JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

New Delhi -110025

Department of Sociology

Course – B.A. (Hons.) Sociology

Paper – Economy and Society

Submitted by: -

Alok Ranjan
Roll no. - 20BSO008
Student ID: - 202005420
Vth Semester
 Mark Granovetter : Embeddedness

In an effort to bridge the gap between economic theory, which tends to under-socialize conduct, and much
of the existing sociological theory, which tends to over-socialize behaviour, Granovetter searches for a
more acceptable middle ground. In Granovetter’s opinion, economic rationality is best understood as
“embedded” in social interactions.

He thinks that both sides of this argument—the ones advocating for “perfect knowledge” decision making
and the ones advocating blind obedience to societal norms— “atomize” the person. Similarly, to Gidden’s
ideas on structuration, he believes that both extreme viewpoints are necessary and should be studied
together in order to arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the topic at hand. Granovetter’s argument
is extended to the topics of trust and fraud in business transactions through the use of an example. He
thinks that both the classical liberal idea of “gentleman actors” in economics and the too socialist view of
“generalised morality” are off base. Instead, he demonstrates that embeddedness theory agrees with the
observation that “the ongoing networks of social interactions between persons deter misconduct.” People
make decisions based on their interactions with others in the past and maintain relationships with those
they have learned to trust. While social networks are important, they are not enough to prevent
wrongdoing, and embeddedness theory recognises this.

Traditional economic theories of human interaction presuppose rational, self-interested behaviour that is
only marginally influenced by social relationships. The idea of “embeddedness,” at the other extreme,
holds that judging behaviour based on independent economic actors is seriously deceptive because human
acts are so dependent on social relationships. According to sociologists, embeddedness was extremely
common in pre-market civilizations but has decreased with industrialization. They believe that as economic
activity becomes more logical and centred on personal benefit, it is becoming increasingly distinct from
society. Economists believe that even earlier societies—and even more modern tribal societies—had
economic and social relationships that were distinct enough to provide an economic analysis of a person’s
conduct. In order to apply rational actor theory to investigate organisations, the new “institutional
economics” makes sufficient independence assumptions. Traditional economic theory disregards the
possibility of long-term relationships between buyer and supplier in favour of numerous independent
individuals with perfect knowledge and rational decision-making processes. According to economic theory,
relational concepts like trust are essentially unnecessary in the model since consumers will simply switch to
other sellers in cases of mistrust or dishonesty. Political control is unneeded because of competition.
Market forces govern all conduct. Market competition is hampered by social connections, particularly bad
relations concerns like mistrust. Adam Smith understood that the condition for ideal competition is social
atomization (in other words, relationships only screw things up).

Economists have debated the idea that actors may act cunningly and dishonestly in transactions since
around 1970. In the past, economists have assumed that the market would punish such conduct and that
most people would act in their own best interests. However, this is probably not the case when markets
are not totally competitive. People find it difficult to switch to other sellers. Researchers who suggest that
people are “under socialized” make the argument that institutional systems have developed to make
deception prohibitively expensive in an effort to explain why people aren’t typically cunning. Economists
who claim to be “over socialized” indicate that there is a “generalised morality” that governs behaviour.
Instead, embeddedness theory recognises that ongoing social networks between individuals deter
dishonest behaviour. People make decisions based on previous contacts with others and stick with those
they have faith in. Social networks alone are not a deterrent, as shown by the fact that the existence and
development of trust in them can both prevent and encourage wrongdoing. Embeddedness, in contrast to
either alternative, assumes that the specifics of social structure will determine which is discovered rather
than making broad, improbable forecasts of universal order or anarchy.
 Marcel Mauss: The Gift

Why do we give gifts to one another? To examine this issue, sociologist Marcel Mauss wrote “The Gift” in
1925. He contended that the practise of giving presents satisfies a number of important social obligations.
According to Mauss, giving gifts serves as social glue and an organising factor of social cohesion. To him,
giving presents is typically done to forge or cement a friendship or to bring about peace. Therefore, rather
than being an economic transaction, it is a moral one based on interpersonal or group ties.

Mauss is attempting to demonstrate that gifts that are believed to be given spontaneously in all
communities are actually required. He makes the case that because all social processes are interconnected,
they are all at once expressed through various institutions. One element of this social whole is the gift. In
ancient societies, a gift must be returned in order to maintain the integrity of the whole. Which legal
premise in ancient cultures requires the gift to be obligated to be reciprocated? Is the question Mauss
poses at the opening of the book, and he attempts to address it throughout. What force is present in the
gift that compels its recipient to repay it? It makes an effort to draw a line between commerce as it is often
understood in Western nations and the act of giving gifts, which serves as a catalyst for strengthening the
bond of obligation between the gift-giver and the recipient. The gift exchange is a difficult and intricate
process that requires prior understanding of the individual(s) or group(s) who engage in this ritual. It also
incorporates hidden agendas. While Mauss made numerous significant contributions to the fields of
sociology and anthropology, it was his research on gift-giving and potlatch (gift-giving feasts held by
Indigenous Americans on the Northwest Coast) that influenced how social scientists examined and
comprehended the nature and role of economy, kinship, and religion.

He advocates for a return to ancient society and its components, including the pleasure of charitable giving,
the pleasure of lavish spending on the arts, in hospitality, and in private and public festivals. The wealthy
must revert to seeing themselves as the protectors of their other citizens’ finances, both voluntarily and
out of obligation. He wants to see society transition to a total services model. Mauss makes an effort to
adapt some of the gift’s guiding ideas to contemporary culture in light of the economic realities. There is a
concept of value in ancient societies; the only distinction is that they continue to have a strong religious
component in their economies. Money still has magical properties and is connected to a clan or an
individual. All commercial activities continue to have an effective and necessary ceremonial component.
These cultures are hardly governed by materialism and utilitarianism. Of course, they have some level of
interest, but they do not have the same understanding of it as we do.

Happily, according to Mauss, we have not yet fully evolved into economic beings and continue to be
motivated by ideas like irrational spending. He concludes by analysing the concept of total social facts,
which include all facets of society and its institutions. These phenomena are also aesthetic and
morphological, as well as legal, economic, and religious. In addition, he has characterised these institutions
in their dynamic condition as whole entities, whole social systems. Nothing, he discovers, is more fruitful
than this investigation of all social facts. This has the benefits of being universal and being grounded in
reality. The study of the concrete, which is the study of wholeness, is more engrossing and more
informative, therefore sociologists must work to recreate the whole.
 David Howes: Cross-Culture Consumption

Outside of sociology and anthropology, there is recognition that culture is formed via consumption just as
much as it is through creation. For instance, it is now thought that a "Consumer Revolution" was necessary
for the Industrial Revolution to occur and may have even followed it. As a result, it is no longer believed
that technical advancement and alterations in the forces of production alone can account for the rise of the
consumer society. The relationship between mode of production and mode of consumption has so grown
considerably more complex and fascinating. Products are given meanings and purposes by the people who
make them. They can serve as a tool for communication or hegemony when exported. However, there is no
assurance that the consumer from a different culture will understand the producer's intentions, much less
respect them. A fascinating overview of the cultural effects of the globalization of a consumer society can
be found in Cross-Cultural Consumption. When a good or service is created in one culture but used in
another, this is known as cross-cultural consumption. The frequency of cross-cultural consumption of goods
like Coca- Cola, Levi's denim, IBM computers, as well as services like credit cards and package tours, has
increased exponentially as a result of market globalization. However, although some products and services
have had notable success breaking into international markets, others have failed. As a result, it is necessary
to reconsider how products and culture are related, taking into account how things are constantly moving
in a more globalized economy. In other words, we need to understand the principles by which products are
valued in other cultures.

David Howes further notes that the concept of global homogeneity has a tendency to dominate modern
thinking about the cultural implications of the movement of products within the framework of the
international market system. This paradigm claims that cultural distinctions are being lost globally as mass-
made items are replacing locally created ones. First, the creolization paradigm differs from the Coca-
colonization paradigm in that it focuses on the inflow of products, their reception, and domestication
rather than the movement of goods and values from the West to the rest of the globe (whatever their
provenance, whatever their destination). Second, whereas Coca-colonization focuses on the producer's
alleged intentionality, creolization also incorporates the consumer's originality. Sometimes referred to as
"Coca- colonization," this process of colonizing the non-Western globe through the establishment of new
consumption regimes. Culture is constructed through consumption as well as production, a fact that is
acknowledged outside of sociology and anthropology. For instance, it is now believed that the Industrial
Revolution presupposed—and possibly even followed—a "Consumer Revolution." As a result, it is no longer
assumed that the development of the consumer society can be explained solely in terms of technological
innovation and changes in the forces of production.

It is more practical to employ roughly comparable techniques in each country the more similar the nations
are to one another. If there are significant differences, a highly personalized marketing plan is advised.
Beliefs, values, and customs are likely to have an impact on how well marketing and servicing work in other
nations. Consequently, it has become much more difficult and interesting to conceptualize the relationship
between mode of production and mode of consumption.

REFRENCES:-

1. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/consumer_behavior/consumer_behavior_cross_culture.html

2. https://www.supersummary.com/the-gift-mauss/summary/

3. https://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/org_theory/scott_articles/granovet_embed.html#:~:te
xt=Granovetter%3A%20%22Economic%20Action%20and%20Social,theory%20that%20over%2Dsoc
ializes%20behavior
 Group poster:
By ALOK RANJAN, ERAM ASFAR, and DIYA MAHAJAN

This poster talks about the cross-cultural consumption like how capitalist person
turned a laborer food into a mass production/consumption thing. As we have study
about three strategies of the consumption. One of them is strategy of transformation
and reflection where Sony Walkman talks about the cultural circuit where he said that
how a person having certain desire and wants to fulfil his that desire.

Reform
↓↑
Transform

Like in the poster as we can see during 1800s, burger was consumed by labourers
only but when capitalist say it is a source of capital, they reform it and transform into
a big business i.e. having mass production/consumption and now everyone is
consuming MC Donald’s burger. All this shows that how a local product is turned
into an international product which is consumed by everyone.