'Gift' and 'commodity' are two entirely separate concepts; definitions might run along the lines of gifts being objects which are freely given with no payment, and commodities are objects for which some payment is received. If this were the case, there would be no problem with Appadurai's statement that the spirit of the two were deeply opposed.

However, the same object can be either gift or commodity in different contexts, not only in separate social groups, but at times in the same group. Both gifts and commodities are used in exchanges, and on the surface, many societies which have gift exchange as their main economic system would seem to an observer to be using a complex barter system where value is so carefully calculated it appears to be commodity exchange. In this situation the distinction between 'gift' and 'commodity' is blurred, and the value placed on the object concerned in a social rather than a monetary context is at issue.

There are examples of societies where gift exchange predominates in anthropological studies covering diverse areas such as Polynesia, and Melanesia or the North West American Indians. From these studies, a certain amount of universality emerges in what constitutes a gift. From this, the first point which emerges is that seldom is a gift freely given. One of the most important factors of gift is that it is an exchange, involving some form of reciprocal gift, although not necessarily immediately. There is also a relationship, usually one of dependence, between the individuals or groups carrying out the exchange. This would take seem to negate the idea that a gift is freely given; if reciprocation is expected, and the gift object becomes part of an exchange, and how then could it be differentiated from, for example, one of Marx's definitions of a commodity

In societies with a well developed gift exchange system, who also have commodity exchange, the difference between the two is usually emphasised locally, with gift exchange being valued more. Any exchange which can be said to be involving commodities rather than gifts tends to take place outside the community, either physically on the borders of the village, or socially in that such exchanges will be with strangers, perhaps members of other races, other villages.

Although gifts have economic purposes, particularly where exchange partners have different skills (vegetables being given, fish received as a reciprocal gift, for example), their 'spirit' is far more likely to be social. Gift exchange can determine hierarchy in a society where the 'bigmen' are ranked by how much they give away. On the other hand, in some societies an individual unable to reciprocate in the gift exchange might reduced to slavery by his creditor. [2]Mauss' studies in Melanesia emphasises the importance of reciprocity in gift exchange; he cites the three obligations that a person is said to have, that of giving, receiving and reciprocating [3]. Thus gifts can be the social glue which holds the society together, particularly if the giving is part of any religious ceremony. These gifts may indeed have a power, that of holding the society together. Without the ritual exchanging of gifts, the geographical separateness of the islands engaged in the kula would have been more at risk from their own values being disrupted by colonial expansion during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Obviously, external economic opportunities have not been ignored; but fishing for fish for exchange purposes took precedence over fishing for pearls for money. This led colonising Europeans to presume that the lack of interest in working for money was linked to laziness, rather than realising that money was of little importance in the gift exchange on which the main economy was based.

Some form of ritualised gift exchange seems to take place in many pre-industrialised societies. The most extreme forms are probably the potlatch a festival like occasion where vast piles of gifts are assembled. This consist in part of debts of former gifts being repaid, part obligatory gifts, part ultimate sacrifice in that at some stage the gifts may be destroyed as Mauss found in the Kwakiutl potlatch. Gregory [4] points out that such destruction is in fact rare, and cites Boas' description that there used to be an aspect of 'interest- bearing investment', as the original donor would expect to receive far more from the potlatch that he had originally given. In this sense, gift exchangers were seen to be in the early stages of capitalism. However, there is some argument as to whether Boas was correct in his interpretation of this, that it is the amount given away, rather than the objects accumulated which counts in these societies. Gregory quotes both Pospisil's and Meggit's data which shows more prestige is accumulated by the 'bigmen' in the amount they are owed by others rather than in the amount they have accumulated

Even in a society where no formal rules about gift exchange are set out, there is a necessary element of self-interest involved in giving gifts. In a hunter-gatherer economy, food is shared during times of plenty as an insurance policy, so that those you have shared your meat with will share theirs with you. A hunter may have be obliged to give gifts of meat to his relatives, or his wife's parents, which ensures that the weakest in the community survive regardless of their ability.

The competitive nature of gift exchange in some societies ensures that there is more likely to be an increase in the amount of gifts given over time; bridewealth, interpreted by Gregory as the net flow of gifts to a brides parents in the exchange of gifts at weddings has increased dramatically this century in Papua New Guinea. Bridewealth and dowry are cases where the distinction between gift and commodity are difficult to distinguish. It may seem to an outsider that the woman is being sold, in the case of bridewealth, although Lévi-Strauss emphasises that women are gifts rather than commodities in this exchange... However, attitude in the gift exchange is all important; without the necessary attitude, the gift exchange becomes one of trade, the attitude of the market place. This is looked down on , and an individual would lose prestige if he seemed to be participating in an exchange with a less than reverent attitude or if there is any hint of bartering. In situations other than an exchange of marriage gifts, this might involve an individual accepting items for which he has no use, other than to pass on as gifts to others. There is no equivalent to this in an economy based on commodities

Although there are descriptions of 'spirits' supposedly present in the gifts, the hau or mana present in the Melanesian or Maori gifts could be said to represent the spirit in which the gift are made, just as much as any actual spirit of the objects themselves. Mauss describes the spirit as a power forcing the gifts to be passed on; some objects, such as necklaces and amulets made from shells, are regarded by the Trobriand islanders as having special power, being imbued with something of the soul of the original owner, and are passed on according to strict rules, each one of these objects being individually named. In a similar way, copper objects are used in the North American potlatch, each having its own power, being said to speak. [5] No matter how fanciful this may sound, the common belief that this is true within the society would ensure that the practice of circulating gifts, without any individual hoarding would continue. If an individual is firmly convinced that the hau of an unreciprocated gift has the power to harm him, even to the extent of killing him, this belief will in all probability contribute more to the harmony of a community than a belief that the more commodity goods an individual has, the richer he is. In encouraging values of sharing, gift exchange discourages envy, theft, and other anti-social behaviour.

Sahlins emphasises the fear element involved in much reciprocation. Although we have the supposed 'voluntary' nature of the original gift, much reciprocation is undertaken out of fear; this might be a comparatively minor fear, as in the !Kung's worry that they might be called 'stingy', the losing of face at being unable to give a gift of equal or greater value, up to a fear for one's life. This necessity of giving gifts to ensure peace within the community is acknowledged by the !Kung

In some instances the purposes of gift exchange is definitely opposed to the purpose of commodity exchange. Particularly in the exchange of gifts at marriage, gift exchange tends towards cementing kinship ties.in the bringing together of different sets of relatives, the exchange of gifts form a 'link of kinship'. [7]

The Melanesian system of gift exchange,kula, is carried out not just between kinship groups, but as an inter- and intra- island activity, with long journeys being undertaken simply for this purpose. Here, the gift fulfils the purpose of preventing war. Mauss quotes Hobbes view that man in his natural state has a tendency towards war, and the gift exchange can be said to form an early type of diplomatic alliance which ensures peace. Ultimate sanctions are imposed, in that refusal to exchange, or refusal of another's gift, could be seen as a declaration of war. [8] Giving and receiving gifts in these circumstances become a duty; not just food and property, but women given in marriage, or children given to other kin to raise, become part of an exchange circle which has the effect of ensuring peace within the area that the exchange takes place. Malinowski compares the ritual of the kula to the development of a primitive international law, where a set of societies, all differing slightly in their values and customs, have managed through the means of gift exchange to establish a permanent economic harmony.[9] Returning to Hobbes ideas, Marshall Sahlins describes the act of giving as 'a kind of social contract for the primitives' [10]; Regardless of how different gifts and commodities might be in themselves, trade agreements have probably contributed more to peace than any other form of political contract. As Sahlins points out, before trade can take place, an individual first has to lay down his spear. [11].

Mauss indicates a different concept of ownership is present in societies which have customs of gift exchange [12]; an object given is only 'owned' in order to be passed on, not for hoarding, or to be used as wealth. The sense of acquisition other than acquiring prestige is absent. Obviously, for a society to 'progress' to an early form of capitalism, where commodity exchange begins to take precedence, this concept of ownership would have to change. Malinowski emphasises that the Trobriand islanders, for example, have a concept of possession, that wealth relates to the accumulation of possessions, but there is the parallel belief that those who possess wealth have a duty and an obligation to share and redistribute it. [13] This is contrary to the industrialised societies' concept of wealth.With economics based on commodity exchange, there is no obligation to be fair; in any form of absolutely impersonal exchange, both parties are attempting to get the maximum benefit from the transaction. In some communities, this is specifically forbidden within the community itself; Sahlins quotes the Jewish restriction on usury between kin. [14]

Contact with trading nations might be expected to blur the difference between gift and commodity in primitive communities; also it might be said that gift exchange is simply one end of a continuum which has the full blown commodity fetishism of industrial capitalism at its other extreme. The notion of value is carefully calculated in gift exchange; the size of a pig given, the number of bananas, all must be repaid with equal or greater size or number. With commodity exchange, there is on the one hand the notion of exact value; haggling is a social ritual, both sides knowing the exact worth of the bargain they hope to make. Buying and selling has a different social shape to gift exchange. There is no dependency, no relationship between the partners in the transaction beyond the purely economic. The development of 'money' or some item by which comparable value can be calculated, such as blankets in American Indians or necklaces and bracelets in the kula exchange seems to be a necessary part of the evolution to commodity exchange.

There are, within most communities, objects which can never become commodities; there are, for example, injunctions against the trading of staple foodstuffs within the community among the Pomo, Lesu and Alaskan Inupiat, according to Sahlins, [15]. There is a tendency to believe that there is nothing that some individuals would not sell; to say within this society that someone would sell his own grandmother is hardly a compliment. It is regarded as unacceptable in Britain, apart from relatives, to sell donor organs, to sell children (surrogate parenthood even as a 'gift' is viewed with suspicion); yet in other societies, individuals have sold their kidneys or their children so that the rest of their family might survive. In Britain, however, there would probably be unpleasant social consequences for an individual who refused to donate a kidney or bone marrow to a relative in need.

Appadurai's statement that 'the spirit of the gift and the spirit of the commodity are deeply opposed' [16] is not just specific to the attitude of pre-industrial economies; the spirit of suspicion and distrust with which trade was viewed obviously lessens as 'needs' are introduced into the community, for tobacco, knives, outboard motors, guns. The object needed becomes worth however many items have to be exchanged for it - and all the objects involved have a labour cost attached to them . The relationship with the person offering the item for exchange is of little importance in the transaction, and the original 'owner' of the labour which produced the objects on either side of the transaction might be half a world away. Rather than enhancing social relationships, the commodity exchanged has the power to destroy them by provoking envy and possibly a sense of alienation in its original producer if not between the individuals concerned in the immediate transaction. There is a detachment involved on both sides, and this is the opposing spirit that Appadurai's statement implied.

Footnotes (these are being formatted & will be linked in the text)

Bibliography

M. Mauss The Gift

M Sahlins Stone Age Economics

A Appadurai The Social Life of Things

C Gregory Gifts to Men and Gifts to Gods from Man Vol 15 no 4 1980

K Hart Commodization in E Goody From Craft to Industry

B Malinowski Argonauts of the Western Pacific