The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping-while-giving
Abstract
Inalienable Possessions tests anthropology's traditional assumptions about kinship, economics, power, and gender in an exciting challenge to accepted theories of reciprocity and marriage exchange. Focusing on Oceania societies from Polynesia to Papua New Guinea and including Australian Aborigine groups, Annette Weiner investigates the category of possessions that must not be given or, if they are circulated, must return finally to the giver. Reciprocity, she says, is only the superficial aspect of exchange, which overlays much more politically powerful strategies of 'keeping-while-giving'. The idea of keeping-while-giving places women at the heart of the political process, however much that process may vary in different societies, for women possess a wealth of their own that gives them power. Power is intimately involved in cultural reproduction, and Weiner describes the location of power in each society, showing how the degree of control over the production and distribution of cloth wealth coincides with women's rank and the development of hierarchy in the community. Other inalienable possessions, whether material objects, landed property, ancestral myths, or sacred knowledge, bestow social identity and rank as well. Calling attention to their presence in Western history, Weiner points out that her formulations are not limited to Oceania. The paradox of keeping-while-giving is a concept certain to influence future developments in ethnography and the theoretical study of gender and exchange.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man
Kozinets, R. V. (2002) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/339919 · Cited by 1,251
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/422109 · Cited by 1,199
Economization, part 1: shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization
Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. (2009) · Economy and Society · doi:10.1080/03085140903020580 · Cited by 1,084
Strathern, M. (1996) · The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute · doi:10.2307/3034901 · Cited by 1,047
Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology
Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814211 · Cited by 846
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1993-01-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 30-2764-30-2764
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2074796648
- Cited by
- 1,007
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping-while-giving. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.30-2764
- The paper
- Inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping-while-giving. (1993). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-2764
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.