A Free Gift Makes No Friends Author(s): James Laidlaw Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), pp. 617634 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2661033 . Accessed: 22/11/2012 11:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A FREE GIFT MAKES NO FRIENDS

JAMES LAIDLAW

University Cambridge of
The giving almsto Shvetambar renouncers a specific of Jain is institutionalized elaborationof theidea ofa free an gift, idea whichall themajorworldreligions havetheir own waysof instantiating, whichin north and Indianlanguages expressed theworddan. is by This example illustrates inherently the paradoxical nature theidea of a gift, why of and it is a mistake define gift necessarily to the as reciprocal non-alienated. thepure and Like the is by that does notcreate it personal concommodity, puregift characterized thefact nections and obligations betweenthe parties. This understanding the gift, of whichis in implicit Mauss, enables to resolve apparent us the in paradox theethnography dan, of that it although is a free it gift is often harmful itsrecipients. to

The notion of a 'pure' or 'free'gifthas been largelyneglectedin anthropology.Malinowski employed it in Argonauts (1922: 177-80), but in Crimeand custom (1926: 40-1) he accepted the objectionsput forward Mauss (1990: by 73-4) and discardedit. Following Mauss, anthropologists have mostlybeen interested gift-giving a way in which enduringsocial relations estabin as are lishedand maintained. seemed to Mauss, and has seemed to anthropologists It attachedsince,that a genuinelyfreegift- one, as we say,with no strings would play no part in the creationof social relations, it would create no for or and therefore, even ifsuch a thing obligations connectionsbetweenpersons; to existed,it would be of no serious interest anthropology. The most susAccordingly, littleattentionhas been paid to the freegift. tained discussion has been JonathanParry'swritingson the giftsin India known as dan (1980; 1986; 1989; 1994).' Parryhas shown thatthese are unand has relatedthe pure-gift reciprocated, ideology which governsthem to the existenceof a developed,commercialeconomy and an ethicized, salvation religion(1986: 466-9). However,thereis a stillinadequatelyexplained relationbetween this and Parry'sothermajor observationabout dan,which is thatit bringsmisfortune (1994: 130-1). From the north-Indian village of Pahansu,forexample,Raheja (1988) describeshow dan diverts fromdonors to recipients. misfortune Gujars, describedas the dominantcaste,specialize in this,and make giftsto hereditary clients including Brahmin priests,Barbers,Sweepers,Washermen,and have a similareffect others.Giftsto wife-taking affines (1988: 153). In Parry's own ethnography fromBanaras, misfortune, illness,and even death among and theirfamilies attributed gifts receivedfrompilgrims funeral are to priests of and mourners. contrastto the generally In benign profits commerce,dan
Inst. (N.S.) 6, 617-634 J. Roy.anthrop.

C RoyalAnthropological Institute 2000.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

618

JAMESLAIDLAW

bringswith it moral and physicalcorruption, and is likened to a sewer (1989: 69). It is said to carry the donor's sin (pap, dosh),inauspiciousness(ashubh, amangal), misfortune (kasht), and impurity (ashuddh).2 What kind of a freegift is that? The apparentparadox,that pure giftsshould be so dramatically harmful, can I thinkbe resolved. The first step is to rejectthe view,whose most influential exponent is C.A. Gregory, giftsas the logical opposite of comof modity exchange,and necessarilypersonal,reciprocal, and socially binding. Malinowski'soriginal intuitiondeserveda betterdefence than he realized:a comprehensive conspectusof exchange transactions requiresthe categoryof non-reciprocal freegift. Because the free gifthas, as we shall see, a paradoxicaland self-negating character, may be that convincinginstitutional it enactments it are at best of rare.However,I shall considera particular case of dan which comes remarkably close to being a trulyfreegift. enables us to resolvethe interpretative It puzzle of dan,and in so doing show thatthe factthatthe freegiftdoes not createobligationsor personalconnectionsis precisely where its social importance lies. The dan in question is the giving of alms to Shvetamber Jain renouncers.3

Giving and grazing The followingof Shvetambar Jainismin India consistsof between 2 and 3 millionlay people, and a few thousanditinerant celibaterenouncers. The latter relyon alms fromlay families food and fortheirlimitedpersonalpossesfor sions:clothes,prayer books, and alms bowls.Justly famedfor theirasceticism, theirdaily routineis one of ritualizedconfessions, and preachprayer, study, ing,punctuatedby extended fasting and other austerities. and salvaThe ultimategoal of the renouncer's is spiritual life purification tion (moksha). in other Indic religions, the the soul is polluted by karma, As of effects previous actions (also called karma). Removing karmaaccumulated over many lives requiresthe heat of austerity (tap) to burn it fromthe soul. It is impossibleto achieve purification duringa singlelifetime, the injuncbut tion to ascetic self-sacrifice powerful, layJainsas well as renouncers. is for A guidingprinciplein the pursuitof purification non-violence (ahimsa), is which includes limitations diet. Since Jain traditionholds that not only on animalsbut also plantsand even bacteriahave immortalsouls,all eating and of preparation food involvesviolence, and thereare elaborate rules for how to keep this to a minimum.Practising Jainsare invariably vegetarian, most froma range of vegetablesbelieved to contain many life forms, refrain and on of manyfollowmore elaboraterestrictions the preparation food and when it may be consumed. Renouncers follow exactingversionsof these restrictions,and so must anyone who wishes to give them alms. Most days around noon, as Jainfamilies finish preparing lunch,renouncers go out, usuallyin pairs,to collect alms.They do not ask forfood.They make theirway along streets where Jain familieslive - never followingthe same route on consecutivedays- pausing as theygo near the doorwaysof houses and waiting to be invitedin. The process is called gocari, grazing.Like a or

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

619

and turn up unexpectedly. grazing cow, renouncerswander unpredictably From each household,they take so littlethat the donors will hardlynotice withoutpuflingup the the loss,just as a cow eats only the top of the grass, rootsand damagingthe plant.4 religiousgood deed (punya),and lay famiGiving dan is the paradigmatic people oftenkeep In lies are actively keen to give alms to renouncers. practice, theyeven go to a look-out and call renouncers into theirhomes. Sometimes, this is a rest-housein advance, hoping to invite them back home. Strictly, againstthe rules,and even if they do end up going where they are asked, agree,because theyare supposed to arriveunexrenouncersnever explicitly would obligate them pectedly. This has two aspects.Accepting an invitation and compromise the detachmentand autonomy that is essential to their In the is of purification. addition, renouncer not only pursuit personalspiritual uninvitedguest an object of religiousveneration, but also, as a by-definition, (atithi), definitive the testin folkloreof someone's true generosity. On enteringa house, renouncersare taken to receive theirfood directly fromthe familycooking pots.They will only enterthe kitchenif it is clean, Family with no prohibited foods in evidence,and cooking musthave finished. trying ensure to alms bowls,generally membersplace food in the renouncers' that they give some of each of the dishes in theirmeal, and attempting to The renouncersrespondwith a persuadethem to accept as much as possible. litanyof refusal:'No! Less of that.Not so much. Stop!' The renouncersofferno thanksand make no positive commentson the food.At thispoint,as a way of emphasizing thatenough is enough,theyoften also call out the benediction,dharm labh.This is ambiguous.It means both, 'May you receive the fruitof good conduct', and 'May your adherence to They then move on to anotherhouse and go through good conduct increase'. the same procedurethere. They are not allowed to accept an entiremeal from just one household,or to accept food fromthe same familiesday afterday. but one must not be misled.Jain The image of grazing is important, This is why they must collect alms renouncersare not collectingleftovers. before lay familieseat. The food they take would have been eaten by the who are therefore renouncing(tyag) part of theirmeal.And only food family, is which has been purposefully and in the prescribed manner, given,carefully deny that acceptable.Unlike Buddhistsand some Hindus,Jainsconsistently alms given to theirrenouncersare bhiksh thatwhich is given to a beggar. do Jainrenouncers not beg, and what theyreceiveis, in theoryat least,a gift offered spontaneously. The food collected is taken back to the rest-houseand mixed with that broughtby other membersof the group into a single mass and eaten out of public view.

No realgfts in anthropology
has of Probablythe mostwidely cited recentanalysis the giftin anthropology been Gregory'sopposition between gift and commodity exchange (1980; and commoditiescreatedif1982; 1983; 1997). Gregoryemphasizesthatgifts between kinds of relationships different ferentkinds of debt, and therefore

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

620

JAMESLAIDLAW

transactors. Gifts belong to,and reproduce,'the social conditionsof the reprosocial order;commoditiesto duction of people'withina clan or kinship-based in 'the social conditionsof the reproduction things' a class-baseddivision of of of labour (1980: 641, originalemphases). These two systems social relations work in logically opposed ways. Gift exchange is 'exchange of inalienable dependencethatestabobjectsbetweenpeople who are in a stateof reciprocal whereas commodity lishes a qualitative relationship between the transactors', exchange is 'exchange of alienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal a relationship between independencethatestablishes quantitative the objects exchanged' (1982: 100-1). and social Gregory's emphasison the way transactions createobligations can relations of course valid and interesting. most common complaintone is The The sees is that his contrastbetween gift and commodity is overdrawn. formulated. is a mistake It problemseems to me ratherthat it is incorrectly of are to insistthatreciprocity non-alienation not just observablefeatures and but of some relationscreated throughgifttransactions, are definingfeatures which show these feagifts such.Accordingto Gregoryonly transactions as turescount as gifts(1997: 65). This analysisobscuresratherthan illuminates can the question of how gift-giving create the very effects Gregoryis interested in. And what in Mauss is an explorationof the paradoxicalcharacter of the giftbecomes, in Gregory, flawedand counter-intuitive definition. a We can see thatit is counter-intuitive because it rules out good examples of gifts: more so the more intuitively the theyare.The toy I give prototypical to my friend's child is ruled out if it is not reciprocated(because I have no childrenof my own, say). My donation to charityis ruled out if I seek no recognition myself. for The drink I buy you becomes more of a gift(rather thanless) if I feelentitled drinksome of it myself! to Thus the set of processes in and relationsidentified this definition not that denoted by the English is in includingthat word'gift'or its equivalents otherIndo-European languages, in of Gregory's own informants India. It is striking thathe makes no use of his analysis, though it is restatedand defended at the beginning of Savage when he turnslater in that same book to a descriptionof how Jain money, in families centralIndia extendtheirkinshipand trading networks (1997: 163play a part in 210), even though gifts, marriageand other times,certainly at thisprocess. These curious features Gregory'sanalysisfollow fromthe fact that he of readsMauss in termsderivedfromMarx.This is quite explicit. The intention is to enlistthe anthropological tradition into an alliance with Marxistpolitical economy againstneo-classicaleconomics (1982: x; 1997: 42). But Mauss, as we shall see, is not a suitablerecruit thisparticular for draft. Marx's notion of surplus value is logically tied to his essentiallymetaphysical(and also fromlabour,which Romantic) view that'really'value is derived exclusively the workeris assumed'naturally' own. The fact thatlabour is commodito fied,so that the workeris alienated fromhis labour,is what makes possible the alienationof the productin commodityexchange. When Gregoryclaims thatthe gift not alienatedhe is saying is which that rights just thoseownership are violatedin commodityexchange are preserved in and reinforced the gift. Mauss is invoked in support of this notion of inalienability, indeed and Mauss does speak of enduringconnectionsbetween giversand thingsgiven.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

621

separate)souls and persons But Mauss'stalkof the intermingling (previously of line with things(e.g. 1990: 20) is a quite different of thought one thatought The to lead us to think, of anything Marx,of fetishism. connectionsMauss if in is talkingof are not ultimately derived fromlabour value, and he does not The conceptualyokingof the giftto conceptualizethem as ownershiprights. a Marx'sanalysis the commodity of presents clearchoice. Eitherthereis alienaobserves,the recipient tion of ownership, which case, as Gregoryrightly in of a giftwould be expropriating donor,and this(as well as being implauthe of exploitation would sible)would mean thatthe supposedspecificity capitalist evaporate;or else thereis no alienationin the gift.It is the latterpossibility thatGregoryinsists upon, even thoughit impliesthatin givinga giftyou are not reallygivinganything away. The effectis that Gregory'sdefinitionattemptsto tidy away the basic paradox at the heart of the idea of a gift.I shall next tryto describe what of that paradox is and how the Jain institution dan so nearly overcomes it, before showing how a perception of this paradox lies at the heart of in Mauss's essay, and helps explain why and when we findharmful freegifts India.

The impossible ofa gift idea

What is the basic,irreducible idea of a gift? One partymakes over something of theirs another.There no 'price',and thereis no recompense. is given, It to is and thatis that. This is such a simpleidea thatanyonemighthave it,and thereis no reason to suppose thattherehas everbeen a societyin which no one has eversought to enact it. But if we reflect what would need to be the case for a pure on and incontestable example to occur, then it emerges as deeply paradoxical. way This themeis exploredin an illuminating by Derrida (1992); and,without I any broaderphilosophicalor ontological commitments, shall draw here on what he says (see also the excellentdiscussionin Jenkins1998). He Derrida asks:what are the conditionsimplicitin the idea of a freegift? It fourconditions.(1) First, therecan be no reciprocity. mustnot be suggests A in return somethingelse, eitherpast or anticipated. returnwould enter for and into or establish 'economic' cycle - calculation, an interest, measurement, thereso on - and make it partof an interested exchange.(2) To prevent this, as or the recipientmust not recognizethe giftas a gift, him- or herself fore, of recipient one, which would lead to a sense of debt or obligation.(3) Simisince to do so is to praise and larly, donor must not recognize the gift, the the value of what he gratify oneself,to 'give back to himselfsymbolically a resultof the foregoing, the thinks has given' (1992: 14). (4) Lastly, he and as it thingcannot exist as a giftas such.As soon as it appears'as gift', becomes we part of a cycle and ceases to be a gift.So, Derrida suggests, cannot even of 'The simple identification the speak of a giftwithoutmakingit disappear. of a giftas such, thatis, of an identifiable thingamong some identipassage of fiable"ones", would be nothingotherthan the destruction the gift'(1992: it 14). In sum then:'For thereto be gift, is necessarythat the giftnot even appear,thatit not be perceivedor receivedas gift'(1992: 16).

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

622

JAMESLAIDLAW

This basic perceptionof paradox is a useful insight:an indubitablegift, as an actual event in the world, is difficult envisage.I do not wish to to follow Derrida very far, however,down his never-ending(and probably historically culturally and specific)regress through evermore acute hermeneutic suspicion. The basic paradox,implicitin the veryidea of a giftand thereforepresent whereverit occurs,is enough forsocial arrangements have to to grapplewith. Here and elsewhere(e.g. 1978: 251-77), Derrida uses the term'economy' in a very broad sense. It refersnot just to the circulationof goods and of to services, but also beyond thatto the circulation time,or rather the way in which,through the medium of time,eventsand actionsare relatedcausally to each other.This economy is the world of common-sense and everyThe day experience,but within it, Derrida concludes, a gift is impossible. routine transitivity actions in time, according to which my giving to of you implies that you receive fromme, would have to be overcome.There could only be a gift, that is to say,on condition that the flow of time were suspended.

A gift thatis given, notreceived but

In the lightof Derrida's analysis, can see the rulesgoverning Jainalmswe the givingas an institutionalized attempt overcomethe problemshe identifies. to mustobtain the food theyneed to sustain withoutbreachJainrenouncers life ing the insulationfromthe economy that is the preconditionand point of The resultdoes not exactlymatchDerrida's freegift theirspiritual enterprise. - if he is right, course,then it nevercould - but perhapsit comes as close of as we can fairly expect. Let us then retraceDerrida's main points,in reverse order,to see how the Jain alms-giving holds back the 'inevitable'transition fromgiftto economic exchange. receiveand consume (4) Householdersmake a giftof food,and renouncers and is it,but both linguistically, in termsof how it is treated, everything done to underminethe idea that'thereis a something'thatis given by the donor and receivedby the recipient. The word 'food' (khana), neverused forwhat renouncerseat. It is called is afterthe process of collectingit. Householders even avoid using the 'gocari', verb 'to give' (dena).There is no question thatgiving alms is a dan,but it is disrespectful use the word in this context,as it seems to equate renouncto A ers with mere recipientsof charity. common indirectionis to speak of 'placing' somethingin the alms bowl. More formally, act is referred as the to 'baharana'. This word seems to be used only by Jains,and its etymologyis unclear,but the likeliestderivationis from the causative form of a verb That renouncers given something eat ought to remain meaning'to fill'. are to unspoken. Not only language separateswhat is given fromwhat is received.When renouncersgo fromhouse to house, the food collected is added to the same bowls. It is broughtback to the rest-house and handed over to the mostsenior who then combines it with that collected by others from the renouncer,

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

623

group.All thisgocariis mixed together one mass.Partlythis is done as an in because renouncers should not savourthe separatetastesof different austerity, dishes;but also,and inseparable fromthis, effectively it subsumeseach family's individualoffering. The familymakingthe giftstrives ensure thatwhat theygive is singuto larlytheirs. They press the renouncersto accept all the dishes in the family meal; and on occasions when theytryto inviterenouncers home, theyoften preparesome time-consuming dish,which one mightnormally buy fromthe market. But thispersonalsubstance, closely identified with the donors,is not what the renouncersreceive and consume,which is instead an anonymous and undifferentiated substance. Derrida commentsthatwe cannot speak of a giftwithoutmakingit disappear. Here, the giftas object is made to disappear once it has been given,so that thereis no longer the same 'it' of which to speak. thata giftwhich the donor recognizesas such ceases (3) Derrida suggests to be a gift. We should distinguish two possible sources of this recognition: identification the otheras the beneficiary one's largesse the one hand, of of on and of oneselfas donor on the other. While theJainpracticedoes effectively prevent the former, actually, it and as a result, emphasizesthe latter. Even if donors were allowed to witnessthe food being eaten, they could not see theirgiftbeing enjoyed,for it is no longer thereas such.Any gratification donorsfeel as a resultof makingtheirgift, and therecan be no doubt thattheydo, cannot derive fromthis. This alms-giving, like other instancesof dan (Biardeau 1976; Parry 1980; 1986; Strenski1983), is ideologicallyidentified with sacrifice; but the size of the sacrifice in any donor can make is restricted, theoryto the point where it becomes indiscernible. No experience of hardshipfor the donors,which might give rise to a sense of personal indebtednessand obligation,should result. (2) As for the recipients, food they eat cannot appear to them as the the because different donors' contributionsare gift of someone in particular, merged.What they receive is depersonalized,being something they have gatheredfrom among 'the laity'.They need not then, in Derrida's terms, recognizethe giftas gift. They know thattheirfood was not made especiallyfor them.This is why and why they must leave most of each dish to be consumed by the family, theyare not allowed to take food froma kitchenwhere cooking is stillgoing on. If food were subsequently cooked to replace what they had taken,then be The same would be to it,and the sin attaching it,would effectively theirs. kind of food,and true if theywere ever to expressa likingforany particular someone latermade thatdishwith the intention givingit to them.It would of thenbe a gift 'forthem',and in acceptingit theywould be entering into the of temporaland causal connections. would be the cause of economy They actions in the world,and therefore karma-causing guiltyof sin. (1) Therefore- to bring us back to Derrida's starting-point thereis no Renouncers are specifically forbiddento expresspleasure at the reciprocity. food offered, offer to or any thanks, even to be divertedinto generalconversation;especiallywhere,as is sometimesthe case, they know the lay family

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

624

JAMESLAIDLAW

quite well.The whole procedureis got throughas quicklyas possible,and in A a generally abruptand businesslike manner. renouncermay not give,and a in donor familymay not receive,anything returnfor the food donated; not even,as we have seen, praise or blame for its quality. or However, althoughdonors receive nothingback fromthe renouncers, indeed fromanyone else on theirbehalf,it is generallyheld that they will differs benefitfrombeing the giverof the gift. This is where the alms-giving from Derrida'simpossiblepure gift. The recipient sparedthe obligations is that arise fromreceiving, but the givershave stillgiven. Making a dan is meritorious,an act of punyaor good karma. such, it is expected,by an entirely As impersonalprocess over which no one has any influence, bring its own to reward;although one cannot know when or in what manner the resulting good fortunewill come. It may be in a futurelife,and indeed in Jain religious stories, thisis typically case (Balbir 1982). Everyoneagrees thatthis the if the dan is unreciprocated, because otherwiseit would not only happens reallybe dan at all, but part of the give-and-take worldlylife. of There is not a complete escape fromparadox,however, because Jainteachers,like theirHindu counterparts (Parry 1986: 462; 1994: 128), insistthat if even an unreciprocated giftis motivatedby the desire for merit,then none will result. good giftis given 'without desire'. It is unpremeditated A and promptedby eitherreverence(bhaktt) compassion (daya) for the recipient. or In line withDerrida'sreasoning, even self-congratulationa return is and invaliThis seems to be the one aspect of the impossibility the gift of dates the gift. which the rules and formalarrangements the Jain alms-giving of cannot get around. It is leftas a matterbetween the donors and theirown desiresand intentions. In any case, any good karmathe donor receivesdoes not come fromthe The imagery (as in Buddhism) is that renouncersare a 'field of recipient. merit', fertilesoil where a good action will bring forth a good reward the greaterthe (Williams 1963: 149-66). The more virtuousthe renouncer, meritin makinga giftto him or her.But renouncersdo not give the merit; it is the naturalresultof the donor's good action.The biblical image fitsso well thatJainteachersoftenuse it: as you sow,so shall you reap. It follows therefore that the 'dharmlabh' benediction is not, as it might a appear,itself returnfor the giftof food.As mentionedabove, it is ambigueitheras the wish thatdonors will enjoy the fruits ous, and can be interpreted of theirgood action;or as an injunctionto further greater and religiousobservance. On the second reading,althoughratherterse and formulaic, could it be regardedas a gift, but the sense in which this mightbe so needs careful specification.

Exchange out of time As is the case in Hinduism and Buddhism,over the centuries Jain teachers have shown great interestin gifts. They have laid down rules about how and developed numerousclassifications they should be given and received,5 of typesof gift(Williams 1963: 149-66). The most prominenttoday is the following:

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

625

1 abhaydan 2 supatra dan 3 anukampa dan 4 ucitdan 5 kirti dan

a a a a a

giftof fearlessness giftto a worthyrecipient giftgiven out of compassion giftgiven out of duty giftgiven to earn fame

These giftsare listed in descendingorder of virtue.The last three are selfand The last (kirti explanatory, include any dan given forthe specifiedmotives. but dan),because it is motivatedby vanity, not a dan at all in reality, a sin. is The first two categoriesare less transparent. Abhaydan is the teachingof and therefore It Jain religion, basicallypreachingby renouncers. deliversone fromfear,especiallyfear of one's own death. Lay Jains,if they actuallysave someone's life,performa pale reflection this abhaydan (its merely'maof terial'form), but in its essentialformit is the preserveof renouncers. Supatra dan is giftsto Jain renouncers,including offerings before statues in Jain temples. They are the highestformof dan a lay person can make,to the only reallyworthyrecipients. Abhay dan and supatradan thus have in common the fact that they are specifically concerned with Jain soteriology. They are the two formsof gift which makeJainism possible and are therefore a higherethicallevel than on the ordinary of ethical give-and-take worldlylife.They belong to a different realm fromthe three lower kinds of gift,because their raisond'etreis the pursuitof escape fromsamsar the cycle of death and rebirth and so the achievementof permanentcessation of embodied temporalexistence.If, as Derrida suggests, conditionfora pure giftis thatthe flow of time be susthe pended,thenwe may note thatthisis exactlythe conditionof transcendence and salvationto which abhaydan and supatra dan are oriented. Now even though abhaydan is only metaphorically giftat all (as in both a its materialand essentialformsnothing is actuallygiven), it is possible to of imagineit and supatra dan as makingup a system exchange.In the case of TheravadaBuddhism,Strenski argued thatgifts has given by lay Buddhiststo and renouncers, the mostlyritualserviceswhich are providedvice versa,conrests stitute system generalizedexchange (1983). He notes thatthissystem a of on the factthat dan is an unreciprocated gift, ideologicallyclose to sacrifice, and on a firmrejectionof reciprocity between particular Buddhistsand lay Strenski particularmonks.6Departing somewhat from Levi-Strausshimself, of is arguesthatalthoughwhat it binds together conceptualizedas consisting can be regarded genas the just two entities(the laityand the sangha), system of eralized exchange because it is broughtabout by a great multiplicity unreciprocatedgiftsbetween multifarious familiesand monks. No donor lay binds the recipientof the giftwith an obligationto return. Each, in giving, must take the speculative risk on which generalized exchange depends 1967: 265), thata returnwill come fromelsewhere. (Levi-Strauss The same applies in the Jain case, where what the laity gives to the renouncerscan be counterposedto the teachingand example given by the latter. The imaginative abstraction which enables one to see thingsthis way, calls fromthe time of lived experience to the long run of what Levi-Strauss also make.If the paror is one that structural 'reversible' Jainsthemselves time, and particular are renouncers, ticipants imaginednot as particular families lay

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

626

JAMESLAIDLAW

but as the abstract ordersof laityand renouncers, then 'Jainsociety'consists of these entities and the relationbetween them thatis produced and sustained by a patternedexchange of gifts.7 So even though'Jainsociety'restson a systemof exchange,it is a system made up, in real lived time,of unreciprocated gifts; and the collectiveentities in which make it up are different kind fromthe partiesinvolvedin the gifts. No one is motivatedto make a gift of food in returnfor the teaching renouncersgive or the example they represent. Householders seek to maxiand mize theirgiftout of devotion,and the desireto perform good karma, a thatcomproso gain merit.For renouncers, priority to avoid anything the is These apparently reinmisestheirautonomy. conflicting purposesare mutually forcing (Laidlaw 1995: 314-23).The renouncer's surlyindifference encourages the importunategenerosityof the donor. The latter'spersistenceenables the renouncerto exerciseexemplaryrestraint, yet stillemerge fromthe and encounterwith enough to eat.Thus in so faras thereis calculationand even agonisticcompetitionin how both partiesbehave, this is not governed by considerations reciprocity. of There is no attemptto calculate equivalence,or to balance or outdo the other,and no sense in which what is given is conditionalon a return. In all these respects, is therefore it reasonableto say that supatra dan is a freegift. is a specificinstitutionalized It culturalelaborationof thatsimplebut inherently paradoxicalidea: an attempt give it a real existencein practice.8 to It should not only be a voluntary expression positivesentiments, unreciof an procated sacrificeof somethingclosely identifiedwith the giver; it should also createno debt or obligation, indeed no social relationat all betweengiver and recipient. In Why should anyone go to all thistroublenot to createsocial relations? the Jain case the raisond'etre in lies, as Parryanticipates, a radicallysoteriounlike logical religion.Reciprocal relations between layJainsand renouncers, the out-of-timeexchange of abhaydan and supatra dan,would preclude the transcendence temporalcausal relations of or (samsar Derrida's'economy') and the achievementof unendingspiritual perfection (moksha).

The idea of a giftin The gift What is the relation between the free gift and what we may call the Maussian gift, one thatcreatessocial relations? Mauss's The giftis about many things, but on the face of it giftsas such are not among them.He goes out of his way to say thatsome thingswhich Malinowskithoughtto be so are not in factfreegifts, and explicitdiscussion of anything thatmightbe is virtually non-existent (Testart1997: 97; see also Derrida 1992: 24).This is not because the idea of a gift peripheral Mauss's is to it essay;on the contrary, is because implicitinvocationof it is centralto the of construction the argument. Mauss tracesthe genealogyof the most important conceptsin commercial in He assembles, Parry'swords (1986: 457), an 'archaeolexchange (1990: 4). The gifts thatconcern Mauss are the forerunogy of contractual obligation'. ners of today'smarkettransactions, they are t,heway 'the market'operated

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

627

before its more characteristic instruments (such as money,formalcontracts, and 'selfinterest') had developed.This is a storywhich embracesall of human history, 'the marketis a human phenomenon that,in our view, is not for to foreign any known society'(1990: 4). The essaytellsa storyof how contractual to obligationgrew out of the bindingof the recipient the giverwhich which made takesplace by means of the gift, and of how the qualitiesof gifts that possible have been progressively (but not entirely)strippedaway and replacedduringthe course of social evolution. The evolutionary argumentin Mauss has been well broughtout by Parry (1986). The storyis one of simplification, the modern formsof giftand as The freegiftis an idea which has commodityare progressively disaggregated. as developed and been more clearlyarticulated the commodityeconomy has has developed.The articulation been pioneered (thisis a point made more by Parrythan by Mauss in The giftalthoughit is implicitin some of his other But thisdistinction between the freegiftand writings) the world religions. by which Mauss's essaydescribes, the commodity not only a historical is product, That arguit is also a logical tool which Mauss uses in makinghis argument. ment proceeds by a sort of rhetoricaldouble movement, one that is repeatedly applied to all of the major examples he uses along the way. Mauss tellsus on the one hand thatthe transactions describes'take the he form' of gifts.He never elaborates exactly what this implies, except for the repeateduse of expressions such as 'free','disinterested', 'generous'.So and the point is that although these transactions serious politics and serious are economics - he insistsagain and again on theirsize and importance- they are 'given as' freegifts. The complementary move is where Mauss says that, theirgift-like qualitynotwithstanding, are alwaysalso obligatory(1990: they e.g. 33, 65, 68, 73). So these transactions Mauss can only really both are and are not freegifts. make the argumentbecause the idea of what a real freegiftwould be is left unexamined. The reader'sunderstanding it is tacitlyinvoked.Because the of invocationis implicit, and because the idea of the giftis,as Derrida has shown us, anywayunstableand paradoxical,it can be made to work in two quite contrary ways at once. Our idea thata real giftis free, and unconstrained suppliesthe beneficent, which is requiredfor moral content,not reducibleto utilitarian self-interest, Mauss'sDurkheimianaccount of sociality the non-contractual moralcontent that makes contractpossible.Mauss findsthis ethnographically expressedin the widespreadidea thata part of the giver'ssoul or selfis embodied in the given thing:that'by giving one is giving oneself' (1990: 46; original emphato first the Maori notion of the sis). He explicatesthis idea with reference hau,and then in the other cases he examines (1990: 43-4, 46, 58-9, 62). And the readerirresistibly recognizeshis or her own belief thata real giftis personal; that,as Emerson puts it in an essay cited (though for anotherreason) by Mauss, 'The only giftis a portion of thyself' (1995: 257). Thus Mauss's explanationfor how giftscan have the capacityto create the moral basis of mobilizesour everyday of sociality understanding what a pure giftwould be. On the other hand, he also mobilizes our knowledge of the less elevated calculation the'polite fiction, and formalism, social deceit' (1990: 3) - which our time-boundgift-giving involves. necessarily Among us, as much as in his

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

628

JAMESLAIDLAW

'archaic' examples,gifts and invitations requiredby custom,and must be are returnedwith the same or more (1990: 65-6); and we, too, make generous giftsin order to lord it over others (1990: 75). Thus Mauss invitesus to see that these things,which we have thought of as improprieties offences or against'the spiritof the gift',are in factin perfectaccord with it. He commends the gift-exchange systems described in the body of his essay to the attention a modern readership of because of theircapacityto generatepeace and social cohesion,as well as prosperity (1990: 25, 32-3, 34, 82-3). They are an invitation us to turnback the clock,and pull back fromwhat he rather to snobbishlydescribes as the emerging 'tradesmanmorality'(1990: 65). As Sahlins says,'If friendsmake gifts, giftsmake friends'(1972: 186). Mauss's explanationof how theydo thisdepends equally on the calculationand comand on the freedom petitionwe know to be at work in competitive exchange, and generosity thatare implied by the idea of a freegift.Giftsevoke obligationsand createreciprocity, theycan do thisbecause theymightnot:what but creates the obligation is the gestureor moment which alienates the given thingand asks for no reciprocation. Derrida remarks:'Thetruthof the gift... suffices annul the gift'(1992: to 27). This self-annulment recapitulated Mauss's essay. is in Althoughhe could only develop his analysis exchange systems means of the concept of the of by gift, the end (1990: 72-3) he is wonderingwhether the essay has really by been about giftsat all. He remarksthat,because the objects are not really givenfreely and giversare not reallydisinterested, words'present' the and 'gift' do not properly apply to them. Mauss's essay therefore works by playing on the paradoxical and selfnegating characterof the gift.His explanation of reciprocity depends on interinvokingfeatures both the freegiftand its negation, of which is frankly ested exchange. takeMauss's careful To of exploitation the paradox of the gift, and to replace it, as Gregorydoes, with a definition the giftas necessarily of reciprocal, to depriveus of Mauss's central is insight. Mauss,friend-making For giftexchange is not opposed to, but is an embryonicform of, commodity in and itsprinciples stillto be found, are exchange, thoughattenuated, modern commerce. It is located on the logical and phenomenological trajectory which are therefore between pure giftand commodity, shown to be genetiThe free is constitutive. self-negating gift so to speak callyrelatedand mutually which make up systems in even if only fora moment, the transactions present, of reciprocalgiftexchange.Without the freegift, we only have part of the picture.

Purepoison?
If we now turnback to the Indian practices which seek to instantiate free the and unreciprocated gift,how are we to account for the dangers associated with it? In Parry'smost comprehensive discussion (1994: 119-48), he concludes that the perils of dan are a culturalidiom in which norms of recibecause procityand interdependence expressed.Priestsin Banaras suffer are the norm of reciprocity they receive but do not give dan,so contravening (1989: 77; 1994: 134).

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

629

They should not reciprocatedirectly, they should be giversof dan in but theirturn. Then the poison theyreceivewould also be passed on harmlessly in an open-ended cycle of Levi-Straussian generalizedexchange which keeps the poison in motion.But since the Banaras priestsdepend on gifts their for subsistence, theyare only ever recipients. Flow and circulation stop.As Parry puts it, the sewer becomes a cesspit. Parryconsidersanotherpossible solution to theirpredicament. They subscribe to the widespreadidea thatideally a Brahminis a this-worldly representative the renouncer(1994: 123; see also Fuller 1984: 49-71; Heesterman of 1964). If, like an ideal Brahmin,they performedtheir ritualscorrectly and practised austerities, they could consume the impuritiesthey receive by asceticism. well burningthemaway through But theydo not know the rituals enough or practiseserious asceticism, and so theysuffer. Comparison with the Jain case suggeststhat neitherof these points quite gets to the heartof the matter. The problemof being dependenton dan,and therefore not being able to give it oneself,can be resolved or at any rate glossed over with just a little semiotic ingenuity. Jain renouncersare daily dependenton alms but are also giversof dan,albeit in a non-materialcurrency. The 'giftof fearlessness' costs them nothingin materialterms.Some versionof thisidea mustbe availableto the Banaraspriests. The factthatthey do not adopt it suggeststhat it would not solve the problem,and indeed it does not do so forJainrenouncers. Neither does the latter's asceticism. we As have seen,Jain renouncersstillhave to take elaborateprecautionsin the way theyaccept dan,or theytoo would be afflicted theirdonors' misdeeds. by The dangeris present, but the rules help them to avertit. In Pahansu,recipientsof dan are also said to digest it by means of heat. Brahmins perform austerities, mostly reciting by mantras. Other castes, who do not, are said to generateheat through'the simple activitiesof householderand so ship (grihasthi): grinding, husking,churning,and sexual intercourse, forth'(Raheja 1988: 91). In other words,no one has to do anythingthey would not be doing anyway, which hardly seemslike evidence of a veryafflictis ing poison.Thus not being able to dispose of poison receivedwith gifts not thereis no indian insuperable problem.Moreover,in Raheja's ethnography otherthan thatverydominance cation of anyoneallegedlysuffering anything, of the Gujars of which these transactions are the symbolic performance. with the Banaraspriests, whose gifts This contrasts keep them in 'a perpetual state of moral crisis'(Parry 1994: 123). Why is the dan given to priestsand so renouncers much more dangerousin the first place? How are thesedangers avertedby the renouncersand not by the priests? It should be emphasized that these possibilitiesof moral and biological are miscegenation not limitedto dan.The theme of social contactand interdependence as morally entanglingis extraordinarily prominent in South Asian social life.The whole elaborateideology of caste is predicatedon the and idea thatthiscan occur through physicalcontact, propinquity, transactions not restricted dan (Dumont 1980; Marriott 1968; 1976). Cooked food to media for the flow of (Appadurai1981) and cloth (Bayly 1986) are powerful bio-moralqualitiesbetween persons, even when theyare bought and sold, or Detached partsof the body,such as hair and nails,can given as non-dangifts. be conduitsof spiritual and personalqualities, can sexual fluids. as Moreover,

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

630

JAMESLAIDLAW

such bio-moral contactis not alwayspoisonous. Successfulmarriagedepends on a propitiousmixingof bio-moral substance(Daniel 1984). Blessingsfrom deitiesand holy men are given in similarways (Babb 1987). Substancebeing pooled, shared,or mixed,with consequent changesin the physicaland spiritual condition of those involved,is therefore common in other kinds of transactionand interaction. The 'poison in the gift' is not some unique or mysterious substancefound only in gifts, is the dangers attendanton it social interactionin general: demeaning or demanding connections,debts, and obligations do thingsforotherpeople's benefit. if thereis anything to So distinctive about dan,it is not thatit carriespoison. For most people, the dangersof social interdependence bound to be are double-edged. Treatyouraffines with caution,even suspicion; but you do need and want to have affines. Try to avoid importunatedemands from your acquaintances;but make your own on them. Receiving dan and incurring obligationsis only an unambiguously bad thingfor those who aim at nonwhich means renouncers, and all those,like many Brahminsand reciprocity, whose social statusdepends on theirclaim to be especiallyBrahminpriests, like renouncers. It is therefore unsurprising that these are preciselythe dangerswhich the rules governingthe Jain supatra dan all work to prevent. The donor and the renouncer mustnot become morally entangled and responsible each other's for actions.In so faras this dan succeeds in being a freegift, thisis indeed prevented,because no social obligationsare createdby the transaction. Food is given (though it is somethingelse that is received) without anythingelse no changing: obligation, reciprocation, mutuality, sociality or comes into being. Indeed, even if theyknow each other,the partiesbehave as strangers the in transaction. This social distancing an important is aspect of dan which derivesfromits characteras a freegift.Raheja notes that people in Pahansu say that dan is only given to those who are 'other';but she notes also thatthese same recipnot of dan ients are describedas 'one's own people' when theyare recipients but of reciprocalgifts(1988: 212; 1995). I suggestthat the recipientbeing 'other' is not so much a preconditionas a resultof dan,which counteracts the mutuality In dan this is established Maussian gifts. the case of supatra by would be fatalto the renouncer's crucial,because everyday mutuality project of detachment and purification. in uniSo priests Banarassuffer because theycontravene (putatively not the but versal) norm of reciprocity, because they contravenethe norm of nonthe reciprocity: ideal which governs the free gift they are supposed to be and one to which, as aspirantquasi-renouncers, receiving; theyare supposed to subscribe. of the They are bad recipients (kupatra) dan.They do not fulfil requirement (Parry1994: 122) of being unwillingto receiveit.And in generaltheybehave in such a way that,whatevertheir donors do, they turn a free giftinto an interested exchange. Parrygives a vivid descriptionof the inventive, persisand vituperative tent,and at timesby turnsdeceitful hagglingwhich Banaras priestsemploy in arguingup the dan they are offered(1994: 139-48). They cartel systemto preventcompetitionbetween them operate a sophisticated

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMESLAIDLAW

631

fromexerting downwardpressure the price of theirservices(1994: 75-90). on No wonder thereis widespreadscepticism, which theythemselves share, about the value-for-money what theyprovide. of The first part of an answerto the question of 'whence the poison in the is gift?' therefore thatit is not poisonous foreveryoneor in all situations. This is clear in the classicaltextswhich,where theymentionsuch dangers, so do in the contextof dan being performed incorrectly. What the Jain case makes clear,then,is that dan is not the problem - the cause of a unique kind of peril - but on the contrary is a solution,thoughadmittedly highlyelusive it a one. It is a transaction which can, if performedcorrectly, free of a peril be which is otherwisehighlyprevalentin this social and culturalenvironment. In a world in which the mixingof personsand things, which Mauss described as happening in giftexchange and which Gregorymisdescribes 'inalienas ability',actuallyhappens very readilyall the time,the point of a freegiftis Dan should be an alienatedand non-reciprocal it freegift.In practice, can at best approach to this ideal, because the ideal itself impossible(which is is why the textsare full of warnings).Sometimes this does not matterall that much. However,the matteris serious forpeople, paradigmatically renouncers but also those who model themselves renouncers, on who aspirenot to dominance but to detachment and social separation(see Fuller 1988; Parry1994: 264-71). For Jain renouncersthis concern is definitional theirwhole way of of life.In gocari, overcome the impossibility of theycan more-or-less entirely a freegift, and theyreceive without incurring any debts. For Banaras prieststhere seems to be a contradiction. Although many of these priestsare known as Mahabrahmins('great Brahmins'),in fact most people deny they are Brahminsat all. Their contact with death means they are regardedas hardlydifferent fromuntouchables. Like the Gujar 'dominant caste' of Pahansu,theyclaim a high statusthatis denied by many othersand thisprobablyexplains,in both cases,why dan is such a salientconcern.The Banaras priestssubscribe to the theory that their statusderives frombeing and their assertionof this statusis as vehement as their quasi-renouncers, detractors' denials are contemptuous; but the plain fact is theyare not actuAnd even as priestsgo, they do badly in conforming the to ally renouncers. ideal. They need to maintain their homes and families,and renunciatory if detachment a luxurytheycan ill afford. any event,and ultimately, they is At are poisoned by a gift, thisis because theyhave asked forit.
to prevent it.

Conclusion The point thata freegifthas no power to bind was recognized, accordingto Pollock and Maitland (1898: 213), fromthe earliestperiod in English law. No courtwould uphold gratuitous From or gifts enforcegratuitous promises. this arose the custom that the giver of a giftshould receive in returnsome valuelesstrifle, enough to make an exchange and therefore legallyvalid a just transaction. Dan takesthe opposite course:by remaining resolutely a freegift, it remainsfreeof obligation.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

632

JAMESLAIDLAW

While the concept of a 'pure gift'has oftenbeen dismissedas naive and unsociological,that of a 'pure commodity'has been shown more latitude. in Carrier, a generaldiscussionof commodityexchange,makes the point that commoditiesare fungible.He then notes that this is not always equally so. Works of design,art,and craftare not interchangeable one for another, and it matters whom theywere made; yet theyare exchangedas commodities. by do However,he continues, 'these qualifications not contradict the point that commoditiesare impersonal.Instead they show that not everything that we buy and sell is a pure commodity'(Carrier 1995: 29). Similarly, all that not we give and receive is a pure gift.I have suggestedthatalmost nothingever could be. But in so faras the Jain case is a guide, it suggeststhatimpersonif of ality, it is a feature the commodity(which seems reasonableenough), is of rather than it being,as incautiousreadingof equally a feature the freegift; Mauss has led us to expect,a dimensionin which these two kinds of transaction are opposed. No doubt this is why religiouscharityand philanthropy in all the great religionshave repeatedlyrediscovered the supremevalue of the anonymousdonation,only to findthattime and again donors have been more attracted the benefits the sociallyentangling to of which Maussian gift, does make friends.
NOTES This paperbegan as a talkgivento theAnthropological Theoryseminar the London at to School of Economicsin January 1999. I am grateful FenellaCannellforherinvitation to to theseminar, to theparticipants stimulating and for questions observations. grateful and I am thosewho readand commented subsequent on drafts thepaper: of AlanBabb,MarcusBanks, SusanBayly, Barbara CarolineHumphrey, Bodenhorn, JohnCort,Paul Dundas,ChrisFuller, and also Jonathan Mair,Jonathan Parry, MarilynStrathern, Helen Ward.I am grateful for comments from Editorand readers theJRAL the of the Sahlins 'Otherswho havediscussed free include gift (1972: 185-276)and Carrier (1995: a thatdan is unreciprocated ideologically freegift and 145-67).Otherswho have observed include Tambiah (1970: 213),Trautmann (1981: 278-93),and Strenski (1983). 2See alsoHeesterman (1964),Shulman (1985),andTrautmann (1981).Raheja wouldexclude from list, forcounter-arguments Parry see impurity this but (1991). the is of Murtipujak Khartar GacchJains, 'To be moreprecise, example that theShvetambar in as I haveobserved mostly thecityofJaipur, since 1983. it, 'Another imageusedby theJains (Lalwani1973:3; Laidlaw1995:305) and also by Hindus without damaging (Parry 1980; 1994:122) is of thebee whichgathers pollenfrom flower the theplant. by practice mostinfluenced the Dashavaikalika whichis studied is by sutra, 'Contemporary all Shvetambar See renouncers. Lalwani(1973). 6Carrithers in monks haveoften lived (1984) haspointed that practice, out becauseBuddhist livesamong theirlay followers, relations reciprocity of have tendedto develop, sedentary of and thishas been one of the motivations 'reformist' for movements forest-dwelling monks has movements and (Carrithers 1983;Tambiah1984).WhileJainhistory also seen schismatic the reforms alongsimilar lines, itinerancy Jainrenouncers meantthattheJaincase has of has moreconsistently resembled Strenski's model. would denyany implication the two gifts 7Jains that might of equal value.It is also be but relevant renouncers not obligedto offer opportunity giving that are the of themgifts, on thecontrary fast muchas possible to as and eat rarely. 8Of course is not theonlypossible for it waythis might done,and it maybe contrasted, be with the paradigm the 'perfect which Carrier(1995: 145-67) finds example, of present' in Euro-America. expressed contemporary

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES LAIDLAW

633

REFERENCES in Appadurai, 1981.Gastro-politics Hindu SouthAsia.American A. Ethnologist494-511. 8, University California of Press.

Babb, L.A. 1987. Redemptive encounters: threemodernstylesin the Hindu tradition. Berkeley: Balbir, N. 1982. Danastakakatha:recueil Jaina de huit histoires le don. Paris: College de sur

France. Bayly, C.A. 1986. The origins swadeshi of (homeindustry): and Indiansociety, cloth 1700-1930. In Thesocial ofthings A. Appadurai, lIfe (ed.) 285-321.Cambridge: University Press. Biardeau, 1976. Le sacrifice M. dansl'hindouisme classique. Le sacrifice l'Indeancienne In dans & M. Biardeau C. Malamoud, 80-154.Paris: Presses de Universitaires France.
and Western Carrier,J.G. 1995. Giftsand commodities: exchange capitalism since 1700. London: M. monksof Sri Lanka: an anthropological historical and Delhi: Carrithers, 1983. Theforest study. Daniel, E.V 1984. Fluid signs:beinga persontheTamilway.Berkeley:Universityof California

Routledge.

Oxford University Press. of Man (N.S.) 19, 321-2. 1984.The domestication thesangha.

Chicago:University Press. In R.W 1995 (1844). Gifts. Essaysand poems(ed. T. Tanner),256-9. London: Emerson, Everyman. Press. University and Man 1988.The Hindu pantheon thelegitimation hierarchy. (N.S.) 23, 19-39. of in C.A. to to and accumulation Gregory, 1980.Gifts men and gifts gods:gift exchange capital contemporary Papua.Man (N.S.) 15, 626-52.
1982. Giftsand commodities. London: Academic Press. kula: newperspectives Massim exchange on (eds) J.W Leach & E. Leach, 103-17. Cambridge: 1997. Savage money: anthropology politics commodity the and Chur: Harwood of exchange. Fuller, CJ. 1984. Servantsof the goddess: the priestsof a south Indian temple.Cambridge:

1992. Given time1: counterfeit money. Chicago: UniversityPress. Dumont, L. 1980 (1966). Homo hierarchicus: castesystem itsimplications. the and (Revised edition).

Press. Derrida,J. 1978. Writing difference. and London:Routledge& KeganPaul.

a In 1983. Kula giftexchange and capitalist commodity exchange: comparison. The

Press. University

Academic. Z. 1964.Brahmin, and Wien. KundeSud-Ostasiens 1-31. Heesterman,J.C. ritual, renouncer. 8, T of Mauss:a centenary (eds)W James tribute Jenkins, 1998.Derrida's reading Mauss.In Marcel & NJ.Allen, 83-94.Oxford: Berghahn.
and Laidlaw,J. 1995. Riches and renunciation: religion, economy, society amongtheJains. Oxford: Dasavaikalikasutra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lalwani, K.C. 1973. Arya Sayyambhava's structures kinship.(Revised edition). Boston: Levi-Strauss,C. 1967 (1949). The elementary of in 1926. Crimeand custom savagesociety. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Clarendon Press.

Beacon Press. B. London:Roudedge & KeganPaul. Malinowski, 1922.Argonauts thewestern of Pacfic.

and in and In M. Marriott, 1968.Casteranking foodtransactions. Structure change Indian society & Aldine. (eds) M. Singer B.S. Cohn, 133-71.Chicago: In and 1976. Hindu transactions: without dualism. Transaction meaning diversity (ed.) B. Kapferer, 109-42.Philadelphia: Institute the Study HumanIssues. for of M. London:Routledge. Mauss, 1990 (1925). Thegift. funeral 1980. and of Parry,J.P. Ghosts, greed, sin:theoccupational identity theBenares priests. Man (N.S.) 15, 88-111. Man (N.S.) 21, 453-73. 1986. Thegift, Indiangift the and the'Indiangift'. & Press. J.Parry M. Bloch,64-93. Cambridge: University and Contributions to 1991.The Hindulexicographer? noteon auspiciousness purity. A
Indiansociology (N.S.) 25, 267-85. 1989. On the moral perils of exchange. In Money and the morality exchange of (eds)

1994.Deathin Banaras. Press. Cambridge: University

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

634

JAMESLAIDLAW

Pollock, F. & F.W Maitland 1898 (1895). The history Englishlaw before timeof EdwardI. of the

village. Chicago:University Press. 1995.'Cryingwhen she'sborn,and crying when she goes away':marriage the and in idiomof the gift Pahansu songperformance. From margins Hindumarriage In the of (eds) L. Harlan& P.B. Courtright, 19-59.NewYork:Oxford Press. University M. Sahlins, 1972. Stone economics. age Chicago:University Press. in D. and and epic.AsianandAfrican Shulman, 1985.Kingship prestation South Indianmyth Studies19, 93-117. I. of Man Strenski, 1983.On generalized exchange thedomestication thesangha. (N.S.) 18, and 463-77.
Tambiah, SJ. 1970. Buddhism and the spiritcultsin north-east Thailand.Cambridge: University

and Raheja, G.G. 1988. The poisonin thegift: ritual, prestation, thedominant castein a north Indian

vol. 2. Cambridge: Press. (Secondedition) University

Press.

Williams,R. 1963.Jaina yoga:a survey the mediaeval sravakacaras. London: Oxford University of

Testart, 1997.Uncertainties the'obligation reciprocate':critique Mauss.In Marcel A. of to a of Mauss:a centenary (eds)W James N.J. tribute & 97-110.Oxford: Allen, Berghahn. Trautmann, 1981.Dravidian T.R. Press. kinship. Cambridge: University Press.

1984. The Buddhist saintsoftheforest thecultofamulets. and Cambridge: University Press.

Les dons libres, sans bons comptes, ne font pas les bons amis
Resume L'offrande aux Jains d'aumones moines renon,ants Shvetambar une elaboration de est instide tutionalisee specifique l'idee de don libre, une idee que toutes principales les religions mondiales leurpropres ont facons d'instaurer qui est exprimee le mot dandansles et par languesdu nordde l'Inde.Cet exempleillustre caractere le paradoxe inherent l'idee de a don et les raisons il le pour lesquelles est erronede definir don commenecessairement et Tout commela notionde commodite reciproque sansalienation. pure, notionde don la et de de de purestcaracterisee I'absence creation connections d'obligations nature par perles Une tellecomprehension don, qui est implicite du chez Mauss, sonnelle entre parties. nouspermet resoudre paradoxe de le du apparent 1'ethnographie danqui,touten etant dans un don libre, souvent est nocifpour ses recipients. Free DepartmentSocial of Anthropology, CB2 University Lane,Cambridge, 3RE ofCambridge, School James. Laidlaw@kings. ac. cam. uk

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:51:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions