Eylül Nurcan Geçer

11923018
SOC 312 ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY
FALL 2021 MID-TERM EXAM

Please answer the question below. 

1) Compare and contrast the approaches of Karl Polanyi (1944) and Viviana Zelizer (1978) to
the relationship between the markets and society (80 %). State which one of the approaches you
find more appealing for a sociological study of contemporary economies either by elaborating on
one theoretical argument or by giving one empirical example for research (20 %).  (100 points)

 Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press, ch. 4, 5 & 6.

 Zelizer, V. ([1978] 1992), “Human values and the market: The case of life insurance and
death in 19th century America.” In M. Granovetter & R. Swedberg (eds.), The Sociology
of Economic Life. Oxford: Westview Press, 285-304.

Duration: 90 minutes
Word limit: maximum 1000 words 
Good luck! 

i) To begin with Polanyi, Polanyi suggests that market is embedded in already-existed

social relationships. That’s mean, market is related to society. This relationship can
be seen in wedding traditions in some societies like gifting, jewelry ceremony, etc.
The market, according to Polanyi, should be self-regulating. In 19th century, market as
a self-regulating mechanism is institutionalized. After that, the market required
commodification of human beings and nature. This means that human commodified
as a labor and the nature commodified as land, raw material, etc. Then, the
relationship between market and society increased rapidly, because capitalist mode of
production basically based on human labor and exploitation of human laborer’s time.
In that point, system controls workers time, behavior in a way that is most beneficial
to the system. While doing this, social relations, needs, religions and politics are way
to control time and behaviors. As Adam Smith says, this is the invisible hand of the
system. To continue with Zelizer, she focuses on the relationship between market and
morals. While doing this, she uses life insurance to show this relationship. In other
words, life insurance debates show that market and moral is connected to each other.
In those debates there are two main approaches which are pointing to Durkheimian
sociology. In the debate of the sacred and the profane, who are more sacred, suggests
that life insurance is a way to make a calculation over one’s death. That’s why, it is
not appropriate. On the other hand, profane approach suggests that life insurance is
beneficial to create a shield for himself or herself, and his/her family. In this point, I
would like to add the emergence of life insurance’s time. In 19th century, life
insurance emerged in industrialization period. Life insurance includes three types of
death which are premature, living and economic. Premature death is biological death,
living death is being disabled during the working period and economic death is
retirement. In summary, the main arguments of the life insurance debate can be
Eylül Nurcan Geçer
11923018
summarized as that it is not morally correct and that it guarantees one's own and one's
family's economic standing. When When it comes to family, she is talking about the
male breadwinner family model. In other words, at this point, there is the perception
that it is still lived in a male-dominated society and will continue to exist. According
to Zelizer, good death is insured death because men will still fulfill his economic
responsibility against his family. So, life insurance indexes some moral obligations,
objections and it’s opening new areas in the market. This means, interactions between
society and morality feeds each other and creates each other. The market is not only
legitimated, also, influential in re-defining responsibilities and social norms. Now, to
compare Zelizer and Polanyi, I can say that while Polanyi focuses on relationship
between market and society in social relationships context, Zelizer gives her focus on
the moral and market interaction with life insurance context. Zelizer suggests that
good death motivations are based on social norms, such as male bread-winner, also,
Polanyi says that human actions are motivated by economic standing and it has direct
effect on social relations, needs religion and politics.

ii) As a Marxist sociologist, I think Polanyi is more appealing to sociology. For example,
let’s think a worker who is earn 3000₺ per month. If he is a married and has a child,
3000₺ is not enough for him to continue his life in a humane way. With basic
calculation, householding will took 1500₺ for healthy food and for three people, the
bills will take nearly 500, the rent is at least 2000₺. So, in this equation he already got
in debt for 1000₺. If his wife is worker, and she earns 3000₺ too, the remained
money is 2000₺. Child expense will take 300, and shopping for other basic needs
will took 500₺ and at least 1000₺ for the new caregiver. the remained money is equal
to 200₺. Are they will be able to go a holiday? Or are they will be able to buy a car or
a house? No, they will not be able to do. To sum up, the relationship between market
and society and specifically, economical standing and social relationships are
important to examine and to understand sociological background of stories.