Gift Giving in Societies

Many exchange mechanisms can be observed throughout the worlds cultures; these include reciprocity, redistribution and down the line exchange.

Reciprocity is a form of gift exchange whereby objects have no concept of perceived value. Social gain is seen as more important than any potential economic result in this system. An object would be presented to another and this gesture insure social relations, a return object (or gesture) may be presented at a later date, but the main aim of reciprocity exchange would be the strengthening of social bonds.

An example of reciprocity exchange would be that of the Kula ring (described by Malinoski) in this system objects of perceived value are exchanged in a continuous cycle, which links several islands in the area. These objects (shell necklaces and armbands) are exchanged by individuals in ritual ceremonies where the links between these islands are reinforced and obligations to one another created.

Societies which practice a reciprocity form of exchange can do so for several different motives but in all cases the social/political aspect overrides and economic gain. In the Kula ring the system ensures that all of the islands will aid one another in times of difficulty, relieving social tension and aids in social stability which detracting nothing from the local economy/resources. The Dani, however, although still practicing a form of reciprocity do so for the gain of social status of big man by conspicuous displays of wealth, power and important through their gift giving activities.

It can be difficult for people of a western culture to understand how a process such as that in the Kula ring where little to no personal gain can be seen can be viewed as important, but the point that these people are willing to continue this tradition and carry out a potentially dangerous journey to meet with their exchange partners implies that to these people it is viewed as having an up most importance. We must be careful not to attempt to impose out own cultural values upon this society when trying to gain an insight into their world.

Redistribution, unlike reciprocity, contains concepts of unit value and economic gain. The social organisation required in order to implement this system implies a hieratical system of power. A central entity will collect in resources as a form of tribute/tax and from this often offer protection and redistribution of commodities as it sees fit. Through this method the availability of any specific item is closely controlled by central rulers, giving them power over the masses.

This system also implies administration, as collected resources would need recording. Evidence of this form of exchange/trade can be seen commonly within the archaeological record, notably at Knossos in the form of Linear B tablets, which have been interpreted as store records, showing all collected resources. The large magazines and pithoi at Knossos supports this evidence, to imply that redistribution was being utilised in this area.

Down the line exchange implies the involvement of many settlements, of which few are in close contact with the resources source. These which are near to the source of the resources are able to collect it and in turn exchange it with those who cannot for something which they are unable to harvest/collect. These people with in the supple zone will obviously process a larger proportion of the resource than that of the contact zones this form of exchange is easily recognised through the use of fall-off analysis, with which one could produce an expediential curve, be this purely exponential implying several village settlements or multi-modal implying several large settlements trading which in turn trade with the smaller surrounding settlements.

Of these three forms of exchange only reciprocity truly has its basis in social implications and growth, having no direct economic aspect to the system. The case presented by the Dani is far easier for people of the west to understand, as the conspicuous consumption, as discussed by Veblen (Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899), whereby people through activities in life aim for social status due to an ingrained human quality spouting from less civilised times. For example Veblen claimed the purpose of a man being married was to show his success, as in past times women were used as trophies he wrote that this was still the underlying case. According to Veblen many aspects of our society only benefit it as a whole as a side-effect to the main aim of conspicuous pleasure, this pleasure class is an extension of ancient kings of chiefs, who were above many tasks which are still thought of as below many (such as menial labour).

There are many criticisms of Veblens work, dubbing it a mere slant on culture and noting its lack of referencing. The main point, however, is Veblen himself, much of him other work is written as a satire upon modem culture, making use of sarcasm and humour to make a point and excaudate it, however, this is done in such a way that it makes for much difficulty differentiating between when he is being serious and when trying to be humorous. This in itself could potentially destroy any credibility held by his work Theories of man & culture despite his intention of a serious analysis of modern society. Despite these potential criticisms, however, Veblen does rise a fair point, whither in seriousness or in jest, much of what he states can be seen in everyday life within our culture, and many of these ideas explained by the pursuit of social advantage of pleasure.

The Dani use a form of reciprocity for personal gain of increased social standing, the idea being that through large conspicuous displays of material wealth their importance within the society will be shown and therefore acknowledged. This is an example of positive reciprocity, where the giving of gifts having a positive effect is reciprocated by an action of equal or higher positive effect to the individual.

Marshall Sahlins (On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange, 1974) creates sub-divisions in the idea of reciprocity hinging upon the motives and expected return from any gift giving action. These were in the form of generalized (often between close kin; no clear expectation of return, at least not in the near future), balanced (deny that return is required or that a debt is being formed, but expectation of reciprocation in the short or medium term) and negative (often manipulating of the system, receiving something for nothing, battering, haggling). These all incorporate clear social and economic benefits to all involved (bar the giver in negative), but the social aspect is more prominent in generalized and balanced, due to the potential delay enforcing prolonged contact, than in negative.

Both generalised and balanced reciprocity require a degree of prolonged contact, not only to enable a return gesture at a later date, but also to enable to required trust aspect to allow for such a system to function effectively. This idea of prolonged contact can form social links and even friendships, thereby increasing the social benefit of this action. Many societies use this idea of a delayed return in this way, for example if a pub landlord was to allow for a tab system in their bar then they are likely to attract regular customers whom will become familiar with the location and staff and the staff with them, rather than visiting different pubs and therefore never creating any links or degree of familiarity. Of course, through the encouragement of regular customers the landlord is also potentially creating an economic gain as people who are in familiar surrounds are more likely to feel at ease and so potentially spend more. It is at a risk, however, as there is always the chance of people abusing a tab system making for a system of negative reciprocity taking place.

The action of gift-exchange is important in many societies for many reasons, whether this be in hope of economic, social or hieratical gains becomes irrelevant as whatever the motive the same basic advantages occur. Social change can occur for many reasons; there are 5 main models of social change (Trigger, 1968) any one of these (bar inevitable variation) could be brought about through gift exchange, as an off-shoot if nothing more. Diffusion is the most obvious candidate for the obvious exchange of ideas, where an idea of innovation naturally spreads outwards from its source to nearby communities or trough such interactions as trade or warfare.

As Veblen (Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899) points out many of the apparent benefits of social actions may be mere side-effects, in no way connected to the original aim or motives. Such as the example of sport, where although it may be seemingly advantageous to the community in that it encourages physical fitness this is a mere offshoot of the fact of it being a conspicuous display of leisure.

So far I have heavily concentrated upon the passage of material goods; however, the exchange of ideas and other more abstract items is equally important in the development and growth of cultures as well as forging social links and obligations. Dalton (1969) indicated that exchange in pre-literal societies can take to distinct forms, that of reinforcing social coherency and that of social gain through the competitive show of wealth and status. The Kula ring is a good example of the first of these, while the Dani being an example of the latter.

There are many and varied forms of gift exchange, ranging from though of ritual origin to those of friendship or cultural survival. Although many of these display no obvious advantage to the individual or even to the society as a whole the fact that the actions continue implies a degree of importance. From such an example as that of the Kula ring where items with no unit value are continuously circulated by individuals to their exchange partners over potentially dangerous waters, the importance of this social action can be inferred. Through this idea of social obligations being created everyone benefits, but this benefit may not occur for several years after the exchange is made, the object (shall necklaces and armbands) could potentially circulate many times before any indication of social gain can be obviously noted.

The fact that this action is so long lived, however, indicates quite strongly how it is ingrained into the community and as such is of high cultural importance. This can be said for many cultures where gift exchange is practiced, no matter for alien some of these systems may seem to our culture we must remember that these are people of a different society with different cultural values to ourselves.

In conclusion gift exchange in many societies throughout the world and throughout time is or has been an important social action, creating long last social bonds and obligations as well as allowing people to increase their social status, not forgetting those systems which allow for economic gains.

BibliographyHatch E (ed) Theories of man & culture 1973 New York Columbia university pressMalinowski B Argonauts of the Western Pacific 1984 (reprint) Illinois Waveland PressRaheja G The Poison in the Gift 1988 Chicago University Of Chicago PressVeblen T Theory of the Leisure Class 1967 Penguin

Bibliography: atch E (ed) Theories of man & culture 1973 New York Columbia university pressMalinowski B Argonauts of the Western Pacific 1984 (reprint) Illinois Waveland PressRaheja G The Poison in the Gift 1988 Chicago University Of Chicago PressVeblen T Theory of the Leisure Class 1967 Penguin