png The Kula ring spans 18 island communities of the Massim archipelago, including t he Trobriand Islands and involves thousands of individuals.[3] Participants trav el at times hundreds of miles by canoe in order to exchange Kula valuables which consist of red shell-disc necklaces (veigun or soulava) that are traded to the north (circling the ring in clockwise direction) and white shell armbands (mwali ) that are traded in the southern direction (circling counterclockwise). If the opening gift was an armshell, then the closing gift must be a necklace and vice versa. The exchange of kula valuables is also accompanied by the trade in other items known as gimwali (barter). The terms of participation vary from region to region. Whereas on the Trobriand Islands the exchange is monopolised by the chie fs, in Dobu all men can participate. Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 Items for trade Trading and the social hierarchy Gift versus commodity exchange See also Footnotes References

Items for trade Kula neck band All Kula valuables are non-use items traded purely for purposes of enhancing one 's social status and prestige. Carefully prescribed customs and traditions surro und the ceremonies that accompany the exchanges which establish strong, ideally lifelong relationships between the exchange parties (karayta'u, "partners"). The act of giving, as Mauss wrote, is a display of the greatness of the giver, acco mpanied by shows of exaggerated modesty in which the value of what is given is a ctively played down.[citation needed]Such a partnership involves strong mutual o bligations such as hospitality, protection and assistance. According to the Muyu w, a good Kula relationship should be "like a marriage". Similarly, the saying a round Papua is: "once in the Kula, always in the Kula."[4] Kula valuables never remain for long in the hands of the recipients; rather, the y must be passed on to other partners within a certain amount of time, thus cons tantly circling around the ring. However, even temporary possession brings prest ige and status. Important chiefs can have hundreds of partners while less signif icant participants may only have fewer than a dozen.[5] Even though the vast maj

ority of items that Kula participants have at any given time are not theirs and will be passed on, Damon (1980:281) notes that e.g. amongst the Muyuw all Kula o bjects are someone's kitoum, meaning they are owned by that person (or by a grou p). The person owning a valuable as kitoum has full rights of ownership over it: he can keep it, sell it or even destroy it. The Kula valuable or an equivalent item must be returned to the person who owns it as kitoum. The most important Mu yuw men for example own between three to seven Kula valuables as kitoum while ot hers do not own any. The fact that at least in theory all such valuables are som eone's kitoum adds a sense of responsibility to the way they are handled, remind ing the recipient that he is only a steward of somebody else's possession. The o wnership of a particular valuable is, however, often not known. Kula valuables c an be exchanged as kitoum in a direct exchange between two partners, thus fully transferring the rights of ownership. Trading and the social hierarchy The right of participation in Kula exchange is not automatic. One has to "buy" o ne's way into it through participating in various lower spheres of exchange.[6] The relationship giver-receiver is always asymmetrical: the former are higher in status. Also, Kula valuables are ranked according to value and age and so are t he relationships that are created through their exchange. Participants will ofte n strive to obtain particularly valuable and renowned Kula objects whose owner's fame will spread quickly through the archipelago. Such a competition unfolds th rough different persons offering pokala (offerings) and kaributu (solicitory gif ts) to the owner, thus seeking to induce him to engage in a gift exchange relati onship involving the desired object. Kula exchange therefore involves a complex system of gifts and countergifts whose rules are laid down by custom. The system is based on trust as obligations are not legally enforceable. However, strong s ocial obligations and the cultural value system, in which liberality is exalted as highest virtue while meanness is condemned as shameful, create powerful press ures to "play by the rules". Those who are perceived as holding on to valuables and as being slow to give them away soon get a bad reputation (cf.[7]). The Kula trade was organized differently in the more hierarchical parts of the T robriand islands. There, only chiefs were allowed to engage in Kula exchange. In hierarchical areas, individuals can earn their own kitomu shells, whereas in le ss hierarchical areas, they are always subject to the claims of matrilineal kin. And lastly, in the hierarchical areas, Kula necklaces and bracelets are saved f or external exchange only; stone axe blades are used internally. In less hierarc hical areas, exchange partners may lose their valuables to internal claims. As a result, most seek to exchange their kula valuables with chiefs, who thus become the most successful players. The chiefs have saved their Kula valuables for ext ernal trade, and external traders seek to trade with them before they lose their valuables to internal claims.[8] The Kula exchange system can be viewed as reinforcing status and authority disti nctions since the hereditary chiefs own the most important shell valuables and a ssume the responsibility for organizing and directing the ocean voyages. Damon ( 1980) notes that large amounts of Kula valuables are handled by a relatively sma ll number of people, e.g. amongst the Muyuw three men account for over 50 percen t of Kula valuables. The ten most influential men control about 90 percent of al l and almost 100 percent of the most precious Kula objects. The movement of thes e valuables and the related relationships determine most of Muyuw's political al liances. Fortune notes that Kula relationships are fragile, beset with various k inds of manipulation and deceit. The Muyuw for example state that the only way t o get ahead in Kula is to lie, commenting that deceit frequently causes Kula rel ationships to fall apart.[9] Similarly, Malinowski wrote of "many squabbles, dee p resentments and even feuds over real or imaginary grievances in the Kula excha nge."[10] Gift versus commodity exchange Malinowski with the Trobriand Islanders, 1918

The Kula ring is a classic example of Marcel Mauss' distinction between "gift" a nd commodity exchange. Melanesians carefully distinguish "gift" exchange (Kula) and market exchange in the form of barter (gimwali). Both reflect different unde rlying value systems and cultural customs. The Kula, Mauss wrote, is not suppose d to be conducted like gimwali (barter). The former involves a solemn exchange c eremony, a "display of greatness" where the concepts of honour and nobility are central; the latter, in contrast, often done as part of Kula exchange journeys, involves hard bargaining and purely serves economic purposes.[11] Kula valuables are inalienable in the sense that they (or an equivalent object) have to be ret urned to the original owner. Those who receive them can pass them on as gifts, b ut they cannot be sold as commodities (except by the one who owns them as kitoum ). Malinowski, however, highlighted the unusual characteristics of these "gifts." M alinowski placed the emphasis on the exchange of goods between individuals, and their non-altruistic motives for giving the gift: they expected a return of equa l or greater value (colloquially referred to as "Indian giving"). In other words , reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting; there is no such thing as the "fre e gift" given without expectation. Mauss, in contrast, emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivit ies. These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation" and not a gift in our sen se of the word. They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sol d, but, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation, history and sense of i dentity of a "corporate kin group," such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, M auss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concep t, "the spirit of the gift." A good part of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation of that phrase. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the very relationship between givers alive; a fai lure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts. Jonathan Parry has demonstrated that Mauss was actually arguing that the concep t of a "pure gift" given altruistically only emerges in societies with a well de veloped market ideology such as the west, and in India.[12] Mauss' concept of "total prestations" was further developed by Annette Weiner, w ho revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands. Her critique was t wo fold: first, Trobriand Island society is matrilineal, and women hold a great deal of economic and political power. Their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski . Secondly, she developed Mauss' argument about reciprocity and the "spirit of t he gift" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while givi ng."[13] Weiner contrasts "moveable goods" which can be exchanged with "immoveab le goods" that serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand case, male Kula gi fts with women's landed property). She argues that the specific goods given, lik e Crown Jewels, are so identified with particular groups, that even when given, they are not truly alienated. Not all societies, however, have these kinds of goods, which depend upon the exi stence of particular kinds of kinship groups. French anthropologist Maurice Gode lier[14] pushed the analysis further in "The Enigma of the Gift" (1999). Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier (including the Kula ring in the Trobriands, the Potlatch of the Indige nous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, and the Toraja of South Sulawesi, I ndonesia) are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit with Claude Levi-Strauss' model of "House Societies" (where "House" refers to both no ble lineage and their landed estate). Total prestations are given, he argues, to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain thei r place in a ranked society.[15] See also Potlatch, a similar practice among some Native American and First Nations pe

oples of west coast North America Koha, a similar practice among the M?ori Moka, a similar practice in the Mt. Hagen area of Papua New Guinea Sepik Coast exchange, a similar practice in the Sepik Coast of Papua New Gui nea Footnotes ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ^ Mauss, Marcel (1970). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West. ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 82. ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 98. ^ Damon, F. H. (1980). "The Kula and Generalised Exchange: Considering some Unconsidered Aspects of the Elementary Structures of Kinship". Man (new series) 15: 278. ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 100. ^ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-wh ile-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 137 140. ^ Damon, F. H. (1980). "The Kula and Generalised Exchange: Considering some Unconsidered Aspects of the Elementary Structures of Kinship". Man (new series) 15: 278. ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 100. ^ Mauss, Marcel (1970). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West. pp. 22 23. ^ Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Man 21 (3): 453 73. ^ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-wh ile-Giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. ^ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. ^ Schrauwers, Albert (2004). "H(h)ouses, E(e)states and class: On the import ance of capitals in central Sulawesi". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenku nde 160 (1): 72 94. References "Kula in Woodlark". Fieldwork report: Logging or conservation on Woodlark (M uyuw) island, by Michael Young, Department of Anthropology, Research School of P acific Studies, Australian National University. Retrieved March 14, 2005. "Kula: the standard model". Notes for reading Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonaut s of the Western Pacific (1922). Retrieved March 14, 2005. Jerry Leach and Edmund Leach (1983). The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Ex change. Cambridge University Press, New York. Damon, F. H. (1980). "The Kula and Generalised Exchange: Considering some Un considered Aspects of the Elementary Structures of Kinship". Man (new series) 15 : 267 292. Malinowski, B. (1920). "Kula; the Circulating Exchange of Valuables in the A

rchipelagoes of Eastern New Guinea". Man (Man, Vol. 20) 20: 97 105. doi:10.2307/28 40430. JSTOR 2840430. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Nativ e Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. George Routledge & Sons, Ltd. Mauss, M. (1990). The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic socie ties. London: Routledge.