Can A “Free Gift” Make Friends?
In anthropological literature the existence of the free gift remains relatively ambiguous. Due to the assumption of its apparent irrelevance to society, the concept has been generally ignored. Gift giving has strong roots in humanity’s form of exchange as well as great relevance to economic anthropology as it is widely considered as our initial form of economic transaction (rather than the previous assumption of barter made by Adam Smith) It is traditionally seen as an exchange between familiar persons in order to reinforce ideas of kinship as well as for the expression of love or care. Marcel Mauss first introduces the idea in his essay “The Gift”. He describes the gift as a “total social phenomenon” wherein which people take part in a ritual of reciprocal exchange. This cultivates an “inalienable” transaction, meaning the gift cannot be separated fully from the giver. For this reason, Mauss argues that the existence of a free gift is contradictory to the definition of a gift and hence does not have a place in our society. In order for a gift to be free it cannot have any reciprocal repercussions, either physically, socially or emotionally. However, he states, along with many other anthropologists, that this is not possible through the mechanism of gift giving since the fundamental characteristics of gift exchange make it inevitable for the receiver to be affected in some way.
Laidlaw attempts to refocus the conversation on the existence of the free gift, directly opposing Mauss’ claim and outlining the process simply as, “One party makes over something of theirs to another. There is no 'price' and no recompense. It is given, and that is that." He references a collection of gift exchanges explored by anthropologists in his paper “A Free Gift Makes No Friends”, including his own observations of Shvetambar Jainism. Renouncers of this spiritual practice make alms rounds around the community of lay people, conducting what is known as “gocari”. As part of their spiritual practice, they renounce the luxuries of lay life and inevitably rely on the kindness of the community to offer them food without request. A ritual is carried out during the gift exchange as families “persuade them to accept as much as possible” while renouncers simultaneously declare that they are being given too much food. On top of this, collected food is then mixed and divided between the renouncers. This process creates greater alienation between the giver and receiver of the gift, although this is after the exchange has already taken place.
image source: anthroencyclopedia
One, however, must be aware that although this is close to the definition of a free gift, there are still inevitable social ties. The families offering their food gain the positive feeling that comes with giving charity. This is especially true considering the renouncers are on a spiritual mission, meaning lay people are then able to take part in the spiritual process through support of their lifestyle. Furthermore, although this is the extent of the emotional reciprocation, one could argue that lay people also gain a sense of acceptance from the community. There is no doubt a social shame attached to not inviting the renouncers in and offering food, even if this bad feeling remains only between the individual renouncers and family members present at the time. From this perspective the gift is no longer free as not giving it would have societal and emotional repercussions. This potential societal damage could result in the loss of friendship and kinship within other members of the community and so, even on the assumption that the alms round offerings are free gifts, the statement, “A free gift makes no friends.” doesn’t hold true in this situation.
A different example of gift exchange is found in the solicitation of gifts in Botswana, explored by Durham in 1995. In this article the writer explores the act of verbal exchange as a form of social gift giving, where asking for, or demanding, donations and items is commonplace in the everyday exchanges. These are expressed as playful requests that initiate a dialogue of banter between the participants. Here, there is no genuine aim to obtain the item in question but instead a social structure and relationship is reinforced. The self-determination and assertiveness required to demand a gift is a desirable personality trait within this society, and entering into this banter exemplifies this.
What is unique in this scenario is that whether these requests are carried out is independent to the interpersonal social relationships between individuals. The requests are disinterested forms of exchange. For instance, if someone has demanded a donation and the money was received, there would be no obligation to reciprocate that exchange in any form, in fact the individuals may never cross paths again. This is because the gift is not the money but the verbal back-and-forth and that has already been reciprocated. Instead, the delicacy of the exchange lies in the verbal dialogue, which is supported by a set of unspoken rules. One must never outright refuse the demand but instead avoid answering directly or imply that the demand will be carried out later, mimicking delayed reciprocity, even if it will never occur. In this sense the demand acts as an illusion to the reciprocal gift exchange that is actually expressed through the verbal banter and compliance with the social code. It could be deducted from this analysis that the physical exchange of money or items is an example of a free gift when it does occur. There are no social ties related to the exchange and the gift remains uncommodified. In this way it complies with Laidlaw’s seemingly impossible definition of a free gift, “There is no 'price' and no recompense. It is given, and that is that." This, thereby, exemplifies an essentially disinterested and alienated form of exchange which does, in fact, make no friends. From this example we can see just how nuanced the concept of gift exchange is in different societies as well as the fact that no exchange can be neatly classified as fully alienated or fully disinterested.
