Giving, receiving and reciprocating A qualitative reanalysis of articles studying disaster aid through gift exchange

Malin Hedenskog

Uppsala University, Autumn 2019 Department of Government Development Studies C (Bachelor Thesis) Supervisor: Hans Blomkvist Word count: 11 594 Pages: 36

Table of contents 1. Introduction...... 4 1.1 Aim and research question ...... 4 1.2 Disposition ...... 5 2. Theoretical scope and previous research ...... 6 2.1 ...... 6 2.2 Literature review...... 7 2.3 The gift of disaster aid: Giving, receiving and reciprocating...... 10 3. Methodology and Research design ...... 12 3.1 Qualitative reanalysis ...... 12 3.2 Selection of articles ...... 12 3.3 Articles ...... 14 3.3.1 Aceh thanks the world ’The possibilities of the gift in a post-disaster society’ ...... 14 3.3.2 Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange ...... 14 3.3.3 Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post-tsunami Sri Lanka ...... 14 3.4 Analytical questions...... 15 3.5 Reliability ...... 15 4. Results and reanalysis of the articles ...... 16 4.1 Aceh thanks the world’ The possibilities of the gift in a post-disaster society’ ...... 16 4.1.1 The obligation to Give ...... 16 4.1.2 The obligation to Receive...... 17 4.1.3 The obligation to Reciprocate ...... 18 4.2 Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange ...... 19 4.2.1 The obligation to Give ...... 19 4.2.2 The obligation to Receive...... 21 4.2.3 The obligation to Reciprocate ...... 22 4.3 Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post-tsunami Sri Lanka ...... 24 4.3.1 The obligation to Give ...... 24 4.3.2 The obligation to Receive...... 25 4.3.3 The obligation to Reciprocate ...... 26 5. Conclusion...... 29 5.1 Concluding discussion ...... 29 5.2 Contributions and further research ...... 31 References ...... 32 Appendix ...... 35

2 Abstract The impact of international aid is debated in the scholarly literature. One of the theoretical frameworks used to study aid is developed in The Gift [1925] by . However, overall there is a lack of knowledge concerning the understanding of Mauss, and how it can be connected to the distribution of aid. Thus, this thesis takes its theoretical departure from Mauss’s gift exchange, and the obligation to give, receive and reciprocate to study how articles examine post-tsunami aid through the theory developed in The Gift by Mauss. The study is a qualitative reanalysis of three articles, which is structured by a series of analytical questions based on a broader reading of Mauss, previous research and the gift of disaster aid. The qualitative reanalysis finds that Mauss’ obligations to give, receive and reciprocate and the social bonds that these forms were discussed differently, and to a greater or lesser extent. This study brings The Gift by Mauss into light to the discussion of disaster aid, and thus highlighting new potential research for future studies.

Keywords: Mauss, gift exchange, disaster aid, reanalysis

3 1. Introduction

The impact of international aid has been discussed in research throughout the years by different scholars. The Indian Ocean Tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 killed over 200 000 people and damaged livelihoods and homes of over 1 million people around the Indian Ocean, from western Indonesia and southern Thailand to coastal Sri Lanka, southeastern India, and the Maldives (Karan 2011, p.1). It triggered what probably can be seen as the largest wave of humanitarian aid in modern history and therefore also been studied thoroughly. One of the theoretical approaches used is developed in The Gift by Marcel Mauss

[1925].1

Marcel Mauss, 1872-1950, was originally trained as a philosopher and spent his professional life as a researcher. His best-known work is The Gift from 1925, which analyzed the forms of obligation inherent in primitive and modern system of exchange, and emphasized the role of exchange in producing social relations (Calhoun 2002). In this process, Mauss concludes that gift-giving has to be seen in a context of systems of exchange that involves the obligations to give, receive and reciprocate. Moreover, Mauss did not argue that the gift exchange was only legitimate in archaic societies (Mauss 1997).

After the work of Mauss, researchers in development studies, and especially in , have studied gift exchange in modern societies. Hence, the gift exchange perspective has also been used to study how aid is given, received and reciprocated (Korf 2007, Korf et al 2010, Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, Samuels 2013 and Swamy 2017). Using the theoretical framework developed in The Gift by Mauss, this thesis aims to analyze how the gift perspective has been adopted by different researchers while studying disaster aid following the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004.

1.1 Aim and research question

It is important to acknowledge how international aid is debated in the scholarly literature. The theoretical framework developed in The Gift (1997:2002) by Marcel Mauss has been an instrument to analyze exchanges of aid that involve the obligations to give, receive and

1 The Gift by Marcel Mauss was written in 1925, however, the books used in this thesis were translated 1997 – in Swedish, 2002 – in English

4 reciprocate. However, it may be well known by some scholars, but overall there is lack of knowledge concerning the gift of aid. As a result, it is necessary to investigate how the gift exchange is applied in analyses of aid.

The aim of this study is to examine how Mauss’ perspective on gift-exchange can be applied when studying aid. Given that the gift perspective has been used before, this thesis will make a reanalysis of researchers’ analyses of the gift of aid. One event that has been discussed a great deal in the scholarly debate about international aid is the reconstruction process in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004. Some scholars have used the gift perspective to analyze how aid is given, received and reciprocated after this event. Therefore, this thesis seeks to answer the research question:

How have scholars adopted the gift perspective when studying disaster aid after the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004?

1.2 Disposition

Following this introduction, this thesis takes its theoretical departure from The Gift by Mauss, and presenting previous research of The Gift in international theory, and particularly the gift of aid. After this, the gift of disaster aid concerning the obligations to give, receive and reciprocate will be presented. The research’s design, methodology, and the three articles will then be displayed, with a description of how the articles will be approached with analytical questions. Further, the results and analysis of articles will be discussed and the research question answered. Lastly, a concluding discussion will be held, with suggestions for future research.

5 2. Theoretical scope and previous research

This chapter aims to describe the theoretical framework used in this thesis. The gift theory by Mauss (1997; 2002), together with the literature review creates the final theoretical framework, the gift of disaster aid, that will be used in the qualitative reanalyzes of the articles.

2.1 The Gift

In order to answer the research question, how have scholars adopted the gift perspective when studying disaster aid after the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004?, the study will departure from the theoretical framework presented in The Gift by Marcel Mauss. The essence of Mauss’s (1925) The Gift is that the act of giving creates the system of society. Mauss believes that the purpose of gift exchange between members in society is not much the redistribution of resources but rather the creation and maintenance of relationships. In the foreword by Douglas, she states that the whole society can be described by transfers that map the obligations of gift exchange between its members (Douglas 2002, p.xi).

The Gift by Mauss starts off describing the North American as an extreme form of an institution. The potlatch is perhaps the best known and most powerful example of Mauss’ analysis of the gift. By giving away, ostensibly without expectation of return, or even by destroying large amounts of highly valuable objects, North American chiefs, as representatives of wider social groups, accumulated symbolic capital (Mauss 1997, p.59). Mauss presents the Potlatch as an example of ‘a total system of giving’. As Douglas puts it “read it too fast and you miss the meaning” (Douglas 2002, p.xi). When reading it carefully one can understand it means that each gift is part of ‘system of total services’ as they include a wide range of meanings and therefore have to be seen as religious, economic, political, and social all at once, both creating and transforming social relations (Mauss 1997, p.16; Mauss 2002, p.101). Therefore, a gift cannot be understood only by studying an object nor only through social relationships and human psychology (Eriksson 1997, p.9). Instead, Mauss used ethnographic and historical materials to conclude that gift-giving has to be seen in a context of systems of exchange that involves the obligation to give, receive and reciprocate.

6 First of all, which sums into the three obligations, is that the gifts, that in theory are voluntary, spontaneous and selfless, are in fact forced and largely selfish (Mauss 1997, p.17) The three elements of the gift; giving, receiving and reciprocating, contribute to the system of total services in following ways. Giving creates and recreates social bonds between the members of the system of exchange. Also, by giving one shows the status and ranking of oneself (Mauss 2002, p.95) and recognition in all contexts is established through the act of giving (Mauss 1997, p.59). Refusing the gift would not only mean not accepting the gift but also not accepting the social relationship. Mauss states that for a clan, a household, a group of people or a guest, has no option but to receive a gift to maintain a relation (Mauss 2002, p.17). Further, he states that not accepting the gift means being afraid of not being able to repay (Mauss 1997, p.59). Finally, reciprocating as to demonstrate in return one’s honor, and standing. That does not mean that the reciprocated gift needs to be of the same sort as the received gift, however, it needs to be valued the same. Mauss explains, when describing the Trobrianders, that to receive without reciprocating is to accept being submissive in the relation (Mauss 1997, p.99).

2.2 Literature review

Kowalski (2010, p.189) states that there is a misunderstanding that gift exchange is only relevant in archaic societies. In the introduction by Mauss, it is written that gift exchange “[…] still function in our societies, in unchanging fashion, and, so to speak, hidden, below the surface […]” (Mauss 2002, p.5). For example, the basic elements of potlatch could be found in Polynesia even if the complete institutions were not there (Mauss 1997, p.33). With this argument of comparison, other researchers have looked at international political theory, foreign aid and disaster aid from a gift perspective.

To better understand the theory developed in The Gift by Mauss, Kowalski (2011) made systematic ways to look upon it. The gift expects nothing in return, however, there is reciprocation in any gift system. That is what Mauss observed to his great astonishment and that has been studied at the core of the gift since. Therefore, either the gift is not disinterested or it does not exist (Kowalski 2011, p.190). Kowalski also explains that Mauss emphasized that what is given is the symbolic nature of the relationship it fosters (Kowalski 2011, p.191). Although we associate the gift-giving with exchanges between members of an extended family, it significance in its support for social interaction between strangers. Kowalski states

7 that it cannot be emphasized too strongly that the self-interest in the gift is not what is given in return, but in the relationship that is opened up (ibid.) Finally, he argues that the gift system is formed by a triple obligation. The obligation to give, return a gift and receive. He presents the interaction as leading to one of three outcomes, refusal, incapacity to respond or a counter gift. In this way, a gift although freely given represents a challenge to the recipient that must involve a response, including the possible absence of a counter gift which will define the relationship between them from then on (Kowalski 2011, p.191).

Heins, Unrau, and Avram (2018, p.128) state that to make use of Mauss insights for international political theory, it needs to be shown that his theory can be transferred into other contexts. First, they argue that it needs to be transferred from archaic to modern societies. Secondly, from intergroup to international relations. They claim that practices of gift exchanges are universal and constitutive of social life. Therefore, they argue that the concept of the gift is useful both for exploring underappreciated aspects of the reality of world politics and for rethinking fundamental categories of international theory (Heins, Unrau and Avram 2018, p.137-138). They claim that Mauss recognized the gift exchange bringing about cooperation across tribal, national, and cultural divides. Further, that Mauss does not start from the premise that reciprocity only works among like-units such as sovereign states, rather that he encourages us to look at forms of exchange that trigger cycles of repeated interaction without being based on formal equality or symmetry (Heins, Unrau and Avram 2018, p.138).

Stirrat and Henkel (1997) drew on Mauss’ The Gift by examining the relationship between Western development non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their Southern counterparts. They argue, as Mauss, that what starts off as a seemingly free gift is transformed into a conditional gift when it reaches the recipients (Stirrat and Henkel 1997, p.77). Despite that Stirrat and Henkel state that the gift exchange is a one-way flow of goods, they also argue that in practice symbolic forms of reciprocity tie together the Northern donors and the Southern receivers (Stirrat and Henkel 1997, p.66). Robbins (2009) claims Mauss showed how reciprocity is fundamental to social life, and that recognition is closely tied to it. Both reciprocity and recognition have a similar three-part rhythm. Firstly, something, meaning the gift of recognition, must be given to others. Secondly, it must be received by others, who acknowledge their worthiness as subjects. And lastly, it must be matched by a return from others, who thereby recognize the worthiness of the giver as a subject (Robbins 2009, p.46). Through reciprocity and recognition, subject and social life as such, come into

8 being (Robbins 2009, p.56). Derrida (1992) argues that gratitude can be seen as a form of reciprocity. Recognition of the gift brings gratitude to it. Therefore, he argues that once a gift is recognized as a gift by the receiver, it can never be a ‘pure’ and disinterested gift.

Further, Stirrat and Henkel argue that while arguably a gift is given to attempt to change the differences between the rich giver and the poor receiver, a gift in practice reinforces or even reinvents these differences (Stirrat and Henkel 1997, p.69). Stirrat and Henkel conclude their article by arguing that the logic of the development gift is to set of relationships between different entities, the relationships in part defining those entities and at the same time being defined by them (Stirrat and Henkel 1997, p.80). Kowalski arrives at a similar conclusion when arguing that one needs to look at the desires of donors to recognize their power and status in the hierarchy (Kowalski 2011, p.199).

When discussing disaster aid, Kowalski states that the most dangerous gifts are those in response to a critical need. In the face of disaster, he claims, humanity demands that we respond. However, the response to these kinds of gifts can lead to difficulties for the recipients. He suggests, regarding the importance of reciprocity, that it is important to build aid system opportunities to contribute, according to one’s means, because “only a god can receive without ever having to reciprocate” (Kowalski 2011, p.201).

Korf (2007), while looking at tsunami aid after the Indian Ocean Tsunami on Boxing Day 2004, argues that there is a link between the great amount of generosity and the practices of aid. The practices of gift-giving of aid can develop a humiliating force for the people at the recipient end of the gift chain as Western aid organizations and donors marked their gifts as “pure” to the passive victims of the tsunami. Even though most people see this as a “pure” form of generosity towards suffering others, the gifts in forms of aid are partly driven by Western self-interest and also express symbolic and material domination. His argument is based on that victims, the suffering others, can give something in return, the acknowledgment of generosity through gratitude. Through these practices, the gift relation in post-tsunami aid reproduces symbolically the economic, political and maybe even the moral domination of the West. Symbolic domination, Korf argues, is constructed through the false claim of the West’s unconditional generosity towards the distant suffers, which is not unconditional at all as foreign aid organizations and donors expect gratefulness in return (Korf 2007, p.368).

9 2.3 The gift of disaster aid: Giving, receiving and reciprocating

I argue that one can connect Mauss The Gift with aid in the following ways. By looking at the three elements of giving, receiving and reciprocating, one can find interconnection between the gift exchange in archaic societies (Mauss 1997; 2002) and aid as a tsunami gift (Korf; Kowaski; Stirrat and Henkel; Heins, Unrau and, Avram; Robbins; Derrida). Accordingly, gift exchange in post-tsunami aid includes both the creation of recognition of status within society and the relationship between the givers and receivers.

The obligation to give was the essence of Potlatch according to Mauss (1997; 2002). By giving away, officially, without expectation of return, North American chiefs, as representatives of wider social groups, expanded their symbolic capital. Mauss further stated that the distribution of goods is the fundamental act that gives recognition in all contexts (Mauss 1997, p.59). Giving shows status and prestige (Mauss 2002, p.95). This arguably means the same in the gift exchange of aid, aid givers give to receive status and prestige. Honor, prestige or recognition is the basis of symbolic capital and serves as the value that one holds within a (Bourdieu 1984). As Korf (2006) states, foreign aid expresses symbolic as well as material domination, and further, it is partly driven by Western self-interest. A classical or neoclassical realist would also argue that accumulating prestige and recognition for its action benefits a state’s position in the anarchical world system and one gains the opportunity to exert its own interest (Donelly 2009).

One of the main points of Mauss (1997; 2002) is that by giving social relations are formed and reformed. Giving aid can mean establishing a social bond with the recipients, both locally and nationally. Strategi för Sveriges humanitära bistånd genom Styrelsen för internationellt utvecklingsamarbete acknowledges the importance of a relationship between the donor and the aid recipients, between international and local actors and humanitarian actors and crisis- affected populations (UD 2017, p.2). As Mauss states, gifts are part of ‘system of total services’ and embody a wide range of meanings and have to be seen not only economically but religious, political and social all at once, both creating and transforming social relations (Mauss 1997, p.16; Mauss 2002, p.101).

10 Following on the relationship between the giver and receiver, receiving is a great part of it. By accepting the gift one accepts the relation that is being formed (Mauss 1997, p.59), whether social interaction is between family or strangers (Kowalski 2011, p.191). Refusing to receive a gift, is to show fear of not being able to repay (Mauss 1997, p.59). In a discussion of the gift chain, Korf shows that aid recipients felt forced into passivity as the focus was on the Western donors’ generosity. As Mauss explained when describing the Trobrianders, to accept a gift without reciprocating is to accept the dependency relation, and to be submissive in this (Mauss 1997, p.95). Importantly, Korf argues that we do not find direct, bodily, encounters with those who give the gift and those who receive it, but the relationship can be mediated through aid brokers (Korf 2007, p.369). This leads us to reciprocity.

The last obligation is to reciprocate, and it is the most difficult to argue has linkage to the giver and recipient relation in aid. Especially since most NGO workers leave after a while, leaving the recipient of aid not able to reciprocate as one might believe one has to. Kowalski (2011, p.191) states that the gift given needs to has a response, even the absence of a counter gift, as this will define the relationship between them from now on. Korf (2007, p.369) argues, as mentioned above, that the bodily encounter between aid givers and receiver is through aid brokers. At the same time, Korf concludes that tsunami victims can give something in return, the acknowledgment of the generosity through gratitude. Derrida (1992) also argues that gratitude can be seen as a form of reciprocity. Recipients of aid can, therefore, show gratitude to the NGO workers, making the relation gain value and also demonstrate the givers standing. Robbins (2009) also writes about reciprocity. He argued that Mauss’ theory of reciprocity can be understood through the three-part structure of recognition. Someone recognizes another person, the other acknowledges the recognition, and then recognizes the first person in turn. Recognition is fundamental to social life, just as reciprocity is. He states that through reciprocity and recognition, subject and social life come into being (Robbins 2009, p.56).

Gift exchange is about renewing social relations, including those that are founded on disparities of power (Mauss 1997), for instance between donors and aid recipients. As Stirrat and Henkel argue, while the gift of aid arguably is given to change the differences between the rich giver and the poor receiver, aid in practice could reinforce or reinvent these differences (Stirrat and Henkel 1997, p.69).

11 3. Methodology and Research design

The following section will present the method, design, selection of articles and analytical questions. As been shown in the theory section, this study builds on a solid theoretical base and attached itself to a field of research. The strength of the study’s validity should be assessed in terms of how appropriate the chosen strategies are to answer the research question at the end of the thesis.

3.1 Qualitative reanalysis

A qualitative reanalysis is considered to be the most fruitful method to answer the research question of this study. A qualitative text analysis aims to present the essential context through careful reading of a text, part by part, as a whole and the context in which they are included (Esaiasson et al. 2017, p.212). In this thesis, I will analyze articles with data that the authors already have collected and analyzed. Therefore, not analyze only the text made by the authors but also their analyses. Furthermore, this thesis will also critically review the analyses in order to examine the extent to which they have adopted the gift perspective developed by Mauss. Researcher in development studies has much to learn from each other, and therefore the choice of qualitative reanalysis is a preferred choice of method for the given research question. As Camfield and Palmer-Jones argue, “the potential of revisits and reanalysis to provide both new insights into the original and the related topics and as a means of confirming the quality of data production and interpretations.“ (Camfield and Palmer-Jones 2014, p.334).

Previous research and the theoretical framework are of importance, as well the operationalization of the obligations of giving, receiving and reciprocating. The analytical questions are the instrument to study the adaptation of Mauss’. These questions will be presented under the heading of 3.5.

3.2 Selection of articles

Because this thesis purpose is to study how authors have adopted the gift perspective, the selection of articles is important. The selection is based on three criteria: discussion of the gift perspective, international aid and that it was written after the reconstruction process of the

12 Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004. These criteria are used to prevent other factors to intervene in the analysis made by the authors, making it accessible for reanalysis.

In finding the articles to analyze, the search words on Uppsala University Library search engine were “Indian Ocean Tsunami”, “Mauss” and “Aid”. Starting off looking at the five first articles2, I found that the first one did not include collecting data through fieldwork, and it was therefore not included in my thesis. However, it is used in the theoretical framework. The reason for not including articles without fieldwork is based on the notion that researchers that have carried out fieldwork are more likely to get a deeper understanding of a particular situation, place or people (Gambold 2010). As the methodology utilized in this thesis is a qualitative reanalysis, fieldwork with detailed descriptions of the collected data is needed.

The remaining four articles had done fieldwork, discussed international aid, acknowledged the gift perspective by Mauss and were written about the reconstruction process after the Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004. However, I have chosen to not include the article The gift of disaster: the of good intentions in post-tsunami Sri Lanka by Korf, Habullah, Hollenbach and Klem (2010), because one of the authors, Benedikt Korf, is the author of Antinomies of generosity (2007) which was accounted for in the literature review and is a cornerstone of the theoretical framework in the analysis of the other articles. Given that Korf’s article is a part of the theoretical framework, it is not appropriate to include the article The gift of disaster: the commodification of good intentions in post-tsunami Sri Lanka in the sample for my analysis. However, being aware of the analytical benefits of including more articles, this study is limited to three articles due to temporal and spatial limitations.

The chosen articles are Aceh thanks the world: The possibilities of the gift in post-disaster society by Samuels (2013), Humanitarians and Unequal Exchange by Swamy (2017) and Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post-tsunami Sri Lanka by Holgersson Ivarsson (2015). These will be presented in the section of articles.

2 See list of articles on Uppsala University Library in Appendix

13 3.3 Articles

3.3.1 Aceh thanks the world ’The possibilities of the gift in a post-disaster society’

‘Aceh thanks the world’ The possibilities of the gift in a post-disaster society’ was written in 2013 by Annemarie Samuels. Samuels is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. She has carried out thirteen months of ethnographic fieldwork in Aceh, Indonesia, focusing on the remarking of everyday life after the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 (Samuels 2013, p.8). She argues that that tsunami survivors actively glossed in aid from international agencies as a gift to foster the possibility of long-term relations. Which according to Samuels (2013), opened up in the process of gift-giving. As the article is short, I will also analyze Samuels chapter Remarking Neighbourhoods in Banda Aceh: Post- Tsunami Reconstruction of Everyday Life in the book Post-Disaster Reconstruction: Lessons from Aceh (2015) to get a bigger picture of Samuels’ views.

3.3.2 Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange

Raja Swamy is an anthropologist at the University of Tennessee, who conducted ethnographic research between 2007 and 2008 in the region of Nagapattinam, in Tamil Nadu State, India. He also did income/expenditure surveys among four relocated communities and a coastal beach-use survey across forty coastal fisher villages spread across Nagapattinam and Karaikal districts done as well (Swamy 2017, p.354) His article Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange from 2017 will be analyzed, where he uses the gift exchange model to examine the relationship between humanitarianism and unequal exchange after the Indian Ocean Tsunami in Nagapattinam district in Tamil Nadu State, India.

3.3.3 Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post-tsunami Sri Lanka

Carolina Holgersson Ivarsson3 wrote the article Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post-tsunami Sri Lanka in 2015, focusing on the gift of aid and its impact on the local moral economy in Sri Lankan village, Tharugama, after the tsunami in 2004. She discussed the various ways that “gift of aid” was understood and valued by donors, brokers, and recipients. The article is based on two months of ethnographic data collection in 2005

3 Carolina Holgersson Ivarsson is cited differently in articles, ( Holgersson), (Ivarsson), (Ivarsson Holgersson), (Holgersson Ivarsson). This thesis will use (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015).

14 and ten months in 2004 (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.244). It is based on her dissertation which she completed in at the School of Global Studies at the University of Gothenburg, with the focus on post-disaster recovery and how disaster aid influence local, social and moral configurations.

3.4 Analytical questions

The obligation to give - What was given in terms of aid? - To whom was aid given? - Why have the aid organizations been giving according to the authors?

The obligation to receive - According to the authors, what have been received in terms of aid? - What has been observed in the articles as the obligation to receive aid? - Did the receivers accept the gift and why/why not?

The obligation to reciprocate - What was the response to the gift of aid? - Was something reciprocated according to the author? - In case the authors considered that something was reciprocated, what was the counter gift?

What kind of social bond was established through the gift exchange of aid?

3.5 Reliability For a qualitative study, transparency in how the results and analyzed are made is crucial. While perfect replicability is difficult for qualitative studies of this type, transparency in how the study has been conducted can hopefully ensure that there would be no significant differences in results if the study was to be replicated. As a result, analytical questions are used to recognize what will be analyzed in the articles.

15 4. Results and reanalysis of the articles

The reanalysis is structured as followed, the three articles are discussed and analyzed separately on the obligations to give, receive and reciprocate, concerning Mauss, the theoretical framework of the gift of disaster aid and the literature review.

4.1 Aceh thanks the world’ The possibilities of the gift in a post-disaster society’

4.1.1 The obligation to Give

Samuels (2013, p.8) states that after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004 a large number of international aid organizations came to Aceh, Indonesia. It was a reconstruction operation with money donated by governments, civil society organizations, private actors and individuals around the world. The focus was on the urban environment and as the coastal neighborhoods had been swept away by tsunami waves, aid organizations focused on building houses to the people affected. Government buildings were also rebuilt and roads were improved (Samuels 2010, p.210) Further, material supports such as garbage bins, tarpaulins, and cooking utensils were also given by aid organizations to the recipients of aid. Samuels does not comment on why organizations give in her article although she states that the gift in the reconstruction process in Aceh was never a pure, disinterested gift (Samuels 2013,p.8)

Although Samuels does not comment on why aid organizations give, we can look into the fact that aid organizations ‘branded’ themselves while reconstructing. When giving, aid organizations put their logos on all distributed products. They also put up signs with their logos where they had reconstruction projects (Samuels 2013, p.8). Some neighborhoods were even referred to their donors, such as “the Turkish houses” and “the Buddha Tzu Chi neighbourhood”. This indicates what Mauss acknowledges is the essence of Potlatch, the obligation to give for gaining symbolic capital (Mauss 1997, p.59). ‘Branding’ their products and houses, is an argument to show off what one has been given. Korf (2007) also argues that giving is to show domination. The act of giving houses and material supplies is not a free act of ‘goodwill’, the donors indeed wanted to be seen and acknowledged by their generosity (Korf 2007, p. 367-368).

16 4.1.2 The obligation to Receive

Tsunami survivors received houses and material support by aid organizations. This reconstruction process had problems that came to characterize the process, such as lack of coordination, competition between aid agencies and poor quality aid. However, Samuels writes that most tsunami victims welcomed aid from international organizations. Her argument is based on the recent history of Aceh, as the region had a scene of conflict between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian army for almost thirty years leading to people in Aceh distrusting the government in the reconstruction process after the tsunami and welcoming international aid. Not everyone in Aceh holds a favorable opinion of the foreign post-tsunami aid, some were worried about the influence of “Western” values and these views increased in 2009 when most international organizations left Aceh to move to other disaster-struck areas (Samuels 2013, p.10). However, Samuels’ focus is on the many tsunami survivors that actively framed their aid relation with international organizations as a gift, while framed aid given by the government as one of citizens entitlement (Samuels 2013, p.9).

The focus of Samuels, aid recipients being part of the gift exchange, is based on the following arguments that also can be connected to the theoretical framework of the gift of disaster aid. First of all, the tsunami was followed by ceasefires and pressure from the international donors of relief and reconstruction aid, which persuaded the Indonesian government and GAM to implement a peace agreement later in 2005 (UCDP 2018). International organizations were let into Aceh, and according to Samuels, people of Aceh felt as they were now seen by the international community (Samuels 2013, p.8). As a result, Samuels argues that people in Aceh accepted aid, and therefore accepted the organized ‘hand over’ ceremonies. In which tsunami victims were expected to publicly accept their keys to their houses and thank the organization that built them (Samuels 2013, p.8). This is related to Robbins (2009) thoughts about recognition; someone recognizes another person, in this case, the aid organization recognizes that tsunami victims critically need houses. The others acknowledge the recognition, the tsunami victims recognize the act of giving. For example, on numerous occasions during Samuels fieldwork people said things like “if it were not for the NGOs we would still be in tents” (Samuels 2013, p.10). Last but not least, the others recognize the first person, the tsunami victims then recognized the tsunami aid given, in the ‘hand over’ ceremonies for example.

17 Samuels argues that most tsunami victims were grateful for the recognition they received. The argument can go further and state that recipients of aid showed gratitude. In that way, I argue what the tsunami victims received was not only material needs but also the recognition of Aceh, and its people. As Kowalski (2011, p.191) states what is given is the symbolic nature of the relationship it fosters. I argue that Samuels would agree with this reanalysis, as she acknowledges the acceptance of aid as she notes “disaster survivors can take an active position in framing the gift, making the gift-commodity do what a pure indeed could never do, that is, be the medium for imagining a place-in-the-world through establishing relation” (Samuels 2013, p.11).

4.1.3 The obligation to Reciprocate

As stated above, many tsunami survivors in Aceh felt after decades of conflict, of having been closed off from the world, Aceh was finally seen by the international community. Countries are thanked with separate plaques along the sports field in Aceh. According to Samuels (2013, p.8), although the Indonesian government built the memorial without civil society consultation, the plaques seemed to echo a ‘thank-the-world’. Expression of gratitude was their way to reciprocate the gift of aid as they longed for recognition and hoped that a gift exchange with the international community could bring socio-economic relations (Samuels 2013, p.11).

Samuels aimed attention to the reciprocating part of the gift exchange of aid. She has to come to understand that these expressions of gratitude as an active attempt to build a relationship based on recognition. Samuels acknowledges Mauss’ statement that reciprocity is fundamental to social life (Mauss 1997) and further connects this to Robbins (2009) and his view of recognition and reciprocity. Applying these insights to post-tsunami aid in Aceh, Samuels observes that describing international aid as a gift may also imply a recognition that one can give in return, as gratitude. Gratitude, which Samuels also connects with Derrida (1992). The tsunami survivors in Aceh regarded the gift of aid in terms of recognition, and thus recognition in the form of gratitude seemed to create the opportunity to build long-term reciprocal relationships with the ‘world’. Samuels argues that people in Aceh turned what could be a poisoning, unreciprocated, relationship, into a possibility of a relationship built on mutual recognition. As Kowalski (2011, p.191) argues, the response to the gift will define the relationship between them from now on.

18 However, one can challenge this argument of the gift exchange relation by opposing to the part of the gratitude to ‘the world’. Can a gift exchange be upheld when donors give to tsunami victims and the tsunami victims reciprocate by thanking the world? Mauss (1997, p.99) states that the obligation is to reciprocate a gift that is worthy of the gift that one has received by another. By not reciprocating to the actual giver it leaves the gifts’ worthiness for everyone in the sphere. However, since most NGOs leave after a while to other disaster- struck areas, it leaves the recipients of aid not able to return a bodily counter gift. Mauss himself states that the reciprocated gift does not need to be the same, and Korf (2007, p.368) argues it is difficult to find bodily encounters in the reciprocal end of the gift of aid chain. Accordingly, a social bond can still be formed and the gift exchange will go on if the NGO does get both recognition and status from giving, and the recipients of aid will be recognized as well. In other words, the reciprocating will not be a material counter gift but rather a symbolic one.

4.2 Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange

4.2.1 The obligation to Give

In Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu State, India, NGOs were engaged in the reconstruction process after the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004. They were charged with building houses for communities, but on lands that were identified by the state (Swamy 2017, p.355) Further, they distributed boats to the artisanal fishers. According to Swamy (2017, p.359), the gift of aid was given mostly to the fisher recipients. However, Swamy also acknowledges that NGOs obtained themselves from advocating on behalf of their recipients on the issue of the location of houses and in the manner in which boats were handled in artisanal fishing. Instead, he states that NGOs were focused on meeting deadlines and providing evidence of deliveries to the Indian state and to their donors (Swamy 2017, p.355). Aid was closely linked with the ‘economic development’ agendas of the state, such as multilaterally financed expansions of parts, dredging of new harbors for mechanized boats and the reconstruction of bridges to serve the seafood industry (Swamy 2017, p.359-360).

It is questionable to argue that the recipient of aid was the artisanal fishers. Rather, I would argue, when analyzing this article, that the recipient was the state of India. Especially since the state government’s framework for housing construction strongly favored the mass relocation of entire villages, which was what happened in Nagapattinam. Government orders

19 issued in early 2005, called for NGOs to enter into “public-private partnership” with the purpose to build housing complexes on inland sites identified by the government. This was one of the reasons for NGOs to build housing complexes. This “public-private partnership” can indicate that by giving social relations are being formed, not a relationship between the NGOs and the fishers but between the NGOs and the state. One of the main points of Mauss is that giving creates the social bond between the members of the system of exchange (Mauss 2002, p.95). As the housing complexes were built mostly due to the government orders it is an argument for the relationship between NGOs and the state. Also, with the sentence in the article “the key goal of the humanitarian gift of housing was to help facilitate the transfer of coastal land from the hands of artisanal fishers to the state.” (Swamy 2017, p.367). It is questionable if the reason for giving was to create a relationship with the state and not the fishers.

Another reason to build housing complexes was that it was easier logistically for NGOs to undertake constructions of rows of houses on a single site instead of individual houses in situ. Also, as many NGOs had little to no prior experience of housing construction and their lack of social ties, it was easier to employ local contractors who tended to favor large clusters over individual houses (Swamy 2017, p.365-366).

Swamy further argues that the houses became objects of goodwill, given selflessly by well- meaning outsiders who expected nothing in return (Swamy 2017, p.359). His argument that the house would be given selflessly does not hold, as he states himself why NGOs gave aid. Moreover, Swamy brings up how the giver of aid obtains values of the act of giving, via the representation that the giver gets from giving. The circulation of such representation then facilitates the continuation of funding flows for example (Swamy 2017, p.359). One of the examples in Swamy’s article is that NGOs gave thousands of small Fiber Reinforced Plastic boats to the fisher communities. This generosity was shown as a sign of NGO success, indicating the act of giving for prestige (Mauss 2002, p.95), however not always meant positive outcomes in the recipient ends (Kowalski 2011, p.191; p.201). Mauss states, by giving one shows status and one receives recognition in all contexts through the act of giving (Mauss 2002, p.95; Mauss 1997, p.59). Korf also argues that foreign aid is partly driven by the expression of symbolic domination (Korf 2007, p. 368). Therefore, the gifts, that in theory are voluntary, spontaneous and selfless, are in fact forced and largely selfish (Mauss 1997, p.17)

20

Swamy (2017, p.359-360) acknowledges the World Bank effect in the reconstruction process. The World Bank characterized the value of the production of the numerically dominant artisanal fisher communities as insignificant in the economy of the Indian state. In contrast, the World Bank valued commercial export-driven fishers or shrimp farms as being integrated into the economy and therefore deserved to be revered as a matter of economic recovery. Thus, the World Bank stated that the 1950s bridge, which was essential for artisanal fishing, needed to be demolished to make away for a bigger, more modern, harbor. With the bridge gone, those fishers who wanted to stay in their coastal homes despite the tsunami had to reconsider inland relocation. Swamy (2017, p.359-360) argues that aid was closely linked to economic development and as the World Bank and NGOs have had collaborations before, with both benefits and challenges (Malena 1995), it makes up for the argument that the recipients of aid may not be the artisanal fishers but the state of India and giving was for aid organizations’ own interest.

4.2.2 The obligation to Receive

Swamy (2017) argues that the recipients of aid are the affected communities, especially the artisanal fishers. Although one can argue that the government rather was involved in the gift exchange, this section will follow as Swamy has argued. The NGOs gave houses and boats to the tsunami survivors, and there are ways in which aid imposes itself as an obligation on recipients of disasters of aid (Swamy 2017, p.359). Even though most people had no other choice than to accept the terms of the gift, some did not accept it due to the counter gift that they needed to reciprocate when accepting.

The tsunami had serious outcomes for the coastal communities, their houses destroyed and livelihoods demolished (Karan 2011, p.21). Swamy explains that NGOs in the reconstruction process built housing inland on the state’s request. To accept the gift of housing also meant accepting the location, the quality and dimensions of housing and the critical condition that accepting the gift of new houses signaled the formal abandonment of all claims to coastal homelands. This meant also abandoning locational advantages, access to coastal resources and access to the nearshore fishery which basically what these communities lived on (Swamy 2017, p.358-359). As mentioned in the section “Obligation to Give”, the 1950s bridge was the link for many fishers to their livelihood; access to markets, education, health, and governmental services in Nagapattinam (Swamy 2017, p.360). When the bridge was gone,

21 fishers needed to reconsider inland relocation which meant the NGO-built housing complexes. Once accepting the new housing, the fishers legally needed to abandon their coastal homes (Swamy 2019, p.361). This is what leads to the argument of Swamy, that there are ways in which aid imposes itself as an obligation (Swamy 2017, p.359). As aid recipients are in a vulnerable position it was not an option to not accept the gift of housing. However, accepting this gift of housing meant a permanent cost of trying to survive and sustain artisanal fishing livelihoods while living in far away, structurally problematic houses (Swamy 2017, p.361). One of Mauss’ (1997; 2002) main points is that gift exchange is about renewing social bonds, even those founded on disparities of power, which Swamy (2017) acknowledges. Even if aid, such as houses and boats were given to change the differences between the rich giver and the poor receiver, a gift can in practice reinforces these differences (Stirrat and Henkel 1997, p.69).

At the same time, when the choice became to deciding between ‘legality’ via relocation and a return to the quasi-legal status of encroaches, some artisanal fishers still preferred the later leading to the refusal of the gift of housing (Swamy 2017, p.361). Although Swamy does not discuss this refusal of the gift, it is still of importance when using the theory developed in The Gift (1997;2002) as one of Mauss’ main points is the obligation to receive. Mauss argued that one cannot refuse to receive a gift because to do that is to refuse the social bond being established and maintained by the gift (Mauss 1997, p.59; Mauss 2002, p.17). Accordingly, the artisanal fishers who chosen to return to the quasi-legal status of encroaches and not accept the housing from NGOs did refuse the gift and therefore also refused the social bond that could be formed in this gift exchange.

4.2.3 The obligation to Reciprocate

According to Swamy, the gift was given by the NGOs to the coastal communities, but as many of the NGOs simply left the field after their housing project, recipients were not bound to return a counter gift to their benefactors (Swamy 2017, p.359). The main argument of Swamy is therefore that the reciprocating part of the gift chain was towards the state. They had to accept the terms of governing the gift, and also abandon all claims to coastal lands. This transfer of housing included locational access to various coastal resources and most importantly, access to the nearshore fishery (Swamy 2017, p.359).

22 The government explicitly tied the ability for new housing to the formal abandonment of all claims to the coast including previous habitations. This criterion was inserted into the legal titles to recipients of new houses, alongside a host of other restrictive conditions that proscribed the use of new houses as security for loans, rental properties or assets (Swamy 2017, p.366). For those who accepted new houses and were unable to return to reclaim coastal lands, the gift of housing became a permanent counter gift to the state (Swamy 2017, p.366-368). As Kowalski (2011, p.191) argues, it cannot be emphasized enough that the self- interest in a gift is not what is given in return, but the relationship that is opened up. The counter gift will define the relationship between them from then on. Swamy states himself, “Gift exchange is about renewing social relations, including those that are founded on the disparities of power, as far instance gift exchange between landlord and peasant “ (Swamy 2017, p.358). This relationship that Swamy argues is formed, is indeed the effect of the ‘poisonous’ gift of post-tsunami generosity which produces humiliating force upon the recipient of aid (Korf 2007, p. 367), where the artisanal fishers’ reciprocating led them to loose access to the nearshore fishery.

On the other hand, this also questions the argument that the gift exchange of aid truly was between NGOs and the affected artisanal fishers as the tsunami of 2004 presented an opportunity for the state to pursue a host of economic development priorities with the help from NGOs (Swamy 2017, p.355). The article by Swamy (2017) does not involve the three obligations; give, receive and reciprocate between the same partners. However, as Korf argues in post-tsunami gift-giving, we do not find a direct, bodily encounter with those who give the gift and those who receive it, but the relationship is mediated through aid brokers (Korf 2007, p.369). Gift relations involve more than individual agents, they involve aid brokers, global institutions and state authorities. It is between aid brokers, in this case, the state, when we can see the face-to-face encounters in the gift chain (Korf 2007, p.376).

23 4.3 Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post- tsunami Sri Lanka

4.3.1 The obligation to Give

A great number of foreign “tsunami organization” together with other organizations and agencies were included in the relief and reconstruction process in Tharagama, a small fishing village in Sri Lanka. The organizations built houses, distributed boats and supplied fishing equipment and other material support. The gift of aid was sought to be given to be the ones most affected by the Indian Ocean Tsunami, which meant poorer sections of the community, mainly fishers, who lived close to the sea, sometimes right on the sandy beaches. Holgersson Ivarsson does not discuss why NGOs give to the tsunami victims, although she mentions a few things that can be connected to recognition. One of them is to show results to those at home. (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.235-236). Another reason has to do with NGOs finding it convenient to organize support through temples, thus using monks as ‘brokers’ of the tsunami aid. Later also bringing monks to Europe show their reconstruction projects to the donors (Holgersson Ivarsson 2014, p.341-242).

In the process of relocation and resettlement, buffer zones were introduced by the Sri Lankan government. The new houses for those displaced from the buffer zones were of interest to NGOs and international donors since they gave a good opportunity to show results to those at home (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.236). The provision of boats and fishing equipment, as with houses, made it possible to show quick tangible results to the donors at home. As Mauss states the distribution of goods is the fundamental act that gives recognition in all contexts (Mauss 1997, p.59). Also to accumulate recognition for its action, to show results, benefit the organization’s position in the world system (Donnelly 2009).

Village monks became recipients of generous gifts through the means of aid. Many international NGOs found it convenient to organize support through temples. People after the tsunami fled to temples, and therefore the temples became relief camps. Buddhist monks played an important role in the village before the tsunami and several of these became ‘brokers’ of aid (Holgersson 2015, p.241-242). Some of the monks were brought to Europe to tell about reconstruction projects and to raise money to further work in connection with their temples, through this the aid given could arguably lead the organization to receive status and

24 prestige (Mauss 1997, p.59; Mauss 2002, p.95) The role of the monks, in both the receiving and reciprocity part of the exchange will be further discussed in the following headings of this analysis.

4.3.2 The obligation to Receive

Holgersson Ivarsson stated that her article will “examine local perceptions and consequences by foreign ‘tsunami organizations’ and private initiatives in the area” (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.235). People in Tharugama were exposed not only to the tsunami but also to the inflow of foreign people, influences and goods for the village. The gift of aid, houses, boats, fishing equipment, and material support led villagers to think ‘grab what you can” as aid was given unevenly (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.237-238). The huge amount of aid received undeniably helped repair a broken society, however, it also dissolved existing social and moral arrangements (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.243). Arguably, Holgersson Ivarsson’s main focus of the gift of aid is that of reformation and changing of local relations and norms rather than the relation between the giver and recipients of aid.

According to Holgersson Ivarsson, global compassion was materialized in gifts that became part of everyday interaction in the local lifeworld, but not so much with the giver-receiver relations (Holgersson 2015, p.243). Holgersson Ivarsson (2015, p.241) argues that “The social disorder that came in the wake of the tsunami gave rise to new securities for all people, regardless of class, caste or financial status, and the anxiety stemmed from the sudden inability to recognize familiar social patterns and maintain moral order in the context of rapidly changing material condition”. She refers to both the uneven distribution of houses/boats and material support, as well as the social transformation. A common description of the resettlement and housing process was that it likened a lottery: some received houses, and some did not. The material standard of houses in the village as a whole improved, as many poorer houses were destroyed and those rebuilt in their place were better. However, frequent comments about the tsunami were that it led “rich to become poor and poor to become rich” (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.238) as some whose houses were not destroyed and did not receive other material support felt excluded. The gift of aid led people to think ‘grab what you can’ and frustration and competition grew, putting pressure on structures of morality and trust (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.237-238). Another example is the NGOs’ unawareness of the local values and traditions concerning houses and their constructions in Tharugama. The hasty reconstruction led to disrupted the ritual precautions

25 that ensured well-being and proper protection which also establish, acknowledge and maintain relations with family, neighbors, spirits, and gods. (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.236-237). This indeed shows the dissolved social and moral arrangements that came with the tsunami aid, however, Holgersson Ivarsson (2015) did not focus on what relations and arrangements aid created between the recipient of aid and the giver, which Mauss explicitly writes about (Mauss 1997; 2002). For example, Korf brings up that what can be seen as an unconditional gift, is not that at all, because foreign aid organization and donors expect gratefulness in return (Korf 2007, p.368).

What is not discussed much in this article, but could however be argued showing the obligation give, receive and reciprocate, is that village Buddhist monks became ‘brokers of aid’. As mentioned in the “obligation to give” several monks became ‘brokers’ as they were seen to have the moral generosity needed. However, while monks gained massive attention from foreign organizations and received resources that they found hard to resist, the villages’ attitudes towards them changed. As temples and the monks became recipients of generous gifts, the temples went through a total transformation. Once small, rundown and old, it was now large and well-equipped. Holgersson Ivarsson (2015, p.242) informs that villagers stated that the head monk now prioritized the construction of a foreign-funded preschool on the temple grounds and built meditation halls as retreats for foreigners. Locals claimed that ‘that place is not for us anymore’, ‘it is not a temple, it is a luxury hotel’ (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.242). Again, it dissolved moral and social arrangements within the community. However, this can also be connected to the gift exchange between the tsunami organizations and the recipients. In post-tsunami gift-giving, it can be hard to find direct, bodily encounters with those who give aid and those who receive it, however, the relationship is then arbitrated through aid brokers (Korf 2007, p.369).

4.3.3 The obligation to Reciprocate

Holgersson Ivarsson (2015, p.233) brings up Korf (2007) who points out that ‘the tsunami gift’ was not free but carried an imperative of return, of gratitude, which was manifested in rituals that reformed asymmetric relations (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.233). She acknowledges that some recipients of disaster aid perceived aid as an opportunity to build a new life (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.243) However, she does not write much about reciprocating, even though she acknowledging it. She even states that aid does not wound necessarily because of a lack of means to reciprocate, which indicates that she does not

26 believe that the tsunami victims in Tharugama did reciprocate in any way. Her focus is, as mentioned before, on aid disregarding and disrupting local relations and obligations (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.243).

With Holgersson Ivarsson’s focus on local obligations, she learns that after the tsunami, relationships, local values, and social hierarchies changed due to caste separation, new class formations, increased education, modernization, and economic liberation. Questions arose such as who can be trusted, what can be expected and what are one’s obligations (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.239-241). Meaning that the tsunami gift had an impact upon the local system of reciprocity and in that way relates to the gift perspective of Mauss (1997; 2002). Yet she mentions the village monks as ‘brokers’ of aid. As discussed in “Obligation to Receive” this can be connected to the relationship between the givers and the receivers as it can be arbitrated through aid brokers (Korf 2007, p.369). Arguably, village monks became recipients of generous gifts through the means of aid. This is something Holgersson Ivarsson acknowledges when she argues that in Tharugama, as elsewhere, the giving of a gift is associated with social standing, and accepting charity is considered humiliating while implies respectability and status of the giver. On the other hand, when NGOs gave aid to monks it became morally problematic. Upon ordination, Buddhist monks vow not to touch money, and their authority to acts as the field of merit and examples of local morality, which were at risk when they became brokers of aid from outsiders (Holgersson Ivarsson 2015, p.242). This indeed shows the change in local relations and local morality. What is also show, when looking at monks as brokers of aid, is a form of reciprocity that Holgersson Ivarsson fails to address. Her paragraph of the village monks shows that they gave back to the foreign organizations. Village monks had limited knowledge of Western culture before the tsunami, and they often came from poor rural backgrounds, and with the massive attention they received from foreigners who were seeking or even ‘competing’ for local partners, the monks and temples became rich. Some of the monks were brought to Europe to tell about their ‘projects’ and to raise money for further work in connection with their temples. Korf (2007, p.368) argues that through these kinds of practices in post-tsunami aid, economic, political and even moral domination of the West is symbolically reproduced. Symbolic domination is constructed through the false claim of unconditional generosity (Korf 2007, p.368). By the monks ‘showing off’ what their donors have given them, the donors also receive status and recognition in return (Mauss 1997, p.59; Mauss 2002, p.95).

27 A gift exchange must involve a response of a given gift (Mauss 1997; 2002), including the possible absence of a counter gift, which then will define the relationship between them from now on (Kowalski 2011, p.191). Therefore, in analysis with a gift perspective, it is important to acknowledge in which ways recipients of aid give back to their donors. Korf argues that victims can give something in return, even in the gift relations of post-tsunami aid, through the acknowledgment of generosity through gratitude, just as Robbins (2009) and Derrida (1992) argued. Holgersson Ivarsson (2015, p.233) brings up Korf (2007) and his thoughts of the imperative of return, of gratitude, but fails present support why ‘the tsunami gift’ was an obligation to reciprocate.

28 5. Conclusion

In the following conclusion, a final discussion of the articles will be held. Contributions to the scholarly debate, improvements and suggestions for future research will be presented.

5.1 Concluding discussion

By reanalyzing the articles of Samuels (2013), Swamy (2017) and Holgersson Ivarsson (2015) one realizes that Mauss’ obligation to give, receive and reciprocate, and the relations these formed, were discussed differently, and to a greater or lesser extent. The focus of the gift perspective vary in the articles, thus making the analyzes of the authors differ.

Samuels (2013) used the gift perspective to show that tsunami aid receivers can actively frame their aid relation as a gift. Her focus was on the reciprocating part of the gift exchange, of the gratitude that aid recipients in Aceh showed towards the international community. To accept the gift of aid was perceived as a possibility to be seen by the world, bringing the importance of recognition in the gift exchange into the light. Samuels address Mauss’ theory of the gift exchange in a rather positive manner by arguing that the gift exchange of aid in Aceh was seen to bring socio-economic relations. In a gift chain of aid, Korf (2007) argues that aid recipients can feel forced into passivity as the focus is on the generosity of the giver, but can indeed take an active position by recognition. However, the obligation to give is barely discussed in Samuels’ article, although she acknowledges that the reconstruction process in Aceh, Indonesia, was never a pure, disinterested gift.

In the article by Swamy (2017) the relationship between humanitarianism and unequal exchange is examined through the gift perspective. I question whether the gift exchange Swamy describes was between the NGOs and the artisanal fishers as the NGOs became involved in a public-private partnership with the state through the gift of aid. However, the state can be seen as ‘brokers’ of aid, although this is something that Swamy does not address. Still, he states that the reciprocated gift was the abandonment of all coastal claims and was reciprocated to the state. Swamy focused rather more on the vulnerable position that those who accepted the gift of aid by NGOs, thus also reciprocated the abandonment of all coastal claims to the state, ended up in. Importantly, Swamy mentions that some villagers did not accept the gift of housing and instead returned to the status of encroachers. Yet, he fails to discuss this refusal of the gift, and thus the relations that were not formed. He instead

29 acknowledges Mauss’ theory of renewal of social relations by concluding that gift exchange is about renewing social relations, including those that are founded on disparities of power.

The third article by Holgersson Ivarsson (2015) showed how the gift of aid disregarded and disrupted local relations and obligations in Tharugama, Sri Lanka, rather than the relation between the giver and recipients of aid. There is no discussion about why NGOs gave aid, although she mentions a few factors that could be connected to recognition: showing results at home and therefore benefiting an organization’s position in the world system. Holgersson Ivarsson notes what was received in terms of aid and that it was distributed unevenly, thus created tensions within the community. Accordingly, her main focus is on the receiving part of Mauss’ gift exchange. Indeed, the article also indicates that she does not assume something being reciprocated even though she brings up Korf’s (2007) thoughts of a counter gift, of gratitude. Arguably, the importance of monks as “brokers of aid” came into light in her article. However, this reanalysis shows that the village monks may have had more importance in the gift of aid chain in Tharugama than Holgersson Ivarsson discusses.

To conclude, as this re-analysis of these three articles has proven, the gift perspective can be adopted differently. Importantly, however, if one claims to have adopted the theory developed in “The Gift” in ones’ analysis, the three obligations give, receive and reciprocate, that contribute to the producing social relations, need to be addressed. Moreover, that gifts, seemingly free and disinterested, are in fact forced and largely selfish. There is significance in looking at the desires of organizations to recognize their power and status in the exchange as well as in the international community. However, overall, the three articles have neglected the importance of it. Indeed the gift of disaster aid can lead to difficulties of the recipients, as been shown in the articles, however, gift exchange is about renewing social relations, including those that are founded on an imbalance of power (Mauss 1997; Mauss 2002). It can be questioned if the gift perspective can be applied to disaster aid. With the multitude of actors included in the aid exchange, I can understand why some of the authors have overlooked some aspects of the gift exchange. It is a complex analysis with a number of factors interfering including history, power, and relations which this reanalysis acknowledges. Through this recognition of the different adaptations of the theory developed in The Gift by Mauss, this thesis brings light to the understanding of gift exchange in disaster aid, as well, even though not the aim of this thesis, its usefulness in analyzing disaster aid.

30 5.2 Contributions and further research

This thesis has focused on how the authors have adopted the gift perspective on disaster aid after the Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004, bringing light to the not so well known theory of gift exchange by Mauss, while concerning disaster aid. Nonetheless, there are analytical benefits of including more articles than three to be able to generalize which this thesis has not been able to do due to temporal and spatial limitations. Consequently, future search should seek to reanalyze more articles to be able to generalize the application of the gift perspective on disaster aid, and aid generally. Further, indeed the usefulness of Mauss can be examined, both in both qualitative and quantitative research.

While writing this thesis, the advantages of studying aid through a gift exchange perspective were brought into the light. The reanalysis of this study shows that by using The Gift researchers can identify that social relations are formed and reformed through the exchanges of aid. Relations between the giver and receiver of aid, which often are formed on disparities of power, and also the impact aid has on social relations within a community that has received aid. As seen when reanalyzing these articles, the understanding of the gift perspective of Mauss brings different views and perceptions of aid exchange into light, thus exploring underappreciated aspects. Therefore, it is of relevance for policy-makers and those who implement international aid to study the three obligations to give, receive and reciprocate, and what kind of social bonds that are formed and reformed through it.

31 References

Bourdieu, P, 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Calhoun, C., 2002, Mauss Marcel, Dictionary of Social Sciences, Oxford University Press, [online] available at https://www-oxfordreference- com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/view/10.1093/acref/9780195123715.001.0001/acref-9780195123715- e-1050 [Accessed 2 December 2019]

Camfield, L. & Palmer-Jones, R. 2013, Improving the quality of development research: What could archiving qualitative data for reanalysis and revisiting research sites contribute?, Progress in Development Studies, 13( 4) pp. 323-338.

Eriksson, G.B. 1997. Förord, in Mauss, M. Gåvan: Argos.

Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., , Towns, A.E., and Wängnerud, L., 2017, Metodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad, 5:1, Wolters Kluwer, Stockholm.

Derrida, J. 1992. Given Time: Counterfeit Money, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London

Donnelly, J, 2009, Realism, in Reus-Smit C. and Snidal D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, pp. 150-162

Douglas, M. 2002. Foreword: No free gifts, in Mauss, M, The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, Taylor & Francis e-Library

Gambold, L.L, 2010, Fieldwork, in Millis, A, J., Durepos, G,. and Wiebe, E. (eds), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Company: SAGE Publications, Inc, [online] Available at http://sk.sagepub.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/reference/download/casestudy/n148.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2019]

32 Heins, V.M., Unrau, C. & Avram., K. 2018, Gift-giving and reciprocity in global society: Introducing Marcel Mauss in international studies, Journal of International Political Theory, 14:2, pp. 126-144.

Holgersson Ivarsson, C. (2015), Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement in post-tsunami Sri Lanka, Journal of Global Ethics, 11:2, pp. 233-245.

Karan P.P, 2011, Introduction: When Nature Turns Savage in The Indian Ocean Tsunami: The Global Response to Natural Disaster, in Karan P.P and Subbiah P.S (eds), The Indian Ocean Tsunami, University of Kentucky

Kowalski, R., 2011, The Gift – Marcel Mauss and international aid, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 27:3, pp.189-205.

Korf, B. 2007, Antinomies of generosity, Geoforum, 38: 2, pp. 366-378.

Korf, B., Habullah, S., Hollenbach, P. & Klem, B. 2010, The gift of disaster: the commodification of good intentions in post‐tsunami Sri Lanka", Disasters, 34:1, pp. S60- S77.

Malena, C. 1995. Working with NGOs : a practical guide to operational collaboration between the World Bank and nongovernmental organizations (English). Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/814581468739240860/Working-with-NGOs-a- practical-guide-to-operational-collaboration-between-the-World-Bank-and-nongovernmental- organizations [Accessed 20 December 2019]

Mauss, M. [1925] 1997. Gåvan, Argos

Mauss, M [1950] 2002, The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, Taylor & Francis e-Library

UCDP. 2018. Indonesia: Aceh, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, [online], availbale at https://ucdp.uu.se/conflict/366 [Accessed 12 December 2019]

33 UD, 2017, Strategi för Sveriges humanitara bistand genöm Styrelsen för internatiönellt utvecklingssamarbete (Sida) 2017-2020, Regeringen: Utrikesdepartementet, available at https://www.regeringen.se/493e51/contentassets/639a30aafd3a4dce8f0329d8456ac78a/strate gin-for-sveriges-humanitara-bistand-genom-sida-2017-2020.pdf, [Accessed 9 december 2019]

Robbins, J. 2009. Rethinking Gifts and Commodities: Reciprocity, Recognition and the Morality of Exchange, in Brown, K.E and BL Milgram (eds) and morality: Anthropological approaches, 46, pp. 43-58

Samuels, A. 2013, Aceh thanks the world: The possibilities of the gift in a post-disaster society, Anthropology Today, 29: 4, pp. 8-11.

Samuels, A. 2010, Remarking Neighborhoods in Banda Aceh: Post-tsunami Reconstruction of Everyday Life, in Clarke M, Fanany I, and Kenny S (eds)., Post-Disaster Reconstruction : Lessons from Aceh, Routledge, London

Stirrat R.L, and Henkel H., 1997, The Development Gift: The Problem of Reciprocity in the NGO World, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 554, pp. 66-80.

Swamy, R. 2017, Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange, Journal of World-Systems Research, 23:2, pp. 353-371.

34 Appendix Result for “Indian Ocean Tsunami”, “Aid” and “Mauss” on Uppsala University search engine

35 Sista 3 åren View complete issue: Browse Now Sista 5 åren Mer

DISCIPLIN K online % 9 4 The gift of disaster: the history & commodification of good archaeology (20) intentions in post‐tsunami Sri Lanka anthropology (19) av Korf, Benedikt; Habullah, Shahul; Hollenbach, Pia; mer... social sciences (13) Disasters, 01/2010, Volym 34, religion (7) Nummer s1

international Ladda ner: PDF relations (6) Tidskriftsartikel: Fulltext View complete issue: Browse Now mer... Mer ÄMNESORD K online % 9 electronic books (16) 5 Moral economy reconfigured: philanthropic engagement anthropology (9) in post-tsunami Sri Lanka av Ivarsson, Carolina Holgersson history (9) Journal of Global Ethics, 05/2015, general (7) Volym 11, Nummer 2

politics (7) Ladda ner: PDF Tidskriftsartikel: Fulltext mer... View complete issue: Browse Now

Mer Gå till toppen av sidan

online % 9 6 Dynamics of multi-local gifts: practices of humanitarian giving in post-tsunami Sri Lanka av Hollenbach, Pia Development in Practice, 05/2013, Volym 23, Nummer 3 Ladda ner: PDF Tidskriftsartikel: Fulltext View complete issue: Browse Now

Mer

% 9 7 The changing geographies of foreign

36