Reflecting a longstanding intellectual heritage in Marxist political economy, contributions to agrarian studies have variously referred to the production, distribution and extraction of value. Despite this central role within the heritage of agrarian studies, the concept of value is often used inconsistently between authors and sometimes deployed without clear elucidation of the underlying theoretical tenets. As such, value often tends to be used more as a metaphor suggestive of conditions of exploitation rather than a detailed conceptual framework. In response, we must ask if there is still a robust case for value analysis forming a foundational pillar of agrarian studies? To address this challenging question, we invited three authors to give their perspective on the value of value for agrarian studies. First and foremost, we asked them to consider what value analysis does that is otherwise missed in critical agrarian studies and how we can mobilise its potential to sharpen analyses. Two further pivotal questions arise, spurred on by recent trends in the literature. First, to what extent do the categories of value enrich or hinder our evolving understanding of the dynamics of social reproduction within agrarian households and communities, including the gendered relations through which agriculture and livelihoods are performed? Similarly, are the largely anthropogenic concepts of value fit for the purpose of explaining environmental change and the more-than-human dynamics through which agricultural landscapes are produced and change over time?

Authors: A Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Srishti Yadav, Alessandra Mezzadri, Marcus Taylor

This article aims to understand the methodological position that Marx takes in Capital Volume 1 and the implications of that on the individual units in his analysis. With the understanding that Marx adopts a fundamentally holist methodological standpoint, the article outlines how the individuals within classes and the system of capitalist production are measured and contextualised. This question is answered by examining Marx’s Capital Volume 1 as the primary text. Where relevant, the researcher engages with Marx’s intellectual background and tradition. The individual units discussed in this study are the commodity, the worker and the capitalist.

This article examines how the concept of the representative individual emerges through averaging and how this process unfolds in Marx’s Capital, shaped by his methodological approach. The article illustrates the method of averaging in Marx, through his intellectual engagement with Quetelet as it also focuses on Hegel’s influence on Marx’s method and elaborates on the parallels and divergences between them. With the given engagement with Capital and Marx’s intellectual interactions, the researcher arrives at a specific understanding of holism that can be attributed to Marx in Capital Volume 1.

Author: Sushmita Rama Subrahmanyam, Student, MA in Economics (2024−2026)

This article aims to understand the methodological position that Marx takes in Capital Volume 1 and the implications of that on the individual units in his analysis. With the understanding that Marx adopts a fundamentally holist methodological standpoint, the article outlines how the individuals within classes and the system of capitalist production are measured and contextualised. This question is answered by examining Marx’s Capital Volume 1 as the primary text. Where relevant, the author engages with Marx’s intellectual background and tradition. The individual units discussed in this study are the commodity, the worker and the capitalist.

This article examines how the concept of the representative individual emerges through averaging and how this process unfolds in Marx’s Capital, shaped by his methodological approach. The article illustrates the method of averaging in Marx, through his intellectual engagement with Quetelet as it also focusses on Hegel’s influence on Marx’s method and elaborates on the parallels and divergences between them. With the given engagement with Capital and Marx’s intellectual interactions, we arrive at a specific understanding of holism that can be attributed to Marx in Capital Volume 1.

Author: Sushmita Rama Subrahmanyam

“Global learning crisis” narratives, in focusing on the ​“proximate determinants” of the crisis, represent a welcome ​“classroom turn” in international education and development. Extant learning crisis literatures are problematic, however, as their homogenizing gaze distorts how teachers and students co-constitute classrooms as locally meaningful learning spaces. Drawing on anthropological approaches in comparative education, this article addresses the ​“learning crisis” in a middle-school classroom in a weavers’ neighborhood in Kanchipuram. Constituted in an elaborate ​“notebook economy,” this classroom was an inventive response that not only accommodated students’ material cultures and social-educational disadvantages but also affected their belonging in a resource-scarce public education system. If the learning it afforded was disdained in ​“learning crisis” narratives, it was nevertheless relevant for students, readily translated into educationally unintensive assembly-line jobs. In producing contempt for such classrooms, ​“learning crisis” narratives merely distract from — and thus entrench — the deeply unequal economic and educational development that necessitated the notebook economy in the first place.