Economics (and politics) in
Tribal Societies

Next: The nature of work in gardening versus foraging

Classically, in anthropology there are three modes of exchange: reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange. And one of the most classics of all anthropological classics is Marcel Mauss's 1925 work, "Essay on The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies" (usually just called "The Gift" in English). Mauss argued that the act of gifting was one of the fundamental building blocks of society and that gifting was never, or almost never a simple thing. He coined a new term that didn't much catch on: "prestation." His idea was that a prestation was something given freely as a gift but that also demanded a counter gift. But, truly, gifts are almost never just gifts. When giver and receiver are known to one another, gifts always send social messages about debt, prestige, and the various values of social relationships. Here's a bit deeper exploration of the example I usually use in class.

You go to a restaurant with your friend who is your social and economic equal more or less (and your relationship is entirely platonic... Sex can be a whole part of this but that's not a dimension that I want to explore in this example). Anyhow, you go to a restaurant with your friend and you buy them dinner. Why did you do that? Well, because it's a nice thing to do... and actually more than that. By buying your friend dinner, you have placed that person in your debt. They will discharge the debt by buying you dinner at a later date.

Now, this can be a form of storage or banking... Maybe you're buying your friend dinner because you can because you just got paid and at the moment you have more money than your friend. Your friend will perhaps buy you dinner when they get paid and you have less money....

Now, there are two basic things about this exchange. First, whether you think so or not, giving such a gift places the receiver in the giver's debt. Just think about it for a second. What would happen if you paid for your friend's (who is your equal) dinner every week and they never picked up the check. The friendship probably wouldn't last... or, importantly, if it did, they would lose status, not only with you but likely with your broader community. Word would get out. There would be gossip and everyone would know that you always paid and they never did. But, importantly, second, this is not some nefarious thing and the message is not "don't ever accept your friend buying you a meal." Just the opposite. When you pick up the check and when your friend lets you do so, you're investing in the future of your relationship. You're saying the relationship will persist. If you try to pick up a check and the other person absolutely insists on paying for themselves (this is a lot different then fighting over who pays the check) that's sending a message too... and a pretty offensive one at that.

An old song lyric that I really like (don't totally love the song but love this line) goes: "Be glad if you can use what you borrow." I like it because it suggests that the purpose of borrowing might be something other than to use the object you borrow. It might be to create, reinforce, or do something else to a social relationship.

However, gifts are NOT always an even exchange and there are important lessons in that as well. For example, continuing on with our restaurant example... If your boss takes you out to dinner, usually your boss pays. In this case, the fact that they pay for you and you are never expected to pay for them reinforces and indicates a certain type of relationship: they are the boss, you are their employee. Now, what happens if you try to pay for your boss's meal? Well, they would almost certainly refuse... because that would make you their equal and put them in an intolerable debt to you. However, they could accept... and that would almost certainly mean that they accept or wish to have a social relationship with you that is separate from the employment relationship you have (watch out, this is where things can get dangerous).

Gifts, of course, can be treacherous as well. What happens when your friend presents you with a gift that you can never hope to pay back adequately? In my example, you pay for your friend's lunch. Your friend, instead of paying for your lunch, gives you a new BMW. Accepting such a gift puts you in a debt to your friend that you're unlikely to be able to repay. The result is that your friend is now, more or less your boss and you will be obligated to help them do whatever should they ask.

My favorite example here comes from the 1972 classic film The Godfather. Early in the movie, a character named Bonasera comes to Vito Corleone (the titular Godfather) and asks him for justice against two boys who beat his daughter but were given suspended sentences by a judge. Bonasera tries to pay Corleone take care of the problem but Corleone responds "Bonasera... Bonasera... What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? Had you come to me in friendship... [the problem would already be taken care of]" Bonasera responds "be my friend... Godfather" and kisses Corleone's hand. Corleone says "Good... Some day, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But, until that day... accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."

We all know what happens to those who accept gifts from the likes of Vito Corleone... But I don't know any example that's truer to the real nature of some gifts. Of course, this doesn't mean don't accept a dinner from your boss. ALWAYS do that! There is nothing wrong with gifts between unequals. In fact, sometimes they're expected. However, they indicate a certain kind of relationship. You know what they always say about free Internet services: "If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product." The same thing holds true here. If you're not returning the gift with a counter-gift... then you are the gift.