| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
In the past few decades, the nature and function of gift exchange and of reciprocity itself have been the subject of much fieldwork (extending into contemporary Western societies) and theorization amongst anthropologists, and the new definitions make the original concepts increasingly blurred.39 From this chaos, Mark Osteen selected five characteristics of gift exchange in the modern world: disinterestedness, risk, spontaneity, pleasure, and superfluity.40 Reciprocity, accordingly, may also require new forms of description and understanding in the light of research on modern and other traditional societies. (An example of new forms of description and understanding is discussed in chapter 7.)
Anthropology aside, the old meanings of reciprocity persist in everyday English as well as in other disciplines. Modern economic theory, for instance, reverts to early ideas of reciprocity as a value-laden social activity that is normally regarded in a positive light. In one current economics handbook, reciprocityis defined by reference to a gift or favor that is motivated by another gift (for instance, the return gift of an initial gift); it differs from a self-interested exchange in which each transfer (or favor) is provided under the condition that the other is provided and hence is not a true gift.41
In this context, three types of motives underlie a reciprocal exchange in a modern society and distinguish it from a commercial exchange: a wish to achieve balance, an interest in maintaining an affectionate relationship between the two agents, and the desire for continuing the sequence of exchanges.42 The notion of altruism is generally associated with the first and second of these motivations, whereas the third can be mixed with motives of self-interest. Further, all kinds of reciprocity have a connotation of egalitarianism in one person’s actions towards the other person, even as the sequence of the exchange itself constitutes a strong inequality (although the altruistic balance can be restored).43 The results of reciprocal exchanges are thus seen as beneficial and productive: not only do both agents benefit, but the whole social unit will be better off. Nevertheless, it is recognized in passing that not all reciprocity is good, because reciprocal exchange may be triggered by negative motivations of revenge and retaliation.
The consensus on good (or even good or bad) reciprocity is by no means universal across disciplines, and it does not always involve gift