What are some of the principles of exchange in a gift economy? What does Mauss mean by the expression that the gift is a social, political, economic, religious institution?
There are many principles of exchange in gift economy, most being unspoken yet inherently understood ‘rules.’ There are three basic principles that capture the most important idea of the gift economy; the first being “the obligation to reciprocate presents received” (Mauss 16) which subsequently suggests the following two obligations: the one to give presents and the one to receive presents (Mauss 17). Entering into these obligations means entry into debts and therefore relationships, since it takes at least two parties to assume a debt. The resistance to enter into debt and gift exchange is thus a rejection of a relationship. Within the acceptance of gift and debt are countless rules. There is the system of equal reciprocity in which parties must give of equal value; there is non-symmetrical reciprocity in which one party wishes to gain more power by trading up in the spheres of exchange. This is what Mauss means by saying “the gift is a social, political, economic, religious institution” (Musaraj). Each institution listed is dependant on human relationships--gift exchange links people together through time-restrained debt. Also Mauss remarks on the mana of objects, or the “magical, religious, and spiritual force” of objects gifted. These forces symbolize and give political power, like in the case of the potlatch, where the mana of the gifts are “the talisman and source of wealth that is authority itself” (Mauss 11). He mentions also giving to the gods to indebt them to good treatment of people later. A gift is never just a gift in gift exchange--the value of objects are not linked to physical value, but rather to the creation/maintenance of human relationships defined by power, intimacy, and religion.
The key principles of gift exchange are, simply put, the giving of the gift itself and the obligation to return it with a gift of equal or greater value. The process itself depends on the donor's willingness to give and the recipient's willingness to receive, thus going into debt and forming a relationship between the two. Refusal to perform either part is "the equivalent of a declaration of war," as it insults the other party and communicates a failure to cooperate and trust. This is one reason why gift exchange is a social and political institution. It forms bonds between people and groups and is a way of maintaining alliances and even amassing power when performed competitively (as with a potlach). This practice of bonding extends to religion. Often a sacrifice will be offered to a deity or spirit with the intention of forming a relationship with them, which should ensure good fortune. The gifts themselves possess spirits, following one owner to the next until it returns to the original donor. Finally, on a less spiritual level, gift exchange also promotes the circulation of goods, which makes it an economic institution.
There are many principles of exchange in gift economy, most being unspoken yet inherently understood ‘rules.’ There are three basic principles that capture the most important idea of the gift economy; the first being “the obligation to reciprocate presents received” (Mauss 16) which subsequently suggests the following two obligations: the one to give presents and the one to receive presents (Mauss 17). Entering into these obligations means entry into debts and therefore relationships, since it takes at least two parties to assume a debt. The resistance to enter into debt and gift exchange is thus a rejection of a relationship. Within the acceptance of gift and debt are countless rules. There is the system of equal reciprocity in which parties must give of equal value; there is non-symmetrical reciprocity in which one party wishes to gain more power by trading up in the spheres of exchange.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Mauss means by saying “the gift is a social, political, economic, religious institution” (Musaraj). Each institution listed is dependant on human relationships--gift exchange links people together through time-restrained debt. Also Mauss remarks on the mana of objects, or the “magical, religious, and spiritual force” of objects gifted. These forces symbolize and give political power, like in the case of the potlatch, where the mana of the gifts are “the talisman and source of wealth that is authority itself” (Mauss 11). He mentions also giving to the gods to indebt them to good treatment of people later. A gift is never just a gift in gift exchange--the value of objects are not linked to physical value, but rather to the creation/maintenance of human relationships defined by power, intimacy, and religion.
The key principles of gift exchange are, simply put, the giving of the gift itself and the obligation to return it with a gift of equal or greater value. The process itself depends on the donor's willingness to give and the recipient's willingness to receive, thus going into debt and forming a relationship between the two. Refusal to perform either part is "the equivalent of a declaration of war," as it insults the other party and communicates a failure to cooperate and trust.
ReplyDeleteThis is one reason why gift exchange is a social and political institution. It forms bonds between people and groups and is a way of maintaining alliances and even amassing power when performed competitively (as with a potlach). This practice of bonding extends to religion. Often a sacrifice will be offered to a deity or spirit with the intention of forming a relationship with them, which should ensure good fortune. The gifts themselves possess spirits, following one owner to the next until it returns to the original donor. Finally, on a less spiritual level, gift exchange also promotes the circulation of goods, which makes it an economic institution.