Introduction: Nothing in Return? Distinctions between and in Contemporary Societies

Michaela Benson and Denise Carter

According to Mauss’ seminal works, it was and commodity. This reflects Laidlaw's (2000) through obligations laid bare by ex- argument that gift and commodity are not change process—the obligation to give, receive necessarily opposed to one another; instead and reciprocate—that pre-modern societies they are continually reconfigured within an were symbolically reproduced. Mauss’ dis- intricately contextual relationship. The point tinction between those early societies and the at which an object is predominantly gift or encroaching capitalist world has led to ques- commodity relates both to the context of its tions about whether gift exchange can play a exchange and to the nuances of the social re- similar role in today’s highly individualised lationship between the giver and the recipient. and impersonal contemporary societies. In ad- As a result, we must remain aware that objects dition, it has also stimulated a great deal of de- involved in exchange transactions may have bate about the relationship between and characteristics of both gift and commodity, and . If, as many theorists suggest, may be variously expressed across different commodities are a central feature of daily life times and in different situations. in capitalist societies, there is the possibility This special issue provides an opportunity of fluidity between gift and commodity. This to consider the true complexity of exchange invites several interesting questions about the within contemporary society and examine forms and functions of exchange: what forms transformations in the significance of the ob- does exchange take in contemporary societies; jects at the basis of exchange. In other words, what implications, if any, do these forms of ex- we pose the questions, what circumstances change have for relationships in contemporary give rise to the exchange of gifts rather society; and, does gift exchange still have a than commodities, and does an object that function in society? is once a gift always remain a gift, or can it This special issue draws attention to these similarly/simultaneously operate as a com- questions and further interrogates the inter- modity? Equally, articles in this issue ques- section of gift and commodity using empirical tion those diverse occasions when a range of examples within contemporary societies. From commodities are transformed into gifts. The kidney transplant to gifting , each of our central focus of all the papers is the examina- selected papers demonstrates it is not an easy tion of the social relationships that may, or task to define some objects as gift and oth- may not, result from exchange. This leads ers as commodity. Rather, there are occasions authors to question which forms of exchange where one transforms into the other (Carrier are relevant for the social integration of mod- 1995), and many objects involved in exchange ern society, as gift exchange was for Mauss’ transactions possess characteristics of both gift pre-moderns.

Anthropology in Action, 15, 3 (2008): 1–7 © Berghahn Books and the Association for in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2008.150301 AiA | Michaela Benson and Denise Carter

Exchanging Gifts While this system of exchange may, on one level, appear voluntary, it is apparent in In Marcel Mauss’ (1990) seminal text The Mauss’ interpretation that it also has obliga- Gift, he stressed that gift-giving was a cen- tory elements. The paradoxical nature of the tral feature in constructing, maintaining and gift is what helps to perpetuate the system. reproducing enduring social relationships. As Laidlaw, in a review of Mauss’ work Although he discussed gift exchange in explains, pre-capitalist societies, it is possible that the exchange of gifts in contemporary society Gifts evoke obligations and create reciprocity, may also be explained in the same way. It but they can do this because they might not: what creates the obligation is the gesture or mo- is with this in mind that we claim Sahlins’ ment which alienates the given thing and asks statement, ‘If friends make gifts, gifts make for no reciprocation (2000: 628). friends’ (1972: 186) would go unchallenged in the Western world and thus could be It seems that the adage, ‘don’t give to receive’ considered as a representative statement in is representative of the paradox of gift giving respect to our own gift-giving practices. And in contemporary Western society. While there this is not simply about presents, wrapped is an implicit recognition of the obligations en- and tied with a bow, there are a variety of tailed in the system of gift exchange—it is the other objects, ‘things’ which can be consid- ‘right’ thing to give a gift in return—and we ered as ‘gift’. For example, the articles in this are aware of the consequences of not recipro- issue present time, money, and even bodily cating or taking part, there is also a dominant organs for consideration under the rubric of discourse which states that gift-giving should the gift. be done for unselfish purposes. It seems that As Mauss’ (1990) noted, there are a series remains a central feature of our be- of obligations to which gift giving pertains. liefs about gifts, even if our actions suggest First, there is the obligation to give, presup- otherwise. This selflessness is similarly a fea- posing a social relationship between the giver ture of the ‘pure gift’ that lies at the centre of and the recipient. Second, there is the obliga- Mauss’ works. tion to receive; rejection of the object given As Laidlaw (2000) explains, the character- could result in the termination of the existing istics of the ‘pure gift’ resonate with those of relationship. Finally, Mauss’ (1990) stated that the free gift (see for example Parry 1980, 1986, there is an obligation to reciprocate, to give 1989, 1994) that entails no personal connec- in return. By accepting the gift, the recipient tions and therefore no obligations. The ‘free’ is obliged to re-enter the cycle as a giver. The or ‘pure gift’ is impersonal, a feature that is recognition of these objectives, particularly maintained, as Copeman (2000) argues, be- the first one, is indicative of the social rela- cause of the lack of recognition from the recipi- tionship between the giver and the recipient. ent towards the donor. The pure gift is thus Reaction to the giving of the gift by the recipi- altruistically given. There is no expectation of ent determines how the relationship will pro- reciprocation and the donor is alienated from ceed. It seems that there is a fine line to tread the object that they give. when it comes to the complex social process According to Mauss (1990), this ‘no strings that is gift exchange. As Mauss argued, ‘To attached’ approach to gift does not result in refuse to give, to fail to invite, just as to refuse social relations because it does not create obli- to accept, is tantamount to declaring war; it is gations between people. Indeed, the discourse to reject the bond of alliance and commonal- behind the donation of blood and organs in ity’ (1990: 13). contemporary society highlights this alienation.

 | Nothing in Return? Distinctions between Gift and Commodity in Contemporary Societies | AiA

Relationships between donors and recipients buying food, could soon be seen in a different are not encouraged; the object exchanged is light if, for example, we recognise that people both anonymously given and received and expect something in return for their loyalty to thus has, at least at first sight, the character- particular supermarkets. Hence the prevalence istics of the ‘pure gift’. However, as Titmuss of supermarket ‘points’ cards which allow (1970) argues, this exchange is not so clear-cut. customers to collect points which can later There are many expectations, particularly from be redeemed for money off their shopping or the donor, which would highlight that this is particular products, with supermarkets en- not such a selfless act after all. For example, couraging the idea among their customers the donor may have the expectation that they that they are being rewarded for their loyalty. will receive blood should they need it. Grocery shopping is not, in this interpretation, The expectation of reciprocation and the an example of ‘pure’ commodity exchange. examination of individual motivations—the Instead, the loyalty cards play on notions of particular contexts of blood donation—can gift exchange helping to produce a sense of determine the extent to which it is involved loyalty, an obligation to return. As Carrier in a process that could be characterised as gift argues, ‘these qualifications do not contradict exchange. It is not our intention here to discuss the point that commodities are impersonal. the intricacies of organ and blood donation— Instead, they show that not everything that indeed Shimazono in this issue examines kid- we buy and sell is pure commodity’ (Carrier ney donation in greater detail—we only use 1995: 29). The expectation that there will be this example to highlight that the ‘pure gift’ something in return presupposes the establish- is never easily identified. It may be that blood ment of an enduring relationship between the donation is a clear example of how fluid the vendor and the buyer, a relationship normally gift can be. assigned to gift exchange rather than commod- ity exchange. It is not only the establishment of a rela- The Intersections of Gift and tionship that indicates the flux between com- Commodity Exchange modity and gift; Carrier (1995), for example, discusses how commodities are interchange- Strathern (1988) draws attention to the funda- able, despite the fact that they must be ex- mental differences between gift exchange and changed on equal grounds and, ultimately, commodity exchange. As she explains, while for equal value. One example that he gives is gift exchange works to draw attention to re- the exchange of works of art where the artist lationships that already exist, in commodity is an important consideration in determining exchange, people are apparent in and of them- the ‘value’ (monetary or otherwise) of a par- selves. In other words, gift giving prepares the ticular work. This consideration of the ‘value’ ground for others to act—through the various of the exchange highlights that commodity obligations that it entails—while in commod- transactions often have features ordinarily re- ity exchange, obligations are not necessary served for the discussion of gift. The idea that because people act independently. the two objects are of equal value resonates The distinction between these two forms with discussions of the Kula exchange, where of exchange is undoubtedly useful, but what the participants have to consider what they happens in cases when it is not clear whether reciprocate with. As Weiner (1976) explains, gift exchange or commodity exchange is oc- there is an expectation within the system curring? Indeed, an action that we might that the object given in return will be at least assume to be commodity exchange, such as equal in value to the original. This perpetu-

|  AiA | Michaela Benson and Denise Carter

ates the social relationship, while failure to culturally constituted categories’ (Kopytoff reciprocate in kind may result in damage or 1986: 68), personalised to reflect a particular its termination. More to the point, the process situation. This echoes the idea in common encourages a sense of obligation. The failure circulation that gifts should be meaningful, a to recognise obligation and ideas of recip- symbol of the relationship between the giver rocation within arenas generally associated and the receiver. In this respect, they are not with commodity exchange rather than gift anonymous or impersonal, but this does not exchange undermines the complexity of ex- mean that in a different relationship, under change transactions within the contemporary different circumstances, that the object would world that the articles in this special issue mean the same thing. emphasise. The transformation of a commodity, an Although there has been a concern with alienated good, into a personal possession the definition of the pure gift (Laidlaw 2000) eligible to act as a gift, ‘an extension of the self and its distinction from the pure commodity in a way that mere is not’ (Carrier (see for example, Carrier 1990, 1995), it seems 1990: 582), requires cultural work. This trans- that there has been very little interrogation of formation of commodity to gift may occur as those objects which fall in between these two a result of how individuals experience and positions; objects which at one time adopt understand the production and sale of the the features of the gift, while at other times objects involved. For example, if an object is taking on the characteristics of a commodity. bought in a more personalised environment, This necessarily relies on context, as the arti- some of the cultural work involved in the cles in this issue demonstrate; what is indeed transformation has already been done (Car- intended by the exchange, but also how it is rier 1990). Goddard (2000) raises a similar perceived and reacted to by the receiver of the point, drawing parallels between Weiner’s object. Similarly, there are also cases where (1984) discussion of how objects are inscribed commodity becomes gift by entering into the with spells and the way that commodities social relationships between people. Through are transformed through inscription. It is use, commodities may be transformed. thus that, ‘a previously alienated object can be appropriated and re-presented as some- how intrinsically related to a new subject’ Transformative Cultural Work (Goddard 2000: 148). The examination of the process of inscription therefore allows further So, how does an object become a gift? As Car- understanding of how gift and commodity rier (1990) argues, in contemporary society, economies interact with one another. the objects that we use to perpetuate our The degree to which the gift needs to be social relationships are most likely to have personally possessed reflects the amount of been purchased as commodity. Somehow work it is to do. This is directly correlated to the impersonality of objects, reflected both the extent of the relationship that it emerges at the level of production and at the point of from. The point here is not to deny that ‘gift’ purchase, has to be overcome for the object to and ‘commodity’ are distinct from one another be successful within gift exchange. Through (cf. Goddard 2000), but to stress that it is nec- the exchange, within a personal relation- essary to question how through appropriation ship, the object, as Carrier (1990) argues, and possession, commodities are transformed gains personality. This highlights how an into ‘gifts’. object may be considered as ‘a culturally con- The question remains, what is involved structed entity endowed and reclassified into in the transformation of commodity to gift?

 | Nothing in Return? Distinctions between Gift and Commodity in Contemporary Societies | AiA

Spending time, energy and thought (after related to interpersonal and group dynamics all, it is the thought that counts) is one way in the context of modern Thai monasticism. that people claim possession of an object. In Abel Polese challenges our understand- this manner, they make the object more per- ing of bribery and corruption in post soviet sonal to them, they imbue it with a sense of Ukraine. His paper proposes that most of the their personal identity. As Mauss outlined, ‘economic transactions’ that are reported as ‘objects are never completely separated from bribe taking have a deeper meaning and can the men who exchange them’ (1990: 31). The be analysed within the framework of gift ex- implications of this are that the giving of a change proposed by Marcel Mauss. Focussing gift establishes a bond between the donor and on three of the alleged most ‘corrupted’ places the recipient. It is through the examination of in Ukraine: a university, a hospital and a police the relationships involved in exchange that control post, Polese develops a detailed analy- the papers in this special issue interrogate sis of the meanings behind these transactions the extent to which contemporary forms of and recognises how defining some of those exchange can be considered under the rubric exchanges as corrupt might lead to the phas- of gift exchange. ing out of some local traditions of social and economic interaction. Yosuke Shimazono explores whether living- The Empirical/Applied Perspective related kidney transplantation in the Philip- pines can be considered as gift exchange. Each of the papers in this collection elabo- Two aspects of the gift relationship—the rela- rates on these issues and questions from tionship between the donor and the recipient an empirical and applied perspective to in- and the relationship between the recipient vestigate what counts as gift exchange in and the object—and two kinds of acts—‘ac- the contemporary social world and where knowledging the debt/repaying the gift of it can be found. Answers are found in these life’ and ‘taking care of a kidney/cherishing examinations of the gift of charity; gifts and the gift’—are described and examined. This reciprocity in local and national relations; article demonstrates that there is a persisting organ donation/transplantation technologies internal tension in live kidney transplanta- and gift exchange in cyberspace. tion between the logic of the Maussian or Jo Cook examines the part that women, in ‘archaic’ gift and that of the gift based on the the role of Buddhist nuns (mae chee), now take cultural ideal of familial love, where keeping in the Buddhist practice of alms donations. and repaying the gift are not two independ- Having renounced the world, mae chee employ ent acts but merge in the act of cherishing both the ascetic practices of accepting alms the gift. (as renouncers) and offering alms (as laity). In the final article of this special issue, Den- In addition, mae chee also receive and process ise Carter investigates how the function and monetary alms from the laity on behalf of the meaning of gift-exchange has emerged as be- monastic community as a whole. Cook argues ing an important anthropological tool for the that by handling money given to the monastic investigation of social relations online. She community mae chee mediate in a relationship elucidates several fascinating questions, for of generalised reciprocity between the monas- example: what kinds of gifts are exchanged tic community and lay society. By standing in cyberspace; how are these gifts exchanged both inside and outside of the monastic com- there; and what does the exchange of gifts munity, mae chee offer this empirical study an in cyberspace signify? This article draws on intriguing view of gift practices as they are Carter’s ethnography of a virtual community

|  AiA | Michaela Benson and Denise Carter

to examine the function and meaning of gift Denise Maia Carter has a PhD in Social Anthro- exchange in cyberspace in relation to con- pology from the University of Hull. Her research temporary theoretical notions of the gift. Her interests focus on the social and cultural aspects paper examines what kinds of obligations of Information Communications Technologies, es- gifts engender, and what role gift practices pecially with assessing and identifying the risks play in creating networks of friendship in to children and young people with using a wide cyberspace. Central to this analysis is the ‘gift range of digital technologies. She is also interested of time’ that can also be fed back into wider in the relationship between online and offline life, discussions about modernity and the routini- and the implications of ICT use for contemporary sation and universalisation of time. notions of friendship and community, sociability This special issue provides an opportunity and social capital. Denise is also a member of the to consider the true complexity of exchange DCFS Cyberbullying Taskforce, and at a Euro- within contemporary society and examine pean level is a member of the EU INSAFE Project transformations in the significance of a vari- cyberbullying workgroup. Denise is currently ety of objects at the basis of exchange. From involved in educational projects with a number the gifting of alms to post soviet corruption, of mobile and Internet service providers, and with from the donation of body parts to the gift European Schoolnet. of time in cyberspace, this issue examines diverse occasions where a range of com- modities are transformed into gifts. From a References clear empirical and applied anthropological perspective it emerges that these forms of ex- Carrier, J. (1990), ‘Reconciling Commodities and change are as relevant for modern society as Personal Relations in Industrial Society’, Theory gift exchange was for Mauss’ pre-moderns. and Society, 19, no. 5: 579–598. -----. (1995), Gifts and Commodities: Exchange Even in today’s highly individualised and and Western Capitalism Since 1700 (London: impersonal contemporary societies, social Routledge). relations are being symbolically reproduced. Copeman, J. (2005), ‘Veinglory: Exploring Proc- Collectively, these papers illuminate how esses of Blood Transfer between Persons’, The the gift exchange process still functions in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute contemporary society albeit across different (N.S.), 11: 465–485. Goddard, M. (2000), ‘Of Cabbages and Kin: the times and in different situations. We hope Value of an Analytic Distinction between Gifts that the papers stimulate some reflection and Commodities’, Critique of Anthropology, 20, about the nuances of gift exchange in modern no. 2: 137–151. society, and kindle a desire to understand the Kopytoff, I. (1986), ‘The Cultural Biography of potential impact on the continuing transfor- Things: as Process’ in The So- mation of social life. cial Life of Things (ed.) A. Appadurai (New York: Cambridge University Press). Laidlaw, J. (2000), ‘A Free Gift Makes No Friends’, Michaela Benson is the current Sociological Review The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Fellow, based at Keele University. She is also a visit- 6, no. 4: 617–634. ing fellow in the Department, University Magazine, R. (2003), ‘Action, Personhood and the of Bristol. Her research focuses on lifestyle migra- Among So-called Street Children tion, and she is currently in the process of writing a in Mexico City’, , 11, no. 3: 303–318. monograph based on her research among the British Mauss, M. (1990), The Gift (London: Routledge). residents of the Lot department, . She was Parry, J. (1980), ‘Ghosts, Greed and Sin: the Occu- awarded her PhD in Sociology and Social Anthro- pational Identity of the Benares Funeral Priests’, pology from the University of Hull in 2008. Man (n.s.), 15: 88–111.

 | Nothing in Return? Distinctions between Gift and Commodity in Contemporary Societies | AiA

Parry, J. (1986), ‘The Gift, the Indian Gift and the Strathern, M. (1988), The Gender of the Gift: Problems “Indian Gift”’, Man, 21: 453–473. with Women and Problems with Society in Parry, J. (1989), ‘On the Moral Perils of Exchange’, Melanesia (Berkeley: University of California in Money and the Morality of Exchange, (eds.) Press). J. Parry and M. Bloch (Cambridge: Cambridge Titmuss, R. (1970), The Gift Relationship: from University Press). Human Blood to Social Policy (London: Allen and Parry, J. (1994), Death in Banaras (Cambridge: Cam- Unwin). bridge University Press). Weiner, A. (1976), Women of Value, Men of Renown: Sahlins, M. (1972), Stone Age Economics (Chicago: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange (Austin: Chicago University Press). University of Texas Press).

|