Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
I received 10 fishing arrows from the Kayabi. I lost one in the river and gave 3
to my brother-in-law. How many arrows do I have now?
This is how Tarupi Juruna structured his arithmetic strategy:
10
13
12
2
−
1
−
10
+7
+
3
13
12
2
9
Answer: I have 9 arrows now.
The result would be considered incorrect - a “mistake,” which could be tested
and shown to be wrong according to a particular set of presuppositions - if we did
not interpret it according to the Juruna system of gift exchange and by Tarupi's
interpersonal relations with his kin and with the Kayabi:
My brother-in-law will pay me the 3 arrows back. If the Kayabi gave me 10
arrows, I will then have 13. Then I will subtract the 1 I lost, so 12 remain. But
since I will pay the Kayabi 10 arrows back, 2 will remain. These 2 arrows, plus
the 7 I already have at home make 9 arrows.
A different result was reached by Lavuciá Juruna when solving the same dilemma:
10
19
25
24
−
1
−
3
+
9
+
6
19
25
24
21
Now I have 21 arrows because I already had 9, so that is 10 + 9 = 19. My
brother-in-law will pay me back the 3 I gave him plus 3 he already owed me.
That is 19 + 6 = 25. Since I lost 1 arrow in the river, now I have 24. But my
father-in-law had given me 3 arrows, so that is 24 - 3 = 21.
That the specificity of arithmetical practice varies according to particular situations has
several implications. Most importantly, the alleged eternal verities of mathematics
21
are shown to be socially construed. Gift exchange carries with it connotations that
shape mathematical concepts. The reverse, however, can also be true. Standard forms
of material capital (such as systems of currency, measurement) and algorithmic
arithmetic “carry meaning and values
as such
, and these too are subjectively
experienced” (Lave 1988:124). This reversibility is precisely what characterizes the
dialectical movement between symbolic and material capital. According to Bourdieu,
“the exchange of gifts, words, challenges, or even women must allow for the fact
that each of these inaugural acts may misfire, and that it receives its meaning, in any
case, from the response it triggers off, even if the response is a failure to reply that
retrospectively removes its intended meaning” (1991:5).
