Reciprocity According to the French

¶ … Reciprocity

According to the French anthropologist Marcel-Israel Mauss, the exchange of gifts in traditional societies was far "more complex and multivalent than anything we know from modern society" (Mauss, n.d., Anthrobase). Gifts could forge alliances between tribes, and gifts could also take the form of competitive exchanges between peoples, as was common in Native American culture. However, even today, we can see some of Mauss' principles at work in gift-giving. A relative may exercise his or her power over a child by giving the child an expensive gift and subtly hint it is with the expectation the child will get good grades. The gift is as much a demand as a sacrifice. A wealthy businessman may take a client out to an expensive restaurant, and 'treat' the potential rival to dinner as a demonstration of affluence and status in a manner that undercuts rather than bolsters the other man's confidence. Traditional gifts have power beyond their physical utility, as can be seen when little girls give friendship bracelets to one another and exclude other children. Gifts can include but also shut others out, creating a sense of a social bond and an implied social contract.

In the above-cited relationships, gifts are used to demonstrate the power of the giver. There is a clear absence of equality in the relationship. The giver has a certain amount of power over the recipient, and there is an expectation that the recipient will act in a certain manner. According to Mauss, traditional gifts differ from the types of gifts that currently exist in a modern system of capitalist exchange. In capitalism the nature of the gift is quantified and defined in terms of money, versus the demands of a gift where the recipient must give back in terms of his or her time and/or conformity to a certain type of behavior. Although this may be true, it is important to note that this does not mean that traditional gifts of reciprocity are necessarily less onerous to honor than those of current capitalist monetary exchanges. Constantly having to 'keep up' with ornate displays of generosity can be financially draining or constrain one's individuality.

In contrast, truly beneficial gifts are part of a cyclical relationship of giving, accepting, and return in a manner that does not demand a specific response from the receiver. I would argue that the best gifts do not demand an expected type of reciprocity. Both the traditional, so-called primitive types of exchanges detailed in Mauss as well as modern, capitalist exchanges demand a scripted response on the type of the receiver, either of conformity to behavior or giving back an expected sum. In contrast, truly egalitarian gifts merely demand a response left up to the imagination of the receiver, not deference or a specific price.