Formalizing the informal? A non-monetary zone project in Pilsen, Czech Republic
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3070
This paper is based on two years of research taking advantage of participant observation and interviews with the organizers as well as visitors of the non-monetary zone in the Pilsen region, Czech Republic. The research reveals that despite the effort to formalize this informal activity, tension between formal and informal conceptualization seems to be an obstruction.
application/pdf
2239-625X
3070
2
en
Lenka Brunclíková
Anuac
Formalizing the informal? A non-monetary zone project in Pilsen, Czech Republic
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
6
Forum: In/formalization
2017-12-31
2017-11-24
2017-12-31
2017-12-31
57-62
1
Lenka Brunclíková
2017/12/31
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3070
57
University of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Czechia
2239-625X
2
en
62
Formalizing the informal? A non-monetary zone project in Pilsen, Czech Republic
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/3070/2793
6
                                              2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62




                                                                                     FORUM




Brindisi to the Brindisians, graffiti in Brindisi, Italy. Photo by A. M. Pusceddu.


In/formalization
Edited by
Alan SMART, Josephine SMART, Filippo M. ZERILLI

Contributions of
Stamatis AMARIANAKIS, Lenka BRUNCLÍKOVÁ, Dolores KOENIG, B. Lynne MILGRAM, Sarah
MUIR, Antonio Maria PUSCEDDU, Alan SMART, Mechthild VON VACANO, Filippo M.
ZERILLI & Julie TRAPPE.




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © LENKA BRUNCLÍKOVÁ
Formalizing the informal? A non-monetary zone project in Pilsen, Czech Republic
2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62.
ISSN: 2239-625X – DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3070
IN/FORMALIZATION                                                                            57




Formalizing the informal?
A non-monetary zone project in Pilsen, Czech Republic

Lenka BRUNCLÍKOVÁ
University of West Bohemia




ABSTRACT: This paper is based on two years of research taking advantage of participant
observation and interviews with the organizers as well as visitors of the non-monetary zone
in the Pilsen region, Czech Republic. The research reveals that despite the effort to formalize
this informal activity, tension between formal and informal conceptualization seems to be
an obstruction.




   About 2 years ago my friend gave me a scarf and told «It is from a non-
monetary zone». I had no idea what a non-monetary zone was and I was sur -
prised that he was not able to explain it to me. All attempts to define the
non-monetary zone ended in other questions. Also, the describing of this
project was not trivial. The use of conventional terms did not work well. The
problem of defining the project of a non-monetary zone lies in the tension
between formal and informal spheres. As I started to be more interested in a
non-monetary-zone project in Pilsen, where it is organized at least 4 times a
year, I tried to find out in what sense do formality and informality intersect
within this experiment and how can this fact influence successful running of
this project.
   In fact, the idea of non-monetary zone is nothing new, there are many
similar projects running abroad, such as various free shops and free markets
(e.g. Really Really Free Market, Schenke etc.), sometimes labelled as give-
away shops, Kost-Nix Laden, free stores etc. The idea of free shop goes back
to 1960’s to Diggers, a counter-cultural group from San Francisco providing
free food, and organizing free music and art performances (Overview: Who
Were (Are) the Diggers? 2016). Free shops are usually considered as a method
of direct action in alternative scene and are mostly placed in squats and/or
alternative cultural centres.

                                              2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62
58                                         ALAN SMART, JOSEPHINE SMART, FILIPPO M. ZERILLI (EDS)


   Free shops and non-monetary zone share the same basic principle,
namely providing things without the necessity to use money. Proclaiming
the slogan “Give and Take”, anyone can come and bring something they want
to get rid of or take anything without an obligation to reciprocate. Participants
of these projects are not usually motivated by financial need but rather by
anti-capitalist conviction or/and care for the environment. These projects
aim to show that “one man’s trash can be another man’s treasure”. Although
there are usually no fixed rules except one (not to use money), it is also ex-
pected that participants do not take things so that they can be resold.
   However, the non-monetary zone tries to overcome the closeness of free-
shops through the absence of permanent space and welcome people outside
alternative scene, therefore it is organized entirely in a public space, e.g. in a
park, on a street or in cafes, restaurants and gardens. The absence of permanent
space influences a different time dimension, the non-monetary zone is orga-
nized only for one day and takes place 4-6 times a year. The interval is de-
pendent on free time of organizers as well as on whether they manage to find
a suitable place. The one-day non-monetary zone allows people to bring here
not only clothes, shoes, books, kitchen utensils, dishes and tools, but also
plants and food, herbs from their own gardens or gained by dumpster diving.
Furthermore, within the non-monetary zone, the emphasis is put on the inter-
action with other people. In this aspect, the project differs from free shops,
which often work as places where people give away or take things, but there
is no emphasis on personal meetings. The non-monetary zone is a place
where people meet, discuss, they can learn about the history of things and
can make new friendships.
   Like many similar projects, the non-monetary zone in the Czech Republic
has its roots in anarchistic movement. After the Velvet Revolution in 1989,
the Czech environment fostered an anarchist movement in the form of
Czechoslovak Anarchist Federation. The activities were focused mostly on
organizing demonstrations, squatting and publishing activities. With the ad-
vent of so-called alter–globalization movements attention was paid to an
idea of “think globally, act locally”. Despite some efforts, this idea was hardly
applied in practice until 2012 when Days of Action were organized by Anar-
chist Federation. During this event, the first non-monetary zone was orga-
nized on a street in Prague. One year later, in 2013, the first non-monetary
zone took place in Pilsen.
   Organizers of the non-monetary zone in Pilsen were theoretically inspired
by this Prague experiment, where it was held only once, however, they had no
direct experience. This is probably the reason why the non-monetary zone in
Pilsen tends to be disassociated from anarchistic origin since this is not im-


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62
IN/FORMALIZATION                                                                   59


portant for them and it works as a stigma which makes it very difficult to at-
tract people outside the alternative scene. However, the successful expansion of
this project also means to cross the imaginary line between the informal
sphere and the formal one.
   Although correct definition is essential for successful running of this
project, even after five years it is not clear how to talk about this experiment
and the activities that are practiced here. Some participants tried to define
the non-monetary zone during interviews, however, they changed their mind
later as it did not fit to practices within non-monetary zone. Most of them
mentioned terms like “absence of money”, “space for unwanted things”, “ab-
sence of hierarchy”, “exchange system”, “gift giving”, “autonomous space for
meeting”, and “sharing”. But it turned out that the vast majority of actors
when asking, «How would you describe this project to someone else?» were
surprised and did not know how to deal with it.
   Free shops and similar projects are sometimes called as a part of gift econ-
omy. Although anthropology has proven that the gift can take various forms,
this term as well as similar concepts describing the activities within these
projects can be incorrect. Whereas within the family gift giving can be seen
as a duty that arises from the nature of filiation, gift giving among friends
and neighbours is voluntary (de L´Estoile 2014: S70). Therefore, gift giving is
perceived as moral and valuable and tends to be reciprocated. A thing is not a
gift itself, it can be identified as a gift only in connection to its obligations
(Mauss 1990). In other words, gift is a gift through relations between giver
and recipient of such a gift. The act of gift giving therefore reflects not only
the value of the gift, but also the value of the action itself supporting rela-
tions among members of the social group (Servet 2009: 88). This relation-
ship, however, always refers to hierarchy (Graeber 2001: 29). I heard two
women at the non-monetary zone chatting about feeling bad when they
should take something without giving something else in return, they would
feel like thieves or debtors. This refers to what Gregory (1982: 19) pointed
out
   Gift economy, then, is a debt economy. The aim of a transactor in such an
economy is to acquire as many gift-debtors as he possibly can and not to
maximize profit, as it is in a commodity economy. What a gift transactor desires
is the personal relationships that the exchange of gifts creates, and not the
things themselves.
   The principle of the hierarchy was also one of the main reasons why most
participants of my research refused to compare this project to charity. They
referred to the paternalistic relationships that charity projects establish and
mentioned that charity does not allow people to participate fully in the ac-
tivities and to become an equal partner.

                                       2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62
60                                         ALAN SMART, JOSEPHINE SMART, FILIPPO M. ZERILLI (EDS)


   One can claim that the non-monetary zone is a kind of free giving which
is not reciprocal. «Once given, the free gift entails no further claims from the
recipient» (Douglas 2002 [1990]: ix). However, despite of receiving nothing in
return, donors are supposed to benefit from a good feeling as the giver of the
gift (Laidlaw 2000: 624). Moreover, for Baudrillard (1993 [1976]: 48-49) the
idea of free gift is a myth since this gift cannot be recognized as a gift so as
not to be reciprocated. The lack of reciprocity then leads to the fact that the
free gift creates no social ties. In other words, free gift makes no social rela-
tionships which are very important in the non-monetary zone.
   Also, other terms, such as “exchange”, “swap” and “barter”, used by partic-
ipants do not fit since they are based on the right to demand something in
return. Though, things provided at non-monetary zone are free of any kind
of demand and obligation. Humphrey and Hugh Jones (1992: 7) stress barter
is determined by the mutual desire of its participants to gain some objects.
However, at non-monetary zone one can bring something without taking
something in return. Also, nobody knows in advance what things will be
available here. The non-monetary zone is not based on a principle “tit for
tat”.
   For the same reason, other kinds of “trade” are also excluded. In connec-
tion with the monetary economy respondents often expressed some degree
of resistance. Especially the organizers of non-monetary zone accounted
themselves actors distancing from consumerism and ideas of neoliberal capi-
talism although most of them do not label themselves as anarchists. Regard-
ing the impersonal and anonymous character of money, it creates completely
different kind of relationship among persons and supports the anonymity of
transactions which is not welcomed in the non-monetary zone. In addition,
formal trade where money plays a major role is incompatible with the idea of
no-monetary zone.
   During the interviews, some participants also referred to “sharing”. But
can we talk about sharing in case of non-monetary zone? Sharing was men-
tioned by participant without being explained or even understood. They just
talked about it because they saw it on the leaflets promoting the non-mone-
tary zone. If sharing is a term usually tied to a social group, a community
which is interested in sharing, and can be defined as a common use and con-
sumption of resources, what is shared in non-monetary zone? What is the
object of sharing? Following Widlock (2013: 12) «people do share what they
value, they share without receiving or even expecting returns». However, at-
tenders to the non-monetary zone provide things which they want to get rid
of, it means they do not value them. In fact, only a place is shared in the non-


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62
IN/FORMALIZATION                                                                  61


monetary zone which, however, is also shared by non-visitors as it is orga-
nized in public space. Last but not least, the term sharing does not seem to
be suitable because of for-profit sharing (e.g. sharing of cars and accommo-
dation) which has increased recently.
   It is evident that an ambivalent conceptualization causes problems for
spreading the idea of this project. Non- monetary zone means different
things to different participants, such as the organizers, the attendants, pub-
lic officials and to me as the ethnographer as well. The lack of this consensus
is further enhanced by the fact that these participants come from different
political or apolitical backgrounds and can understand different terms differ-
ently. At the same time, the formal and informal division itself may be very
problematic as it is a necessary simplification of reality. In the real world,
these two spheres intersect and affect each other so much that they cannot
be separated from one another. It also turns out that we are very limited by
the language we speak and the economic environment we live in. These limi-
tations reflect the way we think about the world and the inability to concep-
tualize otherness, something unusual, informal and/or new. Our language is
determined by terms connected to and proper for neoliberal economy, or
«the mentality of the market place» (Sahlins 1974: 200). At the same time, we
are often unable to conceptualize exchange without Maussian obligations or
the right to demand a counterpart. Moreover, perhaps the contemporary
Czech environment (with constant reminding of the Communist past and the
effort to suppress any form of resistance against neoliberal capitalism which
in practice means to pursue any bottom-up projects running without the
need for money and bureaucracy for their realization) is not yet ready for ex-
periments like the non-monetary zone.
   All these factors make it difficult to perceive this experiment as a full-
fledged alternative to the monetary economy and problematize its spreading
among general public. It seems that organizers and regular visitors of the
non-monetary zone can either put up with the closeness and operate as sim-
ilar projects (free shops), or, they can keep resisting against formal rules of
today’s political economic settings. This journey is, however, risky and uncer-
tain. Anyway, probably only correct conceptualization and/or the mutual
willingness to overcome the imaginary line between formal and informal can
fix the problem of mediation of the non-monetary zone and support its suc-
cessful expansion.




                                      2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62
62                                         ALAN SMART, JOSEPHINE SMART, FILIPPO M. ZERILLI (EDS)


REFERENCES

Baudrillard, Jean, 1993 [1976], Symbolic Exchange and Death, London: Sage.
Douglas, Mary, 2002 [1990], Foreword. No Free Gifts, in Marcel Mauss, The Gift. The
      Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, London and New York,
      Routledge: ix–xxiii.
Graeber, David, 2001, Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. The False Coin of
      Our Own Dreams, New York, Palgrave.
Gregory, Chris A., 1982, Gifts and Commodities, London, Academic Press.
Humphrey, Caroline, Stephen Hugh-Jones, 1992, Introduction: Barter, Exchange and
      Value, in Barter, Exchange and Value. An Anthropological Approach, Caroline
      Humphrey, Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
      1-20.
L’Estoile, Benoit de, 2014, “Money Is Good, but a Friend Is Better”: Uncertainty,
      Orientation to the Future, and “the Economy”, Current Anthropology, 55, S9:
      S62–73.
Laidlaw, James, 2000, A Free Gift Makes No Friends, Journal of the Royal
      Anthropological Institute, (n. s.), 6: 617-634.
Mauss, Marcel, 1990 [1925], The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic
      Societies, London and New York, Routledge.
Overview: Who Were (Are) the Diggers?, 2016, The Digger Archives, www.diggers.-
      org/overview.htm (accessed on 16/07/2017).
Sahlins, Marshall, 1974, Stone Age Economics, London, Tavistock Publications
      Limited.
Servet, Jean-Michel, 2009, Toward an alternative economy: Reconsidering the
      market, money, and value, in Market and Society. The Great Transformation
      Today, Chris Hann, Keith Hart, eds, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
      72–90.
Widlock, Thomas, 2013, Sharing Allowing Others to Take What Is Valued, HAU.
      Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3, 2: 11–31.




2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2017: 57-62
