Spirit Of The Gift Summary
AS1 14/15 - Why has gift exchange been a seminal topic in social anthropology?
Gift exchange within social anthropology became a more expanded and discussed topic after Malinowki's writings on the Trobian Islanders throughout the period of the First World War. In this writing he discussed the rituals involved in the Kula ring in his ground breaking research write up in the book "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" (Malinowski, 1922). This was shortly followed by the writings in Marcel Mauss' "The Gift". The text provided an insight into a new way of looking and evaluating the nature of gift exchange (Mauss, 1954). Looked at from a non anthropological perspective gift exchange is merely the exchange of items between two people; commonly seen at public holidays or at anniversary events within communities, however, when looking at it through an anthropological scope you begin to …show more content…
see that the subject of gift exchange is far more diverse and complex than simply giving someone a box of chocolates at a birthday party or the exchange of presents over the festive season. Gift exchange in the anthropological world can be seen and evaluated as how things can shape and bind our societies and how the movement and giving of things can differentiate the type of society one lives in and the experiences that occur between the two involved parties.
The key and the definitive idea behind gift giving is that it is the movement of goods between people without any financial rewards. It seeks not to build up as part of the money economy that already exists in some societies but instead focuses on the exchange of goods to gain prestige and good relations between groups. Gift exchange also focuses the idea of a give and take notion that is held within societies. Gifts are often "repaid" later on through other means. For example, in Western societies gifts are given at the anniversary of peoples births.It is a silent agreement that if a gift is received then at a later date a gift will be returned when the right social event that calls for some sort of gift exchange occurs. That is of course unless there is a breakdown of relations or unless the original reciprocate of the gift is willing to allow tensions within their relations to occur. This demonstrates the idea that gift exchange intends for non-immediate reciprocation of an exchange (Cheal, 1999, pp. 10-20). As Mauss raises a question in his text 'The Gift' around the idea of reciprocation "-in primitive or archaic types of society what is the principle whereby the gift received has to be repaid?" (Mauss, 1954, p. 2)
When looking at gift exchange there are principles that play a part in it that make it fundamentally different to that of an economic exchange economy.
Firstly you must look at the significance of spirit of the gift; essentially what makes a gift a gift. This can be explored through the writings of Marshall Sahlins in his book the 'Stone Age Economics' (Sahlins, 1972). The chapter 'Spirit of the Gift' focuses on what compels a person, group or tribe to repay a gift (Schrift, 1997, p. 70). The idea is reciprocity comes from the nature of gift exchange. Between the exchanging of gifts there has to be a period of time. This period of time is determined between the individual who is indebted to the original gift giver (Sahlins, 1972). This is seen as the basis of a relationship. If the people involved do not have a debt to each other than essentially there is no relationship between them. This brings up a key reason that gift giving has become a seminal topic in social anthropology, it looks at reciprocity as a means of building relationships between peoples within a society or multiple
societies.
Malinowski identified the prior point while studying the Kula Ring gift exchange network. This was the exchange of trinkets and necklaces between Trobian Islanders which although seemed like the exchange of meaningless items helped create power and authority hierarchies amongst the people. He identified that reciprocity was as important as the initial giving of the first gift. There is no bartering involved as that'd imply an economic exchange economy. Instead, he identifies that the gifts although seemed to be given for no reason at face value instead were given for the later expected exchange from the original recipients of something equal in value or even greater. This was identified to be because the gifts given have meaning. They weren't inalienable. They were things with deeper intended meaning dissimilar to things you'd exchange at a market. (Mauss, 1954, p. 3). Mauss also identified that these exchanges can be the gift of people such as women and children to other groups to strengthen the alliances between the groups. This demonstrates a key point and seminal topic within Social Anthropology; kinship and the use of women to solidify relationships by joining of blood lines. This was identified in Levi Strauss' Alliance theory. He identified that women are seen as a property that can be moved around between communities as gifts initially (Lévi-Strauss's, 1949). There is no short time return for this but in the future it can lead to a stronger alliance between clans (Schwartz, 1990). This was seen as something that has only occurred due to the patriarchal nature of society by Regina Schwartz. This becomes a seminal issue as it looks at the role women play in society and it acts as a marker to track development of gender roles too. You could assume that if the society in its more modern form doesn't include the exchange of women for alliance that the society has progressed. The idea of reciprocity creates a line between a pure gift and the building of a gift economy which could raise the question of why people differentiate between the types of gifts that can be given and why the meanings can differ.
A further concept that gift exchange brings up that is of seminal importance to social anthropologists is the idea of alienability and objects; how we apply meaning to objects. As a point I raised before, the reason why reciprocity is expected in the case of the Trobian Islanders because the gifts given are inalienable. In short, the meaning of property is created by the interactions people have with it (Sider, 1980, p. 2). They have meaning attached to them unlike the types of things that are exchanged within a market setting. Because of their meaning it essentially makes them unmarketable. Selling them would imply that they're alienable. Their value was created within the prestige of the exchange; put simply they only have meaning because the original owner gave them to someone in a symbolic gesture. This is the opposite of material goods that meanings only exist in terms of what it can perform as a function. For example a chairs only value only exists in how good the chair performs its role; to exist as a place to sit comfortably, however if this chair is passed down generationally in a non economic exchange between kin this becomes inalienable as it now has symbolic meaning. Mauss defined inalienable exchanges as "- loans rather than sales or true abandonment of possessions" (Mauss, 1954, p. 55)
Social Anthropologists look at prestation as a key idea within the system of gift exchange and its link and influences with and on people and societies. Prestation looks at the idea that things are carried out as a silent duty as opposed to something that is done as a compulsory commitment. In this case, gifts are given voluntarily as a service (Parry, 1986, p. 468). The idea of this prestation is a cause for debate. Two of perhaps the biggest debates held can be seen between Malinowski and Mauss. Malinowski identified a social nature through his studies on the Trobian Islanders that nothing can be seen as a free gift and that even though the reciprocity may not be immediate there will be a reciprocation for the giving of the gift at a given point in the future. Mauss questions this and claims that it is possible for a person or group to give with altruistic motivations behind the given action. Despite disagreement between these two parties there was a mutual agreement that the act of giving served a major role as there was a nonexistent economical market place to form alliances through trade, these societies relied on the exchange of goods that has symbolic meaning. (Parry, 1986) Although this idea that societies and individuals must use this form of gift giving to exchange alliances to strengthen groups and create social hierarchies is less prevalent in modern society the idea that gifts can strengthen smaller scale relationships. One example of this can be seen in the existence of couples holidays every month within South Korea. Commonly only couples who are within their first year of alliance participate. This could display the notion that these holidays all involve the exchange of some sort of item for example on the 14th of January it is common for couples to exchange diaries so that they can record the events that happen within that relationship throughout the year. Other holiday exchanges include green tea, candles, silver rings and photo/music albums. It is common that if the alliance breaks down the items that are returnable are returned to what could be assumed a symbolic gesture to end the mutual exchange between the two parties. (Organisation, 2007).
Perhaps the most significant and seminal point of gift exchange is that whatever the sort of gift is; whether it be people or objects, the intent is always to create a quality relationship that can be used to benefit the people in the long term the far surpasses the economic exchange system in which people only benefit from items that have no inalienable meaning. This creates a new system of ideas about the relationships people have with objects. When looking at examples of interactions between people, objects and gifts a key example could be the Potlatch. It demonstrates how the exchange and destruction of items could build power therefore demonstrating a different type of interaction with those people and those objects (Jonaitis, 1991, pp. 774-75). The Potlatch was used to display power and authority within the aristocratic communities that existed in North America. This demonstrates a far different use of gifts than that found in contemporary gift giving in
In conclusion, on analysis of the way the gift exchange or the qualitative economy it seems that perhaps the reason it has become such a seminal topic is due to the fact the gift is used to support and create social structures within our societies pre money economies and still exist in modern societies, however, the extent of the role has changed it could be assumed and they play a role within smaller relationship networks. Despite this gift exchange systems still act as a support system for several pre-money economies throughout the world. Through discussing and investigating the role of the gift and it's exchange through social anthropology it is possible to develop new ideas of people and their interactions with the world and how they experience these interactions. Furthermore this type of topic requires far more micro scale research. This could interest anthropologists and it allows for more focus and insight into smaller interactions between people and interactions. In my investigation the opinions of Professor of Communications at the London Metropolitan which were discussed in his review of the 'Arguing with Anthropology: an introduction to critical theories of the gift' (Sykes, 2005) aligned to a degree with and concepts I developed while studying and looking into gift exchange. The reason gift exchange may be of seminal importance to social anthropology is that it to an extent could be used as a counter argument that the true nature of human beings is the drive for economic and money exchange (Baldwin, 2005). This idea shows that people exchange in order to only improve their status and gain objects, however, gift exchange demonstrates that humans also have an inclination and drive to give without immediate reciprocity and in order to gain mutually between groups.
For the reasons above I believe gift exchange is seminal to Social Anthropology because it demonstrates a unique form of building relationships as well as its ability to display the progression and historical evolution of gift giving and its influence and meaning to the relevant societies.
Gift exchange within social anthropology became a more expanded and discussed topic after Malinowki's writings on the Trobian Islanders throughout the period of the First World War. In this writing he discussed the rituals involved in the Kula ring in his ground breaking research write up in the book "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" (Malinowski, 1922). This was shortly followed by the writings in Marcel Mauss' "The Gift". The text provided an insight into a new way of looking and evaluating the nature of gift exchange (Mauss, 1954). Looked at from a non anthropological perspective gift exchange is merely the exchange of items between two people; commonly seen at public holidays or at anniversary events within communities, however, when looking at it through an anthropological scope you begin to …show more content…
see that the subject of gift exchange is far more diverse and complex than simply giving someone a box of chocolates at a birthday party or the exchange of presents over the festive season. Gift exchange in the anthropological world can be seen and evaluated as how things can shape and bind our societies and how the movement and giving of things can differentiate the type of society one lives in and the experiences that occur between the two involved parties.
The key and the definitive idea behind gift giving is that it is the movement of goods between people without any financial rewards. It seeks not to build up as part of the money economy that already exists in some societies but instead focuses on the exchange of goods to gain prestige and good relations between groups. Gift exchange also focuses the idea of a give and take notion that is held within societies. Gifts are often "repaid" later on through other means. For example, in Western societies gifts are given at the anniversary of peoples births.It is a silent agreement that if a gift is received then at a later date a gift will be returned when the right social event that calls for some sort of gift exchange occurs. That is of course unless there is a breakdown of relations or unless the original reciprocate of the gift is willing to allow tensions within their relations to occur. This demonstrates the idea that gift exchange intends for non-immediate reciprocation of an exchange (Cheal, 1999, pp. 10-20). As Mauss raises a question in his text 'The Gift' around the idea of reciprocation "-in primitive or archaic types of society what is the principle whereby the gift received has to be repaid?" (Mauss, 1954, p. 2)
When looking at gift exchange there are principles that play a part in it that make it fundamentally different to that of an economic exchange economy.
Firstly you must look at the significance of spirit of the gift; essentially what makes a gift a gift. This can be explored through the writings of Marshall Sahlins in his book the 'Stone Age Economics' (Sahlins, 1972). The chapter 'Spirit of the Gift' focuses on what compels a person, group or tribe to repay a gift (Schrift, 1997, p. 70). The idea is reciprocity comes from the nature of gift exchange. Between the exchanging of gifts there has to be a period of time. This period of time is determined between the individual who is indebted to the original gift giver (Sahlins, 1972). This is seen as the basis of a relationship. If the people involved do not have a debt to each other than essentially there is no relationship between them. This brings up a key reason that gift giving has become a seminal topic in social anthropology, it looks at reciprocity as a means of building relationships between peoples within a society or multiple
societies.
Malinowski identified the prior point while studying the Kula Ring gift exchange network. This was the exchange of trinkets and necklaces between Trobian Islanders which although seemed like the exchange of meaningless items helped create power and authority hierarchies amongst the people. He identified that reciprocity was as important as the initial giving of the first gift. There is no bartering involved as that'd imply an economic exchange economy. Instead, he identifies that the gifts although seemed to be given for no reason at face value instead were given for the later expected exchange from the original recipients of something equal in value or even greater. This was identified to be because the gifts given have meaning. They weren't inalienable. They were things with deeper intended meaning dissimilar to things you'd exchange at a market. (Mauss, 1954, p. 3). Mauss also identified that these exchanges can be the gift of people such as women and children to other groups to strengthen the alliances between the groups. This demonstrates a key point and seminal topic within Social Anthropology; kinship and the use of women to solidify relationships by joining of blood lines. This was identified in Levi Strauss' Alliance theory. He identified that women are seen as a property that can be moved around between communities as gifts initially (Lévi-Strauss's, 1949). There is no short time return for this but in the future it can lead to a stronger alliance between clans (Schwartz, 1990). This was seen as something that has only occurred due to the patriarchal nature of society by Regina Schwartz. This becomes a seminal issue as it looks at the role women play in society and it acts as a marker to track development of gender roles too. You could assume that if the society in its more modern form doesn't include the exchange of women for alliance that the society has progressed. The idea of reciprocity creates a line between a pure gift and the building of a gift economy which could raise the question of why people differentiate between the types of gifts that can be given and why the meanings can differ.
A further concept that gift exchange brings up that is of seminal importance to social anthropologists is the idea of alienability and objects; how we apply meaning to objects. As a point I raised before, the reason why reciprocity is expected in the case of the Trobian Islanders because the gifts given are inalienable. In short, the meaning of property is created by the interactions people have with it (Sider, 1980, p. 2). They have meaning attached to them unlike the types of things that are exchanged within a market setting. Because of their meaning it essentially makes them unmarketable. Selling them would imply that they're alienable. Their value was created within the prestige of the exchange; put simply they only have meaning because the original owner gave them to someone in a symbolic gesture. This is the opposite of material goods that meanings only exist in terms of what it can perform as a function. For example a chairs only value only exists in how good the chair performs its role; to exist as a place to sit comfortably, however if this chair is passed down generationally in a non economic exchange between kin this becomes inalienable as it now has symbolic meaning. Mauss defined inalienable exchanges as "- loans rather than sales or true abandonment of possessions" (Mauss, 1954, p. 55)
Social Anthropologists look at prestation as a key idea within the system of gift exchange and its link and influences with and on people and societies. Prestation looks at the idea that things are carried out as a silent duty as opposed to something that is done as a compulsory commitment. In this case, gifts are given voluntarily as a service (Parry, 1986, p. 468). The idea of this prestation is a cause for debate. Two of perhaps the biggest debates held can be seen between Malinowski and Mauss. Malinowski identified a social nature through his studies on the Trobian Islanders that nothing can be seen as a free gift and that even though the reciprocity may not be immediate there will be a reciprocation for the giving of the gift at a given point in the future. Mauss questions this and claims that it is possible for a person or group to give with altruistic motivations behind the given action. Despite disagreement between these two parties there was a mutual agreement that the act of giving served a major role as there was a nonexistent economical market place to form alliances through trade, these societies relied on the exchange of goods that has symbolic meaning. (Parry, 1986) Although this idea that societies and individuals must use this form of gift giving to exchange alliances to strengthen groups and create social hierarchies is less prevalent in modern society the idea that gifts can strengthen smaller scale relationships. One example of this can be seen in the existence of couples holidays every month within South Korea. Commonly only couples who are within their first year of alliance participate. This could display the notion that these holidays all involve the exchange of some sort of item for example on the 14th of January it is common for couples to exchange diaries so that they can record the events that happen within that relationship throughout the year. Other holiday exchanges include green tea, candles, silver rings and photo/music albums. It is common that if the alliance breaks down the items that are returnable are returned to what could be assumed a symbolic gesture to end the mutual exchange between the two parties. (Organisation, 2007).
Perhaps the most significant and seminal point of gift exchange is that whatever the sort of gift is; whether it be people or objects, the intent is always to create a quality relationship that can be used to benefit the people in the long term the far surpasses the economic exchange system in which people only benefit from items that have no inalienable meaning. This creates a new system of ideas about the relationships people have with objects. When looking at examples of interactions between people, objects and gifts a key example could be the Potlatch. It demonstrates how the exchange and destruction of items could build power therefore demonstrating a different type of interaction with those people and those objects (Jonaitis, 1991, pp. 774-75). The Potlatch was used to display power and authority within the aristocratic communities that existed in North America. This demonstrates a far different use of gifts than that found in contemporary gift giving in
In conclusion, on analysis of the way the gift exchange or the qualitative economy it seems that perhaps the reason it has become such a seminal topic is due to the fact the gift is used to support and create social structures within our societies pre money economies and still exist in modern societies, however, the extent of the role has changed it could be assumed and they play a role within smaller relationship networks. Despite this gift exchange systems still act as a support system for several pre-money economies throughout the world. Through discussing and investigating the role of the gift and it's exchange through social anthropology it is possible to develop new ideas of people and their interactions with the world and how they experience these interactions. Furthermore this type of topic requires far more micro scale research. This could interest anthropologists and it allows for more focus and insight into smaller interactions between people and interactions. In my investigation the opinions of Professor of Communications at the London Metropolitan which were discussed in his review of the 'Arguing with Anthropology: an introduction to critical theories of the gift' (Sykes, 2005) aligned to a degree with and concepts I developed while studying and looking into gift exchange. The reason gift exchange may be of seminal importance to social anthropology is that it to an extent could be used as a counter argument that the true nature of human beings is the drive for economic and money exchange (Baldwin, 2005). This idea shows that people exchange in order to only improve their status and gain objects, however, gift exchange demonstrates that humans also have an inclination and drive to give without immediate reciprocity and in order to gain mutually between groups.
For the reasons above I believe gift exchange is seminal to Social Anthropology because it demonstrates a unique form of building relationships as well as its ability to display the progression and historical evolution of gift giving and its influence and meaning to the relevant societies.