Monday, September 12, 2016

FORUM Prompt

After reading Mauss's book and Zelizer's and Brownell and Bessnier's articles, what are your thoughts on what counts as a good or bad gift? Further, are gifts ever free? If so or if not, elaborate on the social dynamics of gift exchanges using contemporary examples. 

28 comments:

  1. Zelizer indicates that money is seen as the most efficient and acceptable gift since it allows recipients to make a choice of getting what is really important to them. However, it is difficult to distinguish money as a gift from actual cash for everyday expenses. I believe people give gifts on occasions such as weddings and birthdays,so that the recipient will always remember the giver anytime they see the gift. Giving money as a gift to a family or friend means that they will use it to pay for expenses or bills and will definitely forget easily. Moreover, a good gift to me should improve upon the social relationship and emotions we have with others and giving money as a gift means that the quality of emotional attachments that gift exchange brings will then be lost. In order to distinguish gift money from the actual money for transactions, Zelizer posits that money in the form of bills, checks and coins were disguised in artworks and jewel boxes, later on money orders became the “acceptable Christmas gift”.
    Gifts are however not free. As indicated by Mauss, though it seems voluntary, it is compulsory and requires the receiver to also reciprocate. In Ghana, funerals are events that require that an invitation have to be honored and a token sent to help cater for the expenses of the funeral. For example, if I lose a member of my family, my friends have to come and support me emotionally and also give me some money (nsawa) to help defray the funeral expenses. This kind of money is announced to all the people at the funeral and therefore people who give more obtain certain social status. If any of the friends I invited cannot honor it, they have to give me a tangible reason and give a bigger amount to cater for their absence. In the case where any of them lose a loved one, I am obliged to go for the funeral and help them both emotionally, physically and financially. This exchange is such that if an individual frequently does not honor an invitation, no one will be there to help when they need it most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Helena, I really like your example of reciprocity in regards to funeral customs in Ghana. When thinking of examples for my own post, of course I thought of reciprocity involved in birthday gifts or, as we discussed in one class session, the obligation to visit a friend in the hospital, and their obligation to return the favor (or not return as the case may be). This example is further proof that gift giving and reciprocity it present across cultures! I really like the idea of helping a loved one with the financial burdens of a funeral--losing a loved one is hard to deal with on an emotional level, but to have that stress compounded when dealing with the costs involves brings that to entire other level! This example exhibits physical reciprocity as well as reciprocity in emotional support!

      Delete
  2. What makes a gift “good” or “bad” is highly dependent on the values of a particular culture and perhaps in some cases, the individual receiving the gift. In the article by Brownell and Besnier, Malinowski is quoted for his analysis of the Kula ring, and according to Malinowski, the gifts exchanged are rather useless, (for example, the bracelets are too small to be worn by adults). Malinowski therefore attributes the value therein to the ownership of these goods. The gift itself is not so much of the material good, but the relationship created between the giver and the receiver. On the contrary, in a culture such as ours that is highly materialistic, people often prefer material gifts of high monetary value (for example, a college student may be more excited to receive a new iPhone rather than another pair of socks knitted by grandma). On a personal level, I would often prefer the latter, as I was raised in a family stressing less importance on monetary value and more on sentiment and thoughtfulness (for example, one friend gave me an antique burlap coffee bag from Guatemala as she knew a trip I took to Guatemala several years ago had a major influence in my life, whereas another friend gave me a store-bought canvas quoting Gandhi (whom I have never mentioned a liking or disliking of)—in this case, the burlap coffee bag is the favored gift because it has special significance to me which that friend recognized). Zeilizer expands on this argument stating that a small gift with money hidden within is more valuable than just handing over a few bills, or a gift card demonstrates that thought was put into the gift, giving parameters on where the receiver may spend it (hopefully a place the person likes!).
    In regards to gifts being free, I find Mauss’ arguments to largely hold true. Mauss sites the Hau as an example, where being a receiver of a gift also obligates to you become a giver, not just in return of that original gift but to also expand the gift-giving network. In our own culture, there is often a generalized reciprocity in gift giving, whether it be the exchange of birthday gifts, or trading work shifts; how often do we hear the phrase, “I owe ya one!” In the case of the Olympics, Brownell and Besnier state that China found hosting the 2008 Olympics a chance to repay the previous hosting countries. I think that, more often than not, reciprocity of some kind is present in some manner in situations of gift giving or exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The makings of a good or bad gift are dependent on the cultural customs in which it is given/received. Mauss stressed the importance of reciprocity in the tradition of gift giving. The example of the Hau can be related to modern cultures and even society today in the United States where a gift isn't so much free, as it is a relationship of exchange where one is expected to eventually give back whether it be a material present or a service of labor. Often times, these exchanges of favors include attendance to a ceremony or celebration where the person hosting is expected to attend the events of any guests who make an appearance.
    Malinowski also made a good point in explaining how often times, the gift itself isn't worth nearly as much as what it symbolizes. Often times,a gift is simply a token of a relationship between two people. As you demonstrated in class by ripping apart a dollar bill, money itself is worth very little, as it is only paper. It is the value and meaning behind the money that we hold dear. Coins on the other hand, are slightly more valuable for their material components (metal). This is why metal has been used in many cultures and throughout history as a form of payment due to its material value. However, I would argue that the most precious gifts are the ones that hold sentimental value and serve as a true token of friendship rather than a symbol of a relationship between consumers (often strangers). For example, a thoughtful and personalized gift is of higher personal value than cash or gift cards. Even in this situation, though, gifts are not free. You can't simply accept a gift from someone and then give them nothing in return. While gifts are given on many different occasions, most of the time they are given to someone you plan on seeing again at events such as birthdays, weddings, etc. On occasion though sometimes gifts are given to someone you might not see again, but want to be remembered by. These kind of parting gifts, however, are usually given by both people in the exchange so each person gives something and receives something. Another example of when gifts are directly reciprocated, or given at the same time, would be holidays such Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would piggyback Alexis Wales that, defining a gift as 'good' or 'bad' mostly depends on culture and the relationship between the individual giving and receiving the gifts. These two factors actually define the type, value and expectation of the gifts. The readings from Mauss, Zelizer and Brownell and Bessnier offered new dimensions to look from different perspective at the culture I have grown up. Also some certain cultural practices motivated me to question the notion that Mauss argued 'no gift is free'. Bangladesh is a country with majority of Muslim population. One of the biggest festivals is Eid -ul - Fitr. During this occasion, there is a tradition that children and young boys and girls would touch the feet of the elderly family members for blessing. The elderly person, along with blessings will give certain amount of cash money preferably in new notes. This amount is called 'Eid Salami'. The amount varies depending on the age of the receiver and economic condition of the giver. At the end of Eid day, children calculate the amount of money they received throughout the day and compare with fellow competitors (e.g. sibling, cousin, friends)! I kept thinking of this practice and could not find any inherent commitment to return the gift. The issue of prestige and honor in gifts among exchanging communities mentioned in Mauss still exists in current times. During the marriage ceremony, when groom and his family enters to bride's house (or the venue where the ceremony is taking place), the cousins and friends receive the groom at the gate. The gate is closed with a colorful ribbon and the two parties stand on the opposite sides of the ribbon. The groom is expected to gift a certain amount of 'Gate-money' to get a scissor to cut the ribbon and enter to the house. The amount is fixed through a cheerful negotiation among the younger members of two families. If the amount is not satisfactory, the cheer occasionally turn into jeer! Except these 'Salami' and 'Gate-money' during marriage, money is not generally used as a direct gift in Bangladesh. In cases where money is gifted, people tend to use some kind of wrapping or give in a way the receiver cannot notice immediately.

    The article by Brownell and Bessnier makes complete sense about the Olympics and its resemblance to Kula-ring except one particular incident that happened in Rio for the first time in Olympic history. The 'Refugee team' participated and even won medals in numbers of events. They did not represent any specific country or flag. Apparently, they do not have anything to return during the crises of Brazil. I wonder how the authors would explain their participation in the Olympics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Sharif for your interesting submission. Although I agree with you to some extent that the gifts received by the children cannot be returned or in order words there has not been any exchange, I think it is because the elderly family member does not receive any money or tangible gift in return. However, I also think there has been an exchange of some sort. The child touches the feet of the elderly, and I believe this action portrays an act of respect or status. The elderly family member in turn gives the child some money. If a child realizes that there is one particular elder who does not give anything even if they touch his/her feet, I bet all the children will not touch this elder's feet and if an elder gives more money, all the children will follow him/her to touch their feet. If the child touches an elder's feet he/she will surely hope for something in return, therefore, an exchange in that regard.

      Delete
  6. The definition of a gift today is extremely complex. A word supporting various definitions and conveying different historical meanings has been manipulated and diversified across the planet. Over the past couple weeks we have read into an infamous gift exchange, highlighted by Mauss, known as the Kula ring. Such a process holds extreme value in the Trobriand Islands, but not the type of value we think of today in the 21st century. A college student in a capitalist American society would most likely jump to the idea of monetary worth when the term value is brought up. However, in this cultural context there is little to no economic value in the Kula exchange. This Kula ring is exchanged to introduce and strengthen relationships, highlight status and position, and reaffirm communication. Although there is no economic value, this does not mean the gift is free.
    The Kula exchange invites those in to a lifelong process of reciprocation. Thus, once you are a part of the process, you are forever obligated to keep exchanging. Even though no monetary figures are gained nor lost, this gift requires many commitments, making it sound less and less like what we know a gift to be today. However, what we know a gift to be today can come in many different forms. A physical object, a piece of paper, something sent through the computer, the list is endless. Money has taken over as the ideal gift of our generation, but is it really worthy? Zelizer points out that it makes economic sense to share money as a gift because people are then free to make their own choices with their gift. Some traditionalists are disgusted with this idea since giving someone cash strips the gift of any thought, or a personal touch, which to some is the point of an exchange. This idea of gift giving, whether it is cash or the Kula exchange can both convey the same idea of the feeling to need to reciprocate. The Kula exchange is a life-long process of constant exchanging for the sole purpose of shaping relations, but today too, if you receive a gift, it is the unspoken rule that you eventually reciprocate in some form. Although these processes are different across cultures, the sense of obligation remains the same.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the differentiation between what would be considered a "good" and "bad" gift depend almost entirely on the culture those involved are a part of, and the relationship of the people. Even gifts that are given with no realized hopes of reciprocity still place the recipient into a position of where it almost seems a debt needs to be repaid. The inherent value of a gift is almost always much more than the monetary value of said gift. I believe that the only truly "bad" gift would be one that the recipient has no possible way to reciprocate the value, monetarily or otherwise, to the giver. Of course there are gifts that just don't fit the person they are given to, but often times those are still given with the thought and intention of improving relationships. So in that case, I don't believe they really are bad gifts because it really is the thought that counts.
    As for the notion that no gift is truly free, I believe that to be true as well. There is no gift given by anyone to anybody else that does not have some understanding that the giver will gain something in return, even if it is subconsciously. Gifts are given all the time with great intentions, and really hoping to improve the lives of others. At the same time, these same people that give these gifts are hoping to receive something in return. It has been this way since gifts have been exchanged and I do not believe it will change in our culture or our human nature anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree. I don't think any gifts are truly free, but if a person were to give a gift where the value could not be reciprocated, then what is a person to do to repay it?

      Delete
  8. Viviana discusses the issue regarding whether money should be used as a gift or turning that money into personal gifts. It makes economic sense to give money as a gift as other forms of gifts may be unattractive to gift recipients and to some extent, this can hold sway in specific circumstances, however, personally, I think that the value associated with gifts is far more than just it being expressed in monetary terms because gifts are sometimes infused with meaning and creates good relationships. While some people may prefer money as Christmas present, others would still want to have other forms of gifts during Christmas. During Christmas, I would prefer other forms of gifts aside money. For example, a friend buys me my favorite movie of all time, to me it’s not just about buying the gift, but the fact that friend actually remembered my favorite movie, will mean a lot more to me as compared to giving me the money. Gifts giving is an essential part of society and I think it’s a good thing. Viviana mentioned that turning money into a personal gift is a beautiful thing and I completely agree.
    Gifts are really not free, during a child’s naming ceremony in Ghana, friends and family are expected to presents gifts to the child and in return the parents of the child also presents gifts to those who gave out gifts during the ceremony. Also, when the child is named after a family member or a friend, it is obligatory that the person presents gifts to the child and become indirectly involved in the child’s upbringing-checking up on the child, supporting family financially to cater for the child, and being there for the child at all times. When the child grows up to a certain age he or she is expected to run errands or help with house chores for the person he or she was named after. Hence, Mauss’ argument that although the practices of gift exchange were done in archaic societies still lingers on in contemporary world holds sway.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Continuing the valid points made by my classmates that have already answered this prompt, I would agree that defining a gift is a difficult endeavor. The idea of a gift -- along with the many social constructs that coincide with gifts -- is complicated, as Mauss expressed in his book, "The Gift". Gifts, their obtainment and their reciprocity are all circumstantial, with an emphasis upon culture. Asking if a gift can be 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the knowledge that gifts and the act of gift-giving varies between cultures now appears contradictory, since a gift is defined by the giver, the receiver, each of their cultures (especially if they are not from the same cultural upbringing) and the relationship between the patron and the recipient. The commonly known phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” can be applied to a gift – the receiver determines whether the gift is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, with many variables contributing to the outcome of the gift’s significance. A better question to ask would be: can gifts have negative and positive associations? The answer is, of course, yes.
    “Humans,” as Brownell and Besnier stated, “are not always the economically rational animals that economists presume them to be.” This with the context of my argument delves into the topic of “what are the negative retributions to gift-giving?”. Mauss argues that gifts come with obligations, despite seeming voluntary. There is always a certain cultural and unspoken understanding between patrons and recipients on what constitutes an acceptable gift; price, value to either party, reasoning for the gift (whether a birthday, a wedding or a reciprocated gift) and even relationship between those involved. Because of unspoken, cultural understandings, no gift is free (and I do not just mean the energy or money used to purchase/create the gift). See my below example!
    In many cultures, ceremonies occur (for this example, I will use weddings) in which gift-giving is a primary practice. In weddings, a couple are joined together to begin a new life – many people that come to these ceremonies are expected to bring gifts for the happy couple and their new life together. In the U.S.A., couples can actually let guests know what they want/need through online registration sites and in-store selections. This is done so that the guests do not buy the ‘wrong’ gift (which yes, I could see that as arguably being a ‘bad’ gift) for the couple, but also in hopes that they will not receive unnecessary gifts that will later need to be returned to the store or thrown into a closet somewhere – only to come out on the occasion that the patron of the gift is visiting. But what about the wedding itself? Brownell and Besnier argued that weddings themselves are a gift; a gift to the participants and guests – and they are definitely not free. Continuing my example of weddings in the U.S.A. (and in other cultures around the globe): they are EXPENSIVE. Like, massively, ridiculously expensive (assuming the couple and their families want to have the ‘ideal’ ceremony) and come with a large dose of cultural obligations (including gifts). Those attending a wedding are supposed to feel awe-struck by the show of wealth and class by the hosts, while at the same time showing their own adoration for the new couple through their gifts of material goods, money, speeches and other festivities. A typical wedding in the U.S.A. would include catering and sometimes even an open bar (and let’s be honest, those can be the best weddings!). These can be understood as gifts to the wedding guests, as reciprocity for the gifts that they were obliged (non-voluntarily, but spoken of as voluntary) to bring for the new couple. Not bringing a gift can be seen by other wedding guests as insulting the couple and their families or even disrespectful of the couple’s new vows to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe gifts are never free. They always mean something and people always have expectations. If someone were to give you a random gift, you would have this feeling that you need to repay it, like you owe them. When it comes to gift giving with families, especially mine, it is not acceptable to give money. It is as if you are putting a price on family. My mom always told us to not give money as a gift. Although it is easier to reciprocate the gift when you know the price, that was not the point. Family is family and they shouldn't know how much you spend on them. Money is just a "bad" gift. With family it is the thought that counts, not the actual gift. I think it depends on how a person was raised weather or not giving money is a bad gift. Even though my parents won't give family money, I would gladly just give money as a gift, because then they can spend it however they want. Even if it a gift card, they can at least choose something they like.
    At social events where gifts are exchanged, it is usually assumed that if you give a person a gift, they will give you a gift in return. There is a mutual expectation there. For example, at Christmas, if you give a gift to a friend, you usually talk about it ahead of time so it is not just one-sided and awkward. If you did get someone a gift and it wasn't reciprocated, you would feel like they owe you. You would probably hold it against them. There is always a feeling or a need to reciprocate a gift appropriately, weather the gift is good or bad, no matter the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I share your thoughts that gifts are certainly not free, there is an expectation from the giver. Helena discussed that in relation to funeral rites, weddings and birthdays. Personally, I wont say money is a bad gift, although I would actually prefer money being turned into personal gifts as a present. In Ghana, during occasions, people are happier taking money than personal gifts. Culture influences gift exchange and therefore what one sees as a bad gift in his or her society may be a good gift in another society.

      Delete
    2. That is very true. It does depend on the culture. I don't know how other people feel, but I do believe more people would be happier just getting money so they can spend it however they want.

      Delete
  11. When considering the "value" of gifts, I have enjoyed shifting emphasis from the receiver to the giver. What I love most about the Zelizer article is the notion that the gift shouldn’t be “free” for the giver. I think about the value of time, and how a homemade gift might be “free” in the monetary sense but is potentially quite costly to produce. Helena and Sharif shared some details that emphasize the giver, and how their status can be elevated (or depreciated!) by the monetary value of the gift - whether in the funeral gifts or in the case of the elders giving money to the children. After visiting the Columbus Foundation on a class trip last week, I thought about “charitable giving” and where it falls in the reciprocity cycle. Do we make a distinction between good intentions at a distance (donations), and smaller but more direct contributions (volunteering)?

    If there are “bad” gifts, I would argue that they are those given selfishly - for status, for tax credit, to force reciprocity, etc. In other words, bad gifts are the product of bad hau! Obviously, I like the part of the reciprocity cycle where the giver is giving with benevolence (ie, Brownell and Besnier’s China and the Olympics, or the hosts of a wedding ceremony as Harlee describes). From the perspective of the giver, I can better understand Mauss’ idealism as he noted, “it is useless to seek goodness and happiness in distant places.” I appreciate his assertion that we already possess great spiritual wealth, and so do the potential receivers of our gifts. I believe that capitalism has commodified so many traditions (Christmas, coming of age rites, alms, etc) and alienated many people from their attention to spiritual wealth. Maybe it is awareness of spiritual wealth, and subsequent downplaying of monetary wealth that can keep peace and prosperity closer at hand.



    ReplyDelete
  12. The idea of a “good or bad gift" in my opinion is culturally dictated. With that said, given the situation in a particular culture a “good or bad gift" is defined on whether it conforms to the social norms of the expected reciprocity. If the gift does not conform to the expected expenditure or return it can be considered a “bad gift”, but if a gift meets or exceeds the expectations then it can be considered a “good gift”. Maus went further into this idea of the obligation of gift giving, and that the certain expenditures have to be met in or to consider the gift acceptable. Within our own mainstream culture in the United States there are many examples of this. For example, with birthdays of someone close to you it is generally expected that some kind of thoughtful gift is to be given as to express the degree of which they mean to you. If a gift seems thoughtful or expensive it can be considered a “good gift”, while a gift that is seen as unthoughtful or blatantly cheap can be considered a “bad gift”. Thus showing that expenditure can be a driving force for what can be considered a “good or bad gift".

    Diving in to what “expenditure” can mean in terms of gift giving goes into the point of whether or not a gift is ever free. I agree with Zelizer that gifts aren’t free because an expenditure has to be made, whether it would be material, spiritual, emotional or social it shows that gifts are never free because SOMETHING has to be given in the broadest of terms. Even in the most stratified of cultures there is giving and receiving between the higherarchy and everyone else. Malinowski outlined this by stating gift exchanges aren’t always fair, but I add that regardless of the level of reciprocity that something is still being exchanged in return no matter how small or unimportant it may seem. A great example is being a child during Christmas here in the United States. As a child you cannot afford any kind of substantial gifts for your parents who are giving you presents that are undoubtedly beyond your price range for gifts, and they know this. The return (gift) is that you are expected to be at least moderately enthusiastic and grateful for the gifts you are receiving from them, giving them almost a vindication that their expenditure on you was worth it because of the happiness they are giving you. From that example it shows that the child’s return gift isn’t free, a part of them emotionally has to be given in return. Thus showing the gift giving is so much more than the material and that a part of you in some way has to be returned.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like everyone else is saying, what is considered a good or bad gift is dependent on the culture in question. The example of paying the grocer in Zelizer's article made me laugh because it's a dilemma I feel family members and I have had. The age-old saying "it's the thought that counts" doesn't really apply to money as a gift, and yet that could be the most practical thing you could get someone, even if it's not very fun. I also liked the example of something being made using money, because something handmade is automatically very thoughtful due to the work put into it rather than the monetary value--that way it has both.
    Gifts are not /really/ free either. Maybe this is selfish, but even if I do something small for a classmate like give them a pencil or let them see my notes from a class they missed, I hope that that small relationship can become a reciprocal and that I could borrow something from them if the need arises. Brownell and Bessnier's article was great at illustrating this in different countries concerning the Olympics. I never knew that Athens had wanted to be the home of the modern Olympics while other countries rejected that idea because there's no reciprocation there. So many countries seem so willing to host this incredibly expensive event because of pride--because it looks good for their country and will be remembered for decades (maybe longer). Taking that burden is really something that will pay off in the long run. It's not that individual people are hopelessly selfish, it's just that as a whole we like to look out for ourselves, and that's blown up on a global scale.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The meaning of the gift depends of the culture and the relationship between the giver and the receiver. In some cases, cultural values are involved in the action of giving and receiving. In today's society (in the U.S.), we add more value to gifts that come from popular brands such as Apple and Jordan, while in other cultures might found value in less commercial but well thought gifts. Zelizer's article talks about money as a gift and explains why it is a great choice. I have to agree, money is a great gift because it gives the recipient freedom to spent money in whatever he/she wishes. Although, I do understand why traditional gift givers would argue that money as a gift is not valid because it lacks thought.
    I agree with my classmates, there is no free gifts. As Mauss points out, the reciprocity is important and once an individual is introduced to the system, the individual is in for life. One great example is given by Mauss with the Hau. The Hau is a type of contract that obligates the receiver to give and the giver to receive. In today's age, we give and receive gifts continuously. Even when the giver does not expect reciprocity, the recipient might feel obligated to to return the action.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that all authors would agree on one thing. It is indeed the thought that counts but the practicality that pays off. Specifically in the last article by Viviana, she argues that giving money is the best gift because it allows the recipient to purchase whatever they desire. Furthermore, when giving a money gift it helps to decorate it or conceal it in a homemade gift.
    As far as gifts being free, I believe that in today's world there are more opportunities for gifts to be free than in other times throughout history. Our culture of one use and throw away allows for people to be less clingy to material things and therefore more willing to give them away. Another example is when there is a table set up giving things out for promotion. Although there is the goal that you will be interested in the company there are zero consequences for simply taking the free stuff and leaving without a thought. Gift giving practices in the modern world have also become more abstract. Offices do secret santas and my family for instance has a pool of cousins that exchange gifts based on a raffle system. Commercialism has taken away many ideas of the Hau but they still are engrained in some traditions such as Christmas

    ReplyDelete
  16. The idea of the gift is definitely not free, because you then have an obligation to repay the gift. This is because of the social aspect that centers around the gift, when you receive a gift you feel this sense of debt that you will eventually have to repay. For example when I help someone move in it is expected that they will help you move out if you ever have the need, or that food or beverage will be provided. The social contract becomes very important when giving gifts, and I think it is an important part of our society because of how it can help to build relationships further.

    Looking at cash or gift cards as a gift is very common now for birthdays or Christmas. I personally use this as a gift a lot because I'm lazy and don't want to take the time to find a proper gift. I would consider these very impersonal gifts but still a gift that generates the sense of reciprocity. All over the world we see a diverse amount of gift giving but I think the most common across all cultures gifts that are given in weddings. Throughout most cultures is some form of marriage and this usually brings with it a party or some sort of gift giving which brings with it the idea that they will attend your wedding and bring a gift to start your new married life. Gifts main purpose is to build social relationships whether that be helping to finalize a peace treaty between countries or just getting your friend something for his/her birthday. The gift shows that you put effort into making a social relationship work or just to maintain this relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  17. From Gavin:
    Economic Anthropology strives to define money as a counterpart to society and politics. Readings such as "The Gift" attempt to shed light on other cultures such as the potlatch, who define money in very different contexts. According to Mauss: "potclatches happen every everywhere, in response to other potlatches." (Chapter 2) There is a constant "give and take" that ocurrs so typically as a characteristic of these tribes. Most of these tribes use the system of gifts (dons) as exchange methods; although most potlatches are uniformly the same, some differ in the exaggeration and violence they stir up. This is mostly due to their lack of juridicial and economic concepts. Their social structure contains order but have less clarity and detailed law. Potlatches seen in Melanesia and Polynesia circulate the gifts with certainty that they will be reciprocated. Any society with this system needs to recognize that "time" is an essential concept that defines social interaction, because all the things one exchanges, such as paying or brokering peace is all orchestrated through the concept of "time" As each person or group of people establish a cycle of orderly events. In this case, "time is money" is clearly emphasized within these cultures as a "display of reciprocal respect". These cycles of time and exchange are the components that make any society more wealthy. Malinowski observed the "Kula Trade" amongst the people of the trobriand islands. Their potlatch is often described as a noble kind, reserved for chiefs who practice trade in a noble fashion. A sort of money called " vaygu'a is split into 2 kinds: armshells "mwali" and necklaces "soulava". The armshells circulate from the west to the East, while the necklaces do the opposite between all the trobriand islands amd Entercastaux even to more remote islands like Woolark and Marshall Bennet. In this practice, whoever has the vagu'a must circulate them in a timely and specific manner. the Vagu'a define property that one acquires through the gift. The necklaces and armshells are property not defined as money, but identities of prestige (personality, history, story). These shells and necklaces "become" part of oneself as they are circulated through religious, mythical, and religious aspects. In regards to these facts, I believe that the "gift' is never free, and is only given through series of communal interactions that one must work up to. The value of gifts within any society lie in the meanings of friendship and control; the desire to exist in a particular way. As Zelizer's article brings out another point to gift giving in a more modern traditional sense: describing situations in which money is hidden in the form of certificates or packages, implying a way to "hide" it within a gift; hoping to have a stronger meaning, even though its links are tied to the same root "cash". Gift giving amongst americans are pleasant signs of love or kindness but can be distorted when the source is just "money." Therefore our society has imposed all sorts of "gift cards" and currency options to make gift interactions have more meaning. All societies have or used to have forms of trade that define their culture; some more well-defined than others, but in the end they have all surrounded a similar purpose of unifying smaller groups into a larger whole.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The value of a gift, in respects to it being “good” or “bad,” largely seems to depend on the cultural constructions that the giver and receiver abide by. For cultures such as the Maou, as described by Mauss, the value of a gift is largely dependent on the “spirit” of the gift, called its Hau, that is imbued by its creator. The value of these gifts comes not only from the quality of craftsmanship, but also in symbolism and the relationship that is created through the trade. To the Maou, or other cultures such as those involved in the Kula Ring, personalized gifts with little material utility will have more value than money because the utility of the gift is in the relationship the trade creates. However, in modern American culture, where the giving of gifts doesn’t necessarily create strong relationships, money can be seen as an ideal gift. As Zelizer indicated, money is seen as the best gift because it allows the receiver the maximum amount of flexibility as to how to use the gift, but this is only through the cultural lens of how Americans view gifts. A Maou, however, would not think money to be a good gift because money is impersonal and would have no Hau, and such a gift will not create a symbolic and intimate relationship between giver and receiver.
    Even gifts that are given without the expectation of material reciprocity, such as sacrifices to gods and alms given to the poor, are not given with the intention of receiving no benefit in return. By many cultures, alms are seen as pleasing spirits, and in return these spirits will aid the giver. For example, the Hausa of Sudan give alms because they believe it pleases the dead and can prevent fever according to Mauss. No gift is given completely lacking an expectation of reciprocity. Even gifts are given as a repayment too comes with the requirement to repay them. Brownell and Besnier highlighted how China’s leadership decided to host the 2008 Olympics to repay past countries that have hosted it even though it was economically illogical for China to host them. Hosting the Olympics is essentially a gift to the world. In the future, however, other countries will also take on the financial burden to repay China and all the other countries that have hosted in the past. The reciprocity of giving and receiving is a cycle that has no real end.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The value of the gift ultimately depends what culture you’re in and who is involved in the gift exchange. The reading that stood out to me the most in Zelizer’s article about how money is a great gift because of how versatile the gift of money can be used. I how see why Zelizer would say this because we’ve all forgotten to get a gift for someone at some point, or those weird situations like, “well, I remember Brandon saying something about chocolate but I don’t remember if he’s allergic to it or he loves it.” So you just play it safe and give them money. Although I can see where it’s acceptable to give money as a gift, I don’t think it’s the greatest gift. The reason I say this is say you walk into a store and there’s a booth outside about soup kitchens. You can donate money or sign up for volunteer hours. If you donate 20 dollars and then go about your day. In my view, you did a good deed, but a lazy one because it was a faceless gift. If you volunteer, you see who you’re helping and you’ll have that memory about spending a day volunteering at the soup kitchen.
    As for the question, “is a gift ever truly free?” I believe it in a sense. In modern US society, a gift is viewed as you had to have spent some money on it, in my opinion. I disagree with that. I write my mother poems for her birthday gift every year. The gift didn’t cost me any money because I just used paper and a writing utensil I found around the house. Now, I did spent time on her gift. I had to sit down and take time out of my day to write and plan out how I was going to give her the gift. I did this out of love and not as a contract so when my birthday comes around, she’ll buy me clothes or shoes. I believe a gift can be just random acts of kindness to complete strangers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This article has some interesting points, but I think the implications are a little more worthwhile. Money, while certainly a "good" gift to many people, can also be seen as a very impersonal one. I think there's not a gift that is "good", "bad", or "free", and that some gifts, though they still oblige reciprocation, are less personal. It could be that after receiving a less-than-satisfactory gift, a person could be less likely to want to reciprocate, but, I think that individual could find themselves ostracized by social groups to which they belong. Even if, somehow, the gift-giving systems broke down, there are other ways to oblige others to repay us, and other ways in which we are obliged to repay others. A breakdown of this system (via a long period in which increasingly impersonal gifts are given at first very frequently, then not at all) would not sever all social ties, but might re-shape political and religious systems that rely on the idea of the gift (though these seem to be shifts in themselves, as they are currently mostly done with money).

    ReplyDelete
  21. I must confess one thing, before reading the writings of Mauss, Zelizer and Brownell and Bessnier, my view towards gift was totally different. Now, it has become more ‘calculative’! Yes, this is the word! For last two weeks mainly, I was having a flash-back and thinking of who gifted me what and what I did in return? My memories stated a jumbled fact and gave me the answer I was looking for: gifts are mostly not free, but sometimes they can be. I want to share two personal memories as evidences. The first memory is attached to my maternal grandmother, let’s think her name is ‘XYZ’. She died in 2000 when 3 of her granddaughters were not in the age of getting married. Before dying, XYZ gave her gold necklaces to these unmarried granddaughters as their (future possible) marriage gifts. Here, if we take the argument of Mauss that no gift is free, then should we think this was not a real gift from XYZ to her granddaughters? Can anyone actually count this gift in the category of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ gift (these could be wasted totally if any of the granddaughters did not get marry)? This was a ‘give-away’ with full of emotional attachment. Since this event took place when XYZ was in her death-bed, we also can, I believe, agree that my grandmother did not do that for any reciprocity of neither gifts, nor respects. It was done purely from love. Of course, this can start a new line of argument that whether love can make gift free or not?

    Before sharing the next experience, I would like to say, I truly believe that human beings are rational. They make rational choices, even in terms of gift giving as it holds the reciprocity. As we have realized in the writings of Mauss that gift creates a sense of obligation. The recipient needs to give something (may be monetary, may be respect, or anything else) to the giver. However, may be sometimes givers gift things out of respect and without any sense of obligation attached. Why am I saying this? Because of the second experience I want to share. Back in my country I worked as a lecturer in a private university before coming to the U.S.A. Among the courses I take, one of them is Bangladesh Studies which is mandatory for all programs/departments’ students in my university. This system makes it obvious that many of the students of that course will not be from my own department which is ‘Social Relations’. For this reason, there are students I have taught will never become my students again, at any point. In addition, practically they can never turn into my colleagues in future as some of them are from Engineering programs, Pharmacy, English etc. Some of my former students kept relationships with me even after the end of their semester with me. Before coming to USA, number of those former students gave some gifts to me. Now after reading these assigned materials, I kept wondering, was there any obligation in it? I am never going to be their teacher again. Never our path will cross again, formally. It is next to impossible that I could be of any professional help to them in future. Then, were those gift not free to me?

    Hence my standpoint is, it is true that gift are bearers of reciprocal obligation and this is quite clear with everybody. It can be good or bad gift based on context. It is can be worthy as well, but not always that ‘worth’ can be measured. Sometimes, a personal relationship can define the meaning and worthiness of a gift. Many times, based on the relationship between recipient and giver, gift can be free.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mauss, Ziliger, Brownell and Bessnier’s readings clearly underscore what constitute a good and bad gift. They also address the social dynamics of free gift and gift in general in societies, individual life, spirituality, and morality. The discussions of gift itself constitute liberty and obligation to give. It is regarded good when no string attached to them. For example, when people give without any ultra -motive behind but for genuinely helping out the needy. Gift in the form of granting intellectual property rights. Conversely, gifts look bad when it renders the person receiving the gift as inferior and makes them look as patron of the rich. In other words, it serves as a facilitator of imperialism of property mostly among men.
    The authors' insight into gifts social dynamism invokes questions of hospitality, satisfying rivals, competitors, fulfilment of rights and rituals. For instance, as learn from the Olympics readings, the hosting of this festivity has economic rationality. Because the cost of the gift outweighs and benefits it avails to cities hosting it. Another social dimension to gift is it demonstrate viability in the eyes of rivals, sometimes people, institutions, and nations give just for demonstrating financial domination. Lastly, gifts serve as a means of fulfilling ritual rights, religion and communicating with the ancestral past.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gift giving between people is a very important process. When you give a gift to someone whether it be big or small, the other person is expected to give you a gift back. A gift could be something simple such as a birthday gift that then someone will then return to you, or as big as giving someone a vacation. Gifts can also be good a good or a bad thing. It can be a good thing when it is between mutual friends and reciprocating gifts can strengthen a relationship. However a gift can be bad when the person does not give back and it can ruin a relationship. For example when people, go out to the bar and buy drinks, when you buy your friend a drink you expect them to buy you a drink back next time. When this doesn't happen the friend can start yo be excluded from the group.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.