A rich literature on commensuration and standards of evaluation has yielded important findings on how items are valued. Over the course of a two-year ethnography, we witnessed one effort to create a new economic practice—a monthly swap of “homemade food”—start promisingly but ultimately fail as participants were unable to reach consensus on valuations. They rejected each other’s offerings on numerous grounds, including proximity to industrial food, packaging, and excess “artisanal-ness” and alterity, forcing participants to “thread the needle” in search of acceptable qualities. Multiple or competing logics can be reconciled with clear institutional definitions, by using money, or via relational work. In our site, none of these mechanisms were operative. Instead, a multivalent alternative identity biased toward oppositional criteria impeded valuations and robust exchange. We believe this problem is common to a larger class of organizations that define themselves in opposition to the dominant market. K E Y W O R D S : money; inequality; evaluation; circuits of commerce; sharing economy. On a Sunday afternoon, in a neighborhood of a large Northeastern city filled with revitalized wharfs and warehouses, a group of approximately 20 people gather in a rented room. The action begins with participants walking around and sampling foods, followed by a silent auction as people make offers for exchanges. After all the bids are entered, trades begin. No money will change hands, but soon food will circulate throughout the group. This is a typical scene at the Northeastern Food Swap, an informal “sharing economy” initiative that has operated since 2011. Food swaps began in Brooklyn in 2010 and quickly spread. In 2013, 123 swaps were reported across the United States and Canada (Winterman 2013). Food swapping is a type of activity that economic sociologists have called a “circuit of commerce,” a concept developed by Viviana Zelizer (2004, 2010) to describe economic exchanges and social relations that are neither traditional firms nor markets. Over the course of a two-year ethnography, we observed our research site devolve into a failed attempt at what we have called a “circuit in construction” (Dubois, Schor, and Carfagna 2014), an attempt to create, de novo, ongoing socially meaningful exchange relationships among a group of largely unrelated people. After beginning with enthusiasm and excitement, For helpful critiques and suggestions at various stages of this project, thanks are due to Kimberly Hoang, Ashley Mears, Jonathan Wynn, Viviana Zelizer, Ezra Zuckerman, and members of the MacArthur Team on Connected Consumption and the Connected Economy. The authors also wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments greatly improved the manuscript. Direct Correspondence to: Connor Fitzmaurice, Boston University, Department of Sociology, 96-100 Cummington St., Boston, MA 02215. Email: fitzmauc@bu.edu. VC The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 1 Social Problems, 2018, 0, 1–18 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spx046 Article Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spx046/4795357 by guest on 09 January 2018 this swap struggled to establish itself as a viable site of either economic exchange or social connection. By the end of the second year, it was barely functioning. As barter economies, food swaps represent an attempt to remove some food provisioning from the cash market, with swappers adhering to a relatively fixed one-to-one exchange ratio: a jar of jelly yields a jar of pickles. The lack of cash makes this an unusual case as relational economic sociologists have primarily analyzed situations where cash enters areas of social life. These studies reveal contextspecific, relationally determined meanings of exchange, and challenge classical views of money as a universal leveling agent (Zelizer 1989). By examining a site where individuals have removed money from exchange, and where social negotiations failed to produce consistent standards of exchange, we aim to complicate these interpretations. The food swap is a place to trade homemade foods. Despite the ostensibly straightforward meaning of “homemade,” criteria for evaluating offerings were diverse and often obscure. Participants’ competing understandings of the purpose and practices of this emergent circuit thwarted the development of common systems of evaluation and accounting. Rather than finding easy avenues for trading foods brought to the swap, participants found exchanges failed to materialize. Members rejected foods for many reasons; prominent among them were that offerings were taboo or profane, quotidian, or excessively “alternative.” The proliferation of competing standards of evaluation contributed to unclear boundaries of circuit membership—particularly without money to equilibrate offerings. In our case, the result was uncertainty about what type of food—and what type of person—was welcome at the swap. We believe this case contributes to the growing literature on evaluation and commensurability in economic life. In previous research, sociologists have found that multiple or competing logics can be reconciled in at least three ways: with clear institutional definitions and boundaries, by using money, or via relational work. In our case, the first two were unavailable. The food swap is a barter economy. As a new organization, the swap could not rely upon past institutional work to create common standards. Relational work would have been the obvious route for reconciling multiple logics to negotiate common evaluative criteria, but the kinds of relations required did not develop—even among a relatively homogeneous group of participants. What accounts for this failure, especially in light of intentions to create new relationships and practices? We argue an important part of the answer lies in the larger context of our case, namely the emergence of “new economy” institutions, such as the sharing economy, cooperatives, and gift economies, animated by a rejection of dominant market structures. The food swap is situated within one of the most successful of these challenges—alternative food movements challenging the agro-industrial food regime. To a significant extent, the swap was founded with an oppositional identity, defining itself against both the normative food system and culturally valorized artisanal alternatives. For that reason, members found it easier to articulate negative criteria, i.e., categories of foods that should not be offered rather than robust standards for valued items. Faced with multiple exclusionary criteria, successful swappers needed to “thread the needle” to avoid numerous undesirable qualities in their offerings. Ultimately, a failure to articulate what qualities and characteristics were consistently acceptable contributed to the swap’s demise. We believe that this bias toward broadly “oppositional criteria” characterizes a larger class of organizations in the new economy sector, many of which also define themselves in opposition to the dominant market (Schor and Fitzmaurice 2015; Schor et al. 2016), and suggest this may be a factor in their limited success. T H E C A S E : F O O D S W A P S I N T H E N E W S H A R I N G E C O N O M Y Food swaps are a part of what has been termed the “sharing economy”: a constellation of digitally mediated platforms and face-to-face initiatives providing novel modes of provisioning. While the sharing economy has common features, such as digital technology and peer-to-peer structure, it is also 2 Fitzmaurice and Schor Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spx046/4795357 by guest on 09 January 2018 diverse (Schor and Fitzmaurice 2015). It has also generated considerable controversy (Schor 2014) with critical accounts contending that the for-profit platforms are extensions of the neoliberal economic project (Dawkins 2011). For smaller peer-to-peer/nonprofit platforms, questions include their ability to retain members, expand, and facilitate robust, networks of exchange (Bellotti et al. 2014; Schor et al. 2016). While sharing economy platforms are attracting significant venture capitalist funding and attention, numerous alternative nonprofit, peer-to-peer initiatives facilitating non-monetized sharing have also been emerging on this new frontier of consumer culture. The expansion of some of these initiatives, such as Freecycle—an organization that facilitates gift exchanges of unwanted goods—would suggest success. Freecycling claims eight million users across 85 countries (Arsel and Dobscha 2011). However, the limited literature on these alternative initiatives suggests many are struggling. Time banking initiatives have suffered when needed services are unavailable (or valuable services are withheld). Often, participants frame their involvement in these initiatives as “volunteering,” leading to transaction imbalances that undermine exchange and long-term trading relations (Bellotti et al 2014; Dubois et al. 2014; Seyfang 2004). Even the relative success of Freecycling has been fraught with “[mismatches] between the institutionally imposed norms and community participation” (Arsel and Dobscha 2011). Furthermore, this landscape is littered with numerous failed attempts: Landshare, which paired landowners and gardeners has closed down. Yerdle, a sophisticated gift economy, has shuttered its site. So too have a number of the neighborhood goods exchange and loaning platforms. Food swaps are peer-to-peer/nonprofits. They are in-person events where participants exchange foods that they have made, grown, or foraged. A common form is a weekly or monthly gathering— generally of 50 or fewer participants. Exchanges follow a silent auction format with written b

中文翻译：

---

自制事务：失败的食物交换中的反对逻辑

大量关于相称性和评估标准的文献已经产生了关于如何评估项目的重要发现。在为期两年的民族志研究过程中，我们目睹了一项创造新经济实践的努力——每月更换“自制食品”——开始很有希望，但最终失败了，因为参与者无法就估值达成共识。他们以多种理由拒绝对方的产品，包括接近工业食品、包装以及过度的“手工艺”和他异性，迫使参与者“穿针引线”以寻找可接受的品质。通过使用金钱或通过关系工作，可以将多种或相互竞争的逻辑与明确的制度定义相协调。在我们的站点中，这些机制都不起作用。反而，偏向于对立标准的多价替代身份阻碍了估值和稳健的交易。我们认为，这个问题对于更大的一类组织来说是常见的，这些组织将自己定义为与主导市场相对立。关键词：钱；不等式; 评估; 商业线路；共享经济。一个星期天的下午，在一个充满活力的码头和仓库的东北大城市附近，一群大约 20 人聚集在一个租来的房间里。行动开始于参与者四处走动并品尝食物，然后是无声拍卖，因为人们提出交换要约。输入所有出价后，交易开始。钱不会易手，但很快食物就会在整个团队中流通。这是东北食物互换的典型场景，自 2011 年开始运作的非正式“共享经济”计划。食物互换于 2010 年在布鲁克林开始并迅速传播。2013 年，美国和加拿大报告了 123 次掉期（Winterman 2013）。食物交换是一种经济社会学家称之为“商业电路”的活动，这是 Viviana Zelizer (2004, 2010) 提出的概念，用于描述既不是传统企业也不是市场的经济交流和社会关系。在为期两年的民族志研究过程中，我们观察到我们的研究站点演变为我们所谓的“建设中的电路”（Dubois、Schor 和 Carfagna 2014）的失败尝试，尝试从头开始，持续进行一群基本上不相关的人之间具有社会意义的交换关系。满怀热情和兴奋开始后，感谢 Kimberly Hoang、Ashley Mears、Jonathan Wynn、Viviana Zelizer、Ezra Zuckerman 以及 MacArthur 互联消费和互联经济团队成员在本项目各个阶段提供的有益批评和建议。作者还要感谢三位匿名审稿人，他们富有洞察力的评论极大地改进了手稿。直接联系：Connor Fitzmaurice，波士顿大学社会学系，96-100 Cummington St., Boston, MA 02215。电子邮件：fitzmauc@bu.edu。VC The Author(s) 2018. 牛津大学出版社代表社会问题研究学会出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com 1 Social Problems, 2018, 0, 1–18 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spx046 文章下载自 https://academic.oup。com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spx046/4795357 由客人于 2018 年 1 月 9 日发表，此交换努力将自己确立为经济交流或社会联系的可行网站。到第二年年底，它几乎没有运作。作为易货经济，食品互换代表了从现金市场中去除一些食品供应的尝试，互换者坚持相对固定的一对一交换比例：一罐果冻换一罐泡菜。由于关系经济社会学家主要分析了现金进入社会生活领域的情况，因此缺乏现金使其成为一种不寻常的情况。这些研究揭示了特定于上下文的、由关系决定的交换意义，并挑战了将货币作为通用均衡剂的经典观点（Zelizer 1989）。通过检查个人已将货币从交易中移除且社会协商未能产生一致的交换标准的网站，我们旨在使这些解释复杂化。食品交换是一个交易自制食品的地方。尽管表面上“自制”的含义很简单，但评估产品的标准却多种多样，而且往往含糊不清。参与者对这种新兴回路的目的和实践的相互理解阻碍了评估和会计共同系统的发展。参与者发现交易未能实现，而不是找到简单的途径来交易带来交换的食物。会员拒绝食物的原因有很多；其中突出的是，供品是禁忌或亵渎的、日常的或过度“另类”的。” 竞争性评估标准的激增导致电路成员的界限不明确——尤其是在没有资金来平衡产品的情况下。在我们的案例中，结果是不确定什么类型的食物——以及什么类型的人——在交换中受到欢迎。我们相信这个案例有助于越来越多的关于经济生活中的评估和可公度性的文献。在之前的研究中，社会学家发现，至少可以通过三种方式来调和多种或相互竞争的逻辑：具有明确的制度定义和界限、使用金钱或通过关系工作。在我们的例子中，前两个不可用。食物互换是一种易货经济。作为一个新组织，互换不能依赖过去的机构工作来创建通用标准。关系工作本来是调和多种逻辑以协商共同评估标准的明显途径，但所需的关系类型并没有发展——即使在相对同质的参与者群体中也是如此。这种失败的原因是什么，尤其是考虑到建立新关系和实践的意图？我们认为答案的一个重要部分在于我们案例的更大背景，即“新经济”机构的出现，例如共享经济、合作社和礼物经济，这些机构因拒绝主导市场结构而受到激励。粮食互换属于这些挑战中最成功的挑战之一——替代食品运动挑战农工食品体制。在很大程度上，互换是以对立的身份建立的，定义自己反对规范的食物系统和文化上有价值的手工替代品。出于这个原因，成员们发现更容易阐明负面标准，即不应提供的食品类别，而不是对贵重物品制定强有力的标准。面对多个排除标准，成功的交换者需要“穿针引线”以避免其产品中出现许多不受欢迎的品质。最终，未能阐明哪些品质和特征是一致可接受的，导致了互换的消亡。我们认为，这种对广义“反对标准”的偏见是新经济部门中更大类别的组织的特征，其中许多组织也将自己定义为与主导市场相对立（Schor and Fitzmaurice 2015；Schor et al. 2016），并暗示这可能是他们成功有限的一个因素。案例：FOODSWAPSINTHENEWSHAR INGECONOMY 食品交换是所谓的“共享经济”的一部分：数字中介平台和面对面举措的组合，提供了新颖的供应模式。虽然共享经济具有数字技术和点对点结构等共同特征，但它也是 2 Fitzmaurice 和 Schor 下载自 https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093 /socpro/spx046/4795357 来自 2018 年 1 月 9 日的来宾不同（Schor 和 Fitzmaurice 2015）。它还引起了相当大的争议（Schor 2014），批评者认为营利性平台是新自由主义经济项目的延伸（Dawkins 2011）。对于较小的点对点/非营利平台，问题包括它们保留成员、扩展和促进强大的交换网络的能力（Bellotti 等人，2014 年；Schor 等人，2016 年）。在共享经济平台吸引了大量风险资本家的资金和关注的同时，许多促进非货币化共享的替代性非营利、点对点计划也在这个消费文化的新前沿出现。其中一些计划的扩展，例如 Freecycle——一个促进不需要的物品的礼物交换的组织——将表明成功。Freecycling 在 85 个国家拥有 800 万用户（Arsel 和 Dobscha 2011）。然而，关于这些替代举措的有限文献表明，许多举措都在苦苦挣扎。当所需的服务不可用（或有价值的服务被扣留）时，时间银行计划就会受到影响。通常，参与者将他们对这些举措的参与定义为“志愿服务”，从而导致交易失衡，从而破坏交换和长期贸易关系（Bellotti 等，2014；Dubois 等，2014；Seyfang，2004）。即使是自由循环的相对成功也充满了“制度强加的规范和社区参与之间的[不匹配]​​”（Arsel 和 Dobscha 2011）。此外，这片土地上充斥着无数失败的尝试：土地所有者和园丁配对的 Landshare 已经关闭。Yerdle，一个复杂的礼品经济，已经关闭了它的网站。许多邻里商品交换和借贷平台也是如此。食品互换是点对点/非营利组织。他们是面对面的活动，参与者交换他们制作、种植或觅食的食物。一种常见的形式是每周或每月举行一次聚会——通常参加人数不超过 50 人。交易所遵循无声拍卖格式，并带有书面 b