The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (Routledge Classics) [ペーパーバック]

In his The Gift, Marcel Mauss attempts to explain and understand gifts in primitive societies. Mauss first decides to show that the motives behind giving gifts are more complicated than commonly believed to be. In modern day society, gifts are often thought of as something given out of good will and without the expectance of something in return. Mauss shows us that in many tribal and native cultures, this is not necessarily true. In discussing the Maori, he says, "They had a kind of exchange system, or rather one of giving presents that must ultimately either be reciprocated or given back" (10). The principle of gift giving is governed by the concept of mana, which is the authority, honor, and prestige derived from the wealth and glory of being a superior gift giver. One must give gifts in order to maintain and increase mana and reciprocates them in order to prevent oneself from losing it. The obligations to give and receive are both very important. To reject a gift leads to two problems. Initially, Mauss states that to do so "is to reject the bond of alliance and commonality" (13). To reject such an important bond in a society that so heavily values communal identity is "tantamount to declaring war" (13). The second problem is that of losing mana and being viewed as afraid to accept gifts because one is unable to reciprocate them. The concept of gift giving as one that has the motives of power and authority involved displaces the common belief of gift giving. Durkheim's influence on Mauss is apparent in Mauss' discussion of the contract and sacred qualities. The sacred quality of exchange and contracts also has a relationship to appeasing the gods according to Mauss, or so it is viewed in primitive societies (and according to Durkheim the remnants of such beliefs continue in today's society). Mauss says that the ideal of the gift as distributive justice arises from the belief that the gods punish those with great wealth who are not generous. Therefore, if a gift are given out of generosity and to promote justice, does that mean that those with less wealth have not only less honor and authority, but also a lower level of justness because they are unable to give great gifts?
Gift giving appears to be a "total" social phenomenon or service because of how it works on not only economic levels, but also social levels. The motives for gift giving are not as magnanimous as one may believe because as Mauss says concerning exchange-gifts, "They are kept for the sheer pleasure of possessing them" (23). He seeks to understand the blind accumulation of wealth and says that it is motivated by "competition, rivalry, ostentatiousness, the seeking after the grandiose" (28). To him, these are somewhat negative motives, although he does not explicitly say so. Mauss shows how gift giving evolves with the Native Americans where the concept of honor is more exaggerated and the idea of "credit" and a time limit on the reciprocation of gifts is highlighted. A gift is essentially given with the motive that not only does one gain honor, respect, and authority from it, but that one will also receive something in return. Now if this something received in return is usually paid "with interest" so to speak as it is expected to be of greater value than the original gift. If Mauss is indeed correct, then why is there not a greater disparity of wealth in these primitive societies? If one is wealthy, then one could seek to continuously extend one's own authority and wealth at the same time by giving all the time, since accepting the gift is virtually required, a wealthy person could do so and gain interest on all the gifts given.

Overall, it's interesting and provocative. It is helpful to have read Durkheim's Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (then you realize that Mauss is just following in Durkheim's footsteps). What kind of society do they propose? It's not too clear. I'm still trying to figure that one out, but nonetheless, it's a provocative book, as is Durkheim's.

Mauss' book is a part sociological, part anthropological study of the practice of gift exchange. First, he explores the various forms this practice takes in distinct ethnographic settings. In each case, one catches a glimpse of what Mauss calls the 'total social fact': the notion that exchanging gifts signifies, beneath its voluntary and individualistic faade, a complex social affair. On the one hand, bonds of solidarity are created/maintained between implicated social groups; on the other, political relations of subordination (in which the donor often, if not always, occupies the dominant position) are reproduced/contested. Second, Mauss moves on to problematize the notion that the thing exchanged is merely an 'inert and lifeless object' and the synchronic view of gift exchange as a short-lived act devoid of temporality. Working his way through his ethnographic observations, Mauss unearths the historical dimension of the gift, which now appears to possess a 'spiritual' power irredemiably related to the donor and a historicity (and story) beyond the momentary encounter between donor and recipient. What follows from these two complementary arguments is that gift exchange, contrary to the individualistic notion that it merely involves the persons exchanging the gifts, establishes a wider social/political nexus, connecting the social groups the donor and recipient are members of. Finally, Mauss returns to the present and redeems the gift from its 'archaic' context to explore its potential as a social-democratic tool against 'unbridled' capitalist exchange.

There's a lot of talk here and there about what really separates the "modern" from the "primitive". And with good reason. Mauss's "The Gift" has become one of those landmark books that has become a staple for anthropology and social theory; however, I think it deserves far more. If you can, for all 80 pgs of it, discard the notion that this is old-fashioned armchair ethnography, The Gift is an immensely enlightening read. Seriously.

Mauss looks comparatively at several societies through the present and history. He finds, in the end, one common thread that unites them all. That all gifts are given and received with some degree of reciprocity. In short, there is no such thing as a free, or pure, gift. As he says, "Pure gift? Nonsense". His final chapter goes on to explore how, despite the ways in which capitalism somewhat shatters and fragments the gift relationship by severing close ties in trade/exchange between persons, this basic principle of reciprocity and giving still exists in our social structure.

The more you read it, the more you start to see this relationship. Everywhere. It's really pretty cool. Everything is a little game of give and take, even our conversations with one another involve one offering something, one returning. Besides, Mauss is quite a good writer for his time, and the 80 pgs are an easy read. Plus, the book is thin enough to fit in your back pocket. What more could you want?