Week 9 Lecture/ Readings - Exchange
How do Malinowski and Mauss, each suggest exchange and gift relations are similar to, or different from other kinds of everyday transactions?
What kinds of connections and relations are being forged? Could they be understood as a 'social contract' in these cultural contexts?
If you apply this type of analysis to your own experiences of exchange can it reveal anything about the social structures or organisation in your own culture?
Portfolio
Exchange- gift exchange
Why do anthropologists care about production and exchange across cultures
Varieties of Exchange
Exchange permeates social life- class examples, whispering, raising eyebrows…
Polani distinguishes between recipricocity-gift exchange, redistribution- charity, foodbank ditstribution amongst the community, exchange- trade with the use of money.
Polani argues that even though exchange dominates we still see elements of reciprocity- which is mutual (has concept of give and take (not necessarily at the same time)) and redistribution.
Varieties of Gifts (Yan 2020)
There is a vast variety of gifts- ceremonial (associated with ceremony wedding gifts ) vs non-ceremonial- i.e gifts that act on behalf of a collective - i.e a family or lineage
Horizontal vs vertical gifts - horizontal- giving amongst equals, vertical- assumes some hierarchical positioning (gifting to boss)
men vs female realms
expressive- a gift that reinforces an already existing social relationship t vs instrumental- to make new friends, to be part of a group
material - object vs non- material
gifts to others vs self-gifts
Understanding economic systems within & across
societies Hann & Hart (2011). Economic Anthropology
• Formalist economic approaches:
• all economic activity understood through impersonal market logic
• analysis focuses on the individual as a rational actor
• Substantivist argument:
• Economic practices embedded in local context & social institutions
• Analysis takes an emic approach: What are the local logics of exchange?
Formalist economic approaches: vs Substantivist argument:
Contemporary anthropologists usually take a substantivist approach- decide not to take a western/ ethnocentric view
• Polanyi (1957) recognises a diverse mix of economic systems within a society
The logic of the market can be applied globally
Individual (- formalist)vs the collective/ relational idea of a gift suggest that gifting always has broader implications in terms of social relationships.
with the removal of work production
Free and disinterested givers and recipients who transact unobligating expressions of
affection come into cultural existence with the shift of production out of the affective and
substantial relations that exist in the household to the impersonal relations of wage labor and
capital (Carrier, 1990: 31).- the shift towards industrialisation has changed to a wage based and economical society means that gifting someone with a gift has a now more elevated meaning because everything is more economical (Polani)
We have met the enemy and he is us: the perfect altruist is nothing more than the obverse face
of Homo economicus…[w]e will achieve no deeper understanding of gift exchange and their
relationships to economic and social behavior until we discard or at least modify the notion of
persons as free, unconstrained transactors (Ostern, 2002: 240)
[both cited in Yan, 2020]- You can’t seperate an individual from the gift- a perosn is excempt from their concept you cannot talk about gift exchange with the context- inalienability of gift giving
distinction between altruist and homo economicus - we’ve become the complete opposite -our drive is economic value which is opposed to what we innately are (community driven)
Ostern believes that our freedom is achived through market transactions but also through gift giving, thilanthrophy, donations
Ostern- by assuming that a gift is a free what does gift giving reinforce ]
important not to be ethnocentric about our understanding of gift-giving
Is a a scarf for a 5 pound note a balanced exchange?
Sentimental vs monetary - needs to be equivalent or more importantly seen as equivalent
agreed transaction
time/labour + raw materials
recognition + appreciation (might be enough)
knowlede capital
recognising the person in the gift- acknowledging the person who ur makung the scarf for - Mauss- spirit of the gift (theres something more than social sanctions)
Malinowski - Functionalist- went to Rwanda experienced it first hand - participation observation
His study of the Kula Ring- they exchange ornamental goods
Soulava: long necklaces of shell discs - Travel
clockwise
• Mwali: White arm shells - Travel counter-clockwise
a Soulava is exchanged for a Mwali or vice versa
• Key principles:
• Exchange between two men (but multiple pairs can exist)
• There must be a time-lag (and not resemble barter)- gift giving, not a barter- could be a couple minutes or could be delayed over long periods of time - there needs to be equivalence - best Mwali for best Soulava- wait to get one that is worthy of giving back
• Equivalence of the counter-gift is left to the giver
if someone were to give back a gift deemed not equivalent this would face social sanctions, i.e. gossip, badmouthed, damage in the relationship
"Possession for possessions sake": No practical use /
application
“meaningless and quite useless objects” p.86-
but has historcial importance
carrying symbolic meaning vs functional use
value is socially or culturally subjective- value is relative to it socio-anthropological context
crown vs Vaygu’a
more in use
multiple Vaygu’a
crown jewels are locked uo
global signficance
socially culturally subjective-relative
fa cup trophy
associated with prestige same vith vaygu’a they are shown and celebrated
etched into the bottom of fa cup - team is etched - carries history- makes linkages between teams that might have been adverses- creates common and shared history through shared gifting reduces likeability of conflict
there’s only one trophy and its not a direct exchange.
Use ‘is not the main function of these articles’- malinowski
the more generous we are the more we can be seen as powerful and re-iterate our social status.
Weiner (1976) Women of value, men of renown
- Argued that Malinowski tended to overlook the
social significance of materials exchanged outside of
the Kula ring
argues that Malinowski neglected female poverty
and "Products with most dense values in obligatory
exchanges at marriage and death (yams, doba) are
perishable, and must constantly be regenerated.- recognising and reinforcing ties and ranks within society
The dynamics of exchange across cultures
Value & symbolism of materials can change depending
on context- especially through broader global interactions
Spirit of the Gift
“What imposes obligation in the present
received and exchanged, is the fact that the
thing received is not inactive. Even when it
has been abandoned by the giver, it still
possesses something of him.”
– Mauss (2002: 15)- Malinowski critiqued this interpretation - Mal looked purely at reciprocity- mauss said there is this idea of recipricoity but also this idea of the spirit and honouring the person
The universality of the gift?
• Mauss (1954: 5) argues that gift exchange is ‘‘One of the human foundations on which our
societies are built".
• Obligations to 1) Give, 2) Receive and 3) Return
• Gifts as inalienable
Gift exchanges are more than market transactions
• Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) The Gift ( translated into English in
1954)
• Principally a functionalist (Durkheim's nephew)
Potlach: An extravagant gift giving ceremony
• Originally associated with indigenous communities of Pacific North
West (as early as 1500 BCE), particularly among the Kwakiutl people
• Banned in US & Canada 1884-1950s (characterised as indulgent /
unchristian)
give away as much as their possible value- to give and destroy ur wealth is a demonstration of social power- you don’t need it
The Maori spirit of the Gift: Taonga, Hau & Mana
Polenysia
• Taonga: a specific class of possession
• characterised by- something more than just an arbitry object- has ties to geographical location +
• Taonga contain an active power & force
• The spirit of a gift, it's hau always wants to return home (to the
giver, its origin, clan, soil)
• Requires a reciprocal exchange of an equivalent taonga
Gift exchange as a form of social contract in
Polynesian kinship
the child itself is seen as a gift carrying the town
• A system of Total services: ‘One social system, One precise state of
mind’ (Mauss 2002: 18
Think-Pair-Share
Are any gifts truly 'freely' given?
How would you contrast the exchange of greetings cards at
Christmas with the inheritance of a family heirloom? (obligations?
Practices? Expectations?)
Is it okay to ‘re-gift’?
Should a lecturer ever accept a gift from a student?
Readings
Mauss, M. 1990 (1924). The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge. (Chapter 1).
Malinowski, B. (1964). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge. (Ch.3: The essentials of Kula)
How do Malinowski and Mauss, each suggest exchange and gift relations are similar to, or different from other kinds of everyday transactions?
What kinds of connections and relations are being forged? Could they be understood as a 'social contract' in these cultural contexts?
If you apply this type of analysis to your own experiences of exchange can it reveal anything about the social structures or organisation in your own culture?
make this into padlet
How does Malinowski suggest exchange and gift relations are similar to, or different from other kinds of everyday transactions?
As to the economic mechanism
of the transactions, this is based on a specific form of credit, which implies a
high degree of mutual trust and commercial honour
Two Kula partners have to kula with one another, and exchange other gifts
incidentally; they behave as friends, and have a number of mutual duties and
obligations, which vary with the distance between their villages and with their
reciprocal status
Thus the Kula partnership provides every man within its ring with a few
friends near at hand, and with some friendly allies in the far-away, dangerous,
foreign districts.
In this the Kula articles differ from heirlooms, but resemble another
type of valued object, that is, trophies, gauges of superiority, sporting cups,
objects which are kept for a time only by the winning party, whether a group or
an individual. Though held only in trust, only for a period, though never used in
any utilitarian way, yet the holders get from them a special type of pleasure by
the mere fact of owning them, of being entitled to them.
“The Kula trade consists of a series of such periodical overseas expeditions,
which link together the various island groups, and annually bring over big
quantities of vaygu’a and of subsidiary trade from one district to another. The
trade is used and used up, but the vaygu’a—the arm-shells and necklets—go
round and round the ring” (loc. cit., p. 105)
What kinds of connections and relations are being forged? Could they be understood as a 'social contract' in these cultural contexts?
“once in the
Kula, always in the Kula,” and a partnership between two men is a permanent
and lifelong affair.
the kula a lifelong
relationship, it implies various mutual duties and privileges, and constitutes a type
of inter-tribal relationship on an enormous scale
The vaygu’a—the Kula valuables—in one of their aspects are overgrown
objects of use. They are also, however, ceremonial objects in the narrow and
correct sense of the word.
but a man would naturally know to what number of
partners he was entitled by his rank and position.
Again, the average man will have one or two
chiefs in his or in the neighbouring districts with whom he kulas. In such a case,
he would be bound to assist and serve them in various ways, and to offer them
the pick of his vaygu’a when he gets a fresh supply. On the other hand he would
expect them to be specially liberal to him.
to possess is to be great, and that wealth is the indispensable appanage
of social rank and attribute of personal virtue. But the important point is that with
them to possess is to give
If you apply this type of analysis to your own experiences of exchange can it reveal anything about the social structures or organisation in your own culture?
make this into padlet
How does Mauss suggest exchange and gift relations are similar to, or different from other kinds of everyday transactions?
the obligation, on the one hand, to give presents, and on the other, to receive them.
The exchange
of presents between men, the 'namesakes' - the homonyms
of the spirits, incite the spirits of the dead, the gods, things,
animals, and nature to be 'generous towards them'. 46 The explanation is given that the exchange of gifts produces an
abundance of riches
Wrongs done to men make a guilty person weak when faced
with sinister spirits and things
What kinds of connections and relations are being forged? Could they be understood as a 'social contract' in these cultural contexts?
Social contract-the absolute obligation to reciprocate these gifts
under pain of losing that mana, that authority - the talisman and
source of wealth that is authority itself9
these gifts can be obligatory and permanent,
with no total counter-service in return except the legal status
that entails them.
If I
kept this other taonga for myself, serious harm might befall me,
even death.
To retain that thing would be dangerous and mortal, not
only because it would be against law and morality, but also
because that thing coming from the person not only morally,
but physically and spiritually, that essence, that food, 33 those
goods, whether movable or immovable, those women or those
descendants, those rituals or those acts of communion - all exert
a magical or religious hold over you.
To refuse
to give,3 7 to fail to invite, just as to refuse to accept, 38 is tantamount
to declaring war; it is to reject the bond of alliance and
commonality
This is the
ancient morality of the gift, which has become a principle of
justice. The gods and the spirits accept that the share of wealth
and happiness that has been offered to them and had been
hitherto destroyed in useless sacrifices should serve the poor and
children.
the
obligation to reciprocate. These documents and comments have
not merely local ethnographic
If you apply this type of analysis to your own experiences of exchange can it reveal anything about the social structures or organisation in your own culture?
make this into padlet
Exchange and gift-giving are central concerns in anthropology because they reveal how social relationships, obligations, and forms of value are created and maintained across cultures. Rather than viewing economic life as purely rational or market-driven, anthropologists show that exchange permeates everyday interactions from subtle gestures to major ceremonial events and is deeply embedded in cultural norms, moral expectations, and social structures. Polanyi’s distinction between reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange demonstrates that even in capitalist societies, economic behaviour cannot be understood purely through market logic. Substantivist anthropologists argue that local meanings, relationships, and cultural logics shape how people give, receive, and interpret gifts. Yan (2020) further illustrates the diversity of gifts, ceremonial or everyday, horizontal or vertical, expressive or instrumental, highlighting the many social purposes gifts can serve. With industrialisation separating production from the household (Carrier 1990), gifts have acquired heightened emotional value, gifting someone with a gift has a now more elevated meaning because everything is more economical (Polanyi). Ostern (2002) adds that gifts are never free of obligation and that the giver’s identity inevitably remains attached, reflecting Mauss’s idea of the “spirit of the gift.” These dynamics are clearly shown in Malinowski’s study of the Kula ring, where Soulava and Mwali circulate in long-term partnerships marked by trust and mutual duty. These objects gain significance not through utility but through the relationships they create, much like trophies or heirlooms in Western societies such as the crown jewels that embody history and prestige. Generosity reinforces status, and to possess ultimately means to give. Weiner’s critique however shows the importance of women’s exchanges of yams and doba reminding us that value is culturally constructed and often tied to gendered social roles. Mauss expands this to a universal principle, gift exchange forms a “social contract” grounded in the obligations to give, receive, and reciprocate. In Polynesia, the hau of a taonga imposes spiritual and moral pressure to return a gift, and refusal threatens social harmony. Applied to everyday life, from Christmas cards to heirlooms these theories reveal that exchange is never merely economic. It reflects hierarchy, obligation, intimacy, and the cultural values through which societies are organised.
FEEDBCK
authors are writing against homo econonomicus
mauss cites malinowski
can criticise Mauss as an armchair anthropologist
Portfolio-
be opinionated in your analysis and back it up w evidence
make sure you cite both texts or more
reference page numbers
can mention similarities and differences between texts
USE Padlets