The Gift – Marcel Mauss and René Girard

https://voegelinview.com/the-gift-marcel-mauss-and-rene-girard/

Gifts are universal. Every culture on Earth has and will always exchange gifts. The effect of gifts is to tie
people together; to connect them. This is their ultimate meaning and significance. Many features of gifts
are immune from changes in cultural context and time. They stay the same in all circumstances. They
are traditional everywhere.

Why does the text emphasize the universality of gift exchange across cultures?

Marcel Mauss’ The Gift is an anthropological study of gifts. He hoped to show that gift-giving precedes
mere economic transactions in chronology and significance. Successful businesses often combine gifts
with the more prosaic monetary exchanges.

What was Marcel Mauss' aim in studying gifts, as mentioned in the text?

There are three important constants concerning gifts. One is the obligation to give. The other is the
obligation to receive. Lastly, is the obligation to reciprocate.

Identify and explain the three obligations associated with gift-giving as described in the text.

These three things are filled with meaning. They are also impervious to wishful thinking or a person’s
private desires. For instance, some people may only wish to give, being uncomfortable receiving gifts.
Others may wish they could be recipients only and need never reciprocate. The truth is that violating
any of these three obligations will only sow discord and cause problems between the disagreeable
person and other people regardless of time or culture.

According to the text, why is it problematic to violate any of the three obligations associated with
gifts?

This cannot be dismissed as a “theory.” These are empirical observations that anthropologists have
made that are true of every culture and a little reflection should reveal their reality in any circumstance.

Why does the text emphasize that these observations regarding gift-giving are not mere theories but
empirical observations?

In giving a gift, a debt is created. For good social relationships, gifts and favors must be reciprocated. The
debt must be discharged at some point.

What role does the concept of debt play in the context of gift-giving, as per the text?

That debt sets up a relationship between two people or two groups of people. Many people dislike the
feeling of being in debt and wish to avoid being a recipient of a gift. But to refuse a gift, especially a gift
that has been specifically chosen for you, is rude and insulting. In rejecting a gift a person is rejecting
being connected to the giver. He is signaling that he wants nothing to do with the giver, which can only
be offensive.

1
Hence, there is an obligation to give, and a social obligation to receive.

What consequences does the text suggest for refusing a gift, despite the discomfort of being in debt?

Often gifts are part of some other social occasion such as a funeral, a birth, a wedding, visiting the sick, a
rite of puberty, a christening, etc. One can see how gifts circulate. Upon marriage, gifts are received, but
then reciprocated upon other people’s weddings. In some cultures, the parents of a newborn may end
up no richer than they began, but have had the honor of seeing the presents piled up in the name of
their offspring.

How does the text illustrate the circulation and exchange of gifts within various social occasions?

Mauss points out an old saying that misers hate gifts and they hate gifts because they know they will
have to reciprocate. That is one motivation to avoid receiving gifts.

According to Mauss, what motivates misers to avoid receiving gifts?

But there are deeper, more significant reasons why someone may want to avoid gifts. In giving a gift a
person gives of himself. Some cultures such as New Zealand Maori express this as the gift-giver handing
over a portion of his soul. This soul must be returned. To fail to return a person’s soul is a kind of poison
for one’s own well-being and both René Girard in The One By Whom Scandal Comes and Mauss point
out that the word “gift” and “poison” are the same words in many cultures such as the German
“Geschenk.”

What deeper significance does the text suggest about the act of giving gifts in certain cultures like the
New Zealand Maori?

Girard writes that in giving a gift the giver wishes to relieve himself of a burden, a poison. And Mauss
notes that there seems to be a universal truth whereby food and goods are meant to be shared. An
unshared meal is a poisoned meal. Mauss writes that unshared food has had its essence ruined and food
that is not nourishing is surely akin to poison.

According to Girard and Mauss, what comparison is drawn between giving gifts and the concept of
"poison"?

Mauss’s anthropological study points out that in many cultures things given as gifts, which include all
belongings, such as blankets, land, favors, including women and children, etc., are all part of the giver’s
soul. They also have a life of their own. They want to return to whence they came. Either the same item
must be returned or an item of similar worth must be given to replace it.

How does the text describe the significance of belongings given as gifts in various cultures?

The person who gives a gift temporarily “owns” the recipient. An inability to repay a debt historically in
some cultures has resulted in “debt slavery” for the recipient.

Explain the concept of temporary ownership as described in the text regarding gift-giving.

2
There is a certain discomfort in being owned. Having a piece of another person’s soul can only be a
hindrance. This is why a gift is poison. But it is a poison and hardship that must be swallowed in order
for connection to be established.

What is the discomfort associated with the idea of owning a piece of another person's soul, as
mentioned in the text?

Notions of goods wanting to return, or carrying around another’s soul, are going to seem strange and
foreign to a Western reader. If that is the case, then regard them as poetically expressed truths, for the
underlying dynamic exists in every culture. These descriptions are powerful and capture some of the
emotional and social significance of the gift.

Why does the text acknowledge the strangeness of certain concepts regarding gifts for a Western
reader?

Gifts involve a back and forth as to who owns whom. Each giver becomes a recipient in turn. The poison
given comes back. It is anti-social to refuse gifts. It is to wish to be always the giver and never the
consumer.

What social dynamic characterizes the exchange of gifts as portrayed in this paragraph?

Gift-giving can become intensely competitive. In some cultures a person’s social status is determined by
his willingness to engage in gift exchange. Each giver seeks to be more generous than the other. This
rivalry can lead to the destruction of all personal belongings and property. Valuable items will even be
thrown into the sea, such as rare things made of copper, or houses may be burned. This represents a
kind of mass purging of intolerable burdens.

How does the text illustrate the competitive nature of gift-giving and its potential consequences in
certain cultures?

Metaphysically, life is a gift from the gods or fate. It is borrowed only and must be given back. All
property comes from the gods or nature and must be returned whence it came. Ownership is temporary
and life should not betray a grasping nature.

What philosophical viewpoint regarding life and ownership of property does the text present in this
paragraph?

The movie Prometheus was disappointing. However, there was an emotionally powerful moment when
it is revealed that an elderly and rich man has effectively been a stowaway on the spaceship which he
financed. In searching for the origin of life, he is hoping to find the secret of life and to thus prevent his
own fairly imminent death. The grasping, ungrateful, greedy nature of this man is well-portrayed by Guy
Pearce smothered in “aging” make up. Ray Kurzweil evinces a similar attitude to life and takes hundreds
of pills a day to stave off his own death until the time his consciousness can be downloaded to a
machine. Both scenarios seem to show the ugliness of not wanting to reciprocate. To give back the life
that is bestowed by another – either by God or by Nature and to give back the goods and property that
have come from the same sources.

3
What insights does the text provide regarding reciprocity in life and the behavior of certain characters
as depicted in the movie Prometheus?

The notion that life is a gift not to be thrown back in the face of the giver is an argument against suicide.
It is also an argument for making the best use of this life as possible before it must be returned, thus
expressing gratitude.

What implications does the text draw from considering life as a gift in relation to attitudes towards
suicide?

Clive Owen’s character Jack in Croupier has a mantra – “hold on tightly, let go lightly” which seems
apropos.

How does the text refer to a character's mantra and its relevance to the theme of giving and
receiving?

Mauss points out that sacrifices to the gods are gifts to the gods which compel their reciprocation and
that alms are gifts to the gods where the gods forego what is owed to them for the benefit of the poor
and children.

What connection does the text establish between sacrifices, alms, and their relationship to gods in the
context of gifts?

Charity is sometimes refused out of pride because charity does not establish a connection. The
charitable giver is effectively saying he wants nothing more to do with the person. It is thus demeaning
to the person receiving it. The effect is similar to failing to accept a gift. The recipient of charity is not an
equal, but someone from whom reciprocal behavior cannot be expected. This infantilizes the recipient.
Little children too receive but cannot return. The debt is discharged when the parents are elderly and
the positions are reversed.

How does the text discuss the dynamics of charity in relation to establishing connections and
reciprocal behavior?

Reciprocity can be nice, of course. A dinner invitation requires a return offer which provides another
opportunity to socialize.

How does reciprocity manifest in social interactions, as illustrated in this paragraph?

The dark side is that not to give or invite can effectively be a declaration of war in some contexts. Many
cultures have stories of the offense generated by a failure to invite. Fairy tales like Sleeping Beauty
include the wicked fairy godmother not invited to the christening who takes revenge on the child for the
insult.

What consequences or social implications does the text highlight regarding the act of not extending
invitations or gifts?

4
Guests are necessarily the recipient of gifts. It is a universal that they must praise the food and express
their gratitude. They can discharge the gift-debt by hosting the giver at some later date. Some people
make awful guests because they do not want to be recipients of gifts. This behavior may seem like some
kind of modesty or humility, wanting to be “nice.” “I don’t want to be any trouble.” But, not wanting to
be any trouble is troubling! The person is doing nothing but making a pest of himself and creating social
difficulties. As difficult as it is to be in gift-debt, as onerous as that is, it is necessary for healthy social
interaction.

What observations does the text make about guests, their role in receiving gifts, and the challenges
associated with refusing gifts?

I know a person who “doesn’t want to be any bother.” She visits reluctantly, perched on the edge of her
chair, not wanting to receive. This creates nothing but distress for the hosts and is actually a refusal of
connection. It is rude and effectively hostile. This bad guest says she needs to go downtown. A car ride is
offered. The guest refuses and insists on taking a bus. However, more than one bus ride is necessary,
requiring one leg of the trip being timed so the next leg can take place. Locating the connecting bus will
be an ordeal in an unfamiliar bus system, with complicated embarkation and disembarking requiring
detailed knowledge of the town which is lacking. Bus timetables are produced and pored over.
Incomprehension sets in. A ten-minute car ride is replaced by over an hour of instructions and timetable
gathering and explaining. This is the behavior of someone who intensely wants to be a bother and it is
completely counterproductive. Lord save us from such “selfless” guests.

How does the text illustrate the behavior of a guest who refuses gifts and the resulting impact on
social interactions?

However, refusing gifts has at least the occasional rationale. A woman who wants nothing to do with a
man at a bar must reject his offer of a drink, otherwise she sets up a gift debt which must be repaid
with, for instance, her company, keeping the hopes of the male alive for something more.

In what context does the text suggest that refusing a gift might be justifiable, and what social
implications does it underscore?

René Girard points out that when a gift is given the debt must not be discharged too quickly. If person A
buys person B a drink and B immediately reciprocates, no connection is established and person A’s gift is
effectively thrown back in his face. A friendly gesture becomes an occasion for ill-feeling.

How does the text analyze the timing of reciprocity in the context of gift-giving and its impact on
establishing connections?

Reciprocity must be disguised by letting a suitable period of time pass. Otherwise mimetic rivalry is
engaged instead of the gift being a connecting force.

What does the text suggest about the timing of reciprocating a gift and its role in fostering
connections?

Again, the poison of a gift must be swallowed so future interactions are ensured.

5
What metaphorical idea does the text convey through the phrase "the poison of a gift" and what
purpose does it serve in social interactions?

Girard mentions that the best gift practices occur among the Tobriand Islanders. There, exactly the same
gifts are exchanged. Items regarded as sacred are given by one group to another. As sacred objects they
are mysterious and valuable. The recipients can look upon and caress the objects. After months have
passed, the gifts can be passed on to the next group. Eventually, they will return. This is an excellent
solution to the problems that gifts almost inevitably produce.

How does the text describe the gift-giving practices among the Tobriand Islanders and what unique
feature does it emphasize as a solution to the challenges of gift exchange?

Girard gives the example of giving a fountain pen to someone. If exactly the same pen is given to the
giver, this is unacceptable because it resembles too closely a refusal to receive. If the hypothetical pen
that is given in return is actually better with a special kind of ink, this too is unacceptable. It would be as
though two people were playing poker – I see your pen and raise you two scales of excellence. The
fancier pen would be interpreted as one-upping the original giver and casting him in a poor light. It turns
gift-giving into open competition.

How does the text use the example of gift exchange involving a fountain pen to illustrate the nuances
and potential pitfalls of reciprocation?

Gifts are supposed to be somehow spontaneous. I saw this thing and thought of you. But the value of
the gifts exchanged must be similar. So the gift must be similar in some respects (price), but not too
similar. If the gift is extravagant then it risks humiliating the recipient who may not be able or willing to
return a similar gift. In that case, the gift offends and asserts a hierarchy. I am better than you. The
situation would not be helped were the giver to say, “Of course, I expect no similar gift in return.” That
is simply an expression of disdain, not friendship.

What does the text imply about the nature of gifts regarding their spontaneity and the delicate
balance required in their value for reciprocation?

In a related fashion, relatively rich and high-status men may show up to a bar and buy rounds of drinks
for everyone. Often there are two, so they are really trying to impress each other with their generosity,
vying to be the most ostentatious. If the recipient of the gift is merely grateful and happy to receive a
free drink, it is only because the recipient is blind to the implications and to the need to reciprocate. The
givers do not really want or expect reciprocity, which only reveals their lack of interest in real
connection. As such, this behavior is really an offense and is unlikely to generate warm feelings on the
part of the receivers of the largess.

How does the text highlight the implications of generosity in social interactions, particularly regarding
buying rounds of drinks in a bar, and what does it suggest about the expectations around reciprocity
in such situations?

If the owner of the bar buys certain customers free drinks this will not create a similar situation. The
bar’s customers are returning the favor with their patronage. It is only the regulars who receive the
largess. By giving gifts, the bar owner transforms mere economic exchange into emotional attachment,
tying the patrons to the place with the requirement of returning the favor by their continued support.

6
All good businesses should follow this example. Restaurants that serve bread for free, or chips and salsa,
are doing so. It is Mauss’ wish that modern economics utilize and deepen interactions between people
by employing the gift-giving, receiving, and reciprocation dynamic. It costs money to behave in this way,
but it is a good investment by encouraging and rewarding the loyalty of customers.

How does the text highlight the difference between the bar owner's free drinks for regulars and the
general concept of giving gifts, especially in the context of business, and what purpose does it serve in
the business strategy?

Unfortunately, though the Tobriand Islanders developed an ideal gift culture, it seems unlikely that we
will ever emulate them. In some ways, gift culture found its apogee there. The rest of us are doomed to
give “spontaneous” gifts that are neither too miserly, nor extravagant, while exquisitely thoughtful;
similar, but not too similar, with all the attendant thought and angst that goes into their production. Gift
cards are a step in the Tobriand direction, though in some ways they merely amount to “Here, buy your
own gift!”

What does the text convey about the difficulty of emulating the gift culture of the Tobriand Islanders
and how does it characterize the nature of "spontaneous" gifts in contemporary society?