The Gift Economy in Relation to the Chocolate Famine and Other Delights

It is hard to imagine, at least as a senior in college, that there are cultures that used operate off of gift economies. It may explain why as a culture America can be a country with a large population, where it’s possible to no longer know the neighbor next door. Gift economies produce ways for people to interact with people and get to know them in a more personal way. It allows a culture to flourish without the threat that they will collapse due to someone’s greed. By creating a gift economy, I believe you are achieving a unified and peaceful community. Peace is usually disrupted by someone’s greed, so in creating a gift economy you are avoiding that.

Most of Hyde’s examples were centered around the environment and about respecting the gifts the environment gives to us. I think this is one of the more important lessons Hyde is giving us. It could be said that the fact that the scarcity of clean water, trees, oil, and even chocolate is the result of the world becoming run by a profit orientated economy. People no longer see these things as gifts from nature, rather something they are entitled to since they are at the “top of the food chain.” Since humans as a whole no longer treat the Earth’s gifts as gifts, things are slowly perishing.

One of Hyde’s examples is a Native American myth about gifts in the form of the salmon. The myth starts with humans who dress in salmon fish and sacrifice themselves so that their land siblings may have food for the winter. The first salmon of the season is treated as a high ranking chief and in the end of the ritual they return the complete skeleton of the fish to the sea. They return each fish’s skeleton to the sea in order for the fish to remain plentiful. The Indians are given a gift, they keep a part of it, and then return another part back to the sea. Hyde goes on to say that the myth says that only when we are consciously destroying ourselves that we are destroying renewable wealth.

Earlier I mentioned that chocolate will become a rarity due to the demand of the product. This is because cocoa, the bean in which chocolate is made from, is becoming scarce. The world is consuming chocolate more rapidly then farmers can grow it. West Africa is the leader of cocoa production, however most of the land turns out to be infertile for the beans. There are more failing cocoa orchards then there are successful ones. This because the people who purchase chocolate do not return their profits to the farmers who produce the cocoa. By not receiving the return portion of the gift, chocolate purchasers have insured that chocolate becomes as scarce as caviar (source: http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/a-coming-cocoa-crisis.htm).

Now that I mentioned the consequence of not returning a gift I will show an example how easy it can be to return the gift. Above I mentioned trees becoming scarce, mostly because humans are constantly increasing in population. This increase in population leads to more trees being cut down to build communities for humans. Trees give humans the gift of oxygen, the air in our lungs is due to trees. How could we possibly return this gift?

"Bios Urn"

https://urnabios.com/product/

The Bios Urn allows a person to contribute to the environment, allowing your ashes to grow a tree in this biodegradable urn. This is available to both animals and humans. Not only are you contributing in helping out the environment, you are giving the grieving loved ones a chance to have a physical reminder of their loved one. Why visit a graveyard when you can visit the area the urn was buried in and care for the tree as it goes. That way the deceased loved one can keep giving to the environment that gave continuously to their life. 

You can read more about the Bios Urn in these following links:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/17/biodegradeable-urn-lets-you-go-green-even-six-feet-under/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2011/12/02/the-burial-industry-takes-a-turn-to-eco-friendliness/

Just like Tony mentioned nature gives humans many gifts and we do not always return them. The next time you eat a piece of chocolate think that every purchase isn't returned to those who gift you the cocoa for it. If the US is able to start a gift economy we may help the world survive longer one gift return at a time. You also don't have to start storing chocolate in a basement freezer so you are ready for the chocolate famine!

Do your part in the chocolate famine: 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/nov/18/save-our-chocolate-expert-tips-halt-cocoa-shortage

The 1-Up Economy

Within Hyde’s idea of Gift Economy there exists an ideal where people give of themselves without expectation therefore allowing for a beautiful sense of selflessness and generosity between people. This idea would allow for artists to produce their art and for it to be viewed as a “gift” rather than a gift that one can stick a monetary amount onto. Other works that people would create with their normal jobs would also be considered gifts to the whole, creating a collective whole to which everyone contributes to and benefits from.

Aside from talking about the obvious transition into socialistic ideas, I would prefer to discuss how this type of gift economy would not be able exist anywhere else other than paper. Unless there was a perfect society completely devoid of the follies of man that exist within greed and pride, the giving of gifts will always hold a place of hierarchical value whether that value be monetary or otherwise. People have a natural tendency to assign value to things which is apparent even with the clothes that you picked out for yourself today. Why pick a suit over sweatpants? The gift of both has been provided to you by those who took the time to produce them. Or would your nakedness serve as a "gift" to those who would enjoy the sight? This raises the question of "What is a gift, and what constitutes one?". 

The act of the gift giving would then create a sort of prestige about it. Those that gave the bigger gift or provided the most amount of gifts would be regarded in a higher standing than those who had given less. But in making that distinction then the act of gift giving becomes associated with value as one person's gift is valued more favorably over another's rather than just accepting them all as gifts no one greater than the other. This type of gift giving was used in the Moka Exchange in New Guinea where whomever gave the "greater" gift was considered a better "bigger" man and almost instilled a feeling of debt within the gift recipient. 

In summary, I believe although it is nice in theory, a gift economy leads to a kind of situation where everyone may seemingly try to give of their own kind nature but end up looking spiteful and childish in the long-run when in competition for the bigger gift giving. 

As an example, this type of gift giving is seen within this particular scene in bridesmaids where each tries to give the bigger gift to their friend through speech, until it becomes more of an awkward competition than come from a place of sincerity. 

The Gift Economy: Less about the numbers

As an economics major, my studies have focused on economics in terms of what can be quantified. Much of the study of economics is in terms of some form of currency, some form of a numerical value, by which one good can be easily compared to another such good. Lewis Hyde's idea of a "gift economy" is less concerned with the idea of a certain object having a value, but the value in the case being derived from the giving of the object to another as a gift. The example of the Kwakiutl copper, in particular the giving of the copper named "Maxtsolem." The tribe who is given the copper first offers one thousand blankets in return, but eventually then bring out a total of 3,700 blankets. The tribe who receives the copper than adds an additional four hundred blankets. This particular exchange shows how a gift increases in value the more it is given. The object in question does not seem to be what has the value in this example. Rather, it is the act of giving the object that has value, and the value of this giving increases the more the same object is given as a gift.

This idea of a "gift economy" does not seem to fit in with anything I have learned in studying economics. Hyde's idea of art as a gift is also different from an economics view. In economics, there is a dollar value to everything. This is similar to the way that a commodity-centered economy works, as well. Gift economies are less focused on the objects, and deal more with what is done with those objects. The objects have no value on their own, unless given to another. Although the exchange itself does not require a return gift, the gift economy continues to function by the giving of another gift. In the Gaelic tale, the daughter who had given the gift of bread from her mother to the bird was given more than wage for the job of looking over the dead man. The additional gift of the cordial she had then used to revive her sisters, continuing to give of the gifts she received, and expanding the "circle of giving," as Hyde calls it.

The first chapter starts off with an example of a gift economy from Native Americans. The idea of expecting something of equivalent value in return for a gift was what allowed the gift economy to function for the Native Americans, but is a concept lost to those in a capitalist society, such as the U.S. Capitalism typically prompts people to think individualistically, looking at "what they can get out of" something. However, even in the U.S., when gifts are given, there is often something given in return, even if not in terms of another physical gift. When a parent gives a gift to their children, the children return signs of affection towards the parent. Very few instances of gift giving ever seem to expect nothing at all in return for them. When someone gives a gift to their significant other, they expect to receive that person's love and adoration in return.

In the preface to the book, Hyde refers to works of art as gifts. This idea puts such works in two economies, as Hyde says. The commodity economy puts a direct price on it, but in the gift economy, such a work only has value in the giving of the gift. The concept that such a work of art, although it can be consumed as a commodity, does not become exhausted of its gift but actually increases in its value as it continues to be given, is something that is a beautiful idea in my mind. Ideas like this concept of giving in a gift economy are very different from any idea I have experienced from economics. In economics, assumptions are made or certain cultural aspects of countries are overlooked in a way to allow for analysis of many very different countries to be treated as being mostly similar in empirical analysis. Since empirical analysis is only concerned with the numbers that can be quantified, it becomes very difficult to examine the effects of other factors, such as differences in government or culture, between various countries. A gift economy is not as concerned about such kinds of numerical values, however, since the objects that have the highest value only have that value when the object is given to another.

The idea of a gift's value being in the giving of the gift reminds me of something I had heard while I was in high school. Since it was a Catholic high school, I had taken courses in religion while I was there. During one of the masses that was held at the school (or maybe during a retreat, I don't actually remember exactly), I had heard the phrase "it is in giving that we receive." Examples of this can be found in the Bible, as well. Before the Last Supper, Jesus had washed the feet of his apostles. Even though the apostles looked to Jesus as their master and teacher, he acted as a servant would towards them. This gift was not without expectation of something in return, however. The apostles had already given up their old occupations and lives to follow Jesus, and after Jesus died, it was the apostles who then would lead the rest of the disciples. The leadership of the Catholic Church has continued in a similar fashion to the first apostles, in that they abandon their former lives and give of themselves to God, and in doing so make their entire lives gifts to God and to all those who believe in God. In a way, the Catholic Church and other religions serve as modern day examples of gift economies, in that what is done in the sake of religion is expected to be given back in the afterlife or in the next life.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving

The concept of valuing creative generosity and community as a whole is hard to understand in a country like the United States when we tend to worship wealth before anything else. We tend to put values on everything, from clothing to physic, education to employment, house to car. Everything around us is given a value and we must compete with others to ensure that we, individually, have the best and stand out from the rest. When we do this, we tend to strive away from what Hyde places emphasis on: gift economy. When a country worships wealth over all, we do not have a gift economy. Instead we focus on what the gift is worth, if we like the gift or not, and what we can do with it. By doing this, we are taking what the gift may be and replacing it with a monetary value- nothing more.

 

However, Hyde suggests that even a country that worships wealth as much as we do here in the United States can bring back the idea of a gift economy by putting focus on what a gift economy actual is. From reading Hyde’s The Gift, I was able to pull a couple points out that struck me the hardest and made me think. The first is the folktale “The Girl and the Dead Man.” This tale stood out to me because I feel like it breaks down the concept of gift economy in a simple and effective manner. The bread given to each girl by the mother is the gift and it is not until the third daughter that we see gift economy coming into play. The final girl passes the bread out to the birds so that they have something to eat, she does not keep it to herself because she never gave it a monetary value, unlike the first two.  She is willing to take her gift and share it with others so that it keeps in movement, one of the important aspects of gift economy according to Hyde. By sharing her gift, she is allowing something else to benefit and hopefully continue to share with others. Hence, the bread stays in motion and reaches as many as possible, before it is all eaten of course. 

While reading this section of Hyde’s piece, I kept on going back to the play/film Into the Woods. The concept of the play and film, if you do not know, is a mash-up of fairy tales such as Cinderella and Rapunzel. Obviously, the clear connection between the two is the set: the dark and scary wood. However, upon thinking more about Into the Woods, I began to think about how gift economy is portrayed to the audience. Key items, such as the slipper and golden hair are ever moving and given from one to another in order to help those in need. These gifts remain in constant motion and continue in motion throughout the film. It is even said that the gifts will continue to move within the hands of others in order to reach as many as possible. Instead of being content and idolizing important belongs and keeping them to themselves, like so many others, these characters are able to come together, connect plots and fairy tales and separates become one. Into the Woods, is an example of how Hyde’s theory of gift economy can still be relevant in today’s culture. One of the biggest movies of 2014 was centered on keeping ‘gifts’ in motion and helping the greater good. 

The second is the example of the Kula gifts. The armshells and necklaces are giving from one to another, moving between island and island. Hyde points out that when even the Kula gifts make it back to the originating island, it is not to the same person nor will the second path be identical to the first. Each of those who possess an article of the Kula are touched and cannot wait to hand off this gift to another to ensure that as many people as possible can have it within their possession. 

I think it is interesting that the article “What Is Art For?” talks about Hyde visiting Walden where Henry David Thoreau went to leave beyond society as he knew it to try and see the world from a different view. This pairing if very interesting because Hyde focuses on the environment and not having any sort of monetary value on certain objects, just previously mentioned. Thoreau, in my own opinion, did something very similar and was able to reach the first major step in a gift economy: throw out the monetary values of items and focus on something else, which in his case was stepping back and looking at the world differently. In order to have a gift economy in today’s world, I believe that this is what would need to happen, we as a whole would have to step away from what we know the world to be today and look at it from a new perspective. I believe it would be impossible in today’s society to be able to have a strong gift economy in nations that place monetary values on such a vast number of articles. However, if we were to take Thoreau’s work and try to apply it to such a nation, gift economy could become a major player. 

In addition, gift economy could be taught to future generations over time. I do not believe my generation would be able to change however, if we taught the next generation and they taught the next, and so on, we may be able to have a strong gift economy throughout the world. We would be able to show our children and grandchildren artwork like Indra’s Cloud to show that how gift economy could work and add to a community. Take something that can be harmful to wilderness, such as trash, and transform it into a unique art piece for neighbors to enjoy. At this same time, like Indra’s Cloud, attention would be given to show the effects of pollution and the terrible conditions. Many do not realize that the wild gives us many gifts such as oxygen or habits for wild animals and we do not continue to give these gifts. We use them and forget about them- they are only there when we want them to be.  In the future, it may be possible, via gift economy, to realize that we must protect our planet more in order to help it survive like it helps us survive and be prosperous. Only time would be able to tell whether or not gift economy could survive in the United States or whether we would go back to our current roots of a market economy.

Hyde, Transformation, and a Closer Look at the Maori

After reading through Hyde's first three chapters, as well as some of the articles linked to in the original blog post, it is so clear to me now how truly difficult it would be to summarize or condense Hyde's delineation of the gift economy and its presence in American/capitalist society today along with its significance in older/tribal cultures. The degree to which he explores the impact of the gift economy and the presence of gifts in general--whether it be in nature, in everyday interaction, or in more formal circulations (like the Kula)--provides a wealth of context and example for the benefits and potential for transformation and growth allowed by the giving and reciprocation of gifts.  The relationships we cultivate with others, and in some cases with the natural world around us, through the practice of gift circulation also allows for us to acknowledge our standing in society and with nature so that we may better understand what it is we owe to the people around us and appreciate what we have been given (not just in a material sense, but through labor, spirit, and nurture).

While picking apart Hyde's chapters, I found that I connected with a few particular concepts more than others, and developed some questions along the way. Perhaps as we continue our discussion, some of you might have more thoughts on these subjects and could share some insight/opinion on these things.

Right off the bat in the preface of The Gift, Hyde speaks of the disconnect present between the creation and sharing of art and the commerce form of earning a living (xii), particularly regarding poetry.  This disconnect that he speaks of has been brought up time and again throughout my time at Bryant, and in many discussions with numerous professors (Chandler, Bassett, and Hasseler, to name a few). I still have difficulty wrapping my head around the concept of pursuing a career in writing or something else in the arts when there is such tremendous pressure from my peers, parents, and even some professors to pursue a career that will provide me with a substantial amount of money and job security.  The sometimes overwhelming criticism and mocking of the arts and creative pursuits in a business-oriented environment has quelled some of my creative spirit, and has motivated me to explore more practical careers (like teaching, or working on a college campus).  Hyde's example of the book series that was developed and mass produced based on market research and consumer behavior was a perfect example of how, like many people at Bryant, our society places more value in profit and sales than on the gift of art created for the sake of creative-expression, gifts that give more than just visual or literary appeal, but provide a connection to the reader/viewer than allows them to think and grow. There is value in art, literature, and craft that speaks to people's fears, joys, and shared struggle that is just not present in the consumer goods that are bought, sold, stored, and traded.

Based on Mauss's three basic criteria for a gift economy, it is easy to see how drastically different our market economy differs from the practices of reciprocated gift-giving. First, there is an obligation to give. People have trouble giving because they don't want to lose the money or possessions they've acquired, since getting and not giving is the mark of success and means. They share consumer goods, but rarely give away things of high personal value without the guarantee of something even better in return. Second, there is an obligation to accept the gifts given to you.  I think many people struggle with this concept of accepting gifts (especially those of art/music/etc) because of the way we are taught of the significance of monetary value rather than the value of connection, or the value in the way a gift touches us that has nothing to do with price. How can people truly accept gifts if they do not acknowledge or perceive value that has nothing to do with money? Third, there is an obligation to reciprocate the gift. I'd argue that the most common form of reciprocation in our society is that between two people--really just a simple gift exchange. The problem with this, as Hyde points out, is that in order for gifts to grow in meaning and significance they must travel in a circular motion (usually between three or more people). This way, the gift enhances is status or level each time it completes the circle. When only two people are involved in the reciprocal form of giving, men tend to think more like salesmen since they have more control over the gift; the gift doesn't move beyond their own ego, and the concept of social faith is lost. 

Pakeha hunters posing with their haul of

 kereru (wood pigeon), around 1900. 

(http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/11958/hunters-with-kereru)

In my travels to New Zealand, I heard many of the Maori stories all sharing common themes involving the importance of respecting and giving back to nature.  In Hyde's story of hau and the Maori hunters, priests, and the birds, the spirit of the circular flow of gifts is exemplified, and demonstrates (even in a symbolic way) how significant the transformation of the gifts is, and how the value of the gift extends far beyond practical/monetary value and into the redemption of the spirit and respect for life itself. The Maori lived by spiritual restictions know as tapu. Tapu affected all activities in Maori societies (from fishing to hunting), and in regard to the bird hunting explained in The Gift, the tapu would determine which birds could be hunted at what time, how it should be stored and cooked, and the equipment used to catch the birds. According to Te Ara, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, "If the tapu was breached in any way, the gods would be offended and their help withdrawn." (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/te-tahere-manu-bird-catching/page-6) Tapu and Rahui, a form of tapu that serves as prohibition of certain bird hunting activities (like taking birds out of certain trees or hunting in certain territories), were prominent and respected parts of Maori life; both exemplify the kind of spiritual respect for nature and ecology that is now so lacking in modern American society. 

 

On that note, many of these stories are the tales involving the Pakeha (people of European descent), who exploited the land and the people, and used the gifts of nature for profit and personal gain and didn't pay mind to the balance of the gift circulation.  The Pakeha hunted for sport, and the Maori hunted for food, causing great dispute and clashes between the two populations in New Zealand. Hyde presents the truth that when we coexist with nature, and act as a part of it rather than its master or exploiter, we are more likely to continue receiving its gifts, allowing us to survive and prosper.  

 

By including ourselves as part of the ecological cycle, we can understand what nature gives to us and what we give to nature enough to sustain a healthy give and take, which could allow us to better support the under-privileged part of the population (a large percentage of people living without access to natural resources). This kind of thinking might also lead us to place more importance on ecologically conscious behavior and increase our efforts as a developed country to expand our use of sustainable technology and consume goods and energy in moderation. The vast amount of material, energy, fuel, and natural resources that this shift in consumer culture would benefit the earth and the human population in countless ways.

 

The threshold gifts Hyde speaks of are some of the more significant gifts in our society, and have outlasted many of the gift economy practices that many modern cultures have left behind. Gifts of passage, given at times of great transition or change, could be easily identified in our own lives, I'm sure.  As Hyde observes, market-type exchange seems inappropriate during times marked as thresholds (like birth or death). I think that even if you asked the most uptight businessman at Bryant, you'd still find that even he agrees with this concept, because we perceive giving at these times to be actions of common decency or moral obligations. Still, we give, and that counts for something. 

There are some things I'm still pondering, and will continue to look into as we move forward.  Where does the balance lie between the part and the whole (i.e. between the civilian and the governing body)?  How do we, as individuals, break from the thinking of a market economy and place importance on the concepts of a gift economy when it's understood by so few people in our society? Also, if anyone wants to shed some more light on the concept of potlatch that would be great.