Mauss Gift-Exchange

Each person invited to a Potlatch received gifts related to their social rank. Some examples of gifts: canoes, slaves, carved dishes, and eulachon oil. The more wealth that a family gave away

The psychology of projection and engagement relates itself to the gift economy because it serves a foundation in the creation of a relationship. Lethem introduces the concept of

This ensured people stayed modest and humble and never got ahead of themselves. An example of the value of equality being demonstrated lies in the principle that the owner of the arrow that killed an animal had the right to distribute meat from animal, and not the hunter himself who actually did the hard work. Another example would be the system of the unequal gift exchange: when one gifted something to someone, and in reciprocation received something, it might not necessarily be equivalent in value. Richard Lee, a famous anthropologist was told that the practice was aimed at leveling wealth, not accumulating it, which in turn had an important repercussion of establishing social relations. In stark contrast the Chumash made a glaring show of their individual prosperity and their inequality in economic and social status by publicly displaying their wealth as exemplified in their burials, clothing, houses, and the adornments on their heads and collars. They additionally leaned towards private accumulation rather than sharing and equality.

The anthropology of gifts has been mostly studied in the context of non-Western cultures. The important roles of gift giving were highlighted by classical anthropologists such as Malinowski, Mauss and Levi-Strauss. They stressed the significance of reciprocity and obligation suggested in gift exchange and that gift giving is a one practice of material expression that integrates a society.

The receiver of the gift is better off in a utilitarian sense, if he chooses not to return the favor. Yet why does he have the desire to repay? Why does receiving a gift put him at a social disadvantage? The economy of gift of Bataille differs from Nietzsche’s creditor-debtor relationship with regard to the psychology behind these two dynamics. While Bataille delved into the mentality of the giver, who has the upper hand in this power relation, Nietzsche focused on the psychology of the debtor. Bataille construed the economy of gifting as an act out of man’s “animal factor” that goes beyond the want of acquisition – a human instinct to win and to overpower. It is in man’s nature to covet “prestige, glory and rank” (Bataille, 1997, p. 376), yet they do not come without comparison and competition. Thus, the giver of the gift has to deliberately create a rivalry, and thus, an inequality that favors himself in order to acquire prestige, glory and rank. It is this desire for superiority that gives man the ultimate incentive to give away his wealth. Gifting is to win by losing. It also explains the increment value in the return of the gift, for the receiver of the initial gift not only wants to recover his equality with the initial giver, but also to overpower him, to defeat him. The same desire that fuels the endless cycle of gifting rituals like moka and potlatch. One good potlatch deserves another, and

Though one may favor exchange processes that conclude with a social association that values the idea of equality, however Blau states that exchange processes can “give rise to differentiation of power” (Blau 1964: 114), which results with relation to superordination and subordination. Blau explains this disequilibrium as a result of needs for resources from unlike partners and efforts among equals to gain advantages over the other (Blau 1964: 114). Relating to intrinsic rewards, if one counterpart gains a reward from the exchange, the other counterpart expects repayment in the form of future wards – hence the principle of reciprocity (Blau 1964: 121). Reciprocity between unlike counterparts creates this sense of imbalance

Attaching great importance to individuality is the third characteristic of market society. For people living in market society, economic advantages are superior to other advantages; the first thing to protect is their individual wealth. This ideological change results from the material condition in market society that people all become single individuals in the factories producing goods for making more money for themselves. In this case, the economic relations rule the social relations (Rinehart 71). Under the structure of the previous social organization, however, “man’s economy... is submerged in his social relationships” (Polanyi 46). People were always concerned about their social relations within their communities (Polanyi 46). They acted so as to maintain their social values (Polanyi 46). The reason for this when it comes to the case of tribal society is that there is no need for people to care much about “individual’s economic interest” because working for the communities enables

Before the great transformation, no economy was subject to being a prisoner of the market (Polanyi 43). Polanyi discusses previous forms of economic organization that function effectively without the system of markets (43). It can be said that through the social being of man and his relationships, that he values material goods only as they serve to an end (Polanyi 46). Within Tribal communities, each member takes on the ideology towards noneconomic ends, that is, not connecting the means of production or distribution in significance with the ownership of goods (Polanyi 46). Members of the tribe place no desire upon economic interests of the individual, but rather on the collective. Reciprocity and redistribution are certain behaviours that communities maintain (Polanyi 47). Reciprocity, regards the sexual organization of society, and redistribution is functioning under a common chief representing domain and authority

In his article, Reciprocity and the Power of Giving, Lee Cronk discusses the different cultural meanings placed upon the act of gift giving. The act of exchanging of gifts has many unique implications, which are based on the culture of the giver and the recipient. Cronk discusses the idea of reciprocity, which is the expectance of exchange associated with gift giving. Cronk brings up the example of “Indian Gifts” which was a term that white settlers connected to the Native American people’s expectation of receiving an equivalent gift after being given one. This expectation is rooted into the culture of the Native American people, which was misunderstood by the settlers. The real implication of

The gifts given in the course of Lottie Moon Christmas offering are to help support the things that are not essential within the United States of America. Issues, such as; transportation required for missionaries to be able to spread the gospel all over from the different villages to the towns. Having been to a foreign

Commerce is frequently thought of as the activity of buying or selling on a large scale, whether it be goods or not, but commerce can be thought of in a different manner, simply defining it as social dealings between people. If commerce is looked at as simply the social interactions between groups of people, it exists practically everywhere on nearly a daily basis. Whether it be the exchange of some sort of “good” on a mass scale from one group to another satirically seen in Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, arranging marriages as seen in Moliere’s Tartuffe, or 3RD TEXT, it can all be considered some kind of commerce.

In the first of three oral stories, “How Men and Women Got Together”, we experience the unique perspective of the Blood-Piegan tribe. In this oral story, an “Old Man” created both men and women separately, each with their own differences. He then attempts to combine the groups together in order to provide benefits for each group. Material possessions were one of the major driving forces in this story. Early on in the story it is explained, “After a while the men learned how to make bows and arrows. The women learned how to tan buffalo hides and make tipis and beautiful robes decorated with porcupine quills,”. The women in the story desired food and weapons, things that the men already had. Meanwhile, the men desired clothing and shelter, things that the women already had. Apparently, these material goods are valued enough in the Blood-Piegan culture that they were worth both men and women putting their differences aside to obtain. It is also apparent that men and women value

Using unique materials to pay people back shows how the level of economic class high or low; can change the people's willingness to pay back

(171) Patico argues that cost now determines the logic of values in informal exchanges, but the gift given, and the attention to what gift is selected, has not changed.

The step-by-step process of the potlatch was initiated by the “congregation of people who were formally invited to witness a demonstration of family prerogative of a host group comprised of kin or local residences” (Barnett 349). It was then stipulated that “only one person assumed the role of host and donor of gifts, and any members of his localized kinship group could voluntarily support him in the preparations of a potlatch in return for patronage favors” (Barnett 350). Following this stipulation “there was an unequal distribution of gifts which were presented according to rank of the receiver, and which reflected the donor's judgment of the recipient's social worth” (Barnett 354). Next the “potlatch allowed the donor to make a claim in his family name to certain distinctions and privileges. The recognition of these claims must come from the other members of society" (Barnett357); to which Barnett highlights “was the ultimate goal of the potlatch” (Barnett 357). Lastly, “although the gifts did provoke a reciprocal response, they should be viewed as true gifts and not as loans or capital investments; the ultimate aim was the distribution of wealth and not the accumulation of wealth”