Why has gift exchange been an important topic for anthropology - Essay Example

Gift Exchange in Anthropology Introduction and question For a long time, the of gift exchange in anthropology has been an area of interest for anthropologists while it has also influenced the imagination of others. In essence, the act of giving gifts is a universal behaviour in which the interpretation of this has not been as satisfying as argued by scientists and those interested in anthropology. Researchers have established that giving is a composite subject in relation to describing human interactions and the ways that people become social within a society. In some quarters, many argue that gift exchange is an act of reciprocation and it can be a way of integrating people and culture in a society. Others also view gift giving as a way of influencing social communication especially for people that do not speak the same language or share the same cultural practices (Evens 2013, p. 123). The implication of this that gifts can be a representation of expression making them to convey cultural meanings that the other party may understand as the expressions of intended plans. Essentially, the act of giving or exchanging gifts becomes a tool for influencing social responsibilities and ways of providing political contrive. With this, this essay will explain the reasons as to why gift exchange is a relevant topic in anthropology by presenting the arguments, counter-arguments and the evidence to support both of these claims. 2. Arguments One of the key contributors to the argument that gifts formed part of the anthropology researches was Mauss Marcel who was a French sociologist in the nineteenth century. For one, Mauss argued that the issuance of gifts was never free, but rather they opened up avenues for reciprocal exchanges for those that received the gifts in the first place. In essence, the process of anthropology requires that a researcher dwells among the people that are the subject of the study in order for them to acquire first hand information concerning their way of living. Ideally, this was the most appropriate way of gathering data within the anthropology study as the information gathered was accurate and factual as compared making researches based on secondary data. However, the process of engaging the natives involved in the study was a tricky affair because of the difference in culture and language attributes (Ensminger 2002, p. 106). Therefore, anthropologists had to be creative hence making them to devise ways of how the natives would come to trust them in order for their study being a success. Mauss shared a contrary view in his argument that the gifts given to the natives were not free and that the recipient had to find a way of reciprocating for it. Subsequently, Mauss could not understand the content of the gifts that made them to have the reciprocating nature, but concluded that the gesture of receiving or giving somehow had spiritual attributes. Mauss concluded that the act of giving fostered social bonds between people from different cultures hence making the receiver to develop the obligation to reciprocate for the kind gesture shown by the giver (Ben-Amos 2008, p. 5). On the other hand, the giver also had to part with something that was somehow of value to him, which meant that the giver had shared a part of him influencing the bond to be a social one. As part of his theoretical views on the subject of giving and receiving gifts, Mauss three basic principles of his ideology that were giving, receiving, and reciprocating as part of developing social relationships. When a person gave, they portrayed their interest in developing and maintaining healthy relationships while the receiver could not refuse the gift. Failure to accept the gift was illustrating that the person was not interested in forming any formidable ties with the giver, but if they accepted the gift they had the moral obligation of reciprocating as part of showing liberation (Peoples & Bailey 2012, p. 147). However, the postmodern aspects of examining anthropology illustrate the existence of social debts that societies owe to each other simply for the reason of their shared heritage. The gifting in itself was a contributor to these debts because some people used this as a way of enhancing their personal gain simply because of the reciprocation aspect that Mauss had illustrated in his research. The implication of this was that native communities struggled to appease the givers of the gifts in which they went to any length to do so. The result of this was inter-clan or inter-communal conflict because the giver used as a way of dividing people in order for him to advance his personal interests. This led to spying on other communities, which fuelled animosity because of the intended loyalty that a community sought to establish in order for them to continue receiving more gifts. The implication of this was that gift giving to one community led to the advancement of colonial ideas in the process of globalization in which its effects were either positive or negative. Anthropologists have established that gift giving was one of the ways that led to the expansion of untapped territories in the world and influenced the enhancement of much stronger economies. Therefore, the process of achieving economic stability began through social giving then expanded to areas such as trade in which traders used this as a way of attracting consumers to their businesses. 3. Counter-arguments On the contrary, gift giving cannot entirely be for reciprocating because if it were for that, many European nations would have sought compensation from the communities that they helped. In relation to this, there is no empirical evidence that anthropologists have come across that does not seem to suggest that European traders or colonialists were the origin of some form of globalized culture. Therefore, gift giving becomes an essential area of focus for anthropologists because it helps in drawing the past ways of living in a community before experiencing colonization or cultural influence (Sherry 1983, p. 163). The argument embedded in this is that most of the developing or developed societies are not pure societies because they aped certain characteristics of other people. The implication of this is that no society in the can attest to the fact that they made to where they are in the present because of their own contribution. This is because they attribute their success in the present to a certain level of gifting that may be either skilful or materialistic. Subsequently, this implies that Mauss’ argument for giving was not substantive enough to warrant anthropologists to rely on it because it illustrated contrary beliefs and attributes. A clear illustration of this would be when trying to understand paternal love meaning that parents give care and love to their children without expecting anything in return because this feeling is a gift of expression (Robbins 2011, p. 88). Essentially, Mauss’ views did not sink in well a majority of the anthropologist because of his fixed angle of viewing the issue of giving. For instance, Testart who was a French anthropologist was not in support of this view because he argued that there were other ways giving that were because of free will. Rather than coming at a cost, some of these gifts were free like those given to beggars on the streets in which a giver does not expect anything in return. In this scenario, a giver and the recipient may not seek to establish any form of relationship because their interaction on the street is probably the only time that they would relate. Unlike Mauss’ view, these people may not seek to develop any relationship afterwards hence creating no need for reciprocating to the gift given meaning that the two parties have no expectations. On the other hand, a giver or donor only gives because they feel like and not because they intend to benefit from their gesture of kindness meaning that Mauss overstated the social pressure to reciprocate. Moreover, critics argue that anthropologists have applied minimal effort in trying to understand the entire process of giving and receiving hence influencing the oversimplification of this concept (Evens 2013, p. 156). In essence, the generalization of gift giving impacts this process in terms of examining the underlying components that pushes the principle that may be either structural or motivational. One of the critics that emphasized on this trait was Befu in his research who intimated that anthropologists applied divergent systems when attempting to analyse the mannerism involved in an exchange. The idea behind this was the fact that people had realized the benefit of applying motivational strategies when aiming to acquire something in return making it a two-way process. One of the instances that reflect that gift giving was essential in influencing a way of life for the previously uncivilized people is the fact that most nations received from Europeans (Ensminger 2002, p. 108). Many of them were underdeveloped with no sign of civilization in sight, but once the Europeans arrived, things changed for the better to include their way of living. 4. Evidence On the hand, gift giving also has significance when attempting to understand consumer behaviour as demonstrated by Bagozzi in his 1975 research. In essence, Bagozzi argues that gift giving has also been significant in explaining the growth of an economy because of its influence over consumer behaviour. Other than being a component in social exchange the establishment of relationships, Bagozzi intimated that gift giving could also be an economic exchange in the process of socialization. In return, gift giving could spur national and regional growth because this exchange at a retail level is able to attract high profit margins for a business. In essence, the national economy relies on the prosperity of retail sales at the least level of trading in which these traders use gift giving as a way of influencing consumers to buy more from them (Robbins 2011, p. 242). The implication of this is that consumers feel appreciated and end up developing loyalty to these retailers because of the fact that they can receive goods as gifts without having to pay for anything. In the same manner, a consumer feels the obligation to buy from a particular trader because of the need to reciprocate for the good gesture that a trader has extended to them, which is a relatively similar to the ideology presented by Mauss. Therefore, the act of gift giving is of significance to anthropology study because it helps researchers to understand certain consumer behaviour or mannerisms in trade (Henare 2005, p. 114). The study of giving gifts in anthropology helps in understanding the interactions that people may have family, friends, and members of society in general hence making it to a subject of study. Other than anthropologists, psychologists, economists, and marketers have used this to understand the complex nature of the human nature and their behaviour towards other people in society (Robbins 2011, p. 6). Essentially, psychologists believe that the principle psychological beneficiary to the act of giving is the giver as compared to the receiver whose gain is material. Others argue that the sharing of gifts especially during the festive season is a materialistic act because the recipients tend to be anticipating for gifts that they have never received irrespective of the price tag attached to them (Robbins 2011, p. 240). The giver tends to make pre-calculated judgment about how the gift would influence the receiver while the receiver only appreciates if the gift is as per their expectations. However, people may view giving as a way of aimless spending, but the psychologist believes that those that do not engage in this practice set themselves up for poor relations with their family members or friends. 5. Conclusion Anthropologists also recognize that giving can help in understanding the ways of certain communities such as the potlatch ceremonies characterized by intense giving. The implication of this was that people in past societies used to equate wealth with giving and not with how much a family possessed in the society that they lived in. In such potlatch ceremonies, people derived joy in the host family in the community going bankrupt because of giving meaning that the giving family gained prestige out of this trait. Further, anthropologists attribute gift giving to population increase in which men offered women gifts in order to entice them to be their companions (Bell 1991, p. 157). A man that could not give was considered not be able to support a family hence could not attract a woman as a wife within their community while those that were generous enough could access sexual access if they needed it. The implication of this is that gift giving was highly likely to strengthen relational and family ties within a society as compared to not giving. Further, giving may also be an avenue that people may use to gauge the level of importance that people attach to them meaning that if one did not receive a gift from anyone meant that they have poor social relations. The level of giving also tends to vary in which other forms of this interaction demand for some of reciprocation while others may not. For instance, a person may expect reciprocation when interacting with another person, but may not feel the same when interacting with a pet because there is no pressure for reciprocation. In the end, giving gives the basis to which people in a society may develop ties or may have psychological well being because of the benefits associated with giving (Henare 2005, p. 119). In this regard, anthropologists and other people interested in studying the relationships between humans have used this as a way of explaining some mannerism because of the results drawn as they tend to be conclusive. Bibliography Bell, D. 1991, Modes of Exchange: Gift and Commodity. The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 20, Number 2, pages 155-167 Ben-Amos, I K 2008, The culture of giving: informal support and gift-exchange in early modern England. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Ensminger, J 2002, Theory in economic anthropology. Walnut Creek, AltaMira Press. Evens, TMS 2013, Anthropology As Ethics: Nondualism and the Conduct of Sacrifice. New York: Berghahn Books Henare, AJM 2005, Museums, anthropology and imperial exchange. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge University Press. Peoples, JG & Bailey, GA 2012, Humanity: an introduction to cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Robbins, RH 2013, Cultural anthropology: a problem-based approach, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, Australia. Sherry, JF Jr. 1983, Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10. No. 2. pp. 157-168. Read More