Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
One that constitutes an intensive or temporal generalization: it can accommodate anything, and there are no temporal limits. Spatial limits do exist, as the only circulation is
through interpersonal connections. The better the quality
of these connections, the easier it is to depart from the quantitative equivalence with immediate reciprocity that one associates with mercantile exchange. The more intimate the
connection, the more unilateral the exchange, at least in appearance.
Chapter 4:
The Gift Between Strangers
[excerpt]
A MODERN GIFT
Sahlins (1976) has established a typology for the gift based on
the hypothesis that the more the gift circulates in a primary network (between intimates), the less rigorous is the equivalence
between gift and reciprocation and the longer the reciprocation
stretches out in time. In an extreme case of this generalized
reciprocity what is given in return is not tied to any temporal,
quantitative or qualitative conditions (147). In other words, the
further we move from being strangers, the more equivalence is
open-ended or generalized, so that the gift that is most remote
from the marketplace also represents the most general type of
exchange, an exchange whose temporal dimension has no limit.
This suggests that there are two types of generalized exchange
(Lvi-Strauss 1967):
One which embodies a spatial extension or generalization:
this is typical of the market and theoretically can spread
over the entire globe. It is limited to certain types of goods,
those open to quantitative monetary equivalence, and it does
not much lend itself to extension in time. The return tends to
be immediate.
any case not mentioned to colleagues at work or even to intimates. There is nothing ostentatious here, as in the gifts made to
the collectivity by the affluent class.
An unknown gift made to the unknown, where religious
motivation is not essential and which encompasses all social
strata: this is the world of the modern gift between strangers,
whose importance continues to grow.
Before concluding this survey of the gift as it now exists in
modern society, we must ask ourselves what its fate has been in
that arena which, historically, has embodied its negation: the
mercantile sphere.
* * *
Chapter 5:
The Gift and Merchandise
On the origins of charity, see Weber in Cheal 1988, 157; Mauss, 1950,
169; Veyne, 1976, pp. 44-65.
then charge a lot for them later on. But the problem with this
simplistic version of mercantile logic is, as Carnegie tries to
show, that it overlooks an essential factor: the merchant must be
sincere in offering his present if he wants it to pay off later! This
earliest and most celebrated work on human relations as a technique, a series of gambits, or merchandise teems with gift-giving
anecdotes that contradict as much as embrace the means-end
relationship dear to the merchants heart. In the beginning the
author claims that he has written the book because the public has
been waiting for it for a long time and hes astonished that such
a work does not already exist. He quotes Rockefeller: The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or
coffee. And I will pay more for that ability than for any other
under the sun (19). But there seems to be a contradiction in
what Rockefeller says: if the ability to deal with people is a
piece of merchandise like any other for which there is an enormous demand, which he himself shares, how do we explain that
no one before Carnegie had come up with the idea of producing
it? The answer is in the book, where we learn that we cannot,
after all, treat successful human relationships as means alone, as
nothing but commodities.
Carnegies work draws on traditional values (loyalty, enthusiasm, team spirit). Of course, there is much emphasis placed on
money, but at the same time the author seems to say that money
will come as a supplement, that it must not be ones immediate
goal. All the ambiguity of his message, presented at the outset as
a miraculous formula, is implicit in this dual doctrine: Make the
other person feel importantand do it sincerely (145), The
author whose aim was to let readers in on the secret for making
relationships answerable to business, for learning to succeed in
life, must in the long run, as he himself admits (132), return to
the precepts set forth by all of humanitys sages, from Confucius
to Jesus Christ: be concerned about others, but sincerely, not for
utilitarian motives, not as a means to an end but as an end in
itself. And when you do this you will also reach the goal of material success, as a bonus. That is what we call the Dale Carnegie
paradox and it shows clearly that, even in the mercantile sphere,
the instrumental use of social ties is not as simple as it appears in
utilitarian discourse.
commercialized a blood system becomes ... the more will the gross
national product be inflated. In part, and quite simply, this is the consequence of statistically transferring an unpaid service ... with much
lower external costs to a monetary and measureable paid activity involving costlier externalities. Similar effects on the gross national product would ensue if housewives were paid for housework or childless
married couples were financially rewarded for adopting children or
hospital patients cooperating for teaching purposes charged medical
students. The gross national product is also inflated when commercial
markets accelerate blood obsolescenceor waste; the waste is
counted because someone has paid for it. (205-6. See also 2144.)
Strange Commodities
It is well known that the modern idea of art endows the artist
with a unique role in society. What is more, this is a recent development, as Yves Robillard has shown. If, for the moment, we
restrict ourselves only to the system of production, the artist participates in a system where all roles are crucial, from the collector to the dealer to the artist himself. In this sense, it is not the
artist who makes art, but art that makes the artist, because art is
above all the product ... of an elite of privileged players that I
have paired off in the following way: artist and critic, dealer and
collector, museum curator and art historian (Robillard 1987,
14-15)
This approach inserts the artist into a system, but is the system mercantile, gift-giving, or mixed? And what is the specific
role of each of the players, especially the artist? Why has
modern society accorded this player in particular such a special
status, if only in the collective imagination? One may well claim
that the artist is a fiction, as Robillard does, but we must acknowledge the necessity of this fiction. In that curious evolution
from zero to 54 million dollars, the artist counts for something;
the fact that he is Van Gogh is not irrelevant. As we take a closer
look, we find that this merchandise boasts many other unusual
features, all linked to what we call the artist. We intend to demonstrate that these features can only be explained with reference
to the system of the gift.
We could define the ideal type2 of the artist (in Max Webers sense) in terms of a number of attributes that set artists
apart from other producers in contemporary society. First, in
contrast to the other producers of goods and services, they devote themselves entirely to the product, without regard to the
clientele. Other producers in this society are usually answerable
to intermediaries located between them and the eventual consumer of the product. The artist would like to realize the dream
of all producers: to create a product without having to bear the
theme.
Strictly speaking, that only applies to the visual arts, and even there, a
gallery may ask for canvases of a particular format. But it would never
require a blue thats just a bit darker . . .
ORGAN DONATION
There was, of course, no organ donation in traditional societies.
It is a creature of modern technology and is bound to increase in
frequency in the future. Organ donation, from the dead or the
living, is in some ways similar to blood donation. But there are
many differences.
The importance of intermediaries between donor and recipient and of a particularly sophisticated techno-professional apparatus are the first features that strike the observer. Here, once
again, we have a mixed system, not the pure system of the
gift, for these intermediariestechnicians and professionals
are governed not by the gift but by a salarial relationship. But
this apparatus ensures the transmission of the gift. Society does
not accept the sale of organs. Unlike what happens with blood,
the commerce in organs is generally prohibited, even if in fact
there is a black market. In India there is an open market for kidneys, and even one for eyes from living donors. Rich buyers
come from all over the world to take advantage of this (Kass
1992, 67). The contaminated blood scandal is probably only the
forerunner of a number of scandals still to come involving organ
transplants. While no one can give accurate figures to measure
the magnitude of the phenomenon, we know that there exist,
particularly in Latin America, organized rings that carry out kidnappings and murders to feed North America and Western
Europes rich transplant markets,5 and indications are that the
Kidney Donation
Things are different when the organ donation takes place between individuals who belong to the same primary network, as
in the case of a kidney donation involving two living people.
(Our discussion is based on American studies.) Here we are
dealing with a unilateral gift similar to a legacywhich is what
it becomes in the case of a gift after death. But even where the
living are concerned, it is clear that the donor receives nothing
that can compare with what he gives, economically speaking.
What is the relationship between the donor and the recipient,
before and after the gift? In the first instance, the relationship is
References:
Crozier, Michel. 1987. tat modeste, tat moderne: stratgie
pour un autre dveloppement. Paris: Fayard.
1989. Lenterprise lcoute: apprendre le management postindustriel. Paris: Interditions.
Dore, Ronald. 1987. Taking Japan Seriously: A Confucian Perspective on Leading Economic Issues. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Etzioni, Amatai. 1990. Pour une science social dontologique.
Revue du MAUSS 9, 14-32.
Fox, Rene C., and Judith P. Swazey. 1978. The Courage to
Fail: A Social View of Organ Transplants and Dialysis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hyde, Lewis. 1983. The Gift. Imagination and the Erotic Life of
Property. New York: Random House.
10
11