In cultural anthropology, Gift exchange is also referred to as ceremonial exchange with many cultures perceiving it as a customary practice. Although it is referred to as voluntary, it is regarded as an expected social behavior. It is considered by many as a symbol of generosity and a symbol of existing social relationships. Individuals are obliged to give, to receive and to return. Even though it is done voluntarily, the intentions behind gift exchange defers. With aspects like materialism, greed and self- interest still present in the society, the ability of human kind to thrive in malice is still an option. This essay is based on how different societies get distinguished from others and how individuals in this societies get a sense of self identity. It highlights cultural customs and norms that form the basis of differences in societies and how individuals end up conducting their selves. This is elucidated through gift exchange and the norms and cultural beliefs that surround it.
Mauss’ theories and findings tend to major in gift reciprocation, the concepts of free or pure gifts with no agenda and honor. In anthropology and sociology, the gift has been met with many critics due to its contradiction to modern societies and contemporary beliefs. Mauss lays the foundation of social theories of reciprocity and gift exchange (Mauss, 2001). The exchange of gifts, which is incorporated in the deeds of giving, receiving and reciprocation, is a practice that has been generated by the society to reflect generosity and responsibility of wealth. With generosity comes honor and the desire to reciprocate. Mauss theory explores the desire to give as more important and of greater value than the desire to receive. This can be dated back to different practices of communities in the society such as the Indians or Romans. Even though the giving and receiving of gifts differ in reason of actions, Mauss emphasizes on the general desires of reciprocating gifts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Mauss uses folk tales and social ramification to put the two theories into practice. He explains the original symbolic meaning of gift exchange as show of generosity and greed. Looking at wedding gifts for example in the German society, the giving tradition symbolizes the fertility of the young couple (Mauss, 2001). Greed likewise acts as the integral theme that underlies the moral intentions of gifting. When the recipient nonetheless creates a habit of depending on the donor, the convoluted moral balance is illustrated (Mauss, 2001). This therefore implies that there is a moral implication on how much is given and why such as, to despise the recipient what is termed as a vulgar display of wealth for instance in cases where it is given to challenge rivals. This in Mauss’ theory is referred to as competitive gift exchange system. Mauss (2001) explains the rejection of gifts as a reflection on fear of obligation and reciprocation.
It is not an individual practice but a collectivist’s form of obligation. In societies where there is little resources, sharing becomes a survival strategy. In the archaic societies, gift exchange was a practice that ensure equal distribution of resources among the members of the community. Gift exchange is an integral part of social phenomena that works to build not only wealth and alliances but also social solidarity (Mauss, 2001). This is because gifts pervade all aspects of the society. Even though some gift giving practices exhibited self- interest, more than ever they focused on the concern for others. The importance of the traditional aspect of gift exchange was to foster the three pillars of the theories; to give, to receive and to reciprocate (Mauss, 2001). Even though critics challenge Mauss’ theory especially the reciprocation and contract part, the counter arguments supports his theory through conscience especially fear and guilt. Even though the modern alignment of reciprocity and gift exchange is that of malice and self- prestige, theories developed by Mauss are still cited by most sociologists and anthropologists today.
Marxist theory of historical materialism relates human society to material condition; the relationship humans have with each other is based on the motive of individual benefits. Marx’s theory is based on the ideology of ‘Marx’s time, for Marx’s himself and for Marx’s sometime today’. Marxism theory has relatively less to say about classic anthropological problems and anthropological topics. This is because it was majorly based on the theoretical efforts to understand and overthrow industrial capitalism. The relationship between Marxism and anthropology is analyzed in three steps; the writings on anthropological topics which formed research in Russian and Chinese anthropology, anthropological works inspired by Marxist theorists which can further be divided into structural Marxism and cultural Marxism and post Marxism which is inspired by Marxists ideas. The post Marxism does not reflect any assertive attachment to Marxist principles. The theory provides a model of social evolution in which contemporary ethnographic evidence can be fitted through the primitive era, to the ancient and feudal, to the capitalists and finally the communist (Marx & Engels, 1948).
It explains political order based on class but seemingly lacking class conflict. This is an area that had been pursued intensely especially by the anthropology of Republic of China and the Soviet Union. The primitive communism was characterized by lack of individual ownership possession. The tribe shared everything as a way of ensuring survival. It was the era where tribal societies had not yet developed large- scale agriculture. Their survival was a daily struggle and manifested through hunting and gathering. There was no concept of leadership, a situation referred to as proto- democracy. Tribes were led by the best warriors in cases of war or intrusion by other tribes. This stage generally begins after the dawn of humanity, where communal living was more appropriate. The sizes of primitive communist groups tend to be very small as it depends on the environment and humanity does not differ from animosity. The second stage portrays works inspired by Marxists theory (Marx & Engels, 1948).
Structural Marxism had a lot of concerns such as religion and kinship to function as infrastructure in certain non- capitalists societies. The study of rituals, languages and symbols were a sign of both domination and integration. There was an interconnection between kinship and socioeconomic class. Scale and integration questions arose during this period with the effects the relationships between societies of the core and the societies of the periphery being crucial. Structural Marxism was challenged by the issue of ethnography and culture and was termed as not exactly being anthropological. However, ethnographers argued it was becoming more cultural and less Marxist. Cultural Marxism portrays the relationship between culture and Marxist theory focusing on mélange of Marxism, ethnography, sociology and post cultural theory which was later accepted as cultural studies. It focused on how cultural resources might be deployed as resistance mechanism to the spreading capitalists work practices such as religious and symbolic life (Marx & Engels, 1948).
By taking part in an ox Christmas festivity, Richard Borshay Lee realizes the contrasting cultural practices and beliefs that surround gift exchange. Even though Mr. Lee felt like the community perceived him as a miser due to his inability to share his food. Since it was Christmas and they believed in the spiritual holiday, he felt that he was obliged to share. Unfortunately, his beliefs did not coincide with the beliefs of the Kung people and he fit in due to the power of socializing agents. Even though he had lived among them and got engaged in a wide part of their lives, the community still perceived him as an outsider and alien to their community. He decided to buy an ox as a gift, moreover, slaughtering of an ox was custom. However, his gift was received well and he felt insulted since his culture was founded on the basis of accepting any show of generosity and kindness despite the outcome (Lee, 1969).
After consulting cultural experts, he was informed that gift exchange was accepted but it happened behind closed doors. Their cultural belief stated that it may cause more harm to an individual to get praised even after a job well done. They believe that the stroking of individual’s egos may result to malice due to self-pride. Their survival strategy is grounded in the relationship they have with the environment and the controlling of how individuals think and act in the society. The Kung cultural belief simply act as evidence that people always have a motive behind gift exchange. Their beliefs however differed from the modern beliefs. By accepting someone’s gift and showing gratitude, pride might develop due to complacency or self-conviction about the receiver’s reaction. The people of the Kung tribe despise people who show arrogance or harbor pride.to eliminate the possibilities and probabilities of such traits, children were raised learning how to mock and ridicule good deeds (Lee, 1969).
References
Lee, R. B. (1969 December). Eating Christmas in the Kalahari. Natural History , 60-64.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1948). The Communist Manifesto . New York Times: International Publishers, pp. 3-48.
Mauss, Marcel. (1925; 2001 Ed.). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies . London: Routledge.
