Theories and Commodity History

            The editors of From Silver to Cocaine discuss why it is important to study the history of commodities in their conclusion.  They link commodities to globalization, a concept they find “pervasive,” but they admit that “globalization is an imprecise term.” (352)  The editors promote the use of commodity chains to get a more complete representation of the history of a commodity.  They suggest this approach is more effective than the older approach of core-periphery analysis.  A commodity chain goes beyond production and demand to address all the intermediary steps: purchasing agents, transportation, refining processes, marketing, that link a commodity with a consumer.  Globalization is best understood by using commodity chains because frequently supply and demand reside in different parts of the world.  Locations far from a commodity’s origin may become new centers of production, and current export leaders can be replaced by countries a hemisphere away.  Today Brazil is the largest exporter of coffee, a commodity which originally came from Ethiopia, but the second largest exporter is Vietnam.  Throughout the commodity chain individuals seek ways to minimize costs, and they use their influence to secure personal profit.

            The editors suggest three areas of emphasis for future historical analysis of commodity chains.  The first is to focus more on the consumers of commodities, and to pay attention to how consumer preferences change over time.  The second is to look at the social history of production and distribution of commodities.  What are the behaviors of the various people involved in all the steps leading to the consumer?  A third area of focus should be on the actions of the state as it attempts to gain value from the commodity chain through state policy, taxes, intervention and sometimes control of the chain.  The editors state “political decisions are typically key to the constitution and destruction of commodity chains.” (358)

            The editors argue that the essays in From Silver to Cocaine demonstrate “the need to integrate history with theory.” (360)  They conclude that historical analysis without theoretical tools diminishes it and places it in a position below that of other social sciences.  Economists use models all the time to explain relationships between consumers and producers, and relationships among producers working in a competitive environment.  In The Social Life of Things the editors are using theories to come up with social and cultural definitions, models, to describe commodities independent of a particular history.  Models help people form, test, and defend causal relationships.  I think historians continually propose causal relationships.  Mintz proposed that slavery was an essential, original element of capitalism.  I think he has created a model and selected historical data to support his model.  Mintz is not alone.  We look for the thesis of a history book, the author’s preferred causal relationship which his book attempts to prove through his arguments.  Is there a difference between a thesis, a theory, or a model?

            The specific essays on coffee, cacao, bananas, and other commodities in this book do discuss the three areas the editors recommend: consumer preferences, something about the lives of the workers, and more detail than we have seen previously about the various steps required to get a commodity to the consumer.  The essays also discuss the activities of the states in the export and import locations.  Even in modern times in capitalist countries, politically motivated state intervention in the market is a commonplace.  These essays describe global commerce.  But it isn’t clear to me what the theories are that the editors want historians to utilize, unless they are the basic theories of modern economics.  That would be helpful.