Value as semiotic representation or abstract wealth? Revisiting Turner’s Marxist theory

In the study of human cultures, anthropologists have long sought a common language to understand why people do what they do. They look for the invisible rules that guide how communities share food, build homes, raise children, and organize their lives. A central concept in this search is "value." In everyday life, we often think of value as a price tag, a measure of how much money something is worth. But for many people around the world, value is not about money; it is about what makes life meaningful, what connects a person to their family, and what gives a community its sense of order. For decades, scholars have debated how to compare these different kinds of worth. Some argue that every society has its own unique system of values, like a unique set of moral rules. Others, drawing on the ideas of the economist Karl Marx, suggest that there is a deeper, more universal structure to how societies produce and distribute wealth, even when no money is involved. The question at the heart of this debate is whether we can find a single framework that explains both the price of a loaf of bread and the sacred importance of a family name.

This paper revisits the work of Terence Turner, a prominent anthropologist who spent much of his career studying the Mebêngôkre people of the Brazilian Amazon. Turner was famous for trying to apply Marx's ideas to non-capitalist societies. He argued that every society organizes its labor around a central "value" that acts like a compass, guiding how people work and how they treat one another. For the Mebêngôkre, Turner identified two main values: "power," which relates to authority and hierarchy, and "beauty," which relates to harmony, ritual, and social prestige. Turner believed that these values were essentially forms of representation—symbols or ideas that the community used to make sense of their work and their relationships. He saw ritual ceremonies, where people exchanged names and performed dances, as the primary way these values were created and shared. In his view, the Mebêngôkre were constantly producing "social value" through their daily lives and ceremonies, much like a factory produces goods.

However, the author of this new paper, Ignacio S. Marmolejo, argues that Turner missed a crucial part of Marx's theory. Marmolejo suggests that Turner treated value too much like a symbol or a sign, a way of thinking about the world. Instead, Marmolejo proposes that true value, in the Marxist sense, is a specific kind of "abstract wealth." This is not just a feeling or a belief; it is a tangible force that can command people's actions, even when they don't fully understand why they are doing it. In capitalist societies, this force is money. It is an object that seems to have a life of its own, capable of making people work harder or change their lives just to get more of it. Marmolejo argues that Turner failed to see that the Mebêngôkre also produce a form of this abstract wealth, but he misidentified what it was. By focusing too much on the "beauty" of rituals as a symbol, Turner overlooked the hard, productive work that actually creates the power to control the community.

The paper takes a closer look at the Mebêngôkre's most important ceremonies, specifically the rituals where "Great Names" are passed from elders to younger members. Turner described these events as a way for the community to express their shared values and to bring everyone together. He saw the names and the dances as beautiful tokens that represented the group's unity. But Marmolejo points out that these rituals involve a tremendous amount of physical labor. People must prepare food, build structures, rehearse songs for days, and perform exhausting dances. This is not just a performance; it is work. The author argues that this ritual labor is the closest thing the Mebêngôkre have to the kind of "productive labor" that creates value in a capitalist system. Just as a factory worker creates a commodity that can be sold, the Mebêngôkre create "nêkrêjx"—a term for the valuable names, songs, and ritual rights that are passed down. These items are not just pretty symbols; they are a form of wealth that holds real power.

The key difference lies in how this wealth functions. In a capitalist system, money is a form of "abstract wealth" that can be used to buy anything and command anyone's labor. It is a force that exists independently of the person who made it. Marmolejo suggests that the Mebêngôkre create a similar kind of force through their rituals. The "nêkrêjx" they produce are not merely representations of beauty; they are objects that contain a kind of energy or potential. When an elder passes a name to a younger person, they are not just giving a gift; they are transferring a piece of this abstract wealth that allows the recipient to command respect and organize the community. The paper argues that Turner missed this because he focused on the "beauty" of the event rather than the "labor" that created it. He saw the ritual as a way to realize a value that already existed in people's minds, but Marmolejo shows that the ritual is actually the factory where this value is manufactured.

This distinction changes how we understand the social structure of the Mebêngôkre. Turner described a system where everyone moves up and down a hierarchy based on age, with older people having more power. He saw this as a natural, almost fair system where people eventually get their turn to lead. But Marmolejo suggests that this system is more complex and perhaps more unequal than Turner realized. The elders who control the rituals are the ones who capture the "energy" of the community's labor. They decide who gets the names and who does not. By controlling the flow of this abstract wealth, they maintain their power over the younger generation. The paper argues that this is a form of exploitation, similar to how a boss in a factory controls the work of employees, but it happens through the control of ritual and beauty rather than through wages. The "beautiful" people, who hold the names and the rights, are the ones who get to decide how the community's energy is used.

The author also challenges the idea that the Mebêngôkre simply "choose" to participate in these rituals out of love for their culture. While the community does gather willingly, the paper suggests that the system creates a pressure to participate that is hard to escape. The labor required to produce these valuable names is immense, and the people who do the work are often the same ones who are being controlled by the elders. The paper notes that the Mebêngôkre believe that the power to create these names comes from outside sources, from the spirits or the cosmos, rather than from the people themselves. This belief helps to hide the fact that the elders are the ones actually capturing and distributing this power. It is a system where the workers believe they are serving a higher power, while the controllers of that power are the ones who benefit the most.

In the end, the paper offers a new way to look at how different societies organize themselves. It suggests that we should stop looking for "values" as just ideas or beliefs that people share. Instead, we should look for the specific forms of "abstract wealth" that societies create—objects or systems that have the power to make people act in certain ways. For the Mebêngôkre, this wealth is found in the ritual names and rights that are produced through hard work. For capitalist societies, it is money. Both are forms of wealth that can command human activity, even when the people involved do not fully understand the mechanics behind them. The paper concludes that by understanding this, we can see the hidden structures of power in all societies, not just in those that use money. It invites us to see that the struggle over value is not just about what people think is good or beautiful, but about who gets to control the energy that keeps the society running.

This analysis does not claim to have solved every mystery of the Mebêngôkre people, nor does it suggest that their society is exactly like a capitalist one. The author is careful to note that the specific ways in which this abstract wealth is created and used are unique to the Mebêngôkre. The rituals, the names, and the beliefs are deeply rooted in their specific culture. However, the paper argues that the underlying mechanism—the creation of a form of wealth that commands labor—is a universal feature of human social organization that has been overlooked by previous scholars. By shifting the focus from "value as a symbol" to "value as a form of wealth," the paper opens up new questions about how power works in societies that do not use money. It suggests that the struggle for control over these forms of wealth is a fundamental part of human history, one that continues to shape our lives today, whether we are in the Amazon rainforest or a modern city. The work of Turner was a vital step in understanding these societies, but this new perspective suggests that there is still much to learn about the hidden engines of social life.