Gift Exchange as Important Topic for Anthropology - Essay Example

Section/# At its most basic level definition, anthropology can be understood as the study of humans; both past and present. As a function of this particular limited definition, the reader can recognize the fact that anthropology is uniquely concerned with social norms, customs, and behavior patterns that are exhibited amongst people the world over. Specifically, as there is such a great level of diversity in ethnicity, race, linguistic patterns, traditions, cultures, religion, and norms of behavior, the science of anthropology is oftentimes confounded with respect to many differences that are exhibited between peoples. Nevertheless, one of the means by which anthropology can draw meaningful inference based upon the similarities that exist between otherwise different and diverse groups. For instance, anthropology has long been focused upon social customs relating to marriage and the means by which individuals pledged themselves to another, or to a specific religious union, throughout much of their lives. Within the modern world, this construct is no as marriage. However, marriage is not the only shared anthropological similarity that exists throughout almost all cultures. Indeed, there are many cultures that have been studied throughout the course anthropological research that do not indicate such a union to have existed. As such, using marriage, or a similar construct, to draw inference upon all people and to measure cultures and other differentials based upon it is an inherent flaw. Within such a dynamic, the analyst can come to appreciate the importance that gift giving, both as a norm and has a behavioral complement of culture and society, has come to be regarded as a fundamental least common denominator that exists between peoples. Whereas differentials with respect to gift giving have been denoted by a litany of different anthropologists, the similarity and practice and form that exists within almost each and every culture or group that has thus far been analyzed is one of the reasons why this particular practice is of such profound importance towards understanding human society and the means by which evolutionary culture has shaped the globe. One of the most famous anthropologists to approach the issue of gift giving is that of James Laidlaw (Whitehouse & Laidlaw, 2007). The underlying purpose for this particular scholar being referenced within the beginning of this study is contingent upon the way in which he sought to define the four basic criteria that gifts represent; seemingly regardless of the culture in which they are analyzed (Malinowski, 1920). The first of these has to do with the fact that a gift by its very definition has no reciprocity. Although this is fairly simplistic, similarity that exists across and between cultures with regard to this compound is one of the most fundamental definitions of what comprises gift giving and gift exchange. Similarly, a secondary and universal component that Laidlaw references has to do with the fact that the recipient must not recognize that the gift as a gift and/or must not recognize herself as the ultimate end recipient of the gift (Barnett, 1938). Thirdly, the freeness of the gift is contingent upon the fact that the donor must not recognize the gift and the fourth component is contingent upon the object or service itself is not appearing as something other than it truly is (Gregory, 1982). Expanding outwards from this, it must also be understood that the rubric of gift giving, and gift receiving is largely synonymous amongst different groups of individuals, cultures, religions, norms of behavior, and other demarcations of human separation. As the gift giving pattern serves as a least common denominator amongst peoples, the norms of behavior and social structure that help to define it are essential in understanding the root importance of this entire process. Anthropologists have hypothesized that some of the core compliments that have allowed for this least common denominator to exist are with reference to gift giving being seen as a first or important step towards self introduction and identification. Accordingly, referencing the current time, it is often customary, within different cultures, to present a gift to a host, new employer, teacher, or other individual as a function of an introductory greeting (Carrier, 2006). The importance of this is not something that has been affected within the past several decades or centuries. Instead, anthropological research reveals that gift giving has been a core function of the introductory process for a series of thousands, if not tens of thousands of years (Green & Alden, 1988). One particular hypothesis or rationale that is been put forward with respect to this is contingent upon the belief that this disarming process was utilized as a means of positive identification and seeking to win over a prospective ally towards one’s own point of view or otherwise seeking to promote a healthy start to interaction and friendship. Referencing early evolutionary human progression, some anthropologists have indicated that the process of gift giving was in fact nothing more than a self-interested drive to decrease the number of enemies that individuals might otherwise take within day-to-day interactions and seeks to provide a sharing and generous spirit that would otherwise convince others that the intentions of the gift giver or positive. Another obvious and related aspect of this process is contingent upon the fact that it allows a relationship to be opened. For instance, even within cultures that recognize and introductory gift as a component parts of meeting and getting to know someone, the potential for a lasting relationship to develop amongst individuals that are introduced to another based upon this construct is invariably higher as compared to a chance meeting or introduction is not (Levi-Straus, 1965). Not surprisingly, positive reinforcement and other psychological mechanisms have encouraged individuals throughout the centuries to continue to engage in this process as it has proven beneficial to them in terms of long-term results and other positive attributes. Building further upon this, the analyst can note that anthropologists are uniquely interested in the process of gift giving, as it varies among cultures and as a similar; due in part to the fact that the open relationship that it fosters is ultimately uniform throughout many regions and more likely to be comparable as opposed to other social dynamics that are exhibited throughout the world. Yet, gift giving as a function of introduction is only one particular aspect of gift giving that anthropology has sought to analyze. In addition to this, gift giving plays a prominent role in cultures that view it as a component part of rituals, celebrations, rewarding accomplishments, and signifying religious purposes (Graeber, 2001). Whereas it is true that the ultimate practice of gift giving may vary from culture to culture and from group to group, the main rational for this to occur are based on something of immutable characteristics; characteristics that anthropologists are keen on comparing and contrasting as a function of seeking to understand human behavior and evolutionary social interactions to a more effective level and degree. The similarity and cross comparison that ritual gift giving exhibits around the globe is not only contingent upon religious expression; iInstead, rituals involving gift giving can be tied to expression of thanksgiving, holidays of various sorts, or even personal accomplishments. Celebratory accomplishments that involve gift giving throughout a litany of different cultures involve rewarding an individual for reaching a certain point of maturity, manhood or womanhood, can reward a person for entering into a union with another, or could even be contingent upon reporting an individual that is earned a certain level of success, training, or expertise (Leach & Leach, 1983). Outside of the understanding of gift giving as a form of celebration or rewarding accomplishments, gift giving also has a much deeper religious significance. Whereas it is impossible to analyze the role of gift giving in each and every world religion, the importance of gift giving with respect to anthropology can easily and summarily be referenced with respect to the major world religions and how gift giving plays an important, arguably central, role in how these religions are practiced and similarities are denoted between individuals that might otherwise have very little in common. Taking Buddhism as the first religion to be analyzed under the anthropological marriage ordinance of gift giving, the anthropologist can quickly note that Buddhism involves a series of feasts that are set to sponsor gift giving as a function of their main purpose or event. As these feasts have often been tied to thanksgiving, generally with respect to issues relating to whether or harvest, the element of gift giving amongst individuals at these feasts serves as a function of thanksgiving for the success that has been accomplished; more than as a religious goal in and of itself (Miller, 1995). This is an important differentiation Jamaica; as many anthropologists and the all logistics have come to be confused with respect to the way in which gift giving serves as a fundamental complement of religious belief. Whereas it may have been true that Buddhism, at least in its early stages, utilized this gift giving feasting time as a direct religious expression, the element of exhibiting thankfulness and reflecting success/wealth soon came to displace this and has since defined the process; further defining the way in which individuals that hail from a Buddhist background interpret the process of gift giving with respect to the remainder of those they interact with during the course of their lives (Mauss & Cunnison, 1954). Comparatively, gift giving within Hinduism serves a fundamentally different role. As such, gift giving within Hinduism is recognized as more of a devotional offering as compared to something that is performed as a means of illustrating thankfulness (Raheja, 1988). As compared to Buddhism, Hinduism seeks to promote gift giving as a means of illustrating one’s piety; rather than seeking to promote sharing amongst believers (Ramanujan, 1989). Likewise, gift giving within Islam is viewed as a core requirement of an individual that would seek to perform the will of Allah (Osella & Osella, 1996). By requiring gift giving as a function of illustrating generosity, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all reflect the compounded need and requirement of their followers to give all its and to be generous to those that are in need. This provides for a noted differentiation from the cultures and religions that have been analyzed thus far. As a function of the fact that all three of these religions are considered as Abraham faiths, it comes as no surprise that the similarity between them is quite high (Sahlins, 1997). Nevertheless, the “norming” influence that these religions have had upon other cultures throughout the world, especially within the past several hundred years, has created a dynamic by which the cultural and religious interpretations of gift giving around the globe have come to be transformed as a function of the way in which Abrahamic faiths have interpreted this process. The preceding analysis has focused upon the means by which universal aspects of the way in which anthropological studies have been conducted based upon the precepts of gift giving. Due to the similarity and widespread illustration of gift giving within almost each and every major world culture or ethnic group that exists, the means by which anthropologists can trace evolutionary social progression based upon this dynamic is of course profound. Similarly, the similarities and differences between this process have provided anthropologists with a tantalizing unit of focus that is unlikely to be replaced by a more universal or widely recognized social construct any time in the future (Strathern, 1992). As indicated previously, the underlying importance and relevance of this anthropological manifestation of human interaction is ultimately tied to the way in which humans first recognized how to affect a positive outcome with respect to the situations they were engaged. As evolution came to shape the way in which humans further differentiated from other primates, the importance of representing good relations, introducing oneself in a nonthreatening way, and ensuring that further interactions could take place from a positive starting point, gift giving came to be seen as ineffective means of accomplishing this route and stop not surprisingly, as with many other aspects of human evolution, the process soon co-opted itself into the way in which culture was defined and the means by which further evolutionary social progression to place. As anthropologists continue to study this unique behavior that is largely similar between otherwise distant or unrelated groups of people, the increased means by which further anthropological inquiries can be understood and effectively studied is tangentially possible. Bibliography Barnett, HG 1938, The nature of the potlatch. American Anthropologist,40(3), 349-358. Carrier, JG (Ed.) 2006, A handbook of economic anthropology. Edward Elgar Publishing. Graeber, D 2001, Toward an anthropological theory of value: The false coin of our own dreams. Palgrave Macmillan. Green, RT & Alden, DL 1988, Functional equivalence in cross‐cultural consumer behavior: Gift giving in Japan and the United States. Psychology & Marketing, 5(2), 155-168. Gregory, CA 1982, Gifts and commodities (pp. 116-17). London: Academic Press. Leach, JW & Leach, ER (Eds.) 1983, The Kula: new perspectives on Massim e Levi-Strauss, C 1965, The principle of reciprocity. Sociological theory, 371. Malinowski, B 1920, Kula; the Circulating Exchange of Valuables in the Archipelagoes of Eastern New Guinea. Man, 20, 97-105. Mauss, M & CUNNISON, IG 1954, Essai Sur Le Don. The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies... Translated by Ian Cunnison. With an Introduction by EE Evans-Pritchard. London. Miller, D 1995, Unwrapping christmas. Oxford Univ Pr on Demand. Osella, F & Osella, C 1996, Articulation of physical and social bodies in Kerala. Contributions to Indian sociology, 30(1), 37-68. Raheja, GG 1988, India: Caste, kingship, and dominance reconsidered.Annual review of anthropology, 497-522. Ramanujan, AK 1989, Contributions to Indian Sociology. Contributions to Indian sociology, 23, 41. Sahlins, M 1997, The spirit of the gift. The Logic of Gift, 70-95. Strathern, M 1992, Qualified value: the perspective of gift exchange. Barter, exchange and value: an anthropological approach, 169-91. Whitehouse, H & Laidlaw, J 2007, Religion, anthropology, and cognitive science. 1st ed. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Read More