Tribal economics – Part 3 – Reciprocal
This post is part of a series on tribal gift economics.
Introduction
Last week I wrote about a tribal economic system that makes everyone equal. This week I'm going to explore another tribal economic system known as reciprocal gift economics. In contrast to the egalitarian system, this one does have powerful individuals, however the nature of how they gain power means that the economic system remains a variety of gift economics.
Big Men
We will start with the Koaka speaking tribes of the Solomon islands. (Marvin Harris Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, p98) . When a man in this kind of culture decides that he wants to be important, wants to become a big man, he sets about trying to convince the people of his own and neighbouring tribes that he is up to the job. He does this by persuading his wife to grow more food and his family and friends to catch more fish. If they think he has a chance of becoming a big man, then they will agree and help him in his quest; if he is successful then his new status will rub off on them as well. Once the aspiring big man has collected enough food to hold an impressive feast, he will invite everyone around for a party which is known as a potlatch. This is not just a few friends around for a sit down dinner, we are talking a serious hair down shindig; if it is not possible to make repeated trips into the jungle and throw up to make room the next course then the host will most definitely be considered a failure. However, if successful, the newly approved big man will become a source of authority.
The details change in different tribes, but this essential process of the person seeking status giving away their wealth is found all over the globe.
The Koaka speaking tribes do not demonstrate a fully reciprocal gift economy, but one that lies somewhere between the egalitarian economy described in the last post and a reciprocal gift economy. The reason for this is that the Koaka big men do not create an obligation in their giving.
Reciprocal gifts
In a reciprocal gift economy every gift creates a requirement for the receiver to give something in return - although not necessarily at the same time. The nature of the debt is usually undefined in the literal sense, yet due to a shared culture both parties are able to recognise when an obligation is paid. The nature of the gift may also suggest a social contract, such as an alliance or a marriage. Accepting a gift is not seen as just a pragmatic task but one that involves taking on something of the spirit of the giver, for example the Māori have the word taonga for treasured things and when a gift is made of a taonga item, it contains hau – the spirit of the giver and in order to meet the obligation of this gift an item that contains the hau of the receiver of the gift is required.
A further important aspect of this exchange is that it usually does not happen between all members of a tribe, but only between its big men or chiefs. This is a very important difference between an egalitarian economy and a reciprocal one. Exploring this and the reasons for the development from egalitarian exchange, to big men, to reciprocal gift economy will be the focus of the next post. The post after that will explore the relevance of these different economic structures to an internet economy.
References
Harris, Marvin. (1974) Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches
Mauss, Marcel. (1954) The Gift
- 11 February, 2011 @ 12:29 [Current Revision] by Sky Wickenden
- 5 January, 2011 @ 11:13 by Sky Wickenden
- 5 January, 2011 @ 10:31 by Sky Wickenden
- 5 November, 2010 @ 22:25 by Sky Wickenden
- 5 November, 2010 @ 22:25 by Sky Wickenden
November 6th, 2010 - 11:07
Hi Sky, short regular posts work well for me and I love Nicole’s sketches!
I have to say that thus far in my life, economics has held about as much fascination for me as linoleum, so you will have to forgive me if my questions are simplistic.
What I think I’m understanding is that you’re having to take us through the whole history and development of economics in order to get a handle on this new system. Also, I guess you’re wanting anyone and everyone to be able to understand the givesalt system whether or not we have an economics degree.
So in the last post about egalitarian gift economics, the people had no concept of meaning or value outside the present moment. This meant that objects, or food, given to, or shared with others could have no other meaning, symbolism or intention, other than their meaning in the moment. Which may have been simply to be consumed.
In this post, you’re describing a people who are attributing meaning and symbolism to objects and actions which transcend the present moment. The Koaka system is not fully reciprocal because an obligation to reciprocate has not fully come into play. What we’re noting is the attachment of meaning to the object or action, the gift and the gift giving. Or, essentially the very first idea that an object, or action, could have another value other than it’s inherent value. Is that right?
And then the very first idea of being in debt would appear with the reciprocal gift economy because an obligation to reciprocate was also added to the attachment of meaning or symbolism?
That’s all I can manage, my brain has timed out. But I do have a suspicion now that economics may be slightly more interesting than plastic flooring…keep me posted!
: ) jess
November 7th, 2010 - 10:12
Hi Jess, you make lots of very good points. You have grasped something very important; that in the past, the way that people thought about and experienced economics – and life in general – was radically different from today. It is not just the institutions and structure of society that were different, peoples expereince and perception was also very different. This is a point that I think is often under appreciated; there is no reason to think that we have reached some ultimate perfect economic space and no reason to think that economic systems of the future will not also be as different as today’s is from gift economics.
Your observations about a reciprocal economy are also very good. Things for the first time become valuable outside of what they offer in the present moment.
I’m not going to be going into this much detail for the rest of economic history (at least not yet). I’m focusing on tribal gift systems for a reasons that I will explain in a couple of posts time. After that I will be jumping forward to look at the freemarket – both good and bad.