The untranscendable body appears as

The untranscendable body appears as an especially important issue in Henry Mayhew s work, where it becomes the occasion for a theory of social circulation. Mayhew addresses the issue of individual bodies within the larger social system precisely by focusing on figures of circu­ lation within the social space. He distinguishes between the productive bodies of workers and the bodies of those who circulate within the social space, buying and selling goods. In the process, these circulating bodies become strong without being productive. Thus, Gallagher argues,Mayhew brings out a contrast that is the basis of Malthus s theory (91), and the central paradox that Gallagher is interested in. Mayhew s and Malthus s reasoning can be traced back to an ambivalence about the concept of exchange. Both are interested in being able to trace value back to human bodies, rather than to more traditional ideas of exchange value. For them ，“the only stock whose increase is truly destined for the maintenance of labor is the stock of working-class food, that which can be converted most directly and immediately into working-class bodies" (95). To distinguish between real productive value and the mere appar­ ent value produced by scarcity is to provide an account of what will make a society thrive. Problems immediately arise, however, in this radi­ cally concrete theory of value, since it is ultimately circular：“The body that labours is valuable insofar as its commodity can almost immediately be turned back into not just a body but another valuable body, that is, another body producing food. In other words, the value of bodies is not absolute but is rather based on their ability to create a commodity whose value is only defined by relationship to its ability to replenish the body" (96). Such a theory of value ultimately leaves nothing at the basis of theeconomy except the circulation between valuable bodies.