The Philosophy of Gift Giving

The Philosophy of Gift GivingThe return is princip totallyy virtually the relationships being trans deported, ab step forward the hoi polloi convoluted in these minutes rather than the observation tolerant and receiving of things ( mail carrier 1995 19). Write an stress evaluating the role of conveyable and unalienable goods in down the stairsscoring the importance of swop deeds.In order for us to take an in depth calculate at the idea of endue giving and the relationships involved in much(prenominal) a ceremonial trans hazardion we must first look at the people that are involved in the doion. Not only must we look that the people provided we must also focus on the affiliation amid people and the actual notwithstandingt itself. postman himself states in his judge Gifts and Commodities that Clearly at that place is much more in our relationship to preyive lenss than sheer utility ( holder, 1995. 1), and and so proving to us that there we have a much more sig nify relationship with secular tendencys than we first imagined. This get is deep enough that we all the same extremity real(a) objects to typeset who we are close totimes, for example if a hooligan rock n roll musician claims to be a punk rocker he must dress according to the hearty image of a punk rocker and from there we faecal matter assume that persons privateity and personality as a punk rocker. Carrier says himself that The corollary is that objects signify status indistinguishability and so patch up a claim to status-group membership on the fragmentise of those who have them (Carrier, 1995. 2). some other major concept that is involved with both the relationship among piece and material objects and with the ceremonial act of gratuity giving is reciprocity. It visualises us and defines to us the strength of the bond between people and material objects.It goes without a head that humans have a natural affiliation with objects as we all have a material motivating and it is by means of these objects that we can take in these privations. Carrier states in his essay Gifts and Commodities that Humans do have material needs, and objects can satisfy them (Carrier, 1995. 1). As I stated earlier we need material objects for a variety of reasons, nonpareil of which is for them attention define and show our corporation both our identity and our personality. It is for this reason that we have such a deep connection with material objects, because as long as society continues to exist so will the need for material objects. withal this essay, nor is Carriers essay, about the connection between people, identity and material objects but instead, as Carrier puts it, we are going to investigate the slipway that objects are implicated in personal relationships, rather than seeing them in mass structures of meaning and identity (Carrier, 1995. 10). In order to get a full understanding of such a topic we must first take a look at what is known as reciprocity, reciprocity is a term apply to describe the exchange of goods and labour. It was separated into a few separate term know as, generalised reciprocity, balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity and invalidating reciprocity. The term which most applies to the ceremony of fall in giving is generalized reciprocity as it is described as the event of giving or sharing. It is outlined as when a true individual shares his expertise with another individual in his society who is in need of his goods or labour without carrying anything in return. However this does not define the event as reciprocal as the bestower expects nothing in return, but this interaction is indeed reciprocal as the individual who gives his goods is overcome by such satisfaction in giving his services, and the fact that it creates a favorable bond between the presenter and the liquidator and that is what he attains in return for his goods or services. In fresh day society this seems to occur mainly between parents and children or in spite of appearance married couples as there seems to be a certain criterion of trust and companionable interaction involved between the people within the event. It is through these transactions with other people that also encourage define our identity, not just that material object itself. Carrier himself says that Indeed, in some ways transaction creates the very identities of those involved in it. (Carrier. 1995. 35) These, reciprocal events help define our relationships with other people, as I said in the lead through these events we can gain kind bonds with people but we also need certain amount of social interaction with that same person before we can involve ourselves in such a transaction.What is also raise about these transactions, and indeed very much present in the generalized reciprocity that I defined earlier, is that we are indeed a egocentric race. We only give gifts so that we whitethorn receive something in return. In the context of generalized reciprocity we only give our goods and labour so that it can be returned in the feeling of gratitude and the formation of a social bond. Marcel Mauss states in his essay The Gift that gifts are never abandon and as a selfish race we will always expect something in return as we only give so that we may receive. Mauss probably most famous question raised by his essay The Gift was What power resides in the object given that causes its recipient to fabricate it back?, (Mauss, 1990. 3) an the answer seems to be simple enough. The Power lies not with the object itself but rather with the unspoken contract that it creates with the people involved in the transaction. The giver does not only give away some material abject but also gives away a part of themselves with that object this creates a strong bond between the giver and the item he gave away. Mauss himself says that the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them (Mauss, 1990. 31). Be cause of this bond between the gift and the giver the pass catcher has a certain province to return the favour to the giver in the form of a gift of the same, if not better value. Although the receiver is not under any law to return in such a manner and it is solely up to him if he returns the favour, the failure to reciprocate often results in the bolshy of social status and trust amongst his peers. Mauss describes an even greater consequence to the failure of the act of reciprocation, in Polynesia that failure to abide by the obligations of reciprocity results in the loss of mana which is a persons spiritual energy and source of power and wealth. Mauss breaks down the ceremonial event of gift giving into three separate stages and obligations giving, receiving and reciprocating. Giving is the pervert that is needed to maintain a social relationship, receiving is the act of acknowledging and accepting that social relationship and failure to accept results in the rejection of th at relationship, and last is reciprocating as it shows singles remark and social status within the society. We can see this throughout the ethnography of the Kula ring and the Kula shells, whereby giving the shells away is just as important as receiving them for they are not meant to kept forever but instead passed on.Is grammatical construction this however we must also look at the concept of inalienability in reference to gift exchange as it plays a major part in both Mauss essay and the ceremonial act of gift-giving. An unassignable object is something that cannot be exchanged from one individual to another. Instead they have to be sold and the businesss of ownership are because passed to the new owner, the object has then become an alien item to the original owner as they no longer have the rights to that object however the concept of free gifts is a slightly different one. Instead of the owner selling the object and fair completely alienated from the item given, the g ift instead renders the item under loan. Therefore the original owner remains the just owner and this rightful ownership has the power to compel the recipient to return the favour. Carrier points out the same concept in his essay where he says that if he buys a bottle of wine in s hop it is now his and can do what he wants with it, including pouring it down the drain, however if his find buys him a bottle of wine it is her choice for him and becomes a token of her affection towards him and in turn this makes it a part of her identity, he therefore could not apparently throw it out like his own bottle of wine. This identity that we look in the object is also what Mauss calls the hau. The hau is what is known as the spirit of the gift, it lives interior the gift and has a deep connection with its original owner, and therefore the object is constantly trying to return to its rightful owner, increasing the obligation of the receiver to return the gesture of gift-giving. Because the gift is an inalienable object and the rights of ownership motionless belong to the gift giver, the favour must be returned by the receiver as the act of gift giving creates a contract between the people involved and that in turn creates a sort of gift giving social debt that must be repaid by the receiver. So then according to Mauss, if the free gift is not returned buy the receiver the act of gift giving therefore becomes a contradiction as if the gift is not returned it cannot create social ties because the demands of the obligations are not met. Mauss therefore believes that social solidarity is achieved through the concept of gift giving and the social relations that it creates.Carrier also raises the issues of alienation within his own essay as he tackles the concepts of the self and alienation. He shows us how some commodities and objects cannot be alienated from our selves as they are too closely linked with our identities. For example Carrier supposes to us that we cannot put our right to pick out up for sale, as that is our constitutional right as a citizen to execute, and Carrier also says Equally, one cannot sell ones finis on how to vote. (Carrier, 1995. 29) What he means here is that we cannot be told how or who to vote for in an election by somebody else in exchange for money. However Carrier does state that One can . . . give that decision as a gift (Carrier, 1995. 29). Carrier goes on to tell us that one cannot sell oneself as that would mean that we are putting ourselves up for slavery, which realistically one cannot do as one cannot alienate themselves from oneself, but one can sell ones labour ability. And again the same can be said for selling oneself sexually, as that is considered prostitution and punishable by the law, but one can give themselves sexually as a gift. What Carrier is trying to say is that one cannot be alienated from all aspects and the identity of their life, but through the act of gift giving, we can lend our insight s, experiences and goods to our peers and those who need them in our society. But Carrier goes on to talk about these inalienable qualities and how they plug into us to one another and not to our objects. Carrier says My mother and I are linked by what our society sees as inalienable attributes. (Carrier, 1995. 31). What he is saying is that the blood bond between himself and his mother defines them and imposes on each of the obligation to interact and transact in certain ways and under certain circumstances. This then in turn can relate to the interactions between a gift giving relationship. Thus, gift transactors are social persons defined in significant ways by their inalienable positions in a structure of personal social relations that encompasses them. (Carrier, 1995. 31). And thus show us how gift transactions help define who we are.In Carriers essay Gifts and Commodities he states that in many societies dominated by gift exchange that structure of kinship provides the basis of peoples identities and their relations with each other, and thus their obligations to transact with each other. What Carrier is trying to say her is that rather than our objects completely define who we are, the act of gift giving from person to person may be more important to our identities than the actual object we are giving. The relationship between the giver and the receiver is of utmost importance to their social relationship, the item in this context seems of little importance, for it is through these acts of gift giving and the obligations that ensue the actions that help us build our social relations. This is helped along by the inclusion of alienated objects and inalienable objects within a gift transaction, for both come with certain obligations where we sell and item so it becomes alienable or the object is entirely inalienable to us, both are connected to the relationship between the giver and the receiver, and building a social relationship between the two. It wa s Mauss who claims that it is these gift giving ceremonies that build the social solidarity of a culture.