선물경제 A Gift Economy

[논둑길맨발로]

인간은 기본적으로 이기적 존재이고, 그들의 경제행위는 합리적 이윤추구 동기에서 비롯되고, 이러한 개인의 이기적 욕망이 수렴되는 시장은 자기조절 기능을 갖는다는 것이 근대 자본주의 경제학이 설파하는 핵심적 주장입니다. 그러나 이것은 근대 자본주의적 생산관계 또는 사회관계 속에서 형성되는 인간의 모습을 본능으로 치환해서 인간을 정의한 관견에 불과합니다.
인간 역사를 기록이 시작된 시대를 벗어나 선사시대까지 포함하는 전체를, 자본주의를 잉태한 서구 사회를 넘어 전지구적 차원에서 고찰할 때, 인간의 경제행위는 단순한 이기심이 아닌 명예, 사회적 인정과 같은 공동체의 공감적 측면를 빼고 설명할 수 없다는 사실과 곧 마주치게 됩니다. 인간 역사의 98%를 점하는 선사시대를 산 인간들의 행위를 이기심의 잣대로 설명할 수 없음은 자명합니다.그리고 사유재산과 국가가 발생한 역사시대에 있어서도 이기심에 반하는 경제동기로 유지되는 사회가 계속 발견되고 연구되고 있습니다. 그 대표적인 예가 아메리카 북서 지역에서 발전한 potlach 와 남태평양 제도의 쿨라 선물경제입니다. 저는 조선 양반사회의 선물과 증여문화도 이런 선물경제의 일환으로 해석될 수 있다고 봅니다.

우리는 현재 눈앞에서 허물어지는 자본주의를 목도하고 있습니다. 코로나-19 사태는 영원할 것 같은 근대문명의 허상을, 화려한 상품과 기술의 장막 뒤에 숨겨져 있는 자본주의의 발가벗은 모습을 폭로하고 있습니다. 인간보다는 이윤을, 자연보다는 상품을, 공동체적 협동보다는 개인의 이기심을 조장하는 사회가 야기하는 모순의 막장의 혼란상이 적나라하게 드러나고 있습니다. 이 위기는 결코 일회적 사건이 아닙니다.
개인의 이기심과 이윤동기로 추동되는 사회가 새로운 사회로 대체될 때까지 이 위기는 더욱 심화될 것으로 전망되고 있습니다. 이 시대를 살아가는 사람들, 또 앞으로의 미래세대는 이 엄청난 역사의 업보로 큰 고통을 겪게 될 것은 피할 수 없는 운명이 되었습니다.
새로운 역사적 상상력이 절실히 필요한 시기입니다. 자본주의가 어떤 모습의 사회로 대체될지는 알 수 없습니다. 그러나 한가지 분명한 사실은 지구상의 모든 생명체의 행복이 보장되는 생태계의 조화와 소수가 아닌 전체 인간의 삶의 질의 고양이 변화의 방향을 가늠하는 척도가 되어야 할 것입니다.

자본주의적 이기적 삶을 뛰어넘을 수 있는 새로운 삶의 연대가 절실히 필요한 시대입니다.


선물경제 A Gift Economy

Gift economy

A gift economy or gift culture is a mode of exchange where valuables are not traded or sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards.[1] Social norms and customs govern gifting in a gift culture, gifts are not given in an explicit exchange of goods or services for money, or some other commodity or service.[2] This contrasts with a barter economy or a market economy, where goods and services are primarily explicitly exchanged for value received.
The nature of gift economies forms the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology. Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's description of the Kula ring[3] in the Trobriand Islands during World War I.[4] The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return. Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.[5][6]
According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between market and non-market exchange that attracts the most attention. Gift economies are said, by some,[7] to build communities, with the market serving as an acid on those relationships.[8]
Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of exchange" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies must also be differentiated from several closely related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.

Principles of gift exchangeEdit
According to anthropologist Jonathan Parry, discussion on the nature of gifts, and of a separate sphere of gift exchange that would constitute an economic system, has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the gift applied as if it were a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal. However, he claims that anthropologists, through analysis of a variety of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists.[9] His classic summation of the gift exchange debate highlighted that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from non-market "prestations".[10] According to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early classic debate between Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss demonstrated.[5][6] Gift exchange is frequently "embedded" in political, kin, or religious institutions, and therefore does not constitute an "economic" system per se.[11]

Property and alienabilityEdit

Gift-giving is a form of transfer of property rights over particular objects. The nature of those property rights varies from society to society, from culture to culture, and are not universal. The nature of gift-giving is thus altered by the type of property regime in place.[12]
Property is not a thing, but a relationship amongst people about things.[13] According to Chris Hann, property is a social relationship that governs the conduct of people with respect to the use and disposition of things. Anthropologists analyze these relationships in terms of a variety of actors' (individual or corporate) "bundle of rights" over objects.[12] An example is the current debates around intellectual property rights.[14][15][16][17][18] Hann and Strangelove both give the example of a purchased book (an object that he owns), over which the author retains a "copyright". Although the book is a commodity, bought and sold, it has not been completely "alienated" from its creator who maintains a hold over it; the owner of the book is limited in what he can do with the book by the rights of the creator.[19][20] Weiner has argued that the ability to give while retaining a right to the gift/commodity is a critical feature of the gifting cultures described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains, for example, why some gifts such as Kula valuables return to their original owners after an incredible journey around the Trobriand islands. The gifts given in Kula exchange still remain, in some respects, the property of the giver.[6]
In the example used above, "copyright" is one of those bundled rights that regulate the use and disposition of a book. Gift-giving in many societies is complicated because "private property" owned by an individual may be quite limited in scope (see § The commons below).[12] Productive resources, such as land, may be held by members of a corporate group (such as a lineage), but only some members of that group may have "use rights". When many people hold rights over the same objects gifting has very different implications than the gifting of private property; only some of the rights in that object may be transferred, leaving that object still tied to its corporate owners. Anthropologist Annette Weiner refers to these types of objects as "inalienable possessions" and to the process as "keeping while giving".[6]

Gift vs. prestationEdit



A Kula necklace, with its distinctive red shell-disc beads, from the Trobriand Islands.

Malinowski's study of the Kula ring[21] became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don", 1925).[5] In Parry's view, Malinowski placed the emphasis on the exchange of goods between individuals, and their non-altruistic motives for giving the gift: they expected a return of equal or greater value. Malinowski stated that reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting; he contended there is no such thing as the "free gift" given without expectation.[22]
Mauss, in contrast, emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivities. These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation". A prestation is a service provided out of a sense of obligation, like "community service".[23] They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation, history and sense of identity of a "corporate kin group", such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift". Parry believes that a good part of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the very relationship between givers alive; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.
Both Malinowski and Mauss agreed that in non-market societies, where there was no clear institutionalized economic exchange system, gift/prestation exchange served economic, kinship, religious and political functions that could not be clearly distinguished from each other, and which mutually influenced the nature of the practice.[22]

Inalienable possessionsEdit



Watercolor by James G. Swan depicting the Klallam people of chief Chetzemoka at Port Townsend, with one of Chetzemoka's wives distributing potlatch.

Mauss' concept of "total prestations" was further developed by Annette Weiner, who revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands. Her critique was twofold: first, Trobriand Island society is matrilineal, and women hold a great deal of economic and political power. Their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski. Secondly, she developed Mauss' argument about reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving."[6] Weiner contrasts "moveable goods" which can be exchanged with "immoveable goods" that serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand case, male Kula gifts with women's landed property). She argues that the specific goods given, like Crown Jewels, are so identified with particular groups, that even when given, they are not truly alienated. Not all societies, however, have these kinds of goods, which depend upon the existence of particular kinds of kinship groups. French anthropologist Maurice Godelier[24] pushed the analysis further in "The Enigma of the Gift" (1999). Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier (including the Kula ring in the Trobriands, the Potlatch of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, and the Toraja of South Sulawesi, Indonesia) are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit with Claude Lévi-Strauss' model of "House Societies" (where "House" refers to both noble lineage and their landed estate). Total prestations are given, he argues, to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain their place in a ranked society.[25]

Reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift"Edit

According to Chris Gregory reciprocity is a dyadic exchange relationship that we characterize, imprecisely, as gift-giving. Gregory believes that one gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in order to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He also claimed that in order for such a relationship to persist, there must be a time lag between the gift and counter-gift; one or the other partner must always be in debt, or there is no relationship. Marshall Sahlins has stated that birthday gifts are an example of this.[26][page needed] Sahlins notes that birthday presents are separated in time so that one partner feels the obligation to make a return gift; and to forget the return gift may be enough to end the relationship. Gregory has stated that without a relationship of debt, there is no reciprocity, and that this is what distinguishes a gift economy from a "true gift" given with no expectation of return (something Sahlins calls "generalized reciprocity": see below).[27]
Marshall Sahlins, an American cultural anthropologist, identified three main types of reciprocity in his book Stone Age Economics (1972). Gift or generalized reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services without keeping track of their exact value, but often with the expectation that their value will balance out over time. Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at a specified amount, time, and place. Market or Negative reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services where each party intends to profit from the exchange, often at the expense of the other. Gift economies, or generalized reciprocity, occurred within closely knit kin groups, and the more distant the exchange partner, the more balanced or negative the exchange became.[26]
Within the virtual world, the proliferation of public domain content, Creative Common Licences, and Open Source projects have also contributed to what might be considered an economics game changer variable.[28]

Charity, debt, and the "poison of the gift"Edit

Jonathan Parry has argued that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise only in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from the non-market "prestations" discussed above.[10] Parry also underscored, using the example of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna), that the "pure gift" of alms given with no expectation of return could be "poisonous". That is, the gift of alms embodying the sins of the giver, when given to ritually pure priests, saddled these priests with impurities that they could not cleanse themselves of. "Pure gifts", given without a return, can place recipients in debt, and hence in dependent status: the poison of the gift.[29] David Graeber points out that no reciprocity is expected between unequals: if you make a gift of a dollar to a beggar, he will not give it back the next time you meet. More than likely, he will ask for more, to the detriment of his status.[30] Many who are forced by circumstances to accept charity feel stigmatized. In the Moka exchange system of Papua New Guinea, where gift givers become political "big men", those who are in their debt and unable to repay with "interest" are referred to as "rubbish men".
The French writer Georges Bataille, in La part Maudite, uses Mauss's argument in order to construct a theory of economy: the structure of gift is the presupposition for all possible economy. Bataille is particularly interested in the potlatch as described by Mauss, and claims that its agonistic character obliges the receiver of the gift to confirm‎‎‎ their own subjection. Gift-giving thus embodies the Hegelian dipole of master and slave within the act.

Spheres of exchange and "economic systems"Edit

The relationship of new market exchange systems to indigenous non-market exchange remained a perplexing question for anthropologists. Paul Bohannan argued that the Tiv of Nigeria had three spheres of exchange, and that only certain kinds of goods could be exchanged in each sphere; each sphere had its own different form of special purpose money. However, the market and universal money allowed goods to be traded between spheres and thus served as an acid on established social relationships.[31] Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch, argued in "Money and the Morality of Exchange" (1989), that the "transactional order" through which long-term social reproduction of the family takes place has to be preserved as separate from short-term market relations.[32] It is the long-term social reproduction of the family that is sacralized by religious rituals such baptisms, weddings and funerals, and characterized by gifting.
In such situations where gift-giving and market exchange were intersecting for the first time, some anthropologists contrasted them as polar opposites. This opposition was classically expressed by Chris Gregory in his book "Gifts and Commodities" (1982). Gregory argued that

Commodity exchange is an exchange of alienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal independence that establishes a quantitative relationship between the objects exchanged … Gift exchange is an exchange of inalienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal dependence that establishes a qualitative relationship between the transactors (emphasis added).[33]

Gregory contrasts gift and commodity exchange according to five criteria:[34]
Commodity exchangeGift exchangeimmediate exchangedelayed exchangealienable goodsinalienable goodsactors independentactors dependentquantitative relationshipqualitative relationshipbetween objectsbetween people
Other anthropologists, however, refused to see these different "exchange spheres" as such polar opposites. Marilyn Strathern, writing on a similar area in Papua New Guinea, dismissed the utility of the contrasting setup in "The Gender of the Gift" (1988).[35]



Wedding rings: commodity or pure gift?

Rather than emphasize how particular kinds of objects are either gifts or commodities to be traded in restricted spheres of exchange, Arjun Appadurai and others began to look at how objects flowed between these spheres of exchange (i.e. how objects can be converted into gifts and then back into commodities). They refocussed attention away from the character of the human relationships formed through exchange, and placed it on "the social life of things" instead. They examined the strategies by which an object could be "singularized" (made unique, special, one-of-a-kind) and so withdrawn from the market. A marriage ceremony that transforms a purchased ring into an irreplaceable family heirloom is one example; the heirloom, in turn, makes a perfect gift. Singularization is the reverse of the seemingly irresistible process of commodification. They thus show how all economies are a constant flow of material objects that enter and leave specific exchange spheres. A similar approach is taken by Nicholas Thomas, who examines the same range of cultures and the anthropologists who write on them, and redirects attention to the "entangled objects" and their roles as both gifts and commodities.[36]

ProscriptionsEdit

Many societies have strong prohibitions against turning gifts into trade or capital goods. Anthropologist Wendy James writes that among the Uduk people of northeast Africa there is a strong custom that any gift that crosses subclan boundaries must be consumed rather than invested.[37]:4 For example, an animal given as a gift must be eaten, not bred. However, as in the example of the Trobriand armbands and necklaces, this "perishing" may not consist of consumption as such, but of the gift moving on. In other societies, it is a matter of giving some other gift, either directly in return or to another party. To keep the gift and not give another in exchange is reprehensible. "In folk tales," Lewis Hyde remarks, "the person who tries to hold onto a gift usually dies."[37]:5
Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied the small Pirahã tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,[38] reported that, while they are aware of food preservation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy


2. 선물경제 사례
2-1 potlatch

Potlatch


Potlatch Ceremony - Distribution of Gifts
The Native American Potlatch. Discover facts and information about the culture of Native American Indians and their belief in the power of the Potlatch

The Potlatch and Native American Indian tribes

Definition of a Potlatch

The Potlatch and religious beliefs

Interesting facts and information about Potlatch and the culture and beliefs of Native American Indians

Native American CultureNative Indian Tribes Index

The Potlatch
Definition of Potlatch: What is Potlatch? A Potlatch is an opulent ceremonial feast to celebrate an important event held by tribes of Northwest Indians of North America including the Tlingit, Tsimishian, Haida, Coast Salish and the Chinook people. A Potlatch is characterized by a ceremony in which possessions are given away, or destroyed, to display wealth, generosity and enhance prestige. The term 'Potlatch' has been corrupted from a Nootka Indian word meaning "gift". The Nootka, now referred to by the name Nuu-chah-nulth, are one of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada. Many other tribes, especially among the Plains Indians, have traditionally practiced some form of potlatch, or give-away ceremonies and customs, highlighted by the lavish distribution of goods and food to tribe members of those of other clans, villages, or tribes.

The Potlatch - An Alien Concept
The concept of the Potlatch custom is difficult to comprehend by those who do not share the culture and beliefs of Native American Indians. The early European settlers found the custom impossible to comprehend, they literally came from different worlds and the idea of giving away possessions was a totally alien concept, in fact it still is. The beliefs of the people and the reasons behind the concept of the Potlatch need to be considered to enable a clearer understanding of this custom.
The Potlatch - A Gift Economy
The Potlatch was the basis of a Gift Economy as opposed to a a barter economy or a market economy. The gift economy was developed under the auspices of the Potlatch ceremony in which voluntary and recurring gift exchange circulates and redistributes wealth throughout a community building collective ties and obligations.
The Potlatch - Transfer of Titles and Privileges
High ranking chiefs possessed numerous titles, prerogatives, rights and privileges, and held many potlatch ceremonies. During a potlatch ceremony, the social status of the host was elevated and many of his rights and privileges were transferred, often to children. The guests who attended a Potlatch feast publicly witnessed and confirmed the validity of the new changes in status.

The Potlatch - Beliefs and Customs
The beliefs and customs of the Native American tribes who practised Potlatch ceremonies and rituals was based upon a sense of communal responsibility and the democratic beliefs of the tribes. This was characterized by social equality and a demonstration of the legitimacy of the men who were elected as tribal leaders. A man elected to a leadership position was given the stewardship, rather than ownership, of the wealth of a tribe. He was also expected to give away his possessions so as not to be able to profit materially from his new position. The basic concept and ideals of Potlatch prevented corruption in high places of trust and power. A Potlatch ceremony also provided recognition of new social status within the tribe.
Reasons for a Potlatch celebrating new Positions and Social Status
There were some regional variations between the tribes who practised a custom similar to Potlatch but these are the main reasons for these ceremonies:

Redistribution of wealth and rank within the community

Recognition of new social status

Confirm‎‎‎ing the validity of new positions

Emphasizing the principle of stewardship as opposed to ownership

Preventing corruption or abuse of power

Gain respect from the people

https://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/native-american-culture/potlatch.htm

더 자세한 정보
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

(동영상)
https://youtu.be/jKPMkJRi_dU

2.Kula Ring

2-1 wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kula_ring

2-2. (동영상)Economy, definition, Kula and potlach

https://youtu.be/7Str3

3. 조선 양반사회의 선물경제