Random
The New Socks Economy
Thanks to Brian Foley’s sharp eyes, here is a terrific NY Times profile on Lewis Hyde, author of The Gift, the contemporary artist’s Bible and parking meter guide to plying our (or “their,” if you hate artists and you just came to this blog looking for our we’re-a-real-literature-blog practice of Boobs Friday) “trade” in an era of commodified everything, when you have to explain how poetry is supposed to make you the skrilla. We don’t even have patrons anymore! So how–ask the barrel-chested Rotary Club wardens of the world–is poetry supposed to seat us cleanly on the respectable cultural (read: cash exchanging) train of gravy? Hyde is the original and saintly articulator of the “gift economy” theory, which answers that question by pointing out how commodity trading economies throughout histories have cordoned off space for an alternate system of exchanges based on gifting, giving things to people as gifts and accepting gifts in return, where you have 1 to 1 value (“oh, that is your gift, here is my gift”) and not weighted currency (“two of your sheep for eight of my fingernails”). This system builds its own communities based on–think Christmas afternoon–a kind of buzzy empathy.
Though I’ve never read Hyde, I’ve heard enough about this “gift economy” idea second and thirdhand to understand the basic principles, and I’ve always been kind of skeptical. Not because I’m into making bank off my litter-a-churr, but because I’m a little uncomfortable with the whole idea of “gifts,” the latent obligations of them (“dear grandma, thank you for the lizard balls”) and their harrowing ideological weight (“’tis tradition, young man, this gift giving!”). “Gifting” seems to formalize in some unnatural and self-congratulatory (self meaning group self here) way a process that should feel, I don’t know, more humble and altruistic or something. If we want to trade poetry, why can’t we just trade poetry? Maybe it’s just that the whole “gift economy” idea seems to be apologizing to the capitalists (“oh, here it is in a way you can understand, you know Christmas, right? you know about the ‘gift’ of talent?”), and that leaves a shitty aftertaste.
But! Like I said, I’ve never actually read the silly book. And this profile makes Hyde’s philosophy seem really appealing. All the ideas about how we’re communally developed, for instance, and how whatever genius might arise is not unique but accumulated: that sounds good. So maybe I will read the book now. And I’ll like gifts more.
What thinketh the commentariat?
Tags: gift economy, independent literature, literary communities, william hung
I think there’s a slight misunderstanding. Hyde’s basic insight is that a work of art gains value the more it is passed around (think reviewing, teaching the work in classrooms, etc.) unlike most commodities, which lose value from the first point of sale onward. In other words, in the case of art, the “giving” is inherent to the value of the thing. It’s not that we should look at artwork as a gift, per se (with all attendant responsibilities and awkwardness and tension), it’s that “giving” is inherent to its value.
I think there’s a slight misunderstanding. Hyde’s basic insight is that a work of art gains value the more it is passed around (think reviewing, teaching the work in classrooms, etc.) unlike most commodities, which lose value from the first point of sale onward. In other words, in the case of art, the “giving” is inherent to the value of the thing. It’s not that we should look at artwork as a gift, per se (with all attendant responsibilities and awkwardness and tension), it’s that “giving” is inherent to its value.
I meant that final sentence to replace the one before it, not to repeat myself.
I meant that final sentence to replace the one before it, not to repeat myself.
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. That’s not how gifts work, though? I know this is really stupid to harp on this without having read the text, so maybe I will just do that, but I wonder if there is some justification for that particular semantic choice. Or maybe there is a distinction between the gift passed on and the gift kept and “appreciated.”
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. That’s not how gifts work, though? I know this is really stupid to harp on this without having read the text, so maybe I will just do that, but I wonder if there is some justification for that particular semantic choice. Or maybe there is a distinction between the gift passed on and the gift kept and “appreciated.”
My comment has nothing to do with Hyde, but with philosophy and gifts and your feeling about the impurity/uncomfortableness of gifting.
I think if you are interested in a good critique of gifting, take a look at Derrida’s ‘Given Time’. In it he argues that the gift is only really a gift if the giver does not conceive of his action as giving and the receiver does not realize a gift has been given, because in any other circumstances, you’ve entered a relationship of exchange, debt, and obligation (even if only on an internal plane- as in feeling good about yourself for giving anonymously to charity). The very notion of a gift economy, to Derrida, is no longer a question of gifts but of economy. Anyways, that’s not a great summary, but I think it’s an interesting little book and seemed relevant/in line with your intuition.
My comment has nothing to do with Hyde, but with philosophy and gifts and your feeling about the impurity/uncomfortableness of gifting.
I think if you are interested in a good critique of gifting, take a look at Derrida’s ‘Given Time’. In it he argues that the gift is only really a gift if the giver does not conceive of his action as giving and the receiver does not realize a gift has been given, because in any other circumstances, you’ve entered a relationship of exchange, debt, and obligation (even if only on an internal plane- as in feeling good about yourself for giving anonymously to charity). The very notion of a gift economy, to Derrida, is no longer a question of gifts but of economy. Anyways, that’s not a great summary, but I think it’s an interesting little book and seemed relevant/in line with your intuition.
Thanks Ben. I’ll check it out. It sounds exciting. I think I’ve heard some people who I know have read a lot of Derrida saying things like “gifts are aggressive gestures,” so maybe I have come into weird contact with this essay already, though of course all of the thoughts I enjoy having usually were already had by Derrida in a more stylish manner.
Thanks Ben. I’ll check it out. It sounds exciting. I think I’ve heard some people who I know have read a lot of Derrida saying things like “gifts are aggressive gestures,” so maybe I have come into weird contact with this essay already, though of course all of the thoughts I enjoy having usually were already had by Derrida in a more stylish manner.
I like Shya’s explanation. But Derrida’s theory saddens me. I’ve been working on something that tries to understand the suspicion and distrust that kindness evokes. I’ve been working on it forever.
I like Shya’s explanation. But Derrida’s theory saddens me. I’ve been working on something that tries to understand the suspicion and distrust that kindness evokes. I’ve been working on it forever.
Mike, here’s Robert Hass discussing the book, and specifically the idea of the gift economy, in terms of poetry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbUbEA-nWRM
Mike, here’s Robert Hass discussing the book, and specifically the idea of the gift economy, in terms of poetry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbUbEA-nWRM
Hi Mike,
Did you know that cultures around the world have been practicing a form of “gift economy” for many many years?? One that sticks out in my mind is a certain group of islands where leaders would “gift” precious family heirlooms to other leaders and then they would “gift it” to another family leader and so on. This was a way of building relationships among the different islands, forming treaties, basically building community. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
for many other cultural examples. Personally, I think money has separated us from each other and I would like to come up with new mediums of exchange, at least for smaller groups of people, that would allow us to us our personal skills to help others and vice versa. This would be much more pleasant than handing someone a few pieces of paper and metal, or a card made of plastic in a very superficial product exchange. I think poetry could be one of these alternate mediums.
Hi Mike,
Did you know that cultures around the world have been practicing a form of “gift economy” for many many years?? One that sticks out in my mind is a certain group of islands where leaders would “gift” precious family heirlooms to other leaders and then they would “gift it” to another family leader and so on. This was a way of building relationships among the different islands, forming treaties, basically building community. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
for many other cultural examples. Personally, I think money has separated us from each other and I would like to come up with new mediums of exchange, at least for smaller groups of people, that would allow us to us our personal skills to help others and vice versa. This would be much more pleasant than handing someone a few pieces of paper and metal, or a card made of plastic in a very superficial product exchange. I think poetry could be one of these alternate mediums.
The second us above should be use.
The second us above should be use.
An Alternative to Capitalism?
The following link, takes you to a “utopian” article, entitled “Home of the Brave?” which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
An Alternative to Capitalism?
The following link, takes you to a “utopian” article, entitled “Home of the Brave?” which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold