Introduction: Nothing in Return? Distinctions between Gift and Commodity 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 the gift 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 gifts and characteristics of both gift and commodity, and commodities. 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 money, 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 Anthropology 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 altruism 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. 2 | 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.