Productive Destruction：Observations about Destruction as the Central Organizing Form to Social Life

FREDERICK Damon

Abstract：This paper is a reflection on observations about the place of destruction in the organization of social life. In contemplating the model of sacrifice， the author draws upon sources ranging Hubert， Mauss， and Evan-Pritchard to Levi-Strauss， and considers the circumstances of his life as a scholar of Melanesia and as a resident of the United States.The question that intrigues the author the most is： “ what quality is there in social life that makes destruction so often the condition of creation？” The author names this kind of destruction as a productive destruction and gives an analysis. He argues that destruction not only makes creation possible， it also produces the conditions for the formation of not just difference， but a rank order or hierarchy. He suggests that it is not religion which creates the ritual hierarchies of power and destruction， but the latter which gets taken up by religion and ritual， and， thence， by the development of forms of social order.

Key Words：productive destruction； central organizing form， social life； sacrificial rites

Ⅰ.Introduction—Bookends to Frequent Observations1

This paper is a reflection on observations about the place of destruction in the organization of social life. The opening and italicized question in Mausss Essai sur le donne was “what thing is in the gift that compels a return？”2 Departing from Mauss the question that intrigues me is rather this one：“what quality is there in social life that makes destruction so often the condition of creation， the dead the lead-in to the good？” Destruction， it seems， is not just the central act in sacrificial rites that connects some kind of human order with some kind of divine order， it usually works its way back to transform the living. And the transformation is to a hierarchy， its creation or representation， or both.

The initial settings for this papers considerations were Melanesian on the one hand and the circumstances of my life as scholar of and resident in the United States on the other. In both cases the analytical lens of my choosing was partly refracted through questions Dumont posed with respect to India and the West （1965[1986]， 1970， 1977）， and I maintain this vantage point here， returning to Dumont in my final section. Yet here these reflections are mediated by the Chinese context for the initial rewriting of this paper and a final contrast that looms as a Melanesianist becoming absorbed in Chinese sociality.

Ashes sifted into my room as I rewrote this paper in March and April of this year. I was living on the edge of the physical and moral center of Quanzhou in Fujian Province， the Kaiyuan Si， a Buddhist temple dating from the early Tang dynasty. Its Yuan Dynasty pagodas remain icons for a city whose thousand year position at the end of the Silk Road becomes more and more of a presence and perhaps symbol of the flourishing productive center it is becoming once again （So 2000， Wang 2009）. The ash was from a nearby furnace devoted to burning “spirit money” following a 26th day ritual， Qin Fo Ri （勤佛日）， a literal translation of which might be Diligent Buddhas Day.3 Temple associates perform the ritual every lunar month exemplifying large scale organization. For not only did I experience its sifting ashes for days afterwards， as I walked through the temple grounds on the 26th I had a hard time not getting plowed over as hundreds of people moved through the tiered sequence of lavishly decorated altars， food and other items in hand to be donated to the gods， reams of spirit money to be handed over to the monks shoveling it into the large furnace inside the temple grounds but east of the main temple pavilions. A kind of joyous bedlam flowed into and out of the surrounding streets crowded not only with people heading into and out of the temple， but shoppers out to consider everything from plumbing fixtures to reams of paper money designed to go up in smoke. In good Durkhiemian fashion this was one of those moments when， and where， every facet of life rises to an unusual radiance.

As it has been usual for me over the last few years， David Gibeault， another participant in our conference and student of the Dumont-inspired French equip ERASME， framed one of the ways for considering what surrounded me： paper money， spirit money as many authors translate it （e.g. Seaman 1982； Gates， 1987； Chu2010） moving， by means of its destruction， from the Yang World （陽間） of the living to the Yin World （陰間） of the dead. Yet what concerns me about these kinds of activities is what happens to the living after they have sent whatever they send to the dead.

One final reflection， one which perhaps points to the distant analogies that might exist between what made China and what made the portion of the Kula Ring in Melanesia that has been my pleasure to understand—the wealth buried with famous Terracotta Warriors in the case of China and the custom of burying kitoum which Muyuw islands highest ranked people practiced at the deaths of their most important men. That the funeral arrangements associated with the first emperor of the Han Dynasty were designed to build a replica of this world in the deceaseds other world is clear. But I suggest that what might be stressed instead is the massive destruction of wealth， a removal from the living， that that creation effected. Did that destruction establish of a dynasty that lasted some 400 years？ Attention needs to be paid to the consequences of this loss. That was not a matter of the afterlife， but one of action in this world. Similarly in north central Muyuw in the northeastern corner of the Kula Ring. There， amidst the only region that island noted to have high rank， the death of a significant man was celebrated by burying a kitoum with him. Kitoum are a class of valuable that was the organizing pivot around which shell wealth moved for， by Melanesian standards， a vast regional system. They are significant because their owners have absolute control over what is done with the valuable. Destroying them， which is what burying them did， removes that control—unless their destruction motivates their reproduction， action which then becomes a forceful sign of the position that was surrendered by the original act of destruction.4

There are three parts to this paper. The first begins from contemplating facts that make the model of sacrifice— running from Hubert and Mauss， Evans-Pritchard to Lévi-Strauss—a productive lens for working through basic ideas Ive learned from Kula Ring friends. This data comes from Muyuw， Woodlark Island， in the northeast corner of the Kula Ring in Milne Bay Province， Papua New Guinea， where I have conducted 48 months of research beginning in 1973； my last visit was in 2012. I then turn briefly Polynesia to pull a generalizable point out of Greg Denings 1992 Mr. Blighs Bad Language， a distillation of a wide arena of Polynesian data although Dening is really concerned with the sacrificial nature of the affairs associated with the infamous mutiny on the Bounty. Denings transferal of classic anthropological topics to a European context leads immediately to certain aspect of the Euro-American experience in part by way of a number of historians who draw， knowingly and not， on classic anthropological perspectives.

My second section returns to my Melanesian data by focusing on the difference between dead （“burned”） pigs and live pigs exchanged in a mortuary context. During my initial research in the 1970s， Muyuw people often complained about what they considered a newly enforced feature of their mortuary system.5 In a culminating ritual the exchange of pigs amongst intermarried units serves to pass the obligations and responsibilities from the deceased to the person or persons next in line. People claimed that in the past this was accomplished by burning， i.e. killing all the pigs， distributing them as pork， and thus canceling or creating debts against which productive resources were maintained or transferred between intermarried units. But over the course of the 20th century， they asserted， they were forced to exchange live pigs inside the confines of the ritual. This created no debts. Their analysis of this changed condition generates a governing principal of this essay， that destruction is the condition for the creation of not just difference， but a rank order， a kind of hierarchy. I elaborate on my principal point with the help of two ideas， one put forth by Chris Gregory in Gifts and Commodities（1982）； the other comes from Lévi-Strauss considerations of totemism （1963）.

In the immediate sequel to Totemism Lévi-Strauss was dismissive of sacrificial processes—he shouldnt have been. And in keeping the Dumontian framework that initiated this exercise I use a moment from Homo Hierarchicus（1970）， and the direction Dumont took following that work， to return this paper to our modern circumstances. An insight from Lévi-Strauss gives direction to the maneuver. Working through another aspect of his critique of an earlier generations treatment of totemism，Lévi-Strauss wrote： “When an exotic custom fascinates us in spite of...its apparent singularity， it is generally because it presents us with a distorted reflection of a familiar image， which we confusedly recognize as such without yet managing to identify it” （Lévi-Strauss 1966 ： 238-39）. Hubert and Mausss essay on sacrifice appeared in Lnnée sociologique in 1898. This is near the end of a century that created religion as a bounded and to some degree separate domain of activity； after nearly thirty years of increasingly intense and productive discussion—Tylor （1871）， followed by writings from Robertson Smith and Frazer—about “sacrifice” in that domain of religion； and towards the end of a century during which industrial capitalism spread and matured and spilled over into World War I.6 Perhaps， indeed， there was a distorted reality， a process displaced onto an anterior condition of humanity which in fact was central to the world coming into being Julie Chus “Teacher Wang” contributes to the questions that emerge here. According to her he says：

“Look at all the great Chinese inventions…With gunpowder， what did we do？ We made firecrackers to celebrate the Lunar New Year and so forth. With the compass， we practiced fengshui. And with paper money？ We burned it for gods， for ancestors. Meanwhile Westerners were using these inventions to conquer to rest of the world” （Chapter 5，“For Use in Heaven or Hell，”Chu 2010： p.173）

Yet maybe the closed system of human thought should come around to reflect differently on our not so novel circumstances.

Ⅱ. Essential Eements in Rites of Sacrifice

It is convenient to understand sacrifice as involving communion， bringing the sacred into the profane， or being piacular， removing the “sacred，” often with negative connotations， from the profane. And I find Evans-Pritchards characterization （1956） of the grammar of the rites， their sequential order—“presentation，” “invocation，”“consecration” and “immolation”—a convenient way of bringing a partial order to the common experience of sacrifice or sacrifice-like processes.

In the northeast corner of the Kula Ring actors claim that the purpose of kula action–kun in Muyuw— is to make their names rise， to make them visible over the horizon. They do this by exchanging two complementary shells， generically called mwal （“armshells”） and veigun （“necklaces”） counter clockwise and clockwise around a circle of islands. However metaphorical it might seem， in this institution the conceived relationship between destruction and production is straightforward because the corollary of a high name， the intent of the institution， is a diminished body that loses its materiality because of exchanges.7 A depleted body follows from a name made high. Kula valuables come into ones possession from elsewhere. And they only accomplish their purpose by being thrown in the opposite direction from which they have come. If it might be suggested that Kula valuables partake of the sacred， the institution works by getting rid of that bit of reality. At least feigned anger is part of every exchange because by a throwing a valuable to a partner，the giver destroys part of his self. This is the immolation， the act of destruction central to the institution yet but a step in a process. A sign of that destruction is the loss of the persons name. When a person receives a valuable his name goes up， the givers goes down. When the first recipient gives away what he received his name goes down， the new recipients goes up. And counter to the givers experience， feigned or not， joy is at least part of every recipients experience as his name rises. With a large valuable the recipient might be stripped bare of his clothing： being made anew he is returned to the initial condition. I asked one man for whom that happened if he was “embarrassed.” He said no， he was so overjoyed at receiving the thing that he didnt worry about anything else. Other sacrificial moments frequently identified in the forms grammar. Valuables are presented， for example， as soon as they have been hung up inside a house. There they are meant to be seen， their travels， attachments and intentions absorbed by as many people as possible. The consecration comes when two partners have come to terms and the giver picks up the valuable， emphatically part of his being， then walks to the recipient. The invocation comes as he talks over valuable to the recipient. But this useful elicitation of the exchange/sacrifice order does not totalize what actually occurs because the iteration of the form is part of its very structure. For it is only by the valuable moving on to another person that the givers name is realized over the horizon. On the beach of the initial exchange the givers name goes down， the receivers goes up. This shift is repeated when the first receiver becomes a giver to a third person. But as his name goes down and the recipients goes up， so also does the first persons name go up. So， a persons name first goes down as he throws the valuable he has received， that becomes identified with him from the time he received it and then presented it； his name then goes up when that valuable has been thrown to a third person. Although he gains the name he sought， he does not regain the physical part of him the valuable first carried away. His new rank is made as he is experienced elsewhere by means of somebody elses immolation. And it is explicit that this is accomplished along with if not by means of the physical depletion of the givers body， effectively symbolized by the initial decline of his name. Men Ive known for nearly 40 years really like looking old， taking that appearance as a sign of their kula success. It is a fact—a painful fact， informants have stressed that to be successful in the kula is to work hard， to expend ones powers—thus the visible sign of increased physical wear and tear. By means of shells from the sea bodily stuff is transformed into the rank of a name.

This depletion of the giver resembles the real destruction of bodies in Polynesia， where a familiar Polynesian hierarchy appears in the archaeological record from the 13th or 14th century – a hierarchy that， I suggest， is produced through sacrifice. The structural similarities with the kula extend to the proximate beach location of so many of the Polynesian public structures.8 Dening renders one of Tahitis most important marae from the 1730s on， Taputapuatea， as “Sacrifices from Abroad” （1992： 179）， for it was from there that bodies from the land could more readily be sent over the horizon to the heavens. 9

A passage from Dening， a former Catholic priest， is now useful to invoke. His 1992 account of Bounty drama passes back and forth between the likes of Oliver （1974） and Sahlins （1986） on the Polynesian facts while making the history of the drama， i.e. the Western experience. His central ethnographic focus so，

“In sacrifice， human actions—the destruction of a living thing—are transformed by being given meaning. What is destroyed—a man， a pig， a plantain branch， a piece of unleavened bread—become something else： a victim， an offering， a gift， a scapegoat. The instruments of that transformation are always dramaturgical. There is always a play， a ritual， to present the meaning. There are always things that， in their colour or shape or in their association， make an environment of signs. The sequence of actions draws their elements together... But the significance of these plays is never automatically effective or static. The rituals are conditioned by all … all the endless creativity of meaning construction. Above all， they are always historical： the meanings of the signs are always being changed by being read， by being interpreted” （Dening， 1992： 228）.

So， indeed， the gap， the void created by destruction， is filled by words and images which attempt to transform， to make the experience of loss useful for the present. In the kula， for example， people think they have depleted themselves physically by the throwing a valuable. But that experience doesnt end with the transaction， and is often repeated， verbally， over and over again through time. Learning how to recite past acts of giving is in fact a major rhetorical form the institution demands. Ambitious youth sit around the edges of elders as they recite stories of this and that kula valuable to learn the practice， the ability to go on and on about the travels of important articles， even if the stories are made up…for countering somebody elses fabrication in fact proves to the fabricator that that person knows something. And at this time our popular culture is serving up a smorgasbord of books—and movies and TV serials10 —reworking and reliving the deeds of the 20th century， drawing from the intimacies of individuals but placing them in the global constructs that leave us with our present—this is Denings “the meanings of the signs are always being changed by being read， by being interpreted.”11 Evans touches on this quality in a recent review： “Popular fascination with World War II in particular continues to be led by an enthusiasm for experiencing vicariously the heroic struggle of the democracies and their armed forces against the barbarism of the Nazi forces and the sadism of the Japanese military.”12

Since the late 1970s I have been teaching a course on US/Western culture designed to parallel my Melanesian inquiries. A major portion of the course is devoted to 19th century social transformations， a transformed religiosity generated by the Second Great Awakening， and its lead into to the Civil War （1861-1865）. An interest in sacrifice eventually brought me to lynching which， after the Civil War becomes increasingly a White/Black phenomenon. In Making Whiteness： The Culture of Segregation in the South， 1890-1940（1999）， historian Grace Hale works along one line of thought regarding this behavior. In her model， by the end of the Civil War there had been much intermarriage amongst the distinguishable sets of people in the continental United States. Given the way egalitarianism13 was replacing common sense hierarchical notions more or less equivalent to The Great Chain of Being， some way of demarcating people was needed. Full of important details， she provides nice insight on a “presentation” aspect of these forms：

The 1893 murder of Smith [in Paris Texas] was the first blatantly public， actively promoted lynching of a southern black by a large crowd of southern whites. Adding three key features—the specially chartered excursion train， the publicly sold photograph， and the widely circulated， unabashed retelling of the event by one of the lynchers—the killing of Smith modernized and made more powerful the loosely organized more spontaneous practice of lynching that had previously prevailed. In what one commentator aptly termed a “neglected feature of railroading”from 1893 on railroad companies could be counted to arrange specil trains to transport spectators and lynchers to previously announced lynching sites （Hale 1999： 206-207）.

In these rituals a group of people publically destroyed a representative body then distributed its parts among the witnesses， either the real parts of dismembered bodies or by picture postcards—a new form of communication then. This served to distinguish who was who and who was dead. And it would seem that the dead brought life， the vibrancy of a rite of passage， to the living.14

The logic of this argument is this： Continuity needed to be replaced by tangible discontinuity （or differentiation）. A similar argument could be used with the institution of the Kula. There are two kinds of kula valuables which can be equated by means of the category kitoum， the personally owned category that facilitates the movement of one form into the other. But generally all mwals， armshells， are the same， as are all veiguns； therefore all members of each of these sets can be， and are， ranked from lowest to highest.15 Its the same with people. Kula actors are acutely aware of intra-cultural ranking in each locality and practice intercultural ranking games with gusto. Yet the institutions structure enables the formal equation of all people. In this regard people and the kula valuables are formally equivalent， which， in a way， is the condition for the latter to be the means of ranking the former： men do wish to become as important as the highest ranked kula valuables whose names and journeys are known by all. The flux of this system thus allows for the inversion of all rank orders across the region： I vividly remember one of the first transactions I saw， by a young man about my age， 25ish in 1973， severely scolding， practically walking over then giving two valuables to the biggest man in the southeast corner of the Kula Ring （while the latter is now dead the former has close to the latters stature）.

I shall return to this argument， the formal dissolution of continuity by instigated discontinuity.

But there is another， and I think preferable way， to fathom late 19th and 20th century lynching. As Garry Wills observed in Negro President： Jefferson and the Slave Power， until the Civil War the South ran the United States.16 The Civil War destroyed the Souths place as the directors of the country as， not coincidentally， northern interests sought to change the USs rank order in the world system from that of the periphery to a competing core member. Although he does not use Wallersteins model of that system （e.g. Wallerstein 1974， 2004）， Anthony Wallace documents this social transformation in his historical ethnography Rockdale（Wallace 1978）. Wallace shows how a reorganized social system was created that eventuality could compete with the hegemonic power of the time—England. The Souths system serviced the European core powers by supplying it with raw materials—cotton. The interests that came together in the North， eventually leading to the Civil War， changed that dynamic.17 What then becomes increasingly prominent after that war was the substantiation of the difference between white and black by means of piacular rituals when blacks were conceived to enter the white domain. The historian Bertram WyattBrown （2001）， drawing on Julian PittRivers discussions of honor and grace in anthropology，18 brilliantly explicates the problem of honor in the South in the years following the Civil War.19 Lynched and dismembered bodies distributed across the countryside restored， to the participants， what some thought was their appropriate social standing. This was a question of hierarchy， and taking out a body made visible a relation all but destroyed by the Civil War.

John Dower lets us know that it was pretty much the same in WWII， overtly in the Pacific war：

in Asia it was Allied combatants who collected ears. Like collecting old teeth， this practice was no secret. “The other night，” read an account in the marine monthly Leatherneck， in mid-1943， “Stanley emptied his pockets of ‘souvenirs—eleven ears from dead Japs. It was not disgusting， as it would be from the civilian point of view. None of us could get emotional over it.” Even as battle-hardened veterans were assuming that civilians would be shocked by such acts， however， the press in the United States contained evidence to the contrary. In April 1943， the Baltimore Sun ran a story about a local mother who had petitioned authorities to permit her son to mail her an ear he had cut off a Japanese soldier in the South Pacific. She wished to nail it to her front door for all to see. On the very same day， the Detroit Free Press deemed newsworthy the story of an underage youth who had enlisted and “bribed” his chaplain not to disclose his age by promising him the third pair of ears he collected （Dower 1986： 65. Footnotes omitted）.

It is probably a safe generalization to suggest that wars， or war-like events， frequently generate piacular activities. Reactions to 9/11 in the United States provide a recent set of examples.

Ⅲ. The Truth？

I am using the topic of sacrifice to pose this question： Why is it that so much of social life is constructed by destruction？ 20 To take a step closer to an answer to this question I now consider comments Muyuw people made to me in the 1970s when they were reflecting on what they understood as a transformation forced upon them in the largest of three mortuary rituals they conduct following a death.21 They understood these new practices as a yaweid， a word that may be accurately translated， depending on context， as either a “mistake” or a “l(fā)ie.” So what is the truth？

Here is their situation. In what is often the third and largest of their three mortuary rituals designed to move the deceaseds estate to the person sponsoring the ritual pigs and lots of other food， root and tree crops， are gathered by people related by marriage. The ritual host then distributes this material widely to others not defined as primary givers or receivers in the ceremonies. These others are witnesses to the action that transpires in front of them. Formerly all pigs collected and given by one set of people to another， the latter the people conducting the ritual， had to be killed， cut up， and distributed to the witnesses. The pigs are usually speared to death then lightly burned before they are cut up into distributable pieces of pork. Because of the light burning pigs so consumed by the ritual are said to be “burned” （gob）. Although the gifts of food and pork the witnesses receive have to be returned at some future similar ritual， nothing significant follows from the creation or cancellation of these secondary debts （social reputation vacillates around a mean in trivial ways given this aspect of the ritual）. Not so with the initial giving of live pigs to be burned. In the past killing everything was the normal practice and destroying live animals and turning them into distributable pork remains a significant part of the process today. The dead and distributed pigs are either returns on old debts or new instruments of debt. If a pig debt cannot be returned its place must be made up for by some other productive resource， village and garden land and sago orchards foremost. These are a groups productive resources， and while origin spots， which are not serious productive resources， do not go back and forth amongst allied clans， all other assets do. Thus mortuary rituals are the prime means by which assets are garnered， or lost， and these are the forms by which all other significant social realities， including and ultimately the name generated in the kula， come about.

In the 1970s elders complained that others forced22 them to gather a lot of pigs for the ceremony most of which would be traded immediately rather than killed and cut up as pork for immediate consumption. If the pigs are traded immediately， nothing is at stake， and that is what they classed as “the lie.” The dead pigs contest peoples ability to produce （and reproduce）， because they force the creation of new pigs. The destruction of pigs in a ritual either represents the production of replacement pigs or engages the receiving unit to orient its activities to new production. These pigs are real， but they are also mimetic instances of an array of productive activities that include building up horticultural （yams and taro） and aboricultural （sago orchards and betel nut） resources for several years leading up to the ritual. These activities are what make these rituals the pressing social occasion that they are. The tense， furtive reality that lurks beneath the gaiety of mortuary rites –which are otherwise primary meeting and courting times for youth—is the real concern for relative， i.e. ranked futures. The rites leave those futures in the balance， and that is why everyday life in the region experiences continuous discussion about the coming and going of pigs. The dead pigs animate life； they make life count， and counting them makes life.

Two texts animate the background for interpreting these forms. A third， Dumonts oeuvre represented by Homo Hierarchicus， provides a comparative foil and I turn to it in my last section.

The first text is Chris Gregorys Gifts and Commodities.I draw on his almost casual suggestion that the only way there can be real accumulation in Gift Societies is when the means of exchange， sooner or later congealed value， and thus the possibility of repayment， are destroyed （1982： 59-61）. Killing pigs is cancelling their ability to fill other debts while creating one if in fact the pig has been received from somebody else. So the dead pig ends somebody elses chance to cancel a debt or forces the recipient to work to replace it or lose a productive resource.

To make a step toward my concluding section， this relationship becomes particularly intriguing if you look at the modern world through the eyes of Wallersteins modern world-system. Although Wallerstein betrays no particular knowledge of anthropologys exchange literature， his model is essentially a Gift System. Units in the system become ranked by their ability to produce and exchange certain kinds of products （such abilities， of course， a consequence of the social system， local and regional， that has been created）. As in the Kula ring， the social problem is who produces and exchanges what ranked values， not the prices of the products exchanged， the “market” view of sociality. If you produce raw materials you are at one end of a spectrum； if you produce high quality products， that is， items which congeal massive amounts of human creativity， you are ranked highly. In this model the fact of exchange doesnt lead to accumulation. Only， perhaps， destruction of exchangeable things， value in its various incarnations， including bodies， seems to manage that.23

My second text comes from Lévi-Strauss， primarily Totemism. This book and The Savage Mind（both published in France in 1962）， led to a reorganization of how we think about the logic inherent in social life. Together they attempt to raise the status of the organizational significance of “totemism，” an illusionary category， while dismissing “religion”—much less illusionary. Religion is impoverished （Lévi-Strauss， 1966：95） and “sacrifice” is a nonsensical form of communication （p.228）. The Dening quote above is probably designed to counter Lévi-Strausss views on religion and sacrifice， though its widespread pertinence may in fact support what Lévi-Strauss suggested—namely， that sacrificial structures are the same， more or less， everywhere. Yet what interests me is how Levi-Straus understands the condition of totemism. Drawing from Ojibwa and Tikopian myths where an animal is removed from a sequence he writes：

“totemism as a system is introduced as what remains of a diminished totality， a fact which may be a way of expressing that the terms of the system are significant only if they are separated from each other， since they alone remain to equip a semantic field which was previously better supplied and into which a discontinuity has been introduced.” （Totemism， translated by Rodney Needham， p. 26）

The point here is that a reduction， effectively a kind of destruction， is the condition for significance. This is， of course， standard linguistic analysis： difference is the first condition for communication. Hales argument about 19th century American/Southern cultural dynamics approaches this kind of logic. The only way to make sure there was a difference between orders of people that seemed to blend together was by the asymmetrical destruction of what became an icon of their differences.

I close this section by making another attempt to move this section into the next. In Late Capitalism24， Ernest Mandels Mandel attempted to employ Marxs production departments—the production of the means of production versus the production of articles of consumption—to model certain aspects of the Western social system from after the middle of the 19th century to after the middle of the 20th. But he observed it was impossible to make the model plausible25 unless he added a third department， the department of destruction. Although building weapons is not only a feature of capitalist society，26 he felt the increase in armaments expenditures， and one might wish to add， certainly now， the contribution such spending makes to the overall society， leapt to a new level. For the US this seems counterintuitive because after the Civil War it practically disarmed itself. However， slowly it started to build a navy. Soon the United States went into serious production of a navy—think of all the steel in those ships—at the same time the country was suffering a continual overproduction problem with railroads， and all the steel that went into the rails， bridges， and steam engines. There is a real empirical question here： over and above the technical advances that came to shipping as the US decided to move from a third rate to a first rate naval power between about 1880 and 1910， how much surplus production did those ships absorb？ （Let me remind the reader that it is over these decades that the anthropological discussion of “sacrifice” becomes productive.） I used to think that a general upswing27 in the world economy that started about 1894 came to a premature end by the financial crises of 1908 and then WWI in 1914. But that was certainly not the case in the United States. World War I led to the realization of all those rail lines and factories that had been built up from 1890 on： their value was absorbed by fashioning the material for trench warfare in Europe. In relation to that otherwise incomprehensible slaughter， life was enabled. Those dead bodies are like the dead pigs， giving vitality to the living.28 Destruction relationships like these seem common across the affairs of human sociality， however different the forms they take. Of Southeast Asias expanding production of tin Anthony Reid writes： “Chinas demand for Southeast Asian tin expanded greatly during its prosperous eighteenth century， partly to make the tinfoil burnt as joss paper in offerings to the ancestors” （Reid 2011）.29 Dana Priest and William M. Arkins 2012 Top Secret America： The Rise of the New American Security State would seem to show the same engagement of technical and human capital—the problem of absorbing the fantastic amount of creativity that computers enable since， roughly， 1980. 9/11 created more dead pigs. Death， removal from a social context， gives people meaning.

Ⅳ. The Shape of Social Systems

We are familiar with Dumonts notion of hierarchy. The religious contrast between the pure and impure not only contains a contrary but encompasses the social system， provides its paramount value. After his India period Dumont was devoted to the Weberian problem of showing how religious values constitute the fundamental dynamic in Western social life. As his work extended over the years he became increasingly wedded to the idea of a role for Christianity in the West analogous to what he thought the Brahmanical role was in India， generative. So far as I know， however， he did not attempt to reveal something like a contained contrary as central to the Western experience whereas he believed it was central to India. The Western “structure” appears rather flat. In his comparative project this is important because the Indian form enables a profusion of varying value systems whereas， it seems， in the Western model there is the idea that there should be just one. Iteanu has a forceful statement about the order of these differences （Iteanu 2009）. The implicit propositions in these proclamations require considerable work given the “regionalism”that now forms the essence of our apprehension of social reality. The ethnographic world we need to analyze now is much different than the one for Dumonts generation. For India was never an isolate， and hierarchical forms， if not exactly like Dumonts India， existed in many places. In any case， the broader idea here is that certain ideological constructs give actionable shape to a whole set of relations. Following Dumont and Sahlins， these are what Robbins， in many publications （e.g. 2009）， calls “paramount values.”

That paramount values orient many if not all social systems seems patent. Yet in our work these structures too often appear as unordered incantations independent of social analysis. A rereading of Homo Hierarchicus， however， shows a peculiar logic to the place of sacrificial orders as Dumont presents successive changes over the millennia. I want to piece together an interpretation of his argument to argue for the centrality of destruction， not just in India but in the place to which Dumont turned—the contemporary West. This will allow us to take up what I see as Teacher Wangs complaint as he contrasts the West with China.

Dumont draws from the German writer Alsdorf concerning “the evolution of living sacrifice and the consumption of meat from the Veda to Hinduism； the development of the idea of ahimsā （“non-violence”， or rather absence of the will to kill） and of vegetarianism in Jainism and Buddhism” （p. 147）. Dumont， however， starts with an abstract history：

Grazing played a large part in the life of the Vedic Indians， and it may be supposed that like many other pastoral peoples they killed cattle only when there were good reasons， sacrificial reasons， and only the meat of sacrificed animals was eaten. In other words， there was a religious attitude towards cattle， which is not surprising， and which is to be taken as the starting-point for what was later to become the veneration of the cow， the cow having already been extolled in Vedism as a cosmic symbol， the universal mother and source of food， etc. It was the “sacred animal most preferred for sacrifice” （Alsdorf）…At the same time， in the sutras of the domestic ritual and of the dharma， a cow is killed on certain ritual occasions： ancestor worship， and to honour a distinguished guest （the guest is called goghna， “cow killer” by the grammarian Panini）； a bull is sacrificed in a specific sacrifice.（65b p. 147）

This moment probably relates to some real era in the subcontinents history but I suggest the real time here is 1956， the publication date of Nuer Religion， and that Dumont is reading Evans-Pritchards analysis into his own material.30 The central analytical problem in Nuer Religion is the identification between humans and cattle. Evans-Pritchard explains that relationship not by the fact of their mutual production—amply illustrated in his other work on the Nuer—but by the external category kwoth， God， in short religion. In other words Evans-Pritchard has divorced the productive order of Nuer life from his analysis of its forms. And Dumont follows him. But the relation， the tie between men and their cattle， is already there. And I suggest that Honoured guests and “ancestor” must index relative relations of rank. And that it is precisely the capacity to take cattle out of existence and transform them into a different substance （or relation） that represents， if it does not create， ranking and signification in the social order. Ritual order constitutes the social order. It is not religion， I suggest， that gives these actions their significance， but these actions， the destruction of valued， produced， relations， that generate the experience of these contained orders， and what we have been led to call religion.

Dumont takes a long passage from Hocart that I think makes clear that defining the nature of a productive order is the issue.

In Hierarhcy： Theory of the Varna. Dumont writes：

“Thanks to Hocart， and more precisely Dumézil， the hierarchy of the varnas can （be seen as？）… as a series of successive dichotomies or inclusions. The set of the four varnas divides into two： the last category， that of the Shudras， is opposed to the block of the first three， whose members are ‘twice-born in the sense that they participate in initiation， second birth， and in the religious life in general… Let us simply say that the lot of the Shudras is to serve， and that the Vaishyas are the grazers of cattle and the farmers， the ‘purveyors of sacrifice， as Hocart says， who have been given dominion over the animals， whereas the Brahmans-Kshatriyas have been given dominion over ‘a(chǎn)ll creatures. We shall return to the solidarity between the two highest classes and the distinction between them： the Kshatriya can order a sacrifice as can the Vaishya， but only the Brahman may perform it. The king is thus deprived of any sacerdotal function. It can be seen that the series of dichotomies on which this hierarchy rests is formally somewhat similar to caste hiearchy， and it is also essentially religious； but it is less systematic and its principles are different.”（Pp.67-68）

This is an order of exchanged products， that is a productive order， not a “religious” order as the last hundred or so years of social analysis would have it. And the top is for that category of person that can take a product out of the system， while converting it into something else.31 “Today the Brahman lineages are graded in virtue of the rank of the castes they serve as domestic priests …， the highest being the learned Brahmans who do not serve at all” （P. 70）. The very top of the system effectively removes itself from the social order. And I would suggest that from removal， the destruction of a relation， the social order is bequeathed.

These passages reveal a line of argument that should be generalized. The question is how does destruction become productive. From the holocaust of Hiroshima much of our world is now lit up. In the United States we are frequently told that our everyday life becomes available by means of others sacrifices （if Afghanistan and Iraq）. Because of conceived external threats vast sums of money are spent on extraordinarily expensive， and wasteful or wasted weapon systems. Some of these， and I have in mind in particular recent fighter plans， are so intricate that they can hardly be used.32 Yet the research and new materials that went into making Soviet and US spy planes since the 1950s now fashion many Boeing and Airbus airplanes， the details for much of this part of the public record. The killing is not killing， it might be said， to echo aspects of the Indian ideology. We must pursue this briefly.

In his recent book Bomb Power（2010），Garry Wills describes a radical institutional transformation in the US political structure effected by the USs reaction to WWII. With that wars experienced necessities the President assumes a near absolute power to destroy the world.33 But more than that， it set a pace that organized similar activity， largely opaque institutional structures which are nevertheless determinative an defining， to some extent coming up to the present （Jacobsen， 2011）. Summarizing his books thesis Wills writes：

Cheney was right to say that the real logic for all these things is the Presidents solitary control of the Bomb. He was also right to say that something like what the Bush administration did was tried， adumbrated， or justified by other Presidents， going all the way back to the creation of the Manhattan Project， without any authorization， funding， or checks by the Congress. That was the seed of the all growing powers that followed…Executive power has basically been， since World War II， Bomb Power （Wills 2010： 4）.

That pattern for creating and harnessing scientific discoveries fueled the transportation systems leading into the 21st century. It made a new， if mad， divine. Wills quotes Rhodes concerning the Manhattan project： “[Los Alamos] ‘bore no relation to the industrial or social life of the country； it was a separate state， with its own airplanes and its own factories and its thousands of secretes. It has a peculiar sovereignty， one that could bring about the end， peacefully or violently， of all other sovereignties” （Wills 2010：31； Rhodes， 1986： 231.）.

So we are back to separation， destruction， and from both the making of the significant， the possible， in our everyday lives. Digital watches organize our lives； they derive from the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles of the 1950s and 1960s， now mostly junked and transformed into piles of waste， some radioactive. Arguably the logic our ancestors revealed in sacrificial orders surrounds us.

This brings me back to the sifting ashes in the Kaiyuan Si and Julie Chus Teacher Wangs proverbial complaint： “‘Look at all the great Chinese inventions…With gunpowder， what did we do？ We made firecrackers to celebrate the Lunar New Year and so forth. With the compass， we practiced fengshui. And with paper money？ We burned it for gods， for ancestors…” （P. 173）. Is this really all？ What about the massive landscape alterations34 that enabled China to produce more people， and perhaps wealth， than any other continent in the world until the West arrived with its guns？ What of the regional trading systems that stretched from Japan to Venice？ The ships that carried that wealth？ The porcelain and silks those ship carried？ I suggest the burned spirit money is like the pigs burned in Muyuw rituals—they demanded a productive and creative response. Gregorys in Gifts and Commoditiesthat destruction lead to accumulation in gift societies seems a reach for looking at the contemporary West. But it is a fact that Defense spending is the leading research component in the country that has been the hegemonic， that is defining， order for going on a century now. It is unfortunate that wasting money in military expenditures， and now and again wars， seems to be our primary bridge to Progress. Maybe there are other ways of doing this.

The kind of analysis I have attempted here raises important questions about the order of is versus ought in human affairs. But right now it seems to me the question of what is the human condition is the one we are best prepared to answer. But too often， it seems to me， the order Teacher Wang seems to call for， in place of the one that createdhim， seems to be， as we might normally wish to consider it， “sacrilegious” （Lévi-Strauss， 1966：225）.

Notes：

1.I have been presenting various aspects of the problem this paper poses since two early versions in Hong Kong and Paris in 2004； a reworked version for the Department of Anthropology at the University of Bergen in November， 2011. The immediate genesis for the current form and for which this version is a transformation was for Andre Iteanus Dumonts Centenial， Diversité des sociétiés et idéologie universaliste： colloque international organizé a loccasion du centenarie de Louis Dumont. September 22-24， 2011， a draft from which is in press. This draft also is a reworking a draft being considered for publication following a panel American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings， San Francisco 2012，“Special Issue Proposal： Hierarchy， Value， and the Value of Hierarchy， ”organized by Naomi Haynes and Jason Hickel. For positive and productively critical comments I must also thank the participants， and especially Stephan Feuchtwang， in the “Workshop on Sacrifice in Different Civilizations” organized by Wang Mingming and Yang Zhengwen with the Assistance of the Members of the Anren Exhibition of Ethnography sponsored by China Center for Sociological and Development Studies at Peking University， Southwest University for Nationalities， the Exhibition of Ethnography of Sichuan Anren Town Old Mansion Culture Development Co.，Ltd.， and the Mengyangshan Anthropological Association of Peking University.

2.“What rule of legality and self-interest， in societies of a backward or archaic type， compels the gift that has been received to be obligatorily reciprocated？ What power resides in the object given that causes its recipient to pay back？” （Mauss， 1990 [1925]： 3）.

3.Serious scholarship on this ritual will probably not sustain this translation. However， as an observer I would insist that something like “diligent”or “determined”certainly well translates the attitude of the thousands of participants as they moved through the temple， partook of the noodles cooking all about its grounds， proffered their spirit money for burning， and meandered through the market stalls stashed all along the street outside the temples southern gate that is blocked from all but foot traffic for the daylight hours of the 26th.

4.Kitoum， kitoma in some renditions， was the new ethnographic discovered by many of the anthropologists who returned to the Kula Ring from the 1970s on to conduct new research. My principal discussions of the form may be found in 1980a， 1983a， 2002. For the secondary literature on this anthropologically famous institution the idea finally makes its appearance in Godelier 1999.

5.For its typically Melanesian shape see Damon 1989； 1991 Chapter 4.

6.I thank Luo Yang for crucial input on this sentence.

7.For other writing on how the Kula appears from its northeast corner see Damon 1980a， 1980b， 1983a， 1983b， 1983c， 1993， 2002. Among other things， these publications make it clear that kula is not only a differentiating process， it is a hierarchizing institution.

8.Simon Bickler and I （nd） have collected most of the relevant facts that substantiate the formal similarity between the structure of the Kula and Polynesian practices. The record that Oliver （1974）， Sahlins （1985） and Valerio on Hawaii （1985） create makes me pretty sure these activities are making rank， not just representing it. If the destruction of persons is metaphorical in the Kula， it was real in Polynesia.

9.Dening is explicit about the liminal location of the beach. Other ethnographers do not say that but they effectively make the point by their data. Oliver （1974） writes： “Trees especially favored by spirits for communicating with humans were the tamanu （C. Inophyllum）， miro （Thespesia populnea） and ‘a(chǎn)ito （Casuarina equisetifolia）. These trees grew in many settings and were used for a number of ordinary， secular purposes； but those mainly regarded as spirit mediums were the ones growing within marae precincts. When the leaves of the latter were heard to rustle， it was taken as a sign that one or more spirits were present， but it is not clear from the evidence available whether such rustling was interpreted as assent or dissent to questions asked the spirits， or as auspicious or unfavorable omens for events to come” （P. 70）. Irrespective of Olivers “many settings，” these are trees of the littoral. The common name of C. Inophyllum is “Beach Calophyllum.”

10.And of course movies， e.g. Saving Private Ryan； drawing on more recent circumstances are the likes of United 93.

11.Beevor， Antony.The Second World War， Little， Brown and Company，2012； Hochschild， Adam. To End All Wars； A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion， 1914-1918. Boston & New York： Houghton Mifflin Harcourt，2011； Holland， James. The Battle of Britain： Five Months that changed history， May-October 1940. London： Transworld Publishers，2010.Perry， Roland.The Australian Lifht Horse： The magnificent Australian force and its decisive victories in Arabia in World War ISydney： Hachett Australia Pty （Limited），2009； Atkinsons 2013 The Guns at Last Light： The War in Western Europe， 1944-1945， one in a three volume set that plays with the contradictions in WWIIs experience with mass violence.

12.Evans， Richard J. The Truth about World War II，The New York Review of Books ， Vol. LIX，2012（15）： 52. During 2013 a popular TV serial in Quanzhou effectively doing the same thing was “神槍” （shenqiang or Spirit Gun）， http：//v.#/tv/PbVxaK7oSmbqNX.html.

13.An elegant discussion of this change may be found in Garry Willss 1993 masterpiece on Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg Address.

14.In the 1970s the Durham， North Carolina located and Duke University associated anthropologist Peter Stone carried out extensive research with people who had experienced lynchings， and showed that they formed part of a set with brideless weddings and minstralsies. These rituals were plays on gender and sex， the unreal and the real， with lynchings combining features of the others. Virtually all lynchings were conceived to be about a black person coming into a white domain， the rite then piacular， a ridding of the intrusion.

15.Kula valuable ranks have been extensively discussed in the literature produced by the anthropologists who have visited the Kula Ring since the 1970s. Though the specifics vary， there is broad agreement across the region. See especially Campbell （1983）， Damon （2002） and Munn （1983）. The logic of the argument asserted here is identical with the ones Crocker （1967） and Barnett （1976） use amongst the Bororo of central Brazil and an upper non-Brahman caste in Madras respectively.

16.“In the sixty-two years between Washingtons election and the compromise of 1850， for example， slaveholders controlled the presidency for forty-one years， and the Chairmanship of the House Ways and Means [the most important committee] for forty-two years. The only men to be reelected president—Washington， Jefferson， Madison， Monroe， and Jackson – were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the Speakers Chair the longest – Henry Clay， Andrew Stevenson， and Nathaniel Macon – were slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court justices were slaveholders” （Wills 2003： 6）. See Richards 2000： 9.

17.Although it is not his purpose， in the sequel to Rockdale， St. Clair（1988）， Wallace documents the intense rivalry between the US and England. This tale is continued in Steils （2013） account of Bretton Woods， where by American action England looses its last claim to hegemonic status， the City of Londons location as the worlds financial center.

18.It is clear that WyattBrown drew from Pitt-Rivers （e.g. the essays collected in The Fate of Shechem，1977） by his celebrated book Southern Honor（1982）. His 2001 book， however， harkens to Peristiany and PittRivers 1992.

19.Incarceration and execution rates in the US penal system today suggest the same or similar dynamic continues.

20.My argument shares qualities with those found in Weiner （1992） and Godelier 1999 and I was reading and teaching from both as this line of reasoning came together. However， Gregory （1982） is my primary inspiration.

21.Further details about these rituals and their sociological content may be found in Damon 1983c， 1989b and 1991， Chapter 4.

22.In this history people from the southeastern corner of the Kula Ring enforced this change. If this is correct it happened under the umbrella of the colonial order by I do not understand exactly how. The practice is part of a devaluation of indigenous modes of production and exchange， a phenomenon which is part of the colonial order.

23.The Kula Ring is analogous to Wallersteins model of the modern worldsystem whereby places are ranked according to the quality of the things they produced. There were regions inside Muyuws domain， the area I know best， which participated in the Kula little if at all and they were disparaged by others. Damon 1983b deals with a case involving one such area. There were others. Part of the deep structure of Melanesia is its regional specialization and the rank orders that follow from that specialization.

24.In the April 2013 presentation of another version of this paper in Chengdu，Stephan Feuchtwang reminded me Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff were saying things similar to what I am suggesting by drawing on Ernst Mandel. In Marxs model of the capitalist mode of production the issues here have to do with the absorption problem， overproduction crises.

25.… featuring the exchange of use values and exchange values between the respective processes of producing means of production versus articles of consumption.

26.Note the character for spear in the traditional term for country in China： 國，戈，gē.

27.A Kondtratieff Long Wave rise according to some.

28.Hochschild （2011） is full of pertinent facts and insight for the thesis being put forth here. E.g.， “The French minister of the interior sent word to local police chiefs not to arrest anyone listed in Carnet B... He guessed right： 80 percent of them would eventually do military service. Even in Austria-Hungary， with its restless mix of ethnic groups to whom mobilization orders had to be issued in more than half a dozen languages， the authorities were amazed that so few men refused the call-up. In the end， as the historian Barbara Tuchman wrote， ‘The working class went to war willingly， even eagerly， like the middle class， like the upper class， like the species” （Hochschild， 2011： 93）. Perry （2009） produces similar descriptions for Australian soldiers leading themselves to death at Gallipoli. These are ritual forms， collected action.

29.“but also for packaging the booming tea trade.”Endnote 28 takes one to Paul Van Dyke， The Canton Trade： Life and Enterprise on the China Coast， 1700-1845 （Honk Kong： Hong Kong University Press， 2005）， p. 148.

30.Dumont references The Nuer in the text， and another item from Evans-Pritchard （note 32， p. 345）. But he was in Oxford with Evans-Pritchard in the early 1950s and certainly participated in the assembling of what became that deserved classic.

31.Punya and dan do not appear in Homo Hierarchicus， and do not become central categories of analysis until Rhaheja and Parry publish their works in the 1980s. Yet they neglect to analyze the fact that punya flows opposite dan； the receiver of dan has to be a source of punya. That these relations entail the organization of productive orders seems clear， and could be pulled out of another Dumont passage： “…in one of the constructions of the verb ‘to sacrifice， yajati， one ‘honours a divinity （accusative） by means of a victim（instrumental） for the sake of N.（dative）： this is a long way from ‘killing” （ Note 65b， p. 306）. The question at issue is whether or not killing is involved in sacrifice. It is if the focus is only destruction； it is not if the focus is on what does or should return from the destruction.

32.Some of these points， and the way armaments expenditures are wrapped into our international social system， are on display in Rajiv Chandrasekarans discussion of the F35，http：//www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html. Among other places to look for pursuing avenues here is this Cato line on defense spending： http：//www.cato.org/publications/commentary/lies-damned-lies-defensejob-statistics.

33.“As Vice President Dick Cheney put it on Fox News， in a December 21， 2008， interview… ‘The President of the United States now for fifty years is followed at all times…by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use， and be authorized to use， in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States…He doesnt have to check with anybody， he doesnt have to call the Congress， he doesnt have to check with the courts（Emphasis added）”（Wills 2010： 3-4）.

34.The landscape alterations Dean and Zheng Zhenman illustrate （2010， Maps 1-12） could， in principle， be created for most of the region.

References：

Atknson， Rick. The Guns at Last Light： The War in Western Europe， 1944-1945 （Liberation Trilogy） Henry Holt and Co. 2013.

Barnett， Steve. Coconus and gold： relational identity in a south Indian cast in Contributons to Indian Sociology （NS） 1976： Vol. 10（1）：133-156.

Beevor， Antony. The Second World War， Little， Brown and Copany， 2012.

Bickler， Simon H. Prehistoric stone monuments in the northern region of the Kula Ring， Antiquity 2006（ 80）：38–51.

Bicklr， Simon and Frederick H. Damon （nd） Remember the Massim： Monumentalism in the Context of Pacific History and Sociality.

Campbell， Shirley . Attaining Rank： a classification of shell valuables，In The Kula： New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Edited by J.W. Leach & E. R. Leach. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press. 1983：Pp.229-248.

Crocker， J. C. Reciprocity and hierarchy among the Eastern Bororo ，Man （N.S.） Bull. Sch. Orient. Afr. Stud. 1969（26）： 572–91.

Damon， Frederick H. The Kula and generalised exchange： considering some unconsidered aspects of The Elementary Structures of Kinship， Man （n.s.）， 1980a， 15 （2）： 267-93.

—. The Problem of the Kula on Woodlark Island； expansion， accumulation， and overproduction， Ethnos，1980b，（45）：176-201.

—.What Moves the Kula： Opening and Closing Gifts on Woodlark Island. In THE KULA： New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Edited by J. W. Leach & E. R. Leach. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press. 1983a：Pp. 309-342.

—.The Transformation of Muyuw into Woodlark Island： Two Minutes in December， 1974， The Journal of Pacific History 1983b，18 （1）：35-56.

—.Muyuw Kinship and the Metamorphosis of Gender Labour，Man （n.s.） 1983c，18 （2）：305-326.

—.The Muyuw Lo'un and the End of Marriage.In Death Rituals and Life in the Societies of the Kula. Edited by Frederick H. Damon and Roy Wagner. DeKalb： Northern Illinois University Press. 1989b： Pp. 73-94.

—.From Muyuw to the Trobriands： Transformations Along the Northern Side of the Kula Ring. Tucson： University of Arizona Press，1991.

—.Representation And Experience in Kula and Western Exchange Spheres （or Billy） In Research in Economic Anthropology， 1993，Volume 14： 235-254.

—.Kula Valuables， the Problem of Value and the Production of Names， LHomme2002，April-June 162： 107-136.

—.What Good are Elections？ An Anthropological Analysis of American Elections， Taiwan Journal of Anthropology ，2003，1（2）：38-82.

Dean， Kenneth & Zheng Zhenman. Riual Alliances of The Putian Plain， Volume One： Historical Introduction to the Return of the Gods. Leiden and Boston： Brill. 2010

Dening， Greg. MR. BLIGHS BAD LANGUAGE： Passion， Power and Theatre on the Bounty， Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1992.

Dower， John. War Without Mercy：Race & Power in The Pacific War， New York： Pantheon Books， 1986.

Dumont， Louis. The Modern Concepton of the Individual. Notes on its genesis and that of concomitant institutions， in Contributions to Indian Sociology 1965（ 8）：13-61.

—.Homo Hierarchicus： The Caste System and Its Implications Translated from the French by Mark Sainsbury. Chicago： University of Chicago Press，1970.

—.From Mandeville to Marx： The Genesis and Triumph of Economic Ideology. Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1977.

—.Genesis II： The Political Category and the State from the Thirteenth Century Onwrd， in Essays on Individualism： Modern Ideology in Anthropological Persective，Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1986， Pp. 60-112.

Evans-Pritchard， Edward E. Nuer Religion. Oxford： Clarendon Press， 1956.

Fuller， C. J. Misconceiving the grain heap： a critique of the concept of the Indian jajmani system， Chapter 2 in money and the morality of exchange. Edited by J. Parry and M. Bloch Cambridge： Cambridge University Press. 1989， Pp. 33-63.

Godelier， Maurice. The Enigma of the Gift， Translated by Nora Scott. Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1999.

Gregory， Christopher. Gifts and Commodities. London： Academic Press， 1982.

Hale ， Grace. Making Whiteness： The Culture of Segregation in the South， 1890-1940 Vintage， 1999.

Hubert， Henri and Marcel Mauss. （originally 1899， Lnnée sociologique） Sacrifice： Its Nature and Functions， Translated from the French by W. D. Halls Chicago： University Of Chicago Press. 1981.

Hochschild，Adam.To End All Wars：A story of Loyalty and Rebellion，1914-1918， New York：Houghton Mifflin Harcourt，2011

Iteanu， André. Hierarchy and Power： A Comparative Attempt under Asymmetrical Lines in Hierarchy Persstence and Transformation in Social Formations. Edited by Knut Rio and Olaf H. Smedal. New York and Oxford： Berghah Books. 2008： Pp.331-348.

Jacobsen， Annie. Area 51： An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base， Little， Brown and Company. 2011.

Leach， Edmund R .Concerning Trobriand clans and the kinship category tabu， in The devlopment cycle in domestic groups ed. Jack Goody， Cambridge Papers in Social Antropology no.1， Cambridge University Press， 1958 ： pp. 120-145.

Lévi-Strauss， Claude， French Sociology， Chapter XVII in Twentieth Century， 1945.

Sociology Edited by Georges Gurvitch and Wilber E. Moore. New York： The Philosophical Library. Pp. 503-53.

Totemism Translated from the French by Rodney Needham. Beacon Press， 1963.

The Savage Mind. Chicgo： University of Chicago Press， 1966.

Lifton， Robert J. and Greg Mitchell. Hiroshima in America： Fifty Years of Denial G. P. Putnams Sons， 1995.

Mandel， Ernest. Late Capitalism， London ：NLB ； Atlantic Highlands [N.J.] ：Humanities Press，1975.

Mauss， Marcel. Essai sur le don ： forme et raison de léchange dans les sociétés archaques， LAnnée sociologique， n.s. I（1923-24） ： 30-186， ，1925.

—.The Gift ： Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by Ian Cunnison. New York-London， Norton，1967.

Munn， Nancy D. Gawan kula： spatiotemporal control and the symbolism of influene， In The Kula： New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Edited by J. W. Leach & E. R. Leach. Cmbridge： Cambridge University Press. 1983： Pp. 277-308.

Oliver， Douglas. Ancient Tahitian Society， Honolulu： University of Hawaii Press，1974.

Pitt-Rivers， Jlian. The fate of Shechem ： or， The politics of sex ： essays in the anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge： Cambidge University Press，1977.

Peristiany， J.G. and Julian Pitt-Rivers. Honor and grace in anthropology. Cambridge Cambridge University Press，1992.

Priest， Dana and William M. Arkin. Top Secret America： The Rise of the New American Security State， Back Bay Books，2012.

Reid， Anthony. Chinese on the Mining Frontier in Southeast Asia” in Chinese Circulations Capital， Commodities and Networks in Southeast Asia. Edited by Eric Tgliacozzo and Wen-Chin Chang，Durham and London： Duke University Press，2011：Pp. 21-29.

Richard Rhodes. The Making of the Atomic Bomb ，Simon & Schuster，1986.

Richards， Leonard. The Slave Power ，Baton Rouge： Louisiana University Press， 2000.

Robbins， Joel. Conversion， Hierarchy， and Cultural Change： Value and Syncretism in the Globalization of Pentecostal and Charimatic Christianity， in Hierarchy： Persistence and Transformation in Social Frmations， Edited by Knut Rio and Olaf H. Smedal，Berghahn Press，2009：Pp. 65-88.

Sahlins， Marshal. Islands of History，Chicago： University of Chicago Press，1985.

So， Billy K. L. Prosperity， Region and Institutions in Maritime China： The South Fukien Pattern， 946-1368. Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 2000.

Steil， Bnn. The Battle of Bretton Woods： John aynard Keynes， Harry Dexter White and the Making of the New World Order. Princeton： Princeton University Press，2013.

Tylor， E.B. Primitive Culture， London，1871.

Valerio， Valeri. Kingship and Sacrifice： Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii， Translated by Paula Wissing. Chicago： Universiy of Chicago Press， 1985.

Wallace， Anthony. Rockdale： The Growth of an American Village in the Early Industrial Revolution. University of Nebraska Press， 1978（2005）.

—.St. Clair Ithaca： Cornell University Press， 1988.

Wallerstein， Immanuel. The Modern World-System Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of he European World-Ecoomy in the Sixteenth Century. New York： Academic Press， 1974

—.World-Systems Analysis： An Introduction. Durham： Duke University Press， 2004.

Wang， Mingming. Empire and Local Worlds： A Chinese Model of Long-Term Historical Anthropology. Walnut Creek， CA： Left Coast Press. Inc. Foreword by Stephan Feuchtwang， 2009.

Wyatt-Brown， Bertram. The Shaping of Southern Culture： Honor， Grace， and War， 1760s-1880s. Chapel Hill： UNC Press， 2001.

Weiner， Annette. Inalienable Possession： The paradox of keeping-while-giving. University of California Press，1992.

Wills， Garry. Lincoln at Gettysburg： The Words That Remade America. Simon and Schuster，1992.

—.Negro President： Jefferson and the slave power. Boston： Houghton Mifflin，2003.

—.Bomb Power： The modern Presidency and the National Security State. New York： The Penguin Press， 2010.