Jump to content

Gift economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KDRGibby (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 5 February 2006 (→‎See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo. Typically, this occurs in a cultural context where there is an expectation either of reciprocation—in the form of goods or services of comparable value, or of political support, general loyalty, honor to the giver, etc.—or of the gift being passed on in some other manner. It can be considered a form of reciprocal altruism.

Some examples would be:

  • Sharing of food in a hunter-gatherer society, where sharing is an egalitarian safeguard against failure of any individual's daily foraging.
  • The Pacific Northwest Native American potlatch ritual, where leaders give away large amounts of goods to their followers, strengthening group relations. By sacrificing accumulated wealth, a leader gained a position of honor.
  • Offerings to a deity, spirit, intercessionary saint or similar entities.
  • A political machine, in which a politician gives patronage and favors in expection of political support or as a reward for such support.
  • A "favor network" within a company.
  • A family, in which each generation pays for the education of the next: this is an example where the gift creates an implicit obligation to give a gift to a third party, rather than to the giver.
  • Religious tithing.
  • Charitable giving or philanthropy.

The concept of a gift economy stands in contrast to a planned economy or a commodity-based economy (a category embracing both market economy and barter economy). In a planned economy, allocation of goods and services is dictated by explicit command and control rather than through relatively informal custom; in commodity-based economies, an explicit quid pro quo is established before the transaction takes place. In practice, most human societies blend elements of all of these, in varying degrees.

A gift economy is sometimes referred to as a "sharing economy," although many economists reserve the term "sharing" for the use of a single resource by more than one consumer, such as a commons, a public library, or a shared car.

One of the possible benefits of a gift economy (which it has in common with some planned economies) is that it can provide for the needs of some who have no current means with which to reciprocate. For example, if some in a society are so poor as to have nothing material to barter and no goods or money to bring to market, they can still receive charity if sufficient resources exist. Similarly, in the vast majority of societies, parents support their children at least in early childhood (and, in some societies, into adolescence and adulthood) without any explicit negotiation of what is expected in exchange.

Some have suggested that variations on a gift economy may be the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. This position—and the refashioning of all of society into a gift economy—is particularly characteristic of Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-communists advocate a pure gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning. This view traces back at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the paradigm of "mutual aid."

Characteristics

As remarked above, in a typical gift economy, gift recipients are expected to give something in return, such as political support, military services and general loyalty, or even return gifts and favors. This was common in warrior societies where kings and chieftains gave freely to their followers and could expect their loyal service in return. Such systems have social sanctions built in to punish freeloaders or miserly chiefs. A default punishment would be to halt gifts or services from one party to the alleged party in wrong. Typical sanctions might also include a bad reputation, formal eviction from the lord's hall, a challenge to a duel, or public ridicule. A stingy lord would find it difficult to attract followers.

Lewis Hyde expresses the spirit of a gift economy (and its contrast to a market economy) as follows:

The opposite of "Indian giver" would be something like "white man keeper"… [W]hatever we have been given is supposed to be given away not kept. Or, if it is kept, something of similar value should move in its stead… [T]he gift may be given back to its original donor, but this is not essential… The only essential is this: the gift must always move.[1]

He further remarks that a traditional gift economy is based on "the obligation to give, the obligation to accept, and the obligation to reciprocate," and that it is "at once economic, juridical, moral, aesthetic, religious, and mythological."[2]

Hyde argues, somewhat against Mauss, that there is a difference between a "true" gift given out of gratitude and a "false" gift given only out of obligation. In Hyde's view, the "true" gift binds us in a way beyond any commodity transaction, but "we cannot really become bound to those who give us false gifts."[3] Referring to Alcoholics Anonymous—which functions internally largely as a gift economy— Hyde passes on a piece of AA jargon: a "Two-Stepper" is a person who tries to go directly from stopping drinking alcohol to the twelfth step of giving back to others. That person has received a gift (sobriety) for which he or she feels an obligation; however, instead of doing the necessary labor (the next ten steps) to be in a position to fulfill the obligation, he or she attempts to give that which he or she does not yet possess.[4]

While it is easy to romanticize a gift economy, humans do not always wish to be enmeshed in a web of obligation. Marcel Mauss wrote, "The gift not yet repaid debases the man who accepts it,"[5] a lesson certainly not lost on the young person seeking independence who decides not to accept more money or gifts from his or her parents.[6] And as Hyde writes, "There are times when we want to be aliens and strangers."[7] We like to be able to go to the corner store, buy a can of soup, and not have to let the store clerk into our affairs or vice versa. We like to travel on an airplane without worrying about whether we would personally get along with the pilot. A gift creates a "feeling bond." Commodity exchange does not.[8]

The lack of such a "feeling bond" can, of course, be taken to hideous extremes, as when the Ford Motor Company did a cost-benefit analysis and decided not to fix a potentially fatal flaw in the Ford Pinto gas tank.[9] But the gift economy can also take hideous turns, as when a gift is given mainly to create an obligation, a matter often treated in myths of the hazards of accepting a gift in hell or from the fairies.[10] The gift economy can also be turned to the service of command economy, as when Che Guevara insisted, "Labor should not be sold like merchandise but offered as a gift to the community."[11]

Carol Stack's All Our Kin describes both the positive and negative sides of a network of obligation and gratitude effectively constituting a gift economy. Her narrative of The Flats, a poor Chicago neighborhood, tells in passing the story of two sisters who each came into a small inheritance. One sister hoarded the inheritance and prospered materially for some time, but was alienated from the community. Her marriage ultimately broke up, and she integrated herself back into the community largely by giving gifts. The other sister fulfilled the community's expectations, but within six weeks had nothing material to show for the inheritance but a coat and a pair of shoes.[12]

Traditional gift economies

Marshall Sahlins writes that Stone Age gift economies were, by their nature as gift economies, economies of abundance, not scarcity, despite their typical status of objective poverty. [13]

Hyde locates the origin of gift economies in the sharing of food, citing for example the Trobriand Islander protocol of referring to a gift in the Kula exchange as "some food we could not eat," when it is not food at all, but an armband or shell necklace made for the explicit purpose of passing as a gift.[14] The potlatch also originated as a "big feed."[15] He argues that this led to a notion in many societies as the gift as something that must "perish."

Many societies have strong prohibitions against turning gifts into commodities or capital. Anthropologist Wendy James writes that among the Uduk of northeast Africa there is a strong custom that any gift that crosses subclan boundaries must be consumed, rather than invested.[16] For example, an animal given as a gift must be eaten, not bred.

However, as in the example of the Trobriand armbands and necklaces, this "perishing" may not consist of consumption as such, but of the gift moving on. In other societies, it is a matter of giving some other gift, either directly in return or to another party. To keep the gift and not give another in exchange, though, is reprehensible. "In folk tales," Hyde remarks, "the person who tries to hold onto a gift usually dies."[17]

A true gift economy normally requires gift exchange to be more than simply a back-and-forth between two individuals. A Kashmiri tale tells of two Brahmin women who tried to fulfill their obligations for alms-giving simply by giving alms back and forth to one another. On their deaths they were transformed into two poisoned wells from which no one could drink, reflecting the barrenness of this weak simulacrum of giving.[18]

This notion of expanding the circle can be seen in societies where hunters give animals to priests, who sacrifice a portion to a deity (who, in turn, is expected to provide an abundant hunt). The hunters do not directly sacrifice to the deity themselves.[19]

The mixing of gift and commodity-based economies

Hyde argues that when a primarily gift-based economy is turned into a commodity-based economy, "the social fabric of the group is invariably destroyed."[20] Much as there are prohibitions against turning gifts into capital, there are prohibitions against treating gift exchange as barter. Among the Trobrianders, for example, treating Kula as barter is considered a disgrace.[21]

Commodity exchange bypasses the web of gratitude and obligation involved in gift-giving. It is possible, however, to reintroduce elements of a gift economy into commodity exchange, such as lagniappe given to a loyal customer, or a professional discount given to a colleague.

Less happily, elements of a gift economy can enter commodity exchange as nepotism, corruption, and bribery.

Hyde writes that commercial goods can generally become gifts, but when gifts become commodities, the gift "…either stops being a gift or else abolishes the boundary… Contracts of the heart lie outside the law and the circle of gifts is narrowed, therefore, whenever such contracts are narrowed to legal relationships."[22]

Even the most commodity-based economies have social (and/or legal) prohibitions on what may be commodified. In many societies, one may give up a child for adoption, but may not sell one's child. In most U.S. states, almost any private sexual activity between consenting adults is either legal or informally tolerated if it does not involve the exchange of money; most intimate acts move into the realm of the criminal if money is exchanged. Organ donation is actively encouraged; however, the sale of organs is not merely considered a crime, but is almost universally considered a particularly unsavory crime.

Examples in modern culture

Elements of gift economy exist within the contemporary world economy. The blood bank system prevalent in several countries, including the United States, gives no significant explicit reciprocation for donations of blood. Most organ donation systems give no compensation of any sort to the donor or their family; payment in this matter is often considered suspect, even criminal.[23]

Information is particularly suited to gift economics, as information can be copied and transmitted at practically no cost. It can be treated as a nonrival good: when you share information, you do not deprive yourself of the information (although you may deprive yourself of certain revenues that could be gained in the market economy from the intellectual property rights).

Traditional scientific research is an information gift economy. Scientists produce research papers and give them away through journals and conferences. Other scientists freely refer to such papers. The more citations a scientist has, the more prestige and respect he or she has, which can attract funding and positions. All scientists therefore benefit from the increased pool of knowledge.

The free software community is an information gift economy. Programmers make their source code available, allowing anyone to copy and modify/improve the code. Individual programmers gain prestige and respect, and the community as a whole benefits from better software.

Yochai Benkler in his paper Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm writes that Ronald Coase described the firm as a more efficient form of production than the market. Benkler suggests a third mode of production called Commons-based peer production. Charles Leadbeater writes about the Pro Am revolution and the Pro Am economy where amateurs motivated by non-economic reasons are growing in power and supporting the sharing economy. Efforts such as Creative Commons led by Lawrence Lessig encourage sharing and argue that society and corporations will benefit from sharing.

Jordan Hubbard, writing in Queue magazine although referring to open source as a barter economy, describes it as a gift economy: "The volunteer software engineers in the open source software community are far more likely to help those who have demonstrated their commitment to the success of the overall open source software development process."[24] In other words, reciprocity is a broad community matter rather than explicit quid pro quo.

The Wikipedia web-based collaborative encyclopedia is, in most of its operations, a thriving gift economy. Hundreds of thousands of articles are available on Wikipedia, and none of their innumerable authors and editors receives any material reward. Wikipedia has been constructed entirely out of gifts, and gives information freely. From time to time Wikipedia has engaged in fundraising activities, asking people to contribute funds toward operating expenses; these donated funds are gifts, albeit explicitly solicited ones. A tiny portion of Wikipedia's income comes from product sales, mostly T-shirts, mugs, and the like, with Wikipedia logos.

Because Wikipedia exists within a money economy, some expenses must be met with money, such as paying for servers, domain registration, and for certain IT work involved in server maintenance. Therefore, the information in Wikipedia is a gift economy, but some operational aspects of its website and related entities are not. Yahoo's provision of servers in Asia[25] for Wikipedia is on a gift basis; there is no explicit quid pro quo. However, several people raised concerns that future reciprocation may be expected beyond the prestige.[26][27]

Small-scale gift economies also exist in most families, with gifts of time, money, nourishment, shelter, and expertise being given without any overt negotiation of reciprocation. Similarly, parties can be considered to be smallscale, temporary gift economies, at which food, accommodation, beverages, entertainment and a gathering place are provided freely, with all or most attendees contributing without formal payment.

Another example would be when mentorship instills the gratitude that eventually leads the protegé to become a mentor in his or her own right.

Free schools are an example of educational opportunities in a gift economy. Members of a community share skills, information, and knowledge outside of institutional control.

A gift economy is also an important cornerstone of the annual Burning Man festival, the Freecycle Network and of the give-away shop.

Obstacles to a pure gift economy

Although no thinkers have yet specifically made criticisms against a pure gift economic implementation, there are several obstacles which may oppose its pure implementation as advocated by Peter Kropotkin in an anarchist communist society. Limited forms of a gift economy exist between families, in the context of friendship, or within small communes, such as the Economy of the Iroquois in their relatively small tribes. However, as the size of the economy increases such as in modern cities, the ability of a gift economy to comply with this economy of scale encounters obstacles because the links or memories individuals must make or have about between other members of the community become more numerous in order to apply the proper punitive measures to those who refuse to work when they have such an ability.

Under rational choice theory, incentive to produce might decrease as it takes more effort to recognise individuals who do not work and therefore would have a lesser likelihood of facing punitive measures. Normally under a money economy, individuals would use the amount of money on hand to measure the productiveness of others, if the the fact that the rich may not necessarily be productive is ignored. There have been several proposed solutions to this.

Kropotkin argues that mutual benefit is a stronger incentive than mutual strife and is eventually more effective collectively in the long run to drive individuals to produce, because gift economy stresses the concept of increasing the other's abilities and means of production, which theoretically would then increases the ability of the community to reciprocate to the giving individual. Other solutions include stressing the use of several methods involving collective shunning where collective groups keep track of other individuals' productivity, rather than leaving each individual having to keep track of the rest of society by him or herself.

Gift economy in fiction

See also

References

  • Marcel Mauss: The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Originally published as Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques in 1925, modern English edition: ISBN 039332043X. Lewis Hyde calls this "the classic work on gift exchange". [28]
  • Lewis Hyde: The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, 1983 (ISBN 0394715195), especially part I, "A Theory of Gifts", part of which was originally published as "The Gift Must Always Move" in Co-Evolution Quarterly No. 35, Fall 1982.

Further reading

  • Sahlins, Marshall Stone Age Economics (1972). Aldine. ISBN: 0202010996.
  • Titmuss, Richard, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy (1970). Reprinted by the New Press, ISBN 1565844033.

Notes

  • ^ Hyde, The Gift, 4, emphasis in the original.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., xv.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 70.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 46.
  • ^ Marcel Mauss cited at Hyde, op. cit., 69.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 67.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 68.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 56.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 62-64.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 72.
  • ^ Che Guevara, cited at Hyde, op. cit., 67.
  • ^ Carol Stack, cited at Hyde, op. cit., 75-76.
  • ^ Marshall Sahlins cited at Hyde, op. cit., 22.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 8-9.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 9.
  • ^ Wendy James cited at Hyde, op. cit., 4.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 5.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 18.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 15.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 61, 88.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 18.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., 5.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., xvi.
  • ^ Jordan Hubbard, "Open Source to the Core", Queue magazine p.24–31, May 2004. The quoted passage is on page 29.
  • ^ Wikimedia announces Yahoo support, Wikimedia Foundation press release April 7, 2005, accessed 17 July 2005.
  • ^ Nate Mook, Google Offers to Host Wikipedia, Beta News, February 11, 2005. Retrieved March 2, 2005.
  • ^ Talk:Yahoo! hosting on the MediaWiki Meta-Wiki, accessed 17 July 2005.
  • ^ Hyde, op. cit., xv.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=38276268"