Gift Giving and the Emotional Significance of Family and Friends

Abstract

Gift exchange has been studied mainly by anthropologists. The work of Malinowski and Sahlins suggests a relationship between the closeness of social relationships and the purity of the gift (the extent to which it is given as an expression of sympathy and without concrete expectations of returns). This article examines gift giving in Western society. An emotional hierarchy of different social relationships was constructed on the basis of an analysis of feelings accompanying gift giving. The results suggest that friendships are emotionally more important than ties to extended kin. Key Words: family, friendship relationships, gift giving. Gift giving is the cement of social relationships. A range of feelings may be involved in gift giving. A gift, for instance, may be inspired by sympathetic feelings or feelings of being involved in someone else's life. In other cases, feelings of being morally obliged to another person may play a role. One feels indebted toward this person because he or she has done us a favor, rendered us a service, or given us a gift. Gift exchange has mainly been studied in the context of non-Western cultures. Anthropologists like Malinowski (1922), Levi-Strauss (1949/ 1969), and Sahlins (1972) emphasized that gift exchange fulfills important functions in the development and continuity of society and culture. They pointed to feelings of moral obligation involved in gift giving (do ut des or I give so that you give in return), and they demonstrated how obligations may lead to patterns of reciprocity in gift exchange. Sociologists have contributed to theories of gift exchange, too. Gouldner (1973a, 1973b), for example, made a distinction between two different norms of gift exchange-one oriented to reciprocity and another, more altruistic norm. Underlying these theoretical approaches is the relative share of gift giving, characterized by the absence or vagueness of expectations of return gifts, versus gift giving based on clear-cut expectations of reciprocity or feelings of mutual obligation. For example, Malinowski and Sahlins assume that the nearer the social relationship, the less a gift resembles an economic or quid pro quo transaction and the purer the feelings accompanying these gifts. Malinowski mentions as examples gifts that parents give to their offspring and gifts given by marriage partners to each other. The greater the emotional distance, the less pure the concomitant feelings of disinterestedness, sympathy, or involvement, and the stronger the feelings of reciprocal obligation and quid pro quo. In this article, we examine the extent to which the relation suggested by anthropologists between the purity of the gift and the degree of distance of the social relationships involved holds for a Dutch sample, who responded to a questionnaire about gift giving in the Netherlands in 1992 (Komter & Schuyt, 1993). Gift giving might be considered a good indicator of emotional involvement in family and friends because it is such a tangible and concrete and, therefore, measurable expression of feeling toward other people. Are different types of feelings involved in giving gifts to family and friends? Have friendship networks taken over some of the function and meaning of family ties? THE GIFT Theoretical and Empirical Backgrounds In Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), Malinowski offers a detailed description of the pattern of ceremonial gift exchange among the population of the Trobriand archipelago. He proposes that a continuum of feelings are involved in gift giving. Pure gifts, altruistic gifts for which nothing is expected in return, and gifts that can be characterized as barter or forms of exchange where personal profit is the dominant motive are the exceptions. Most typical are motives that lie between these extremes. More or less equivalent reciprocity, characterized by clear expectations of returns, is the general rule underlying gift exchange. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 83 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.