Labor Exchange and Degenerate Relations:

The story of Jacob and Rachel

April 29, 2001

I have spoken about Marx’s labor theory of value in the past and how it’s a bogus theory. The major premise of the theory is that the value of a good or service is equal to the labor required to produce that good or service. Therefore the value of the good is not determined by its quality, but only by the work to create it. The reason that it’s bogus can be illustrated by the example of 2 sea divers that dive to the bottom of a body of water. They both have the same skills, training, and perform the same amount of work to reach the bottom. One diver discovers a bile of medicine that can save many lives of afflicted people, the other discovers a rock that has no utilitarian value. According to Marx’s theory, both are worth the same.

 

Furthermore, let’s say that both divers actually discover identical biles of medicine. Let’s say that they’re sold to 2 similar institutions. Each of them performs equal work on their biles, perhaps straining or filtering out certain impurities in the medicine. According to Marx’s theory, both still have the same value, even if one actually did a better job of filtering or packaging it. In other words, both institutions must sell their products at exactly the same price. This example can of course be applied to other products like jeans, jewelry, dinnerware, TVs, and other valuables. Each store must sell identical products at the same price, even if one store does a better job at presentation, cleaning, bundling with other products, etc.

 

Despite this flawed theory, I have read about other labor theories of value that are more credible. During the 19^th century, many economic and political thinkers proposed such theories that were based upon exchanging labor services for some good or other service. In particular, anarchist thinkers made such proposals (I’m not sure which ones, but I would venture to say that Proudhon, Spooner, and Tucker favored these or similar ideas). Ultimately, labor theories of value gave way to supply/demand or consumption/production determinants for the values of goods, certain a favorable evolutionary development in economic theory.

 

In Chapter 29, we are presented with a labor exchange theory that is both interesting and revolting. It’s interesting because it occurs in Biblical times, but it’s revolting because it involves the exchange of a woman as if she was nothing more than chattel. Now, if we are to approach the study of the Bible from a cultural anthropological perspective, particularly from a relativistic one, we must not judge that period by our own contemporary values. Cultural Relativism presupposes that the study of any people is to be measured and judged with respect to their own values. They (e.g. Franz Boaz, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead) overthrew the Comparative school of anthropology (people like Morgan) which actively ordered different societies with respect to fixed values they, the Comparatives, deemed to be superior.

 

Nevertheless, one can’t help but feel that the way Laban treats his daughters, Rachel and Leah, is reprehensible. When Jacob first meets Rachel, he apparently falls in love with her. He kisses her, raises his voice, and cries (verse 11). Keep in mind that Jacob would not have even come to Haran if his mother Rebekah did not warn him that his brother Esau was going to kill him (because Jacob had stolen his blessing).

 

Now Laban is more than willing to give his daughter to Jacob, even though Jacob is her first cousin (Laban is Rebekah’s brother). This is not what I consider to be most reprehensible. Incestuous relations, like polygamy, were normal practices during Biblical times. While it is taboo in our modern society, it should be viewed in the context of an accelerated drive to propagate the species, a dominant theme in any evolutionary movement. What I think is reprehensible is that he was willing to put a price on her head without her consent or approval, or more to the point, she was not involved in any way in the decision making. In a respect, this is a form of slavery. Laban tells Jacob that he must work for him for 7 years, and then he can take his daughter for his wife. There is no mutual voluntary exchange between Rachel and Jacob; hence, it can’t be considered a free market transaction!

 

But I say let’s forget that she’s being treated like chattel. Let’s ignore, for the time being anyway, that it’s sexist. Instead, let’s extract the general idea of labor exchange from this example. Someone works for a certain amount of time, and in return, he receives a good or service. No money is exchanged, only goods and services. It’s a form of barter that involves one’s labor. That is one novel idea we find in this Biblical story.

 

There are many other aspects of the story that are worthy to discuss. For one, Laban deceived Jacob because after seven years of work, he gave his older daughter Leah to him instead of Rachel. That was not part of the bargain. It is only after Jacob fulfills his end of the agreement that Laban explains that he must first offer the oldest daughter (Leah) before he can offer the younger one (Rachel).

 

We could also discuss how God comes to the aid of the “hated” woman, Leah, by “opening her womb”. God has compassion upon the hated, the infertile. Or we could then discuss how Rachel envied her sister because she (Rachel) bore Jacob no children. When Jacob gets angry with her because she can’t conceive, she offers her handmaiden to him for procreation purposes. Continuing on, in Chapter 30, it mentions the role of the mandrake, the Biblical aphrodisiac. Here at yet another level, the dominant theme of procreation is given additional thrust! Breeding is so important in the story of Genesis, so much so that just about anything is justifiable and even favorable in God’s eyes for the propagation of the species.

 

Well, the mandrakes helped Jacob conceive additional sons with Leah (they had 6). But God eventually opened Rachel’s womb, and she conceived Joseph.

 

Despite these crazy sexual relations, I believe none is quite as degenerate as the exchange of services that are made by Laban and Jacob, the exchange of labor for a wife. As a detached amateur “cultural relativist”, all I can say is “cool”.