There is much that I appreciate in Susana Narotzky’s “The Project in the Model: Reciprocity, Social Capital, and the Politics of Ethnographic Realism” (CA 48:403–27). Drawing on her work in Spain, the author problematizes the concepts of reciprocity, embeddedness, and social capital in the recent anthropological literature and makes a number of valuable points regarding the politics of the production of scholarly knowledge, the tension between specificity and abstraction in the generation of anthropological concepts, and the need for historicity in ethnographic writing. Although I wholeheartedly agree with her argument for using “reflexive historical realism” in addressing the political projects that we promote through our writings and to enable scientific comparison, I am skeptical about her treatment of agency, an issue that in my opinion has not been addressed adequately in either the article or the commentaries accompanying its publication. Specifically, it seems to me that Narotzky questions critical engagement with the theoretical models produced by scholarly work. While she argues that the social reality that ethnographers construct is enmeshed in multiple conceptions of reality that are held by the subjects of fieldwork research, she maintains that the reality produced by scholars ultimately provides the structure that allows for social and political action favoring capitalist development. She suggests, for example, that the concepts of reciprocity, embeddedness, and social capital have become hegemonic and devoid of historical specificity in economic anthropology and that they promote neoliberal capitalism and the reduction of state control over economic activities. Despite or rather because of their abstractness, these concepts allegedly create a framework that prevents social actors from articulating a discourse on local specificities and constrains them to pursue the path of Western capitalist development instead. Her depiction of social reality rests on the proposition that when social scientists who work with economic development agencies such as the World Bank use the terms “reciprocity,” “embeddedness,” or “social capital,” they promote an understanding of social relations in market terms and, most importantly, negate the possibility of the existence of alternative social relations. Narotzky’s paradigm also presupposes that subjective action can be conditioned only by the social reality produced by theory.