The Revolution of Everyday Life - Essay Example

The sacrifice-gift, the potlatch -- that exchange-game of loser-takes-all in which the size of the sacrifice determines the prestige of the giver -- could hardly find a place in a rationalized exchange economy. Forced out of the sectors dominated by economic imperatives, it finds itself reincarnated in values such as hospitality, friendship and love: refuges doomed to disappear as the dictatorship of quantified exchange (market value) colonises everyday life and turns it into a market.1 Potlatch and festivities combine the spirit of unfair exchange and when studied against the capitalist consumerist spirit makes them quite dysfunctional. Therefore, potlatch is a form of gift that binds the whole culture in sacrifice, morality, debt, status and prestige. Mauss sees this gift exchange as a system of total services that combines both sacrifice and revenge and this cycle continues, until it exhausts itself into destruction. Thus for Mauss, the potlatch is driven more by the spirit of destruction rather than generosity. Therefore, he is more interested in exploring a totally different aspect of gift giving that is outside the dominant moral code of the capitalist and consumerist society of the West. The Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian have been studied for this aspect of religious exchange or sacrifice that resembles the phenomenon of potlatch. The potlatch, which is a gift, therefore becomes a symbol of sacrifice and demands an equal sacrifice, whose debt is not automatically cancelled always but may produce forth a fresh demand for exchange of gift and so forth. Thus Mauss says that by exchanging gifts that are symbols of power and status a kind of peaceful equilibrium is maintained and it is dangerous to not involve oneself in this sacrifice if gifts. "The Indian tribes of the North-West America, again, practice the "potlatch" system, consisting in two tribes or chiefs engaging in a competition of prodigality; whoever is the richer gives the most and destroys his possessions if necessary. All this, however, in order that he himself may prosper, since in this manner he shows that he has power"2 However, in Arguing with Anthropology, Karen Margaret Skyes argues that the economies of sacrifice seem to be a misnomer for the depth and crux of the issues that potlatch raises perhaps because Potlatch shakes the common sense of the capitalist ideology, which expresses the angst it expresses by the sheer generosity it shows through the exchange of warring gifts by displaying how much one can give to the other. It therefore stands for the total system of social status without which the ethnographic groups have no identity! Therefore, to gather social respect they agree to endanger their well being. Potlatch probably conjures up the fantasy of modern power, which combines luxurious self-destruction - an obsessive and slow yet megalomaniac suicide of a society on the whole and shatters the myth of progression towards the capitalist future. Or is it somewhat similar to where we as westerners are headed It is an ironical similarity - potlatch, self-destruction and capitalist consumerist philosophy converge at a point - buy at any cost and death by excess. Potlatch has been variously criticized as giving beyond reason - but is the capitalist economy reasonable Does presenting an island to a friend any less extravagant or any less unreasonable than a potlatch One can argue that it does not dangerously bind the recipient into any form of obligation to give back a gift of equal proportion. Yes, it may not - but in a capitalist society excess of ceremony is also a political game that fascinates and horrifies at the same time - it is an excessive display of power or a counterpower to something that already exists. Thus, festivities are always a symbol of subversion of power, and it is a separate display of power that already exists or which is seeking to overthrow the existing power and seek prominence. Let us also consider the exchange of gift that happens in the Indian society, which is also called dowry, is another form of potlatch that the woman's family in a marriage has to fish out to the groom and do so pleasantly and in an outrageous amount so as to display their power and status and secure the bride's future. This is a customary ceremonial exchange, which despite governmental laws continues to happen and have taken various shapes and forms to remain unnoticed by the law. However, this gift fetish is not for self-fulfillment of any individual, but for the well being of the bride and the rest of the grooms family and this a form of ensuring that the status of the sacrificer is maintained and not compromised as the bride's marital life may be compromised if gifts do not keep flowing. Here the exchange is that of respect - the bride receives respect only when she brings or gives more and more gifts to her new society. This is a form of survival that is inextricably linked with self-destruction of the community itself. As the bride's household will make sure that they get back equal or more amount of wealth from another marital conjugation by getting one of their sons married. However, even if this new marriage in the family does not necessarily relieve them of their share of promised potlatch to their daughter's house, the son will receive his share from the marriage. This will bring more prestige to the household and riches; however, the status of the family with respect to the bride's in-laws' household will not become free from debt or obligation. This exchange will happen till death and the balance sheet of debit and credit will never incur the all dues clear stamp. Therefore, this potlatch will always fail to demarcate any specific and permanent hierarchy and vacillate. The Kwakiutl is not so sycophantic like many Indians, but megalomaniac. They are obsessed with displaying their wealth and showing off their power. This is true even for capitalist society, where the cycle of giving obsession consumes the future prospect of the giver and dooms him for good. Thus, the exchange may not always be taken to be a basic loss of the owner of the gifts other than a symbolic rise in power - thus in a way by sacrificing wealth to the other party one is buying more power for himself and not vice versa! Because like a card game one has to invest his own wealth before attempting to play the game of power and status - this involves exchanging potlatches that are beyond the means of the community. Thus, this gift exchange draws everyone into a debt and the communities are forever in debt to each other by sheer magnitude of the gift received and given out, the expectations are never allowed to remain sated. Like, any capitalist economy it is interminably linked with desire and death, which is dangerous but worth it! Works Cited 1. http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/33 Chapter 8 Exchange and Gift by The Revolution of Everyday Life: Impossible Communication or Power as Universal Mediation by Raoul Vaneigem 2. Carter, Jimmy. Understanding Religious Sacrifice. Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Page 154 3. Sykes, Karen Margaret and Sykes, K. Arguing with anthropology: An introduction to critical theories of the gift Edition: illustrated Published by Routledge, 2005. Page 160 4. Mauss, Marcel. Douglas, Mary and Halls.. Translated by W. D. Halls The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies Edition: 2, revised. Published by Routledge, 2002 Read More