This really should be the inaugural post, and if not for my desire to explain and to provide context, it would be.
In planning the wedding, I have been dreading the subject of the gift registry. Should we register for gifts? We don’t need anything, and given the state of the economy, it seems a burden on our guests to ask for a plate worth more than our couch. Further, the entire wedding industry, registries included, have become so excessive, so much about conspicuous consumption, gross expenditure, and the accumulation of material goods, that perhaps, as a political move, we could decide simply not to engage with that. We could provide charities or causes that are important to us and suggest donations to those good organizations doing excellent work.
But I remained uncomfortable with the thought of forcing my priorities and interests on others. And I knew that for certain guests, grandparents and older aunts among them, that very materiality of a gift mattered. It is not the same to donate $50 to a literacy program or an environmental organization as it is to purchase a serving bowl that will be used, year in and year out, on a regular basis, on holidays and everyday, and that will be a part of our lives together. The thing matters.
I was at an impasse.
Meanwhile, this week I’ve been reading The Gift, by Marcel Mauss, where he discusses the concept of the gift. Or, more properly, the gift economy. In some societies, the giving, receiving, and reciprocating of gifts are the basis of the economy. However, this exchange is more than economic; it incorporates legal, moral, political, aesthetic, and religious elements. It is a foundational element of the society; colloquially, it is the glue that keeps things together or the oil that keeps the parts moving. The gift is not voluntarily given; rather, it is crucial for the maintenance of peaceful social relations. As he points out, “to refuse to give, to fail to invite, just as to refuse to accept, is tantamount to declaring war; it is to reject the bond of alliance and commonality” (Mauss 13).
The system is a self perpetuating one. A gift is given, it is received, and it is reciprocated in time. It is imperative to reciprocate because the receiver of the gift is placed in the debt of the giver. The gift entails an obligation; it has strings attached. In order to repay the debt, to remove oneself from that relation of obligation, the gift must be reciprocated.
Significantly, the exchange is not immediate, but occurs over time, during which, through these obligations, debts, and ties, the two communities, tribes, or even individuals, are linked in a social relationship. It is through this endlessly oscillating cycle that social relations are maintained, kinship established, and daily life can continue.
Upon returning to the essay, making notes, and considering these thoughts on exchange with respect to my own work, I was struck with the link to the wedding.
The problem perhaps with the modern registry is not that it exists, but the way it places the focus on the desires and wants of the couple, rather than emphasizing the way in which each gift entails a relationship between giver and receiver. A relationship not merely to be marked with a thank you note, but one that endures over time. The thing itself does matter. More precisely, it matters not because the specific plate or bowl does, but because in that act of accepting, a relation is forged, a community is created, a bond is strengthened.
So, we will register for gifts, for things that we would like, for items that will populate our daily life. But we will register not for these things as things, but for the continued links they provide to those who are important to us.
- Pen
No comments:
Post a Comment