A gift economy, gift culture, or gift exchange
is a mode of exchange where valuables are
not traded or sold, but rather given without
an explicit agreement for immediate or future
rewards.
This exchange contrasts with a barter economy
or a market economy, where goods and services
are primarily exchanged for value received.
Social norms and custom govern gift exchange.
Gifts are not given in an explicit exchange
of goods or services for money or some other
commodity.The nature of gift economies forms
the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology.
Anthropological research into gift economies
began with Bronisław Malinowski's description
of the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands
during World War I.
The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since
Trobrianders would travel great distances
over dangerous seas to give what were considered
valuable objects without any guarantee of
a return.
Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist
Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity
of "gift exchange" and introduced a series
of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable
possessions, and prestation to distinguish
between the different forms of exchange.According
to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan
Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between
market and non-market exchange that attracts
the most attention.
Gift economies are said, by some, to build
communities, with the market serving as an
acid on those relationships.Gift exchange
is distinguished from other forms of exchange
by a number of principles, such as the form
of property rights governing the articles
exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct
"sphere of exchange" that can be characterized
as an "economic system"; and the character
of the social relationship that the gift exchange
establishes.
Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies
differs from the "prestations" typical of
non-market societies.
Gift economies must also be differentiated
from several closely related phenomena, such
as common property regimes and the exchange
of non-commodified labour.
== Principles of gift exchange ==
According to anthropologist Jonathan Parry,
discussion on the nature of gifts, and of
a separate sphere of gift exchange that would
constitute an economic system, has been plagued
by the ethnocentric use of modern, western,
market society-based conception of the gift
applied as if it were a cross-cultural, pan-historical
universal.
However, he claims that anthropologists, through
analysis of a variety of cultural and historical
forms of exchange, have established that no
universal practice exists.
His classic summation of the gift exchange
debate highlighted that ideologies of the
"pure gift" "are most likely to arise in highly
differentiated societies with an advanced
division of labour and a significant commercial
sector" and need to be distinguished from
non-market "prestations".
According to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy"
in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive
features of their exchange relationships,
as the early classic debate between Bronislaw
Malinowski and Marcel Mauss demonstrated.
Gift exchange is frequently "embedded" in
political, kin, or religious institutions,
and therefore does not constitute an "economic"
system per se.
=== Property and alienability ===
Gift-giving is a form of transfer of property
rights over particular objects.
The nature of those property rights varies
from society to society, from culture to culture,
and are not universal.
The nature of gift-giving is thus altered
by the type of property regime in place.Property
is not a thing, but a relationship amongst
people about things.
According to Chris Hann, property is a social
relationship that governs the conduct of people
with respect to the use and disposition of
things.
Anthropologists analyze these relationships
in terms of a variety of actors' (individual
or corporate) "bundle of rights" over objects.
An example is the current debates around intellectual
property rights.
Hann and Strangelove both give the example
of a purchased book (an object that he owns),
over which the author retains a "copyright".
Although the book is a commodity, bought and
sold, it has not been completely "alienated"
from its creator who maintains a hold over
it; the owner of the book is limited in what
he can do with the book by the rights of the
creator.
Weiner has argued that the ability to give
while retaining a right to the gift/commodity
is a critical feature of the gifting cultures
described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains,
for example, why some gifts such as Kula valuables
return to their original owners after an incredible
journey around the Trobriand islands.
The gifts given in Kula exchange still remain,
in some respects, the property of the giver.In
the example used above, "copyright" is one
of those bundled rights that regulate the
use and disposition of a book.
Gift-giving in many societies is complicated
because "private property" owned by an individual
may be quite limited in scope (see § The
commons below).
Productive resources, such as land, may be
held by members of a corporate group (such
as a lineage), but only some members of that
group may have "use rights".
When many people hold rights over the same
objects gifting has very different implications
than the gifting of private property; only
some of the rights in that object may be transferred,
leaving that object still tied to its corporate
owners.
Anthropologist Annette Weiner refers to these
types of objects as "inalienable possessions"
and to the process as "keeping while giving".
=== Gift vs. prestation ===
Malinowski's study of the Kula ring became
the subject of debate with the French anthropologist,
Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai
sur le don", 1925).
In Parry's view, Malinowski placed the emphasis
on the exchange of goods between individuals,
and their non-altruistic motives for giving
the gift: they expected a return of equal
or greater value.
Malinowski stated that reciprocity is an implicit
part of gifting; he contended there is no
such thing as the "free gift" given without
expectation.Mauss, in contrast, emphasized
that the gifts were not between individuals,
but between representatives of larger collectivities.
These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation".
A prestation is a service provided out of
a sense of obligation, like "community service".
They were not simple, alienable commodities
to be bought and sold, but, like the "Crown
jewels", embodied the reputation, history
and sense of identity of a "corporate kin
group", such as a line of kings.
Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone
would give them away?"
His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the
spirit of the gift".
Parry believes that a good part of the confusion
(and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation.
Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return
gift is given to keep the very relationship
between givers alive; a failure to return
a gift ends the relationship and the promise
of any future gifts.
Both Malinowski and Mauss agreed that in non-market
societies, where there was no clear institutionalized
economic exchange system, gift/prestation
exchange served economic, kinship, religious
and political functions that could not be
clearly distinguished from each other, and
which mutually influenced the nature of the
practice.
=== Inalienable possessions ===
Mauss' concept of "total prestations" was
further developed by Annette Weiner, who revisited
Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands.
Her critique was twofold: first, Trobriand
Island society is matrilineal, and women hold
a great deal of economic and political power.
Their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski.
Secondly, she developed Mauss' argument about
reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" in
terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox
of keeping while giving."
Weiner contrasts "moveable goods" which can
be exchanged with "immoveable goods" that
serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand
case, male Kula gifts with women's landed
property).
She argues that the specific goods given,
like Crown Jewels, are so identified with
particular groups, that even when given, they
are not truly alienated.
Not all societies, however, have these kinds
of goods, which depend upon the existence
of particular kinds of kinship groups.
French anthropologist Maurice Godelier pushed
the analysis further in "The Enigma of the
Gift" (1999).
Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds
of societies used as examples by Weiner and
Godelier (including the Kula ring in the Trobriands,
the Potlatch of the indigenous peoples of
the Pacific Northwest Coast, and the Toraja
of South Sulawesi, Indonesia) are all characterized
by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit
with Claude Lévi-Strauss' model of "House
Societies" (where "House" refers to both noble
lineage and their landed estate).
Total prestations are given, he argues, to
preserve landed estates identified with particular
kin groups and maintain their place in a ranked
society.
=== Reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift"
===
According to Chris Gregory reciprocity is
a dyadic exchange relationship that we characterize,
imprecisely, as gift-giving.
Gregory believes that one gives gifts to friends
and potential enemies in order to establish
a relationship, by placing them in debt.
He also claimed that in order for such a relationship
to persist, there must be a time lag between
the gift and counter-gift; one or the other
partner must always be in debt, or there is
no relationship.
Marshall Sahlins has stated that birthday
gifts are an example of this.
Sahlins notes that birthday presents are separated
in time so that one partner feels the obligation
to make a return gift; and to forget the return
gift may be enough to end the relationship.
Gregory has stated that without a relationship
of debt, there is no reciprocity, and that
this is what distinguishes a gift economy
from a "true gift" given with no expectation
of return (something Sahlins calls "generalized
reciprocity": see below).Marshall Sahlins,
an American cultural anthropologist, identified
three main types of reciprocity in his book
Stone Age Economics (1972).
Gift or generalized reciprocity is the exchange
of goods and services without keeping track
of their exact value, but often with the expectation
that their value will balance out over time.
Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs
when someone gives to someone else, expecting
a fair and tangible return at a specified
amount, time, and place.
Market or Negative reciprocity is the exchange
of goods and services where each party intends
to profit from the exchange, often at the
expense of the other.
Gift economies, or generalized reciprocity,
occurred within closely knit kin groups, and
the more distant the exchange partner, the
more balanced or negative the exchange became.The
"generalized reciprocity" time-lag in recent
years, also applies as an allowance for spontaneity
and creativity that enables both parties to
demonstrate love in surprising ways.
In a market exchange, the giving party loses
an item to gain income while the receiving
party loses income to gain an item, a +1 -1
transaction that leads to 0 goodwill remaining
on average.
In a giving relationship, the giving party
loses the item, but gains the joy of doing
good for someone they appreciate, while the
receiving party still gains not just something,
but something that is tailored to their tastes,
transaction value +1(receiver) +1(giver) -1(giver)
+1(personalization as sign of love for the
receiver) for a total of +2 goodwill added
to the relationship.
This expanding goodwill deepens social capital
exchanged in close communities and leaves
a "relationship bank" for community members
to tap into when they are in need of help
in the future.
This belief is a core part of the culture
of Burning Man.
Within the virtual world, the proliferation
of public domain content, Creative Common
Licences, and Open Source projects have also
contributed to what might be considered an
economics game changer variable.
=== Charity, debt, and the "poison of the
gift" ===
Jonathan Parry has argued that ideologies
of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise
only in highly differentiated societies with
an advanced division of labour and a significant
commercial sector" and need to be distinguished
from the non-market "prestations" discussed
above.
Parry also underscored, using the example
of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna),
that the "pure gift" of alms given with no
expectation of return could be "poisonous".
That is, the gift of alms embodying the sins
of the giver, when given to ritually pure
priests, saddled these priests with impurities
that they could not cleanse themselves of.
"Pure gifts", given without a return, can
place recipients in debt, and hence in dependent
status: the poison of the gift.
David Graeber points out that no reciprocity
is expected between unequals: if you make
a gift of a dollar to a beggar, he will not
give it back the next time you meet.
More than likely, he will ask for more, to
the detriment of his status.
Many who are forced by circumstances to accept
charity feel stigmatized.
In the Moka exchange system of Papua New Guinea,
where gift givers become political "big men",
those who are in their debt and unable to
repay with "interest" are referred to as "rubbish
men".
The French writer Georges Bataille, in La
part Maudite, uses Mauss's argument in order
to construct a theory of economy: the structure
of gift is the presupposition for all possible
economy.
Bataille is particularly interested in the
potlatch as described by Mauss, and claims
that its agonistic character obliges the receiver
of the gift to confirm their own subjection.
Gift-giving thus embodies the Hegelian dipole
of master and slave within the act.
=== Spheres of exchange and "economic systems"
===
The relationship of new market exchange systems
to indigenous non-market exchange remained
a perplexing question for anthropologists.
Paul Bohannan argued that the Tiv of Nigeria
had three spheres of exchange, and that only
certain kinds of goods could be exchanged
in each sphere; each sphere had its own different
form of special purpose money.
However, the market and universal money allowed
goods to be traded between spheres and thus
served as an acid on established social relationships.
Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch, argued in
"Money and the Morality of Exchange" (1989),
that the "transactional order" through which
long-term social reproduction of the family
takes place has to be preserved as separate
from short-term market relations.
It is the long-term social reproduction of
the family that is sacralized by religious
rituals such baptisms, weddings and funerals,
and characterized by gifting.
In such situations where gift-giving and market
exchange were intersecting for the first time,
some anthropologists contrasted them as polar
opposites.
This opposition was classically expressed
by Chris Gregory in his book "Gifts and Commodities"
(1982).
Gregory argued that
Commodity exchange is an exchange of alienable
objects between people who are in a state
of reciprocal independence that establishes
a quantitative relationship between the objects
exchanged … Gift exchange is an exchange
of inalienable objects between people who
are in a state of reciprocal dependence that
establishes a qualitative relationship between
the transactors (emphasis added).
Gregory contrasts gift and commodity exchange
according to five criteria:
Other anthropologists, however, refused to
see these different "exchange spheres" as
such polar opposites.
Marilyn Strathern, writing on a similar area
in Papua New Guinea, dismissed the utility
of the contrasting setup in "The Gender of
the Gift" (1988).
Rather than emphasize how particular kinds
of objects are either gifts or commodities
to be traded in restricted spheres of exchange,
Arjun Appadurai and others began to look at
how objects flowed between these spheres of
exchange (i.e. how objects can be converted
into gifts and then back into commodities).
They refocussed attention away from the character
of the human relationships formed through
exchange, and placed it on "the social life
of things" instead.
They examined the strategies by which an object
could be "singularized" (made unique, special,
one-of-a-kind) and so withdrawn from the market.
A marriage ceremony that transforms a purchased
ring into an irreplaceable family heirloom
is one example; the heirloom, in turn, makes
a perfect gift.
Singularization is the reverse of the seemingly
irresistible process of commodification.
They thus show how all economies are a constant
flow of material objects that enter and leave
specific exchange spheres.
A similar approach is taken by Nicholas Thomas,
who examines the same range of cultures and
the anthropologists who write on them, and
redirects attention to the "entangled objects"
and their roles as both gifts and commodities.
=== Proscriptions ===
Many societies have strong prohibitions against
turning gifts into trade or capital goods.
Anthropologist Wendy James writes that among
the Uduk people of northeast Africa there
is a strong custom that any gift that crosses
subclan boundaries must be consumed rather
than invested.
For example, an animal given as a gift must
be eaten, not bred.
However, as in the example of the Trobriand
armbands and necklaces, this "perishing" may
not consist of consumption as such, but of
the gift moving on.
In other societies, it is a matter of giving
some other gift, either directly in return
or to another party.
To keep the gift and not give another in exchange
is reprehensible.
"In folk tales," Lewis Hyde remarks, "the
person who tries to hold onto a gift usually
dies."Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied
a small tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,
reported that, while they are aware of food
preservation using drying, salting, and so
forth, they reserve the use of these techniques
for items for barter outside of the tribe.
Within the group, when someone has a successful
hunt they immediately share the abundance
by inviting others to enjoy a feast.
Asked about this practice, one hunter laughed
and replied, "I store meat in the belly of
my brother."Carol Stack's All Our Kin describes
both the positive and negative sides of a
network of obligation and gratitude effectively
constituting a gift economy.
Her narrative of The Flats, a poor Chicago
neighborhood, tells in passing the story of
two sisters who each came into a small inheritance.
One sister hoarded the inheritance and prospered
materially for some time, but was alienated
from the community.
Her marriage ultimately broke up, and she
integrated herself back into the community
largely by giving gifts.
The other sister fulfilled the community's
expectations, but within six weeks had nothing
material to show for the inheritance but a
coat and a pair of shoes.
== Case studies: Prestations ==
Marcel Mauss was careful to distinguish "gift
economies" (reciprocity) in market-based societies
from the "total prestations" given in non-market
societies.
A prestation is a service provided out of
a sense of obligation, like "community service".
These "prestations" bring together domains
that we would differentiate as political,
religious, legal, moral and economic, such
that the exchange can be seen to be embedded
in non-economic social institutions.
These prestations are frequently competitive,
as in the potlatch, Kula exchange, and Moka
exchange.
=== Moka exchange in Papua New Guinea: competitive
exchange ===
The Moka is a highly ritualized system of
exchange in the Mount Hagen area, Papua New
Guinea, that has become emblematic of the
anthropological concepts of "gift economy"
and of "big man" political system.
Moka are reciprocal gifts of pigs through
which social status is achieved.
Moka refers specifically to the increment
in the size of the gift.
Social status in the "big man" political system
is the result of giving larger gifts than
one has received.
These gifts are of a limited range of goods,
primarily pigs and scarce pearl shells from
the coast.
To return the same amount as one has received
in a moka is simply the repayment of a debt,
strict reciprocity.
Moka is the extra.
To some, this represents interest on an investment.
However, one is not bound to provide moka,
only to repay the debt.
One adds moka to the gift to increase one's
prestige, and to place the receiver in debt.
It is this constant renewal of the debt relationship
which keeps the relationship alive; a debt
fully paid off ends further interaction.
Giving more than one receives establishes
a reputation as a Big man, whereas the simple
repayment of debt, or failure to fully repay,
pushes one's reputation towards the other
end of the scale, "rubbish man".
Gift exchange thus has a political effect;
granting prestige or status to one, and a
sense of debt in the other.
A political system can be built out of these
kinds of status relationships.
Sahlins characterizes the difference between
status and rank by highlighting that Big man
is not a role; it is a status that is shared
by many.
The Big man is "not a prince of men", but
a "prince among men".
The "big man" system is based upon the ability
to persuade, rather than command.
=== Toraja funerals: the politics of meat
distribution ===
The Toraja are an ethnic group indigenous
to a mountainous region of South Sulawesi,
Indonesia.
Torajans are renowned for their elaborate
funeral rites, burial sites carved into rocky
cliffs, and massive peaked-roof traditional
houses known as tongkonan which are owned
by noble families.
Membership in a tongkonan is inherited by
all descendants of its founders.
Any individual Toraja may thus be a member
of numerous tongkonan, as long as they contribute
to its ritual events.
Membership in a tongkonan carries benefits,
such as the right to rent some of its rice
fields.Toraja funeral rites are important
social events, usually attended by hundreds
of people and lasting for several days.
The funerals are like "big men" competitions
where all the descendants of a tongkonan will
compete through gifts of sacrificial cattle.
Participants will have invested cattle with
others over the years, and will now draw on
those extended networks to make the largest
gift.
The winner of the competition becomes the
new owner of the tongkonan and its rice lands.
They display all the cattle horns from their
winning sacrifice on a pole in front of the
tongkonan.The Toraja funeral differs from
the "big man" system in that the winner of
the "gift" exchange gains control of the Tongkonan's
property.
It creates a clear social hierarchy between
the noble owners of the tongkonan and its
land, and the commoners who are forced to
rent their fields from him.
Since the owners of the tongkonan gain rent,
they are better able to compete in the funeral
gift exchanges, and their social rank is more
stable than the "big man" system.
== Charity and alms giving ==
Anthropologist David Graeber has argued that
the great world religious traditions on charity
and gift giving emerged almost simultaneously
during the "Axial age" (the period between
800 and 200 BCE), which was the same period
in which coinage was invented and market economies
established on a continental basis.
These religious traditions on charity emerge,
he argues, as a reaction against the nexus
formed by coinage, slavery, military violence
and the market (a "military-coinage" complex).
The new world religions, including Hinduism,
Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity,
and Islam all sought to preserve "human economies"
where money served to cement social relationships
rather than purchase things (including people).Charity
and alms-giving are religiously sanctioned
voluntary gifts given without expectation
of return.
Case studies demonstrate, however, that such
gift-giving is not necessarily altruistic.
=== Merit making in Buddhist Thailand ===
Theravada Buddhism in Thailand emphasizes
the importance of giving alms (merit making)
without any intention of return (a pure gift),
which is best accomplished according to doctrine,
through gifts to monks and temples.
The emphasis is on the selfless gifting which
"earns merit" (and a future better life) for
the giver rather than on the relief of the
poor or the recipient on whom the gift is
bestowed.
Bowie's research among poorer Thai farmers
shows, however, that this ideal form of gifting
is limited to the rich who have the resources
to endow temples, or sponsor the ordination
of a monk.
Monks come from these same families, hence
the doctrine of pure gifting to monks has
a class element to it.
Poorer farmers place much less emphasis on
merit making through gifts to monks and temples.
They equally validate gifting to beggars.
Poverty and famine is widespread amongst these
poorer groups, and by validating gift-giving
to beggars, they are in fact demanding that
the rich see to their needs in hard times.
Bowie sees this as an example of a moral economy
(see below) in which the poor use gossip and
reputation as a means of resisting elite exploitation
and pressuring them to ease their "this world"
suffering.
=== Charity: Dana in India ===
Dāna is a form of religious charity given
in Hindu India.
The gift is said to embody the sins of the
giver (the "poison of the gift"), who it frees
of evil by transmitting it to the recipient.
The merit of the gift is dependent on finding
a worthy recipient such as a Brahmin priest.
Priests are supposed to be able to digest
the sin through ritual action and transmit
the gift with increment to someone of greater
worth.
It is imperative that this be a true gift,
with no reciprocity, or the evil will return.
The gift is not intended to create any relationship
between donor and recipient, and there should
never be a return gift.
Dana thus transgresses the so-called universal
"norm of reciprocity".
=== The Children of Peace in Canada ===
The Children of Peace (1812–1889) were a
utopian Quaker sect.
Today, they are primarily remembered for the
Sharon Temple, a national historic site and
an architectural symbol of their vision of
a society based on the values of peace, equality
and social justice.
They built this ornate temple to raise money
for the poor, and built the province of Ontario's
first shelter for the homeless.
They took a lead role in the organization
of the province's first co-operative, the
Farmers' Storehouse, and opened the province's
first credit union.
The group soon found that the charity they
tried to distribute from their Temple fund
endangered the poor.
Accepting charity was a sign of indebtedness,
and the debtor could be jailed without trial
at the time; this was the "poison of the gift".
They thus transformed their charity fund into
a credit union that loaned small sums like
today's micro-credit institutions.
This is an example of singularization, as
money was transformed into charity in the
Temple ceremony, then shifted to an alternative
exchange sphere as a loan.
Interest on the loan was then singularized,
and transformed back into charity.
== Gifting as non-commodified exchange in
market societies ==
Non-commodified spheres of exchange exist
in relation to the market economy.
They are created through the processes of
singularization as specific objects are de-commodified
for a variety of reasons and enter an alternative
exchange sphere.
As in the case of organ donation, this may
be the result of an ideological opposition
to the "traffic in humans".
In other cases, it is in opposition to the
market and to its perceived greed.
It may, however, be used by corporations as
a means of creating a sense of endebtedness
and loyalty in customers.
Modern marketing techniques often aim at infusing
commodity exchange with features of gift exchange,
thus blurring the presumably sharp distinction
between gifts and commodities.
=== Organ transplant networks, sperm and blood
banks ===
Market economies tend to reduce everything
– "including human beings, their labor,
and their reproductive capacity" – to the
status of commodities.
The rapid transfer of organ transplant technology
to the third world has created a trade in
organs, with sick bodies travelling to the
global south for transplants, and healthy
organs from the global south being transported
to the richer global north, "creating a kind
of 'Kula ring' of bodies and body parts."
However, all commodities can also be singularized,
or de-commodified, and transformed into gifts.
In North America, it is illegal to sell organs,
and citizens are enjoined to give the "gift
of life" and donate their organs in an organ
gift economy.
However, this gift economy is a "medical realm
rife with potent forms of mystified commodification".
This multimillion-dollar medical industry
requires clients to pay steep fees for the
gifted organ, which creates clear class divisions
between those who donate (frequently in the
global south) and will never benefit from
gifted organs, and those who can pay the fees
and thereby receive the gifted organ.Unlike
body organs, blood and semen have been successfully
and legally commodified in the United States.
Blood and semen can thus be commodified, but
once consumed are "the gift of life".
Although both can be either donated or sold,
are perceived as the "gift of life" yet are
stored in "banks", and can be collected only
under strict government regulated procedures,
recipients very clearly prefer altruistically
donated semen and blood.
Ironically, the blood and semen samples with
the highest market value are those that have
been altruistically donated.
The recipients view semen as storing the potential
characteristics of their unborn child in its
DNA, and value altruism over greed.
Similarly, gifted blood is the archetype of
a pure gift relationship because the donor
is only motivated by a desire to help others.
=== Copyleft vs copyright: the gift of "free"
speech ===
Engineers, scientists and software developers
have created free software projects such as
the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system.
They are prototypical examples for the gift
economy's prominence in the technology sector,
and its active role in instating the use of
permissive free software and copyleft licenses,
which allow free reuse of software and knowledge.
Other examples include file-sharing, open
access, unlicensed software ... etc.
=== Points: Loyalty programs ===
Many retail organizations have "gift" programs
meant to encourage customer loyalty to their
establishments.
Bird-David and Darr refer to these as hybrid
"mass-gifts" which are neither gift nor commodity.
They are called mass-gifts because they are
given away in large numbers "free with purchase"
in a mass-consumption environment.
They give as an example two bars of soap in
which one is given free with purchase: which
is the commodity and which the gift?
The mass-gift both affirms the distinct difference
between gift and commodity while confusing
it at the same time.
As with gifting, mass-gifts are used to create
a social relationship.
Some customers embrace the relationship and
gift whereas others reject the gift relationship
and interpret the "gift" as a 50% off sale.
=== Free shops ===
"Give-away shops", "freeshops" or "free stores"
are stores where all goods are free.
They are similar to charity shops, with mostly
second-hand items—only everything is available
at no cost.
Whether it is a book, a piece of furniture,
a garment or a household item, it is all freely
given away, although some operate a one-in,
one-out–type policy (swap shops).
The free store is a form of constructive direct
action that provides a shopping alternative
to a monetary framework, allowing people to
exchange goods and services outside of a money-based
economy.
The anarchist 1960s countercultural group
The Diggers opened free stores which simply
gave away their stock, provided free food,
distributed free drugs, gave away money, organized
free music concerts, and performed works of
political art.
The Diggers took their name from the original
English Diggers led by Gerrard Winstanley
and sought to create a mini-society free of
money and capitalism.
Although free stores have not been uncommon
in the United States since the 1960s, the
freegan movement has inspired the establishment
of more free stores.
Today the idea is kept alive by the new generations
of social centres, anarchists and environmentalists
who view the idea as an intriguing way to
raise awareness about consumer culture and
to promote the reuse of commodities.
=== Burning Man ===
Burning Man is a week-long annual art and
community event held in the Black Rock Desert
in northern Nevada, in the United States.
The event is described as an experiment in
community, radical self-expression, and radical
self-reliance.
The event forbids commerce (except for ice,
coffee, and tickets to the event itself) and
encourages gifting.
Gifting is one of the 10 guiding principles,
as participants to Burning Man (both the desert
festival and the year-round global community)
are encouraged to rely on a gift economy.
The practice of gifting at Burning Man is
also documented by the 2002 documentary film
"Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy",
as well as by Making Contact's radio show
"How We Survive: The Currency of Giving [encore]".
=== Cannabis market in the District of Columbia
and U.S. states ===
According to the Associated Press, "Gift-giving
has long been a part of marijuana culture"
and has accompanied legalization in U.S. states
in the 2010s.
Voters in the District of Columbia legalized
the growing of cannabis for personal recreational
use by approving Initiative 71 in November
2014, but the 2015 "Cromnibus" Federal appropriations
bills prevented the District from creating
a system to allow for its commercial sale.
Possession, growth, and use of the drug by
adults is legal in the District, as is giving
it away, but sale and barter of it is not,
in effect attempting to create a gift economy.
However it ended up creating a commercial
market linked to selling other objects.
Preceding the January, 2018 legalization of
cannabis possession in Vermont without a corresponding
legal framework for sales, it was expected
that a similar market would emerge there.
For a time, people in Portland, Oregon could
only legally obtain cannabis as a gift, which
was celebrated in the Burnside Burn rally.
For a time, a similar situation ensued after
possession was legalized in California, Maine
and Massachusetts.
== Related concepts ==
=== Mutual aid ===
Many anarchists, particularly anarcho-primitivists
and anarcho-communists, believe that variations
on a gift economy may be the key to breaking
the cycle of poverty.
Therefore, they often desire to refashion
all of society into a gift economy.
Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy
as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets,
nor central planning.
This view traces back at least to Peter Kropotkin,
who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had
visited the paradigm of "mutual aid".
In place of a market, anarcho-communists,
such as those who inhabited some Spanish villages
in the 1930s, support a currency-less gift
economy where goods and services are produced
by workers and distributed in community stores
where everyone (including the workers who
produced them) is essentially entitled to
consume whatever they want or need as payment
for their production of goods and services.As
an intellectual abstraction, mutual aid was
developed and advanced by mutualism or labor
insurance systems and thus trade unions, and
has been also used in cooperatives and other
civil society movements.
Typically, mutual-aid groups will be free
to join and participate in, and all activities
will be voluntary.
They are often structured as non-hierarchical,
non-bureaucratic non-profit organizations,
with members controlling all resources and
no external financial or professional support.
They are member-led and member-organized.
They are egalitarian in nature, and designed
to support participatory democracy, equality
of member status and power, and shared leadership
and cooperative decision-making.
Members' external societal status is considered
irrelevant inside the group: status in the
group is conferred by participation.
=== Moral economy ===
English historian E.P. Thompson wrote of the
moral economy of the poor in the context of
widespread English food riots in the English
countryside in the late eighteenth century.
According to Thompson these riots were generally
peaceable acts that demonstrated a common
political culture rooted in feudal rights
to "set the price" of essential goods in the
market.
These peasants held that a traditional "fair
price" was more important to the community
than a "free" market price and they punished
large farmers who sold their surpluses at
higher prices outside the village while there
were still those in need within the village.
A moral economy is thus an attempt to preserve
an alternative exchange sphere from market
penetration.
The notion of peasants with a non-capitalist
cultural mentality using the market for their
own ends has been linked to subsistence agriculture
and the need for subsistence insurance in
hard times.
James C. Scott points out, however, that those
who provide this subsistence insurance to
the poor in bad years are wealthy patrons
who exact a political cost for their aid;
this aid is given to recruit followers.
The concept of moral economy has been used
to explain why peasants in a number of colonial
contexts, such as the Vietnam War, have rebelled.
=== The commons ===
Some may confuse common property regimes with
gift exchange systems.
"Commons" refers to the cultural and natural
resources accessible to all members of a society,
including natural materials such as air, water,
and a habitable earth.
These resources are held in common, not owned
privately.
The resources held in common can include everything
from natural resources and common land to
software.
The commons contains public property and private
property, over which people have certain traditional
rights.
When commonly held property is transformed
into private property this process alternatively
is termed "enclosure" or more commonly, "privatization".
A person who has a right in, or over, common
land jointly with another or others is called
a commoner.There are a number of important
aspects that can be used to describe true
commons.
The first is that the commons cannot be commodified
– if they are, they cease to be commons.
The second aspect is that unlike private property,
the commons are inclusive rather than exclusive
– their nature is to share ownership as
widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible.
The third aspect is that the assets in commons
are meant to be preserved regardless of their
return of capital.
Just as we receive them as a shared right,
so we have a duty to pass them on to future
generations in at least the same condition
as we received them.
If we can add to their value, so much the
better, but at a minimum we must not degrade
them, and we certainly have no right to destroy
them.
=== The new intellectual commons: free content
===
Free content, or free information, is any
kind of functional work, artwork, or other
creative content that meets the definition
of a free cultural work.
A free cultural work is one which has no significant
legal restriction on people's freedom:
to use the content and benefit from using
it,
to study the content and apply what is learned,
to make and distribute copies of the content,
to change and improve the content and distribute
these derivative works.Although different
definitions are used, free content is legally
similar if not identical to open content.
An analogy is the use of the rival terms free
software and open source which describe ideological
differences rather than legal ones.Free content
encompasses all works in the public domain
and also those copyrighted works whose licenses
honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above.
Because copyright law in most countries by
default grants copyright holders monopolistic
control over their creations, copyright content
must be explicitly declared free, usually
by the referencing or inclusion of licensing
statements from within the work.
Though a work which is in the public domain
because its copyright has expired is considered
free, it can become non-free again if the
copyright law changes.Information is particularly
suited to gift economies, as information is
a nonrival good and can be gifted at practically
no cost (zero marginal cost).
In fact, there is often an advantage to using
the same software or data formats as others,
so even from a selfish perspective, it can
be advantageous to give away one's information.
==== Filesharing ====
Markus Giesler in his ethnography Consumer
Gift System, described music downloading as
a system of social solidarity based on gift
transactions.
As Internet access spread, file sharing became
extremely popular among users who could contribute
and receive files on line.
This form of gift economy was a model for
online services such as Napster, which focused
on music sharing and was later sued for copyright
infringement.
Nonetheless, online file sharing persists
in various forms such as Bit Torrent and Direct
download link.
A number of communications and intellectual
property experts such as Henry Jenkins and
Lawrence Lessig have described file-sharing
as a form of gift exchange which provides
numerous benefits to artists and consumers
alike.
They have argued that file sharing fosters
community among distributors and allows for
a more equitable distribution of media.
==== Free and open-source software ====
In his essay "Homesteading the Noosphere",
noted computer programmer Eric S. Raymond
said that free and open-source software developers
have created "a 'gift culture' in which participants
compete for prestige by giving time, energy,
and creativity away".
Prestige gained as a result of contributions
to source code fosters a social network for
the developer; the open source community will
recognize the developer's accomplishments
and intelligence.
Consequently, the developer may find more
opportunities to work with other developers.
However, prestige is not the only motivator
for the giving of lines of code.
An anthropological study of the Fedora community,
as part of a master's study at the University
of North Texas in 2010-11, found that common
reasons given by contributors were "learning
for the joy of learning and collaborating
with interesting and smart people".
Motivation for personal gain, such as career
benefits, was more rarely reported.
Many of those surveyed said things like, "Mainly
I contribute just to make it work for me",
and "programmers develop software to 'scratch
an itch'".
The International Institute of Infonomics
at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands
reported in 2002 that in addition to the above,
large corporations, and they specifically
mentioned IBM, also spend large annual sums
employing developers specifically for them
to contribute to open source projects.
The firms' and the employees' motivations
in such cases are less clear.Members of the
Linux community often speak of their community
as a gift economy.
The IT research firm IDC valued the Linux
kernel at $18 billion USD in 2007 and projected
its value at $40 billion USD in 2010.
The Debian distribution of the GNU/Linux operating
system offers over 37,000 free open-source
software packages via their AMD64 repositories
alone.
==== Collaborative works ====
Collaborative works are works created by an
open community.
For example, Wikipedia – a free online encyclopedia
– features millions of articles developed
collaboratively, and almost none of its many
authors and editors receive any direct material
reward.
== See also ==
== Notes ==
== Further reading ==
The concept of a gift economy has played a
large role in works of fiction about alternative
societies, especially in works of science
fiction.
Examples include:
