Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy

ISSN 1819-7671 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1948 (Online)


For citation:

Vorobyova A. D. “Economy of Desires” and “Gift economy”: Comparative analysis. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2024, vol. 24, iss. 3, pp. 255-259. DOI: 10.18500/1819-7671-2024-24-3-255-259, EDN: EQUTMK

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 39)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
33.01+141.319.8
EDN: 
EQUTMK

“Economy of Desires” and “Gift economy”: Comparative analysis

Autors: 
Vorobyova Alexandra D., Volgograd State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article is the first one to conduct a comparative analysis of two economic models, reflecting previously little-studied aspects of the processes of exchange and consumption. A connection is established between the archaic paradigm of abundance and the postmodern theory of unlimitedly producing capitalism. Theoretical analysis. According to Daniel M. Bell (The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World), the economy of desire is based on overcoming the scarcity approach to the processes of production and exchange. The main goal of this economy becomes the formation of desires for consumption, and not the creation of benefits. The approach Bell describes is based on the idea of resource abundance. This brings him closer to the gift economy, which, as J. Bataille writes (“The Accursed Share”), is aimed at getting rid of attachment to material goods through transcendence. The act of giving is a waste of which only those who are not afraid of scarcity are capable. Conclusion. The author concludes that the economy of desire, although it overcomes scarcity, is nevertheless aimed at immanence, since desires force one to focus on oneself and one’s current states. In the modern world, these two models simultaneously compete, since they have attitudes that are incompatible with each other, and coexist, as the capitalist system becomes more diverse and requires new ways of relationships between subjects.

Reference: 
  1. Rayzberg B. A., Lozovskiy L. Sh., Starodubtseva E. B. Sovremennyy ekonomicheskiy slovar’ [Modern Economic Dictionary]. Moscow, INFRA-M 1999. 479 p. (in Russian).
  2. Marx K. Kapital. Kritika politicheskoy ekonomii. In: Marks K., Engel’s F. Sochineniya: v 42 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 42 vols.]. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo Politicheskoy Literatury, 1960. Vol. 23. 907 p.
  3. Bataille G. Proklyataya dolya [The Accursed Share]. Moscow, Gnozis, Logos, 2003. 208 p.
  4. Keynes J. Obshchaya teoriya zanyatosti, protsenta i deneg [The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money]. Moscow, CJSC “Businesscom”, 2013. 408 p.
  5. Deleuze J., Gvatta ri F. Anti-Edip: Kapitalizm i shizofreniya [Anti-O edipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia]. Ekaterinburg, U-Fa ctory, 2007. 672 p.
  6. Abankina T. The economy of desires in modern “leisure civilization”. Otechestvennye z apiski [Native Notes], 2006, no. 4. Available at: https://www.hse.ru/news/1163603/1128925.html (accessed April 6, 2024) (in Russian).
  7. Bell Daniel M. The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World (The Church and Modern Culture Serie s). Grand Rapids, Baker Academic a division of Baker Publishi ng Group, 2012. 224 p.
Received: 
26.04.2024
Accepted: 
03.06.2024
Published: 
30.09.2024