Economics, Oikonomia, Domostroi: Introduction to the Anthropology of Household
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is an introduction to the issue’s special theme on “Economic Anthropology of Household Outside Metropolitan Areas in Contemporary Russia”, featuring contributions by Lidia Rakhmanova, Aleksandra Kasatkina, Daria Tereshina, and Polina Yarovaya. This article contributes to rethinking economic anthropology in terms of culturally specific categories under study. It does so by revisiting the role of household in the genealogy of “economy,” and specifically by looking at Russian terms domokhozaistvo and domostroi. The article shows how domokhozaistvo harks back to oikonomia as Aristotile’s “art of running household” and the new testament’s divine management of the world as god’s home. In turn, domostroi evokes the name of the 16th century Moscow courtly instructions that combine these classical Greek and Christian connotations. The article also suggests thinking through the implications of the Aristotilian categorical foundation of the “economy” in ways in which it is part to an oikonomic ethical judgement based on the state of exception. This allows us, on the one hand, to rethink economic anthropology as part of the anthropology of ethics, and, on the other, to reconceptualize its ethnographic methodologies which “case studies” frequently follow the non-typical and are not necessarily representative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".