The Gift

“In these ‘total’ social phenomena, as we propose calling them, all kinds of institutions are given expression at one and the same time—religious, juridical, and moral, which relate to both politics and the family; likewise economic ones, which suppose special forms of production and consumption, or rather, of performing total services and of distribution.”

Mauss purposefully situates the reader’s understanding that the potlatch is encompassing of all things societal. This differentiates the potlatch from a traditional potluck. It is at once a celebration of all that makes that particular society unique. The social institutions prevalent in said society are honored by its citizens. The act of gift exchange during a potlatch represents not merely the physical commodities that are exchanged but equally those that are not. Food, dancing, singing, the arrangement of marriages, the destruction of goods, and the joint celebration of shared deities are all integral to the success of the competing tribes’ alliance and shared community ties and bonds.

“We propose to reserve the term potlatch for this kind of institution that, with less risk and more accuracy, but also at greater length, we might call: total services of an agonistic type.”

Mauss introduces the combative nature of the potlatch. The gift receiver is forced to accept or face dishonor, conflict, or possibly war. It is at once both welcomed and disdained. The gift receiver may be happy because they are keen on receiving the gifts that the gift giver will bestow upon them. However, it is equally stressful for they are acutely aware that they will be obligated to reciprocate at a later date. This places the gift receiver into obligation and is beholden to the gift giver until which time they are able to repay them with their own sets of gifts and celebration during the potlatch. Finally, it is an opportunity for the gift giver to demonstrate their power and strength over the gift receiver. Naturally, all of this is completed under the guise of niceties with a subtle undertone of threat.

“Next, two essential elements in potlatch proper can be clearly distinguished here: the honour, prestige, and mana conferred by wealth; and the absolute obligation to reciprocate these gifts under pain of losing that mana, that authority—the talisman and source of wealth that is authority itself.”

Mana, or the spiritual life force, of an accumulation of energy that is bestowed upon it by the recipients of a given object or person. The greater the mana, the more valuable it becomes. However, as Mauss points out, failure to follow the etiquette set by the time frame for reciprocation, dishonor, or loss of prestige, can all negatively affect the mana an item or person possesses. The obligation to reciprocate then not only maintains social ties and alliances but equally, ensures that the spiritual life force of a precious object is maintained. This is in part what drives reciprocation amongst groups and why conflict can ensue when gift receivers fail to do so.

“To refuse to give, to fail to invite, just as to refuse to accept, is tantamount to declaring war; it is to reject the bond of alliance and commonality. Also, one gives because one is compelled to do so, because the recipient possesses some kind of right of property over anything that belongs to the donor. This ownership is expressed and conceived of as a spiritual bond.”

Just as there are consequences in North American societies for failing to reciprocate, so too are there consequences amongst Northwest Coast American Indians, Melanesians, and Polynesians who fail to follow the strict rules governing the potlatch. Here, Mauss uses the term spiritual bond, and whilst this is apt, it is important to note that it is in its most simplistic terms a social contract. The contract between gift giver and gift receiver is the only thing that binds them to one another and maintains the peace, let alone the associated alliances. Similar codes of honor and expectations are found in the contracts signed by industry in western societies. When a contract is broken, it results in lawsuits, broken trust, and more often than not, a penalty is placed upon the corporation (or CEO) that has broken the contract. Thus, whilst Mauss’s exploration of the potlatch may seem foreign to the anthropology or sociology student, in truth he is confirming Boas’ theory on cultural relativism.

“In all societies in Northeast Siberia and among the Eskimos of West Alaska, as with those on the Asian side of the Behring Straits,[ but the Chukchee and the Koryaka] potlatch produces an effect not only upon men, who vie with one another in generosity, not only upon the things they pass on to one another or consume at it, not only upon the souls of the dead who are present and take part in it, and whose names have been assumed by men, but even upon nature.”

Relevant here is Mauss’s referral to nature and the souls of those who have passed on. He begins to tie the relevance of the potlatch and gift giving to spiritual forces that have religious undertones. The purpose of the potlatch is as much about worshiping the deities as it is about remembering the dead. Objects with mana can and often are imbued with the spirits of lost souls who were respected amongst their tribe. It is these objects that inspire mutual respect and garner honor amongst those in possession of said items. It is also the gifting of the items that equally ensures respect and honor.

“The purpose of destruction by sacrifice is precisely that it is an act of giving that is necessarily reciprocated. […] It is not only in order to display power, wealth, and lack of self-interest that slaves are put to death, precious oils burnt, copper objects cast into the sea, and even the houses of princes set on fire. It is also in order to sacrifice to the spirits and the gods, indistinguishable from their living embodiments, who bear their titles and are their initiates and allies.”

Mauss illustrates the nature and function of destruction. Destroying goes beyond merely wasting food, precious objects, or trying to demonstrate wealth and power. It is an attempt to appease the spirits of the dead and of the gods who, like the living, are with them daily and watch over them. Failure to do so results in their living in fear of repercussions, of curses, of a poor harvest. It is as much an act of fear as it is an act of respect.

“It is the starting point, one that irrevocably commits the recipient to make a reciprocating gift, the yotile, which Malinowski felicitously translates as the ‘clinching gift’: the gift that seals the transaction. Another name for this latter gift is kudu, the tooth that bites, that really cuts, bites through, and liberates.”

Mauss highlights the conflicting emotions that are stirred by the gift. At once relief must be felt for the original gift receiver as now they become the gift giver. However, a sense of loss must equally be felt for the giving of gifts, especially those with mana. Failure to reciprocate brings dishonor, conflict, resentment, and mistrust. Equally, the new gift receiver is now at the gift giver’s mercy just as the gift giver was when they were the receiver.

“The affair is a serious matter, for the association one attempts to create establishes a kind of clan link between the partners. Thus, to choose, one must attract and dazzle the other person. Whilst rank is taken into account, one must attain one’s goal before the others, or in a better way than they do, so bringing about more plentiful exchanges of the most valuable things, which are naturally the property of the richest people. Competition, rivalry, ostentatiousness, the seeking after the grandiose, and the stimulation of interest—these are the various motives that underlie all these actions.”

Mauss outlines the political nature of gift giving. It is at once a social contract, sometimes between unequal powers, that create obligations where one benefits more than the other. These social contracts are not necessarily wanted nor are they always welcomed. Nevertheless, decorum dictates that these social contracts must be treated appropriately. Akin to a game of chess, this complex and intricate exchange process follows a host of ulterior motives that are at once both evident and hidden.

“In certain kinds of potlatch one must expend all that one has, keeping nothing back. […] It is a competition to see who is the richest and also the most madly extravagant. Everything is based upon the principles of antagonism and rivalry. The political status of individuals in the brotherhoods and clans, and ranks of all kinds, are gained in a ‘war of property’, just as they are in real war, or through chance, inheritance, alliance, and marriage.”

The act of giving, of destroying even, are all part of an honor system that is closely adhered to. It is in measure a means of self-promotion, of raising the status of one’s tribe. The more opulent the gifts and acts of wanton destruction, the higher the desire to be associated with the gift giver. The battlefield, then, is the potlatch. Blood, sweat, and tears are shed not in physical combat but instead over dance, drink, music, and shows of physical strength. However, the cost is just as high as actual war. But in this way all parties get to forge and build upon existing alliances and in doing so, live to enjoy the inevitable wealth that will one day be reciprocated.

“For the potlatch is much more than a juridical phenomenon: it is one that we propose to call ‘total.’ It is religious, mythological, and Shamanist, since the chiefs who are involved represent and incarnate their ancestors and the gods, whose name they bear, whose dances they dance and whose spirits possess them. The potlatch is also an economic phenomenon, and we must gauge the value, the importance, the reasons for, and the effect of these transactions, enormous even today, when they are calculated in European values. The potlatch is also a phenomenon of social structure: the gathering together of tribes, clans, and families, even of peoples, brings about a remarkable state of nerviness and excitement. One fraternizes, yet one remains a stranger; one communicates and opposes others in a gigantic act of trade and a constant tournament.”

Mauss validates the role that social and cultural anthropology plays when looking at culture holistically. He argues that the act of gift giving and the potlatch are a catalyst for something greater. It demonstrates how it is at once economical, political, religious, social, and juridical. It encompasses the institutions required for civilizations to exist, both primitive and advanced. It once again echoes Durkheim’s theory of cultural relativism. Thus, to the untrained eye, the potlatch may seem archaic to the modern capitalist. However, as Mauss has demonstrated, it is every bit as complicated and intricate as the capitalists’ chosen form of exchange and reciprocity.

“For in the American Northwest, to lose one’s prestige is indeed to lose one’s soul. It is in fact the ‘face’ the dancing mask, the right to incarnate a spirit, to wear a coat of arms, a totem, it is really the persona—that are all called into question in this way, and that are lost at the potlatch, at the game of gifts, just as they can be lost in war, or through a mistake in ritual.”

Mauss confirms that the consequences for failing to reciprocate are as dire for the gift receiver as it is for the soldier on the battlefield who refuses to surrender to the rules of war. The gift refuser loses honor, respect, and face not only amongst the gift giver and those associated with them, but equally, they lose face amongst their own tribe. A chief, for example, can just as easily be replaced for not representing the collective interests of his tribe just as politicians are often replaced in western politics. The gift refuser risks being ostracized by their own tribe. Thus, the potlatch is as much about maintaining existing statuses as it is about elevating them.

“These phenomena allow us to think that this principle of the exchange-gift must have been that of societies that have gone beyond the phase of ‘total services’ (from clan to clan, and from family to family) but have not yet reached that of purely individual contract, of the market where money circulates, of sale proper, and above all of the notion of price reckoned in coinage weighed and stamped with its value.”

Mauss tentatively uses the term primitive when discussing the potlatch. He does so with hesitation because, in truth, the system itself is every bit as complicated as contemporary forms of exchange. However, he demonstrates in chapter three that Roman, Hindu, and Germanic laws would inevitably replace the potlatch. Thus, he implores the reader to consider that through social, economic, and political evolution the potlatch itself became outdated, even archaic. This is evidenced by the layperson’s ability to recognize one form of exchange over the other through simple observation. Unlike the aforementioned laws, at first glance it is nigh impossible to ascertain the significance or relevance of the potlatch through the uneducated gaze of the observer.

“Institutions of this type have really provided the transition towards our own forms of law and economy. They can serve to explain historically our own societies. The morality and the practice of exchanges employed in societies immediately preceding our own still retain more-or-less important traces of all the principles we have just analysed.”

Mauss directly calls out the Northwest Coast American Indians, Melanesians and Polynesians as living fossils. Meaning, that through careful ethnography, anthropologists and sociologists can learn about western civilizations evolution by studying these Indigenous groups. Just as the zoologist (or anthrozoologist) turns to primates to better understand how homo sapiens evolved forms of communication, social structure, etc. so too does that social and cultural anthropologist when they study these indigenous groups. It is a recognition of societies’ humble beginnings as much as it can be an affirmation of said culture’s superiority.

“For it is precisely the Romans and Greeks, who, perhaps, following upon the Semites of the north and west, invented the distinction between personal and real law, separated sale from gift and exchange, isolated the moral obligation and contract, and in particular, conceived the difference that exists between rites, laws, and interests. It was they who, after a veritable, great, and admirable revolution, went beyond all the outmoded morality, and this economy of the gift. It was too dependent on chance, was overexpensive and too sumptuous, burdened with consideration for people, incompatible with the development of the market, commerce, and production, and, all in all, at that time was anti-economic.”

Mauss highlights the difficulties in gift giving by demonstrating that the latter is open too much to interpretation. Unlike the system of law put into place by ancient Romans, the concept of the gift was outmoded. That is not to say that gift exchanges did not exist. One merely needs to turn to the Trojan Horse to see how gifts themselves can contain a duplicitous nature. Interestingly, in many tribal cultures in the late 19th and early 20th century traditional forms of economic exchange like the potlatch were banned by missionaries and governments. They were replaced with contemporary forms of economic exchange that had the effect of displacing many of the values, norms, and belief systems of the indigenous people who were directly colonized. Considering themselves superior, colonizers gave little to no choice to indigenous peoples when it came to “civilizing” them and unsurprisingly, this led to conflict, war, and naturally the death of incalculable numbers of indigenous people throughout human history.

“The thing that is given produces its rewards in this life and the next. Here in this life, it automatically engenders for the giver the same thing as itself: it is not lost, it reproduces itself; in the next life, one finds the same thing, only it has increased. Food given is the food that in this world will return to the giver; it is food, the same food, that he will find in the other world. And it is still food, the same food, that he will find in the series of his reincarnations.”

Mauss highlights the Brahmins’ views on gift exchange by drawing from their spiritual and religious beliefs surrounding reincarnation. Thus, the more one gives, the more one can expect to receive in another life. Whilst simplistic in notion, it addresses not only religious dogma, but equally, economic and sociopolitical pursuits of the Brahmins who partake in this form of gift exchange. It is equally about obtaining wealth and power. This promise of reincarnation removes the sense of loss when gift giving

“The gift is therefore at one and the same time what should be done, what should be received, and yet what is dangerous to take. This is because the thing that is given itself forges a bilateral, irrevocable bond, above all when it consists of food. The recipient is dependent upon the anger of the donor, and each is even dependent on the other. Thus one must not eat in the home of one’s enemy.”

Just as the Trobriander gift receiver must be wary of accepting gifts and reciprocating, so too must the Brahmin be wary of accepting gifts from those whom they consider an enemy. In both instances, the acceptance creates a bond that neither may want, but often that both cannot afford to refuse. It is politicized and places their status and standing at risk of criticism, dishonor, and shame. The act of eating together is both intimate and often necessary to celebrate the finalization of the exchange or agreed upon contract. It is a tradition that still exists in western societies today.

“The Gaben [is] the exact equivalent of the Hindu adanam [(gifts)]. At baptisms, first communions, engagement parties, and weddings, the guests—who often include the whole village—for example, after the wedding breakfast, or on the previous day, or the following day (Guldentag), present gifts whose value generally greatly exceeds the expense of the wedding.”

Germanic traditions stipulate that the intent of the gift is to beholden the gift receiver to the gift receiver, even if it should be for a later date. The act of giving a gift is both a mark of recognition for the event itself, but equally, an opportunity to ingratiate oneself to the gift receiver. The more generous the gift giver, the greater the expectation and quality the gift receiver must reciprocate. In western societies today, it is often why at weddings politically relevant families will invite like-status individuals to their adult children’s weddings. The wedding thus becomes a political platform where both the celebration of the newlyweds and the business of politics takes place. The quality of the gift given to the wedding couple will determine how much time the gift giver gets with the groom or bride’s political parent.

“The unreciprocated gift still makes the person who has accepted it inferior, particularly when it has been accepted with no thought of returning it.”

It would seem that the act of taking but not giving was as frowned upon in the late 19th and early 20th century as it is today. So ingrained is this idea of reciprocity amongst homo sapiens that it can and has led to the destruction of kinship relationships, the loss of friends, and indeed even the legal pursuit of the dishonorable gift receivers in small claims court. Mauss uses the term inferior here which should not be compared to or thought to be similar to primitive. In this context, the word inferior denotes a human being lacking the moral wisdom or honor to effectively carry out their duties to maintain existing relationships. The con artist is an excellent example of how society both despises, ostracizes, and incarcerates the ape who cheats, steals, and tricks others out of their valuables.

“We must not desire the citizen to be either too good or too individualist nor too insensitive or too realist. He must have a keen sense of awareness of himself, but also of others, and of social reality (in moral matters is there even any other kind of reality?) He must act by taking into account his own interests, and those of society and its subgroups. This morality is eternal; it is common to the most advanced societies, to those of the immediate future, and to the lowest imaginable forms of society. We touch upon fundamentals. No longer are we talking in legal terms: we are speaking of men and groups of men, because it is they, it is society, it is the feelings of men, in their minds and in flesh and blood that at all times spring into action and that have acted everywhere.”

Mauss’s critique on English Liberalism is a cautionary tale of the effect of individualism gone unchecked and its subsequent effects on a society. Whilst he does not directly advocate for utilitarianism in “The Gift” he demonstrates the importance of the individual in society. The individual, thus, cannot exist without their peers or even their superiors just as they cannot survive without the individual. Questions surrounding social identity, nationalism, religious identity, and so forth are all interdependent and interconnected with one another. Even the atheist adheres to the rules set by the state which in turn first based their laws on religious doctrine. Mauss attempts to remind the reader that individualism does not negatively impact the very society that seeks to maintain its own identity. This does not negate cultural evolution, per se. It simply means that in order for the latter to occur there needs to be a general consensus amongst the majority that such changes are accepted.

“They are often expended to no avail, with comparatively enormous luxury, which is in no way commercial. These are the signs of wealth, and kinds of money are exchanged. Yet the whole of this very rich economy is still filled with religious elements. Money still possesses its magical power and is still linked to the clan or to the individual. The various economic activities, for example the market, are suffused with rituals and myths. They retain a ceremonial character that is obligatory and effective.”

“In God We Trust” still emblazons the one dollar bill in the United States of America. Thus, it should come as no surprise that money is akin to magical and religious elements. Religious effigies have been slowly replaced with pieces of paper that have monetary value. The notion of God and its interconnectedness with the state demonstrates how similar these mega tribes are in comparison to their indigenous counterparts.

“The use of money might suggest other reflections. The vaygu’a of the Trobriands, bracelets and necklaces, just as the copper objects of the American Northwest or the wampun of the Iroquois, are both riches, signs of wealth, and means of exchange and of payment, but also things that must be given, or even destroyed. However, these are still pledges linked to the persons that use them, and these pledges bind them. Since, on the other hand, they already serve as indicators of money, one has an interest in giving them away so as to be able to possess yet other objects, by transforming them into goods or services that, in their turn, can be transformed again into money.”

Whether it be comic books, coins, classic cars or motorcycles, stamps, or even toys, the act of collecting serves several purposes. First and foremost, it elevates the collector amongst their peers. Comedian and talk show host Jay Leno’s car collection is unparalleled and has earned him much mana amongst his fellow car collectors. Owning a car that he has personally owned gives it a higher intrinsic value.

“We sense that we cannot make men work well unless they are sure of being fairly paid throughout their life for work they have fairly carried out, both for others and for themselves. The producer who carries on exchange feels once more—he has always felt it, but this time he does so acutely—that he is exchanging more than a product of hours of working time, but that he is giving something of himself—his time, his life. Thus he wishes to be rewarded, even if only moderately, for this gift. To refuse him this reward is to make him become idle or less productive.”

The idea of reciprocation is a recurring and important facet of the gift exchange, regardless of what that gift may be. As we have seen, gifts take on a variety of shapes and sizes and may even consist of sacrificing human life. The latter is apparent when dealing with either human sacrifice or indeed, actual war between tribes (be they groups of people or entire nations). The promise is clear: Sacrifice, give, destroy, and you shall be rewarded. Failure to reward (reciprocate) often does lead to lack of interest, lower productivity, and resentment.

“We have looked at societies in their dynamic or physiological state. […] It is by considering the whole entity that we could perceive what is essential, the way everything moves, the living aspect, the fleeting moment when society, or men, become sentimentally aware of themselves and of their situation in relation to others.”

Mauss argues how social and cultural anthropology can assist social science in developing its understanding of the unknown. Specifically, by looking at cultures through an ethnographic eye, Mauss echoes Claude Lévi-Strauss and acknowledges that these systems of exchange are structural in nature and in purpose. The potlatch without the gift exchange, the destruction of valuables, the collective effervescence of the entire affair, is nothing more than a simple potluck. Just as the gift exchange must consist of giving items of great social and political value, so too does the gift receiver accept said gift as it is culturally intended. Its meaning is not hidden nor is the intent of the gift giver. Together a symbiotic relationship that exists for mutual survival, be it cultural or literal. One cannot survive without the other and this is expressed through a shared belief system.