Marcel Mauss’s classic account of The Gift (2002[1954]) is one of anthropology’s best-known and most debated texts. He uses the model of gift giving as a way of exploring broader economic exchanges, finding gifts FIGURE 5.2 Diagram of cyclical gift giving and of reflective obligation.
to have a fundamental social function of reinforcing connections between people, of producing bonds of reciprocity and obligation.
Reciprocity is one of the most important concepts discussed by Mauss and describes the manner in which one person giving a gift might, at some point in the future, expect one in return. There is, then, despite the altruism of gift giving, an obligation built in to the act: the expectation that the receiver will return the favour at some point in the future.
Reciprocity exists in other forms of exchange, of course. More direct monetary and economic exchange comes with rules and tokens for the exchange in question (money), but the play of altruism and obligation in gift giving is particularly interesting. Mauss argues that, in gift exchange, an unreciprocated gift damages the standing of that individual (2002[1954]:83).
According to Mauss, exchanges are a way of placing people on an equal footing. Writing on the Rules of Generosity, Mauss notes that in the case of the Andaman Islands, gifts are used as part of marriage ceremonies. The exchange of gifts ensures that the families joined by a wedding are made equivalent, with gift giving replacing direct communication from the point of the wedding onwards (2002[1954]:25). This ability of a practice to stand in for another shows an interchangeability of activities, a mechanism by which symbolism can emerge.
We can see these examples of anthropological research reveal some of the complexity possible within gift exchange. Rather than consider this as an extreme or exotic example, it is important to consider it as an example of the diversity possible in human relationships, even where those relationships have familiar parameters and elements. Gifts are given in a wide range of cultures, but those exchanges are considered differently in each case. Anthropology, by virtue of giving us such interesting examples, illuminates the variety possible across such simple practices.6 What is clear is that there are different gift- giving cultures within any region, dependent on factors including but not limited to ethnicity, religion, social class and even location.
Mauss finds the tradition of potlatch (derived from the Chinook word potshatl) found in various Pacific Northwest indigenous societies (also present in a different form in Melanesia) to be one of the most revealing and pure forms of gift exchange. Typical potlatches involve vast banquets held in the honour of another clan. The hosts of the celebration gain status by making an extravagant gesture in honour of their guests. This is a conspicuous expenditure of wealth, demonstrating the surplus you have to spare for such a celebration. Mauss takes the term and applies broadly it to this form or genre of exchange regardless of origin and expresses gift economies as extending beyond the bounds of material objects.7
This develops into a concept of a system of total services.8 Mauss holds that there is no such thing as a natural state of barter or exchange in humanity
and that all such practices are socially specific and constructed. The potlatch is a coming together of families or clans in which there is a vast display of goods, services, honour and rituals. One function of the potlatch is to redistribute status across a social group. Importantly, hunting rights can also be given in potlatch, representing the rights individuals have to use the land for their own sustenance. These goods and services are literally given and performed in honour of the guest group. The law of reciprocity demands that the guests must later strive towards an equal display, be that a feast, a gift or a performance. This can get out of hand, and sometimes resulting in violent clashes which, importantly, are not regarded as outside of the exchange, but wholly part of it.
One of the most extreme forms of potlatch involves the destruction of goods by the hosts in honour of the other clan, perhaps even involving the killings of chiefs and nobles (2002 [1954]:8). This extreme competition is one of the justifications given for outlawing the practice in Canada in 1884 (a law only repealed in 1951), but the suppression of indigenous culture had a broader intention of bringing communities into the societal norms established by European settlers.
In unpacking the Melanesian form of potlatch exchange, Mauss addresses the risk in not reciprocating fully or properly: that participants lose status in the form of social capital and prestige (known as mana).9 With potlatches occurring to mark important life events as well as to mark a trade festival, it is clear that such exchanges are a part of life which structures time and experience; these are events which must be prepared for. Once one has gained social capital through potlatch, there is a constant risk of losing it, so goods and services must be given away.
It is important to link these gift-giving activities back to the idea of practice discussed above. Mauss’s work predates the theories of practice discussed, but this theory elaborates upon the theory of the gift. Practices of gift giving are varied and are temporal practices where the direction of travel cannot be reversed so much as placed into a self-perpetuating cycle of repetition. Gift- giving events require common subscription; they must remain observed as celebrations, or the practices will die out.10
A considerable part of our morality and our lives themselves are still permeated with this same atmosphere of the gift, where obligation and liberty intermingle. Fortunately, everything is still not wholly categorized in terms of buying and selling. Things still have sentimental as well as venal value, assuming values merely of this kind exist. We possess more than a tradesman morality. There still remain people and classes that keep to the morality of former times, and we almost all observe it, at least at certain times of the year or on certain occasions. (Mauss 2002 [1954]: 83)
Mauss notes that one element of the gift which is of crucial importance, and often criticised or problematized, is extravagance (2002[1954]:88). Making a show of generosity to the potential embarrassment of others has the effect of belittling the receiver, or at least making them feel awkward at receiving something of such high value or effort with a potential worry over how they can afford to reciprocate. This also denotes self-aggrandisement on the part of receiver, for they can nurture a belief in their own superiority confirmed and corroborated by such behaviour through an internal process of justification in which the receiver considers that they have performed some vague undefined service towards the gift giver which makes them worthy of such excess.
Writing on Art, Anthropology and the Gift, Roger Sansi discusses some of the implications of the gift in Mauss and later anthropologists’ work. The idea that ‘one gives one’s self while giving’ (Mauss, 2002:227) is interesting in the context of not only art (which Sansi is writing about here (2015:11)), but also architecture. The public-minded architect might well think of their work in part at least as a gift, due to the personal investment in the process of design.
This giving leads to an idea of the ‘particle person’ discussed by Marilyn Strathern (1988), later elaborated into Alfred Gell’s notion of distribution of agency (1998:103). If we give something of ourself via a gift, then our selfhood becomes scattered across the people and places it has been given to. The power problematic raised by Mauss and Strathern is never far away, however, and a ‘gift’ of architecture may instead be an imposition, underlining the status of the architect as professional and expert, indicating hierarchy and power, with an obligation to the receiver to maintain and care for this work. Sansi suggests some solutions might lie in the work of relational art practices (2015:101), where a genuine generosity takes the place of the obligation-laden gift.