The Social Psychology of the Gift Author(s): Barry Schwartz Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, No.

1 (Jul., 1967), pp. 1-11 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776124 . Accessed: 08/05/2013 06:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

theamerican journal ofsociology

Volume 73 Number 1 1967 July

oftheGift TheSocialPsychology
Barry Schwartz

ABSTRACT In the firstsection of this essay giftexchangeis discussedin termsof its relevancefor is in it is suggested, the development and maintenance of identity. The acceptanceof a gift, factan acceptanceof the giver'sideas as to what one's desiresand needs are. Giftgivingas a mode of social controland expressionof unfriendliness is considered.The relationship is analyzed fromthe standpointof the "gratitude betweengiftexchangeand social structure The essay is concludedwith a treatment of benefit exchangeas a techniquefor imperative." the regulationof shared guilt.
THE GIFT AS A GENERATOR OF IDENTITY

Differential emphasis has been placed in social analysis. upon formand content Simmel's of "sociability" discussion is perhaps themostradicalstatement on form in sociallife,forit is withregard to thismode of sociationthat content is assertedto be of no consequence.'Goffman expressesa similar idea, the "Rule of Irrelevance," in his essay "Fun in Games." The content of the game, as that of sociability, must be "self-sufficient" or irrelevant to the relabetween tionship playersin non-game encounters.2 This is especially true of the gift, overwhosecontents an excessivedisplay of pleasureor displeasure would affront the giver,violatethe Rule of Irrelevance,and taketheentire encounter out of thesphere of "pure" sociability. The rules of self-sufficiency or irrelevance must not be understoodto imply
1 Georg Simmel,"Sociability" in Kurt Wolff (ed.), TheSociology ofGeorg Simmel (NewYork: FreePress, 1950),pp. 40-55. 2Erving Goffman, "Fun in Games"in Encounters (NewYork:Bobbs-Merrill Co.,1961),p. 19.

thatthe contents of things can be stripped of theirmeanings. Thus, despitethe principle which subordinatesthe contentor as a qualityof the giftto its significance it is tokenof thesocial relationship itself, of a giftis an clear that the presentation imposition of identity. Giftsare one of the ways in whichthe picturesthat othershave of us in their mindsare transmitted. This pointis seen in recurrent controversies over the prevalence of "war toys"on American giftlists. And thefunction of "masculine" and "feminine"gifts relativeto sexual identification is clear enough.By the givingof different types of "masculine" gifts,for example, the mother and father expresstheirimage of the childas "a littlesoldier" or "a little chemist or engineer." Doubtlessly, an analysis of the gift-buying habits of parents would be a significant contribution to our of socialization. knowledge One important aspectofsuchan investigation wouldsurely focus upon the increasingpopularity of educationaltoys,the bisexual distribution of whichmaycontribute to and reflect the

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

of Americansex whois obligedto distribute lesseningdifferentiation benefits among twoor morepersons. roles. The identity he thereis perhaps the of identity is by generatesfor himself The giftas an imposition of a longcareerof identity the"Office mostimportant wellseenin itsburlesqued form, forit is his last-and is theideal typeofwhichobtains pronouncements, Pollyanna," are chosenat random unalterable. whengiftrecipients The act of givingis self-defining in a which withinexpensive items and presented way. Men tendto confirm their to that moredirect make comical or wittyreference it to othersin by presenting part of theirpersonalmakeup which,in own identity form.An extremeinstanceof of objectified the eyes of the giver,is mostworthy thistypeofself-presentation is the display exaggeration. of masculinity the through of gift giving serves as a and If giftgivingsocializes thebirth of a child.Emerit becomesnecessary cigarsfollowing of identity, generator that this tendof gifts which son, in fact,has suggested theexistence to acknowledge be made One way ency toward self-objectification or impede maturation. facilitate in which upwardly mobile parents cause explicit(and in so doing providesinsight giftcigar in their children is to providegifts into thatwhichthenew father's anxiety forwhichtheyare not yet ready-or even symbolizes): giftswhose level theyhave long ago out- The onlygiftis a portion of thyself. ... grown. In thislight, regressive possibilities Therefore thepoetbrings hispoem;theshephis lamb; the farmer, exist on both sides of every gift-givingherd, corn;the miner, coralandshells;thepainter, relationship. What has been impliedhere a gem;thesailor, of her is that gift givingplays a role in status his picture;the girl,a handkerchief This is right and pleasing, for This is illus- own sewing. maintenance and locomotion. it restores in society far so to its primary in the "rites which of passage" tratedbest is conveyed gifts normallyaccompany. In such in- basis, whena man's biography in a gift.3 stances,theynot only servethe recipient (e.g., a newlywed)as tools withwhichto It is common knowledge thatmen present betraymoreeasily his or her former self themselvespublicly by the conspicuous but symbolizeas well the social support presentation of gifts. Generouscontribuforsuch a betrayal. necessary tionsto charity have alwaysbeen a source of prestigein the United States. This is THE GIVER true especially whensuchgestures are made The giftimposesan identity upon the by individualsrather than corporations, by the giveras well as the receiver. On the one and has been carriedto an extreme of moviesociety, forwhomgiving hand, gifts,as we noted, are frequently members givenwhichare consonant withthe char- is an aspect of public relations.But profund raisersrecognizethis tendacterof therecipient; reveal fessional yet,suchgifts an important secret: the idea which the ency in generalsocietyas well and therewhichare recipient evokesin the imagination of the foreprovide"I Gave" stickers affixed to the front dooras certigiver.This pointenables us to appose to generally of thefamily's willingness and abilof the social looking fication Cooley's recognition potglass an additionalsourceof self-concept: ity to give away wealth.The charity mode of thepublic thisis our "ideas of others"-which, when latch is an important of self. made public,are self-defining. Indeed,gift presentation In middle-and upper-class society,thc givingis a way of freeassociating about consumer of goods,fox therecipient in his presence and sometimes wifeis a ceremonial in the presenceof others.This principle 'Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Gifts," in Emerson' is recognized by the makerof a last will Essays (Philadelphia: SpencerPress, 1936), p. 358

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYOF THE GIFT

thewifetoconsume is in fact decency "requires some thatthe acceptanceof a present for the reputability an acceptance of the giver's ideas as to goods conspicuously of thehousehold and its head."4Thus, the what one's desiresand needs are. Consehusbandelaborates his identity by the be- quently,to accept a giftis to accept (at and to rejecta who becomes least in part) an identity, stowalofgifts upon thewife, of oneself.It the public exponent of his selfhood. Chil- giftis to rejecta definition are more and more followsthat the receiptof giftsfromtwo dren, furthermore, raisesquespersons or groups status repre- incompatible assumingthe role of family as theadult femalemoves from tionsas to the real sourceof one's identisentatives thesocial to the economic sphere.The gift fication. presentation of automobiles are foundoutright and otherexAt anotherextreme pensive items to childrenand teenagers rejectionsof giftswith a consciousview testifies to this drift. the selfhoodwhose statusan Of course,the nega- to affirming wouldthreaten. A radicalillustive side of an excessivegiving-receiving acceptance ratio in favorof the parentsconsistsof a trationfrom Ruth Benedict makes this clearin ourminds: denialto thechildof thoserewards to self- typeofreaction hood whichaccompany the givingof gifts, Throw theclanof his friend to Awayinvited thechief of whichis an imageof oneself as a feast and carelessly served of salmon berries a source of gratification to others. in canoesthathad not thegrease and berries This leads into the interesting area of been cleanedsufficiently to do themhonor. inchoseto takethisas a gross the givingof giftsto oneself. This is nor- Fast Runner the food,lyingdownwith mally spoken of in termsof "self-indul- sult. He refused drawn over his face, to which, gence,"opposition to its his blackbear blanket stripped he was displeased, seeing essentials, represents an unwillingness on and all his relatives, hisexample.5 thepartof theego to strike a bargainwith followed theid. This inflexibility is dangerous when The covering thatFast of thefacesuggests otherpeople (as sources of satisfaction) Runneris defending himselfagainst the are not available,forit makesadjustment disparaging ofhisselfhood which definitions to hostileor impersonal environments un- the dirty canoes imply. And from the likely. Deprived of material demonstra- standpoint gift, of thegiverof therejected tions of recognition fromothers,the in- we see an immediate worldthathas someternalization of such disregardcan only how lost its dependability. As Helen M. be avoided by the utilization of one- Lynd notes, the giver trustshimselfto self as a source of pleasure. The "self- "a situation and is therethatis not there" gratifier" is an interesting productof the by forcedto cope with the dilemmaof non-intimate community who, despite his shame. has receivedlittleattention pervasiveness, GIFT EXCHANGE, CONTROL from thesocial sciences. This is theperson AND SUBORDINATION who,without significant affectional bonds, it in somehow makes through life one piece. has written Levi-Strauss that"goods are He creates his own (emotional)"nutrition" notonlyeconomic but vehicles commodities and survives. for realities of another and instruments status, order: influence, power,sympathy, GIFT REJECTION gameof exchange emotion;and theskillful Earlier,in our treatment of the giftas consists ofmaneuvers, ofa complex totality an imposition of identity, it was suggested consciousor unconscious, in orderto gain one's self against securityand to fortify 4Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure
Class (New York: Modern Library, 1934), p. 83. See also pp. 85, 149.
I Ruth Benedict, Patternsof Culture (New York: Mentor Books, 1960), pp. 175-76.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY THE AMERICAN

" William F. Whyte,Street CornerSociety (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 258. 10George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its ElementaryForms (New York: Harcourt, Brace & 92; Bronislaw Malinowski, Crime and Custom in World, 1961), p. 319. SavageSociety(Paterson, Adams N.J.: Littlefield, "lFor a general discussionof the social role of & Co., 1959),pp. 58, 59. Santa Claus, see James H. Barnett,The American "Re- Christmas (New York: Macmillan Co., 1954). 'Richard Korn and Lloyd W. McCorkle, socialization withinWalls," Annals of the Ameri- See also Warren0. Hagstrom,"What Is theMeancan Academy of Political and Social Science, ing of Santa Claus?" AmericanSociologist,I (NoCCXCIII (May, 1954),90. vember,1966), 248-52.

guardhissocialstanding, hissocialclaims, his socialassets" (Brown, Lifeagainst Death[NewYork: Random House,1959], p. 262). ' George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace& World, 1960),pp. 284-

alliancesand rival- Whyte, through forinstance, notes that the leader risksincurred of one's takes care not to fall into debt to his foltheregulation words, In other ry."'6 that on the contrary, bonds to othersis verymuchpart of the lowersbut to insure, of goods.Similarly, the benefitshe rendersunto others are of theexchange matter Parentsare especially haveconvincingly neverfullyrepaid.9 Homansand Malinowski in aware of the fact thatthe child pays the argued that men are less constrained when he accepts activi- cost of social inferiority actionsby separatecontrolling their from them fails to reciprocate. and a gift than by obligations ties and institutions is notes "he may, "What more," Homans, to one anwhichtheyincurin reference in becoming an inferior, become also a it is generallytrue other.7Furthermore, theonly way he can pay his subordinate: by regulatascendancy thatmenmaintain debt may be to accept the ordersof the An to them. of others ing theindebtedness giver."'0This principle is perhapsnowhere in betterseen than through of thisis described instance exaggerated the character of Korn and McCorkle'sessay on prisonso- Santa Claus, thegreatest of all giftgivers, cialization: of surveillance to whosepowers and ability benefits are annually Once an inmatehas acceptedany material grant and withhold that the exploited it is understood of service symbol by parents as instruments of conhas thereby established trolover theirchildren. donorof thesegifts The extreme Santa Claus shouldnot be takenlightly overthereceiver. rights personal aid usageshave by the sociologist mutual these to which degree as we have seen,he for, is il- plays an important struggles to power beenmadedependent role with respectto inother of forcing by the custom lustrated in- social control." It must also be noticed . . . Aggressive matesto acceptcigarettes. but a Caucato place thathe is notonlya Christian lengths mates willgo to extraordinary Nordicone at that. theyhave se- sian-and a blue-eyed giftsin the cells of inmates for the Theseintended This has particularsignificance domination. lected for personal and non-Caucasian. That in orderto escape the threatenednon-Christian victims, that littleJewishboys and girls,for example, and insist the owner mustfind bondage, be takenback.8 the gifts must depend upon a blue-eyedChristian for theirgiftsmay lead to manyhypothmay be then, of reciprocity, The principle eses concerning the role of the mythin used as a tool in the aspirationfor and generaland of St. Nicholas in particular WilliamF. ofstatusand control. protection with respect to ethnicdominance.Most o Claude Levi-Strauss, of Reci- Jewishparentsare veryaware of Santa's "The Principle procity" in LewisA. Coserand Bernard Rosenberg great seductivepowersand of his ability (eds.), SociologicalTheory (New York: Macmillan to confoundthe developmental problem MichaelPolanyiis Co., 1965), p. 76. Similarly, Therefore, the exBrown:"He [man] does not of ethnicidentification. quotedby Norman denied interest in the istenceof Santa Claus is sometimes hisindividual act so as to safeguard possession of material goods;he actsso as to safe- straightaway, and in his stead the hero of

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYOF THE GIFT

the Jewishholiday of Hanukkah, Judas GIFT GIVING AS AN UNFRIENDLY ACT Maccabee,is placed.But there is no contest: is made between Once a connection gift first of all, Judasis nota giftgiverand as exchange and social control,it becomes such is due neither promises of loyaltynor necessary to explorethe possibility of unthereis no connection friendliness obedience. Further, as a component of giftgiving. theHanukkahgift between and theMacca- One need not look far beforeample evibees. It is littlewonderthat Jewishchil- dence forsuch a possibility is found. Lowin De- ell's assertion dren feel themselves shortchanged that"a gift without thegiver forHanukkahis indeedan imita- is bare" implies cember, thatsincere affection is not tion Christmas-andthe veryexistence of a necessary correlate of giftpresentation. imitation implies a dominant objectand an But the popularwarning, "Never look a The Hanukkahgift, inferior onie. moreover, gifthorsein themouth," is an even more lacks thesociological qualityof theChrist- directacknowledgment of giftsas expresoftengiven in sionsof hostility. mas present.The former, And thepractical joke is of cash or Hanukkahgelt, merely an instance theform ofman'sneedtogivegifts which (in Simmelian terms) "expressesthe gen- hurt or embarrassthe recipient: "hot" in all exchangeable chewinggum, cigars that blow up, giftcontained eral element objects,thatis, theirexchangevalue,it is wrappedboxes containing a replica of a the individual incapableof expressing ele- portion of feces, etc.,are all purchased with theconcrete a viewto thedirector indirect mentin them."'2 By contrast, satisfaction Christmaspresent,especially chosen in of thisneed. terms of the personality of giver and reThe very nature of the giftexchange reflective of provides ceiver, is more specifically a condition forunfriendliness. Allife thoughgiftgivingis itselfrewarding into theirrespective and incorporable (in To thisextent,the giverof Ha- ways to be later described),it is accomsystems. nukkahgelt inevitably surrenders to the panied by obviousdeprivation as well, for recipienta measure of control because the giverpresentsto anotherthat which unlike does could have been employedfor self-gratimoney, a particular commodity, a certain life system:it may fication. not presume While he may receivea gift in be used in any way and thusbecomesa return, thereis certainly some loss of permoreflexible instrument of the possessor's sonal controlover incomeand output of volition. goods and money.The recipientin this the above point,it seems, lightbecomes Incidentally, a depriver about whomvariis relevant to the area of publicassistance, ous degrees of ambivalence may emerge. wheretherehas been some debate about But the most obviousinstanceof hoswhether benefits to the needy should be tility in giftexchange in the potis found givenin the form of cash or goods.Social latch,which has as an essentialaim the workers are moreproneto arguein favor degradation of the recipient. Amongthe of the former often on the Arapesh, alternative, for example, a buanyin orexchange basis of its implications for the psychopartneris assignedin early male adoleslogical autonomy of the recipient. Oppo- cence. It is the duty of the buanyins, nents of thispolicyarguethatthepresenta- writes continMead, to insultone another tion of moneyseverelylimitsthe welfare ually and to tryto outdo one anotherin forcash may gift exchange.13 band ofcontrol, department's But it is the Kwakiutl be spent on disapproved Its whocarry commodities. thispractice to its extreme. Here, dissolvesthe authority abstractness of the the boy who receives his first giftselects in concrete giver, whichis inherent items. another personto receivea giftfrom him.
I Simmel, and Gratitude," op. cit., "Faithfulness 1 Margaret Mead,Sex and Temperament(New pp. 390-91. York: New American Library, 1962), pp. 34-35.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

if he but not exact, value of that received). "When the timecame forrepayment had not double the original giftto return Returning "tit fortat" transforms the reone and expresses he was shamedand demoted, lationinto an economic as interest, en- a refusal to play the role of grateful and his rival'sprestige correspondingly reciphanced."'4 ient. This offense a desire to represents it on or at least define Benedict describesthe phenomenon at end therelationship an impersonal, non-sentimental level. An greater length: a refusal then,is essentially The whole economic system of theNorthwestexact return, to is to accept of a "token which regard," to theservice ofthis Coastwasbent obsession. of of a declaration There weretwomeans bywhich a chief could Mauss, "the equivalent of friendship and interachievethe victory he sought. One was by war; it is a refusal "18 hisrival himwith shaming bypresenting more course. Both gift giver and receiverevaluate property thanhe could return withthe reThe other was by destroying quiredinterest. presentsaccordingto some frameof refIn bothcasestheoffering calledfor erence.A givermay therefore property. conexpress in the firstcase the giver's temptfor the recipient though return, by purchasing for and in the secondhe him an inferior wealth was augmented gift (in comparison with of goods.The consequenceshis giftsto others).Thus unfriendliness himself stripped is to us at theoppo- shownby the mere seems of thetwomethods invocation of a frame weremerely sitepoles.To theKwakiutl they This mechanism, of course,is a rival, and of reference. means of subduing complementary what the enables last will and testament to thehighest of lifewas theact of comglory for the exIt was a challenge, pletedestruction. exactly become partlyan instrument of hostility. and it was always pression of a copper, liketheselling We also mention the object-deromight a who must to rival donein opposition then, from in order to save himself shame, destroy gationritualby meansof whichthegiftto of valuable an equal amount goods.'5 be presented is "cursed." This ritual is reserved especially for those occasions struck Marcel Mauss was rightly by the wherea presentation of a tokenof regard betweenthe potlatchand con- is mandatory. similarity Thus children, in relaying cen- a Christmas spicuous spendingin the twentieth their giftfrom parentsto the He neglected, to indicate teacher, tury.16 however, willfeign a spit upon thepackage thatit was Veblenwho had done themost -or suggestits use as toiletpaper, with extensive waste" in an indecentgesture.Such ritualshave as studyof "conspicuous his Theoryof theLeisureClass. The goals theirpurposethe "contamination" of the of such waste are essentially thosedirect- itemwithunfriendly sentiment. The ritual ing the Kwakiutl: extravagant provision yields its fruitwhen the teacheraccepts of commodities is made with a view to the contaminated gift with pleasure and shamingthe consumers, especially those thanks.On the other hand, the recipient who openlycompete withthe host in such may be awareof thecontempt of thegiver mattersas feasts,balls, and other social and, though obliged to accept the gift, events.'7 may preventcontamination by destroying One expresses unfriendliness through it, failing to use it, forgetting aboutit,etc. gift giving by breaking theruleof approxiGifts may reflectunfriendliness in at matereciprocity (returning a giftin near, least two finalways.First,the goldwatch presented at retirement is normally more "Benedict, op. cit.,p. 169. representative of a feeling of good riddance 5Ibid., p. 172. than of recognition forachievement; it is ' Marcel Mauss, The Gift (London: Cohen & indeed a gilded "pink slip." Lastly,psyWVest, 1954), p. 4.
17

Veblen, op. cit., p. 75.

"8Mauss, op. cit.,p. 11.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYOF THE GIFT

choanalytic of symbolism theories suggest thereexistsboth the fearof "being found thatdeathwishesmaybe expressed in such out" and a degree of guilt over the ingift objectsas electric trains, satinblankets, sincerity itself.When ambivalence reaches ships,and othervehicles whichtake "long a certain point,the compulsive giftgiver journeys." Inasmuchas such theories are emergeswho protectshimself fromboth valid, the popularity of electrictrainsas guiltand the unmasking anxiety by ritualChristmas gifts has enormous implications. istic presentations. In general,then, the ritualof giftexchangeis not understandUNFRIENDLINESS IN THE RECIPIENT able by itsanxiety-reducing qualitiesalone; What has been said about unfriendlinessit is itselfa generator of anxiety, forif it in gift givingshouldnot draw attention is not properly executed, the public front in the receiver. away from hostility Ralph of sincerity is likelyto be jeopardized. Waldo Emersonremindsus of this point AWARDS in his essay: tokens of regard Gifts as ceremonial Thelawofbenefits is a difficult channel, which analytically into two requires careful sailing. . . . We wishto be may be distributed selfsustained. We do notquiteforgive a giver. overlapping categories:thosepresented in The handthatfeedsus is in somedanger of recognition of status and thosepresented beingbitten. We can receiveanything from in recognition of achievement.In the love,forthatis a way of receiving it from formergrouping are found Christmas, butnot from ourselves; anyone whoassumes birthday, and anniversary gifts,Mother's to bestow. We sometimes hatethemeatwhich Day and Father's Day presents, and so we eat,becausethere seemssomething of defindthe purest formsof the forth. We in living grading dependence byit.19 achievement gift in prizes, trophies, etc. Emerson heresuggests thatan understand- Mixed forms involveachievement giftsfor ing or meaningful analysisof gift exchange personsof a certain(usuallykinship)starequiresa knowledge of the relationship tus, forexample, graduation presents. between giverand receiver. It is important, to note that however, statusgiftsare often as presented publicly STATUS ANXIETY achievementgifts. Levi-Strauss,for exin the ample,writes, of unfriendliness The possibility "the refinement of selection giftexchange is recognized by mostpeople. [of Christmascards], their outstanding This is best supported once designs,theirprice, the quantity by reference sent or again to popular slogans and proverbs received, give evidence(rituallyexhibited whichwarnagainstbeingdeceivedby the on the mantlepieceduring the week of gift.Translated sociologically, there is a celebration), of therecipient's socialbonds generalawarenessthatgiftgiversand re- and the degree of his prestige."20 Thus ceiversdo not always believe in the role statusand achievement sharea chargifts theyare playing: the thought behindthe acteristic whichprovidesinsightinto one gift may run anywherefrom cynicism of theirmore important both properties: to sincerity.Insofar as persons employ are objectifications of past or present social one anotheras "social looking glasses," relationships. The ceremonialdisplay of in role sincerity this variability gives rise such objectifications is a powerfultendto an uncertainty which may be called encyin social life: personsinvariably seek "status anxiety." Yet, it mightalso be to make knowntheirsocial bondsin daily suggestedthat the cynical giver (or the encounters. Veblen suggeststhat in adcynicalrole player,in general) is himself vancedsocieties thistendency in"develops plagued by two sources of discomfort: to a system of rank titles,degreesand in'9Emerson, op. cit.,p. 359. 20Levi-Strauss, op. cit., p. 77.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL THE AMERICAN

tion-praise ratio, (2) the presentation of a gift, and (3) a verbaldeclaration of the lack of commensurability between the child'smeritand the gifthe has received. ("Daddy and mommy are givingyou a presenteven thoughyou've been a bad boy!") Shame is therefore doubly established by a statement of one's knowledge of another's sinsand thegiving ofa reward despite them. Distributive justice is particularly interestingin view of the rule whichprohibits an equal-return"payment" in gift exGIFT EXCHANGE, RECIPROCITY change. This suggeststhat everygift-exAND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE changing dyad (or largergroup) is charGiftexchangeis governed by the norm acterizedby a certain"balance of debt" The degree to which this which must never be broughtinto equiof reciprocity. fora perfect level of distributive in a givenexchange librium, norm has beenfulfilled of distribu- justice is typicalof the economicrather of gifts maybe statedin terms It tive justice,whichobtainswhensocial re- than the social exchangerelationship. beensuggested already thatthe to costs and to in- has,in fact, wardsare proportional in value beThe concept of distributive vestments. jus- greaterthe correspondence and giftreturned, the in itselffor it leads to tweengiftreceived tice is important in the recomponent interestingand non-obvious statements less the sentimental is likelyto be. But thispropoThe principle about humanbehavior. tells lationship us, forexample,that a giftgiverwill ex- sitionneeds to be qualifiedby our noting if reciprocity periencediscomfort fails to that an absence or inadequateamountof reciprocity is not at all functional forthe occur; but theidea thatover-reciprocation There exists, then, will producedisturbancein the original intimaterelationship. giveris moreinteresting and leads into the a band-between complete and incomplete area of undeservedrewards, to which or inadequate reciprocity-within which gift must locate shame, accordingto Helen M. Lynd, is the giver of the return connected.22 The use of a reward (often its value. in theform of a gift)as a punishment is a The continuing balance of debt-now in device employed by manysets of contem- favor of one member, now in favorof the porary "love-oriented" parents and may other-insures that the relationship bebe subsumedunder the generalcategory tweenthe two continue, forgratitude will of "shaming whichconsistof always constitute techniques," a part of the bond linkthreeseparateoperations: (1) the provi- ing them. Gouldner,in this connection, sionforthechildofan unfavorable deroga- consideredgift exchange as a "starting mechanism" for social relationships.23 21Veblen, op. cit.,p. 44. Simmellikenedthe phenomenon to "iner2 HelenM. Lynd,On Shameand theSearch for and GratIdentity(New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., tia" in his essayon "Faithfulness 1958),p. 34. For a discussion ofthis in terms itude": topic of balancetheory, see C. Norman Alexander, Jr., An actionbetween menmay be engendered and RichardL. Simpson, "Balance Theoryand of gain, obedience or hatred, Distributive Justice," Sociological Inquiry, by love or greed signia,typicalexamplesof whichare he. raldic devices,medals and honorary decoof self,then, The presentation rations."'21 is oftenmade withsymbolsof one's con. And giftsrepresent the nections to others. of such symbols. These may purestforms of coursebe displayedwith such elabora. as to bringdown the tion and ostentation of the audience.Thus, the gift displeasure diamond, automobile,or other trophies must be displayed tactfully and with a certaindegreeof humility.
' Alvin Gouldner, "The Norm of Reciprocity: XXXIV (Spring, 1964), 182-92.Homans'ruleof distributive justice is stated in hisSocialBehavior A PreliminaryStatement,"AmericanSociological (n. 10 above), p. 75. Review, XXV (April, 1960), 176-77.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYOF THE GIFT

or lust fordomination alone,but attackjustifies sociability no mathis ownretaliation, doesnotexhaust the crea- terhow superior thisaction usually it may be, or devastating on the contrary, somehow by simplynotingthe voluntary tivemoodwhich, character lives on in the sociological situation it has of the originalhostility. It is perhapsfor produced. Gratitude is definitely such a con- thisreasonthatvengeance in is restrained tinuance.. . . If every grateful action,which ancient (lex talionis) and modernlawin the lingers on fromgood turnsreceived as well. ("Vengepast, were suddenly eliminated, society(at and in moralinterdictions saith the Lord.") mine, ance is leastas we know it) wouldbreakapart.24 on obliIn orderto drawour discussion binds gation balance to its logical completion, It must be noted that gratitude theliving we are requiredto note that,whilea gift not onlytheliving, but connects and thedead as well.The willis an institu- exchangeof items of nearlyequal value Inher- generates of such a connection. tionalization whichbinds the relagratiutde, ited benefits, insofaras they cannot be tion long afterthe exchangehas actually eternalindebtedness takenplace, an absenceof reciprocity reciprocated, generate will and thereby linktogether and past. injectintothebondan element present of hostility tra- that will be equally persistent. Thus theabsenceof a sense of family Simmel, ditionamongthe poor is due not only to then,failedto recognize conthe negative for example, "serial sequences familial instability, which of thenorm of reciprocity, monogamy," but to a lack of willablecom- prescribe for or at leastgrudge, vengeance, modities, that is, gratitude imperatives. harmdone,just as theircounterparts call Simmel makesanotherimportant obser- forreimbursement forbeneand gratitude vation which implies that every gift-ex- fits notworth It is, in thisregard, received. changing dyad is characterized by a moral ing thatman could not altogether cease to dominanceof one memberover another. show vengeancewithoutceasing to show This has to do withthe initiation of bene- gratitude and deas well, forboth reflect fit exchange: of imperative pend upon the internalized Oncewe have received something good from reciprocity. another person, oncehe has preceded us with SUSPENSE AND SOCIAL EXCHANGE his action, we no longer can makeup forit no matter completely, how muchour return We have just completed of a discussion gift or service mayobjectively or legally sur- thatquality provides which exchange ofgift is thathis gift, be- a social relationship pass his own.The reason with inertia,in the cause it was first, has a voluntary character form to of gratitude or grudge. It remains which no return gift can have.For,to return effect out thatthe gifthas a binding point thebenefit we are obliged ethically; we operate undera coercion neither upon the relationbefore it is actually which, though cohesion is stilla coercion. givenand received.The growing socialnorlegalbut moral, for example, it of two potentialexchangers, The first giftis givenin fullspontaneity; mutualexpectation has a freedom evenwithout obviouslyresultsfrom without anyduty, the dutyof gratitude.25 is reof a gift.Now, mutualexpectation fact about social of an important flective leads Following thesame line of thought the us to observethe tendency forinitialag- life; that is, its easy predictability: provides social action of institutionalization gressionto be opposed witha disproportionalamountof hostility, forthe original forthis.But the substanceof social lifeis as its formis certainaggressiveact contains the decisive ele- as unpredictable of social exchange saves mentof freedom. The object of the initial and thisproperty of from the tedium knowledge. us perfect 24Georg Simmel, "Faithfulnessand Gratitude," the entire toneof the Without suspense, op. cit.,p. 389. is altered-and with it, the giftexchange 26Ibid., p. 392.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10

OF SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL THE AMERICAN

support of a single whichthe constituents system of their would fail to give by force integration. It therefore becomes meaninglessto speak, as Gouldnerdoes, of need satisfactionbeingrelatedto the degreeof dependence of one objectupon another,27 forour discussionhas shown this notion to be too static for social analysis. It is clear thatmembers of a social circlemay be resourceful to one anotherup to a certain pointin time,afterwhichtheymustturn from each otherto other circlesforsupport SUSPENSE AND INSULATION or gratification. This has beenshownto be giftexchange, and, Althoughsuspense develops gradually, the case in Christmas other examples couldbe gift ifspace permitted, it ends abruptlywhen the unknown would be more if suspense werethe cited. Our time,however, Therefore, is revealed. employedby noting that the of the impending giftex- profitably only constituent is subsumwould imme- processwe have just described change, its consummation of "autonomy tolinto able underthe property diatelyplunge the exchangepartners boredom.To some degree,this is general eration,"whichprovidesforthe system's setting freeof its members to find society,as the "after-Christ-periodic throughout However,gift ex- "rescue persons"outsideits own boundamas letdown"testifies. its members of its by otherless suspense- ries and thusto remind changeis insulated and replaceability.28 The events,for example, the feast own mortality producing checkon a group's encompassing tendencies and churchservices,familyget-togethers, in conventional society activities,etc., which imme- is institutionalized leisure-time as thewife'sand hussuch by such mechanisms Through diatelyfollowthe exchange. "let- band's "nightout" for cards or bowling, devices the post-exchange insulating It is impliedhere,of or the more extended"trips home" and down" is cushioned. expeditions." Giftexchange with in the "camping course,that personsparticipating and whatnotbe outside persons outside of the immediatesocial feasts,reunions, circleis an especiallyimportant instance the circleof giftexchangers. of outsiders as is a of thisuse and maintenance The foregoing accountof insulation persons. instanceof the moregeneralprin- resource specific ciple that a certaindegreeof groupincoGROUP BOUNDARIES, DEVIANCE as forits preservation hesionis functional AND GUILT of its partsprefaras the non-integration Those to whom we givegifts imposed shock from are in some vents an externally from Thus, while way different system.26 thoseto whomno token its entire permeating is given.The giftexchange, the"after- of regard each exchange circleexperiences then, groupboundaries. theshock is a way of dramatizing letdown" individually, Christmas and Kimball point out,it is for As Arensberg is irrelevant to theircomingtogether also a in mode which a childlearnsto adopt disthe thereby sociability; and feasting toward tant circles provide for one anotherthe requisitebehaviorand sentiments
'Ibid., p. 254. 26Alvin Gouldner, "Reciprocityand Autonomy ' I owe the idea of "autonomytolerance"to Dr. in Functional Theory," in Llewellyn Gross (ed.), Symposium on Sociological Theory (Evanston: Otto Pollack, who presented the conceptin his lecRow, Peterson& Co., 1959), p. 253. tures.

dewhichis correspondingly relationship, and surprise.Gifts privedof its mystery are hiddenor kept secretfor the sake of the giver as well as the receiverfor,as reactionto the presnoted,the recipient's ent is crucialto the giver. in childhood, Suspenseis mostprevalent from year to year differ greatly sincegifts the In contrast, as a resultof maturation. adult'sstatusis morestable,and the types of giftshe receiveswill normallyfollow a set pattern.

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYOF THE GIFT thosewithwhomothersin his family are bound: Thus the Irish child very earlymeetshis mother's and father's brothers and sisters; he small from runs errands andreceives gifts them; as soonas he is able he carries presents. ... in his career, such At various timesof crisis as FirstCommunion, and marConfirmation, which he receives from them riage, gifts signalizetheintimacy between himand them.29

11

" See W. E. Moore and M. M. Tumin, "Some 'Conrad M. Arensbergand Solon T. Kimball, Family and Communityin Ireland (Cambridge, Social Functions of Ignorance," American SocioMass.: Harvard University logical Review, XIV (December, 1949), 787-95. Press, 1940), p. 81.

wouldcall forth within veryexistence each member wouldmake thatexistence intolerable. The gift,then,is an important tool for the mendingof deviations.Norman Brown, for example,has suggestedthat is self-sacrificial; "Cgiving self-sacrifice is self-punishment."30 Thus, man "gives because he wants to lose."'31 In this sense, in giftexchange assertsBrown, reciprocity implies that "social organizationis a of shared guilt . . . a symbolic is offered structure Moreover, whena singlepresent mutual confession of guilt."32 And one of to a plurality, for example,a marriedor the functions of God is to structure the engaged couple, or a family,there is a heightening of awareness(on both sides) humanneed forself-sacrifice.33 Although we may disagreewith Brown of their existence as a team. that gift exchangeis Beforegoingon it shouldbe noted that in his implication but" an expression of guilt,we the boundary-maintaining functions which "nothing have just been noted are opposed by the mustagreethatguiltmaybe an important property of autonomy tolerance. There is component of many exchanges, and add a constanttensionbetweenthese polesthat the strengthening of the social bond whichunderlies the fact that everysocial is a consequenceof the sacrificialgift. circleis characterized by a certain(quanti- Mauss and Hubert, in this connection fiable) ratio of intragroup-extragroup write: benefit Put differently, exchanges. giftexthe influences change group boundaries by clar- At the same timetheyfindin sacrifice means of redressing equilibriums that have ifying them; and the moregroupbounda- been upset:by expiation themtheyredeem riesare defined, thegreater thefavorability selvesfrom social obloquy, the consequence, of intragroup over extragroup exchange. and re-enter the community. . . . The social This effect, is limited however, by theprop- normis thusmaintained without dangerto ofautonomy erty tolerance. Out of thisten- themselves, diminution without for thegroup.34 sion, perhaps,emergesan exchangeratio The authorsmighthave noted that most equilibrium. are undetected by the groupSocial rankings are also reflected in and deviations if and this not to an excarried ignorance, maintained by the gift,forthe allocation is for treme, its functional continuation.35 ofpresents, in terms of quantity or quality, latent is normallyco-ordinatewith the social Fromthispointofviewan inmportant of sacrificeis the provisionof rankof the considered recipients. The ob- function forunseendeviations. ligationi to present gifts, then,bringspeo- atonement ple into comparison who wouldordinarily UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA not be contrasted withone another. 30Brown, op. cit., p. 266. the gift-giving Importantly, ritualhelps 3lIbid., p. 265. to maintainsocial stabilityinsofaras it 32Ibid.,p. 269. enables members to cope withtheirown Ibid., p. 265. consciences.If the group provided no 34 Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: means of atonementfor sins, it would Its Nature and Function (Chicago: Universityof for the shamethat its Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 102-3. surelydisintegrate,

This content downloaded from 193.40.5.245 on Wed, 8 May 2013 06:54:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions