Critical Analysis of Competitive Altruism

Introduction 

Anthropologists typically enter various cultural communities in order to learn and collect data about one specific topic. In the research article, “Competitive Altruism Explains Labor Exchange Variation in a Dominican Community,” authors Shane Macfarlan, Mark Remiker, and Robert Quinlan convey that they are trying to understand the dynamic of competitive altruism versus reciprocal altruism in labor exchange. Their main point of focus is to discover exactly how labor exchange functions in a small-scale Dominican community, and which factors cause it to be this way. This critical analysis will encompass the strengths and weaknesses of the article presented, and examine potential improvements that could have been made in order to make the piece more engaging for the reader. 

Background Information

Competitive altruism is a tactic that small scale societies use when economic opportunities are slim, yet agricultural assistance is still necessary. It is a largely male-driven activity that involves appointing a temporary leader of the labor group, also known as the “chief-for-a-day” or “CFAD”.  Under the supervision of the CFAD, who provides work incentives through food and alcohol, laborers in the Dominican work tirelessly in order to produce bay oil, which is their main source of economic exchange. Through competitive altruism, the chief-for-a-day will choose his laborers based off of their reputations in society. The more cooperation and labor given boosts a person’s reputation, and therefore results in more reciprocal partnerships. When societies practice reciprocal altruism however, labor exchange is based on two people exchanging and mimicking favors repeatedly within their small group. Throughout this article, the authors outline their research, as well as the research of various other anthropologists, to exemplify that competitive altruism is the key component of labor exchange in small scale societies, not reciprocal altruism.

Strengths of the Article

Thorough Description of Fundamental Concepts

Through the presentation and interpretation of their research, the authors succeeded in several ways, particularly in their attention to detail when describing several aspects of small-scale societies. In the initial section of the article, they thoroughly break down certain concepts such as: why labor exchange exists, what a chief-for-a-day is and what his responsibilities are, research that suggests that reciprocal altruism is the main driver behind labor exchange, and finally why their research debunks previous notions and shows that competitive altruism should be the main factor considered in labor exchange. By incorporating thorough information about the production process, as well as the fundamental aspects of small scale societies, it allows the reader to achieve a basic understanding of the group being researched, as well as the significance of the results. 

Compare and Contrast

After setting the groundwork to promote comprehension for the reader, the authors then dive into the real purpose of the piece, comparing reciprocal altruism with competitive altruism. 

They begin by introducing a basic definition of reciprocal altruism, followed by the ways in which this system is flawed. The authors then proceed to state that, “the benefits derived from reciprocal altruism decrease as group size increases because the likelihood that a non reciprocator in a group exists becomes high” (Macfarlan et. al 2012). This presents an issue because the larger the group of people, the easier the work will ultimately be. Especially when it comes to the intensive, laborious work of bay oil production, not having full reciprocation from everyone in the group can be detrimental to the entire process. By incorporating these circumstances in which reciprocal altruism does not work, the authors successfully strengthen their claim and create a smooth transition into discussing the other side of the spectrum.

The authors then go on to describe how competitive altruism functions and why it is more efficient than other forms of altruism. Primarily, they explain how behavior, cooperation, and quality are essential components in building personal reputation, as well as how someone's perceived reputation is essential for them to create reciprocal partnerships. In opposition to reciprocal altruism, cooperative relationships are not simply expected from your close friends or family members. Instead, people compete in order to have most reputable people in their labor groups, hence the term, “competitive altruism.” Once again, through detailed explanation, the authors successfully create understanding out of a concept that may be foreign to the reader. Moreover, they describe how competitive altruism is more effective for larger groups, and how it is considerably the primary driver of labor exchange within this Dominican community. 

Interpretation of Data

Like most anthropological articles, the authors incorporated graphs and tables in order to convey their research findings in a visible, tangible way. In most cases, readers skim past these data points because they often seem confusing and tedious to break down. Even when authors present their data in a literary fashion, it can still create a disconnect between the reader and the research. However, in this particular article, the authors make an effort to describe their data in a meaningful way. To exemplify, instead of just making readers look at numbers on a table, the authors explain the information presented by stating, “of the 94 men represented, 44 had a conjugal partner” (Macfarlan et. al 2012). Further, they even describe information that may have inhibited more data to be collected. For example, they explain that, “because of the small sample of women represented as CFADs, the remaining analyses were run on males only” (Macfarlan et. al 2012). By including this information and admitting that there is an inequality dynamic, not only does it create more understanding between the data and its interpretation, but it also builds the author's credibility by showing the reader the constraints of the research. 

Recognizing Limitations

In their conclusion, the authors acknowledge that this research may not be entirely accurate by stating, “this study has many limitations” (Macfarlan et. al 2012). They go on to describe that they only conducted a 10 month study, and because of time constraints they only received a “snapshot” of everyday interactions and reciprocal relationships. Further, within this specific Dominican community, citizens also participate in other forms of labor exchange besides bay oil production. While the anthropologists did not study those specific exchanges as well, they feel confident that competitive altruism is still the primary method of production. Additionally, they convey that their research does not necessarily apply to all forms of labor exchange, and competitive altruism may not be efficient in all circumstances. While recognizing this, they still believe that it is likely to occur. By admitting all of these limitations within their research, it allows the reader to understand that their may be faults within the information, no matter how confident the anthropologists are in their generalizations. Just as before, this builds credibility for the author because it shows trustworthiness and acknowledgment of the fact that their research may be insufficient. While these limitations may potentially hinder the study, I still believe that their research was adequate enough to make their conclusions based on this particular society. 

Weakness of the Article

Lack of Perspective

In general, this article was well developed due to thorough explanation and honest presentation of the research. However, there are some questions that were left unanswered for me as a reader. Typically, essays within this discipline provide an anthropological perspective on the research findings. Authors try to find a way to make sense of different cultural practices and relate it to our own culture. However, this approach is not a dominant aspect of this article. It is more about the presentation of the information, rather than trying to create meaning out of it. It might have been more conclusive to include information such as why people work so intensively for no pay. Or further describe why people’s societal reputations affect the size of their labor group. Focusing more on the interpretation of the research rather than just presenting what it showed might have been a more efficient way to engage the audience. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, this was a professional, well put together article. It efficiently displayed the key aspects of the research, particularly how competitive altruism is practiced in small scale societies. The authors made a conscious effort to include detailed explanations of concepts, interpret the data given on graphs and tables, and recognize the limitations within their own research methods and execution. While these aspects efficiently conveyed the point in which the authors were trying to make, they could have included their own perspective and interpretation of why they received the results they did. If the authors had added their anthropological input, readers could have connected the information to their own lives, promoting understanding and relatability of a different culture. Nevertheless, the authors clearly and efficiently displayed information as to why competitive altruism explains labor exchange, and I believe this conclusion is reasonable and sufficient based on the abundance of evidence presented. 

Works Cited

Macfarlan, S. J., Remiker, M., & Quinlan, R. (2012). Competitive Altruism Explains Labor Exchange Variation in a Dominican Community. Current Anthropology,53(1), 118-124. doi:10.1086/663700