First published in 1925, The Gift by Marcel Mauss is an exploration of political, economical, and sociocultural values and norms as they pertain to gift giving among the Northwest Coast American Indians, Melanesians, and Polynesians. Concepts such as honor, reciprocation, exchange, contract, counter-gift and prestige are explored throughout his essay. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Émile Durkheim, Marshall Sahlins, Jacques Derrida, and Mary Douglas have all drawn from Mauss’s work throughout the 20th century. At its core, The Gift “was a part of an organized onslaught on contemporary political theory, a plank in the platform against utilitarianism” (x).

It attempts to distinguish between commerce as it is understood in Western countries from the act of gift giving, which acts as a catalyst for enhancing solidarity and obligation between the gift giver and the gift receiver. The gift exchange involves ulterior motives and is a complicated and intricate process that requires a priori knowledge of the person(s) or group(s) who partake in this ritual. Whilst Mauss made many notable contributions to the field of sociology and anthropology, it is his work on the potlatch (Northwest Coast Indigenous Americans’ gift-giving feasts) and gift giving that helped develop the way that social scientists explored and understood the nature and function of economy, kinship, and religion (xix).

Summary

In his introduction, Mauss discusses how social scientists must draw from positivist research, ethnology, history, and sociology to better understand how gift giving functions within society. As systems of “total services” (7), Mauss uses the potlatch as a metaphor of how relationships between people and groups must be constantly fed and consumed to maintain balance and peace. This often results in competing interests, status challenges, and hierarchies amongst the giver and the receiver. Thus, the potlatch becomes a total service of an agonistic type according to Mauss, who sees the act of gift giving via the potlatch akin to a game of chess.

The reciprocal nature of the potlatch is a means to outdo the original gift giver and in doing so obtain greater prestige, honor, and glory. Checkmates can only be achieved if the receiver lacks the ability or time necessary to reciprocate in due time, forcing them into a debt of sorts that obligates them to the gift giver. Far from altruistic, the potlatch becomes a symbolic gesture of dominance and control over the proverbial other.

In Part 1, Mauss further explores this idea by specifically addressing the spirit of the thing given (hau). It is not enough to simply bestow upon your guests lavish gifts consisting of food, spices, and other material goods. It is the hau, or spiritual power, (15) of the gift that beholdens the gift receiver to the gift giver. The more important and relevant the hau, the more power it exercises over that person or group who possesses it. Unlike Western societies, where power is maintained through the ownership of desired objects, in the case of Northwest Coast American Indians, Melanesians, and Polynesians, the ownership of such goods is symbolic. The owner of an important spiritually powered item imbues his essence into the object and thus, in a sense, ownership is always his. However, the possession of said hau transfers from one person or group to the other. This allows them to share in its hau and maintain peace and respect amongst allies. Mauss uses this as the basis for reciprocation, as refusing to do so could and often does lead to warfare, mistrust, and broken alliances. He ends this chapter by differentiating between presents (gifts) made to humans and those made to the gods and the importance of contract sacrifices.

In Part 2, drawing upon anthropologists Bronislaw Malinowski and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (referred to as Brown), Mauss explores the rules associated with hosting a potlatch and the importance of generosity. As a ritualistic practice, hosts must adhere to strict rules and decorum or risk offending their guests. Of equal importance is the length of time that a receiver keeps a gift of great hau before giving it to someone else. Whilst it could take up to a year or more before the receiver is able to become the giver, what often dictates the length of time is the spiritual relevance of the objects received. Equally, they cannot simply be passed on to just anyone and must, in truth, only be given to those deemed worthy based on status and rank.

Failure to reciprocate brings dishonor, conflict, resentment, and mistrust. However, “if one is not able to reciprocate, at the very least one may offer a basi, which merely ‘pierces’ the skin, does not bite, and does not conclude the affair” (34). Thus, the receiver remains indebted to the giver until they can repay the generosity bestowed upon them in kind. Furthermore, refusing gifts and invitations also brings dishonor and conflict. This fits into Mauss’s paradigm of the three obligations associated with the potlatch. Namely, the obligation to give, receive, and to reciprocate. Mauss adds that part of the grandeur of the potlatch is also the willingness to destroy. Items of importance but that lack hau are often burned as symbols of wealth and power. Thus, it is not even enough to give but to be able to destroy that also plays a part in the power dynamics between the giver and the receiver.

In Part 3, Mauss turns to ancient Rome, classical Hindu Law, and Germanic Law to demonstrate how the potlatch is unique in name only, and that prior to western systems of commerce and trade, similar forms of exchanges existed throughout human history. It is his analysis of the three types of law that elevates the potlatch in that he expertly compares various elements of it with the nexum, the Brahmin rules associated with gift exchange, and the angebinde, the concept that a receiver is tethered or beholden to the giver. Mauss also relegates the potlatch to the annals of history as an example of living fossils. As he states, “Institutions of this type have really provided the transition towards our own forms of law and economy. They can serve to explain historically our own societies” (60). Thus, the potlatch and the cultures that utilize them allow a glimpse into human history and human nature that would have otherwise been lost to time.

Mauss makes several conclusions in part by deferring to common practices found in Western societies today; for economic sociology and political economy; and finally, conclusions surrounding general sociology and morality. By drawing upon value functions in society and the interdependence of groups upon one another for both direct and indirect survival needs, Mauss remarks that “Homo oeconomicus is not behind us, but lies ahead, as does the man of morality and duty, the man of science and reason” (98).

Commercium (commerce) and Connubium (marriage) (102), both symbolically and literally, continue to influence the direction that human civilization takes and in doing so, affect the way we form relationships with the other. What is more, Mauss does not view society as independent of the human animal but rather, it can only exist as part of its very physiology. It is shaped by the relationships that it fosters and so creates a culture of dependency and mutual ties that can be as empowering as it can be destructive and self-defeating.