The Social Economy is a Gift Economy
Posted by austin under Akoha, Community, Grass Root Conversations, Social Web
Whenever I get into a new business I study it pretty extensively. I read everything I can get my hands on and spend time with a lot of experts to be able to make new connections, form my own opinions and re-think how and why things might work once a new product or service is introduced. A lot of my opinions of the social media industry is based on my research of community, economics and anthropology.
My study of gift economies started with the work of Marcel Mauss and formed a lot of my thinking of how our social economies work. The participatory nature of our social playgrounds are powered by reciprocity. By social playgrounds I refer to places such as Flickr, Facebook, blogs, Digg, MySpace, Last.Fm, Twitter, Wikipedia, Second Life which are just a few places people gather to express themselves and interact. Reciprocal exchange power each of these communities. This act of reciprocal exchange is described in a concept called ‘total prestation’. This is from the Wikipedia entry on Mauss theories.
In his classic work The Gift, Mauss argued that gifts are never “free”. Rather, human history is full of examples that gifts give rise to reciprocal exchange. The famous question that drove his inquiry into the anthropology of the gift was: “What power resides in the object given that causes its recipient to pay it back?” (1990:3). The answer is simple: the gift is a “total prestation”, imbued with “spiritual mechanisms”, engaging the honour of both giver and receiver (the term “total prestation” or “total social fact” (fait social total) was coined by his student Maurice Leenhardt after Durkheim’s social fact). Such transactions transcend the divisions between the spiritual and the material in a way that according to Mauss is almost “magical”. The giver does not merely give an object but also part of himself, for the object is indissolubly tied to the giver: “the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them” (1990:31). Because of this bond between giver and gift, the act of giving creates a social bond with an obligation to reciprocate on part of the recipient. To not reciprocate means to lose honour and status, but the spiritual implications can be even worse: in Polynesia, failure to reciprocate means to lose mana, one’s spiritual source of authority and wealth. Mauss distinguished between three obligations: giving - the necessary initial step for the creation and maintenance of social relationships; receiving, for to refuse to receive is to reject the social bond; and reciprocating in order to demonstrate one’s own liberality, honour and wealth.
Gift economies typically manifest in cultures that enjoy economics of abundance and who have rapidly climbed Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. If you are looking into the future, our technological advancements will add more power to these changes and will start to affect more industries.
Tara Hunt who stopped by Akoha for a recent visit while she was in Montreal, wrote a great post on how gift economies are helping her build Citizen Agency.
These are interesting times and we have only just begun to see what kind of services and new opportunities will be created, as old economic models based on scarcity are replaced.
13 Responses to “ The Social Economy is a Gift Economy ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from hughmcguire.net · gift economies & librivox
July 19th, 2007 at 9:06 am[...] a founder of the top-secret start-up Akoha.org, has a post about gift economies, which I commented on. He got me thinking and, I left a long rambly comment, which I’d like [...]
-
Pingback from hughmcguire.net · expensive academic journals
July 21st, 2007 at 8:35 am[...] had a brief exchange about some of these issues with Alexandre in the comment thread of one of Austin’s posts… talking about just this issue, more or less: that anthropolists have much to tell us/much to [...]
-
Pingback from Get your Whuffie on - Social Reputations | Akoha - Play it Forward
April 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm[...] study of gift economies have been one of the many inspirations for themes and activities in Akoha. When designing the [...]


July 19th, 2007 at 6:05 am
one crucial point about online gift economies (and perhaps other gift economies too): the reciprocation is rarely one-to-one. this i think is why we are able to be accomplish so much in online free projects. you give your bit to a sense of collective benefit, in part in the expectation that others (but certainly not everyone) will do the same, making the whole project better.
so for wikipedia, people contribute without any expectation that any particular reader will contribute back. i don’t know what the editor/reader ratios are (for wikitravel it’s 1:50, i imagine much bigger for wikipedia). still, in a sense I receive from wikipedia, gain benefit, recognize that benefit, and *maybe* I contribute back, to wikipedia…but i don’t expect everyone to do that.
this is certainly the case for LibriVox, where there is no expectation that any particular listener will record. however that is really the key to our success: any listener *can* record, and we actively hope that they do…not because we want our efforts reciprocated, but more importantly because every new contributor/book adds to our collective achievement, each new recording reflects well on all our other efforts.
“i have listened, i have appreciated your effort, and i have appreciated so much, that i am willing to put the effort into recording as well.”
and all of us get the joy of participating in a project that is getting bigger, and better …something that reflects back on each of us as volunteers.
hmm. so for librivox, every new volunteer/recording is an explicit “validation” (not sure what that meaningless word means…) of what we are doing. not payment as such, but that the effort all of us have put in is reciprocated by efforts that others are willing to make, we can measure in some concrete way the “value” of the effort that has been made to date. that is, it is “worth” the effort that will be made in the future. interesting… which again is why we spend so much time defending/protecting the readers, and little time worrying about what the listener has to say. because for us the true measure of value associated with librivox is not at all how many people listen, but how many people record.
and that is the difference between us and a commercial company. our value is defined by participation; while a commercial approach measures value by use.
sorry, this is a ramble, just thinking thru these ideas as i write…. i’ll have to write this up in some more detail.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Yet another example of what anthropology can provide in terms of insight into human minds.
(Sorry… couldn’t resist!)
July 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
so, where are the good anthropological studies looking at the evolution of online communities versus the evolution of human society in general (and vice versa)? all sorts of fantastic research to be done there.
that’s not sarcastic, by the way, i really wonder why there are not armies of philosophers and anthropologists and political scientists etc. studying online communities for clues about how human societies evolve, and clues about how online societies will evolve.
it’s not as if the online world invents anything, we just use different technologies to do the things humans do.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Those studies are likely available in academic journal although those anthropologists who study human evolution aren’t typically the same anthropologists who study online communities. Kind of a nature/nurture going on there…
July 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
so, what you’re saying is that anthropologists “*can* provide … insight into human minds,” but that they are choosing not to?
sorry, can’t resist! two of my bugbears are: academics and proprietary academic journals that do not publish free online; and academia that is so caught up in self-referencing academic research minutea/navel-gazing that they can’t get their acts together to study the really interesting things that are going on in the world right now.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:21 am
Oops! Should have been more careful in my comment.
Actually, what I was referring to is the fact that cultural anthropologists are likely to talk about online communities and many of them do so, on blogs as well as in academic contexts (from mailing-lists to academic journals). But cultural anthropologists avoid issues of “evolution” as much we can. It’s with biological anthropologists that you can talk about evolution but they’re somewhat unlikely to talk about online communities.
I understand your pet peeves and Open Access is one of very few issues about which I can almost become an “activist.” But it’s also a different issue.
Although… Michael Wesch, who published that video about “Web 2.0″ (”The Machine Is Us/ing Us”) is also a proponent of Open Access.
BTW, if you want to find blogging anthropologists, you could start with Lorenz’s list. For instance, the collaborative blog Savage Minds has frequent posts on online communities.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Fascinating post. I didn’t know about Mauss and found the deeper explanation interesting. ‘Magical’ to me would encompass the spiritual and the material with interplay between the two realms instead of the proposed ‘transcendence’.
Moreover, I believe that in this framework, the intentions of the parties are of crucial importance. For instance, these would be perversions of the system:
1. Giving for the sole purpose of receiving something return
2. Reciprocating for the sole purpose of getting rid of the duty and the person, or of conserving one’s mana
3. Receiving without mentioning that there’s a possibility of not being able to reciprocate in the near future
‘Economics of abundance’ seems a term built with two anti theses, but I understand it.
I like Maslow’s model and my view is that the more people spend time in the uppermost part of the hierarchy, i.e. at the spiritual level, the less evil they do.
This is why helping other people when they are in need and struggling for basic things, elevates them to a better quality of life, and in turn, makes for a better society and a better world.
Harnessing online communities to gather people with the same vision, and through helping one another, elevate them and outside people in the hierarchy of needs while having a concrete result in the offline world is a worthy pursuit.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Forgot to add:
Austin, I just read your twitter post about Vista problems.
Give Ubuntu a try:
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Best.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Excellent.
For entertainment, Kim Stanley Robinson’s award winning Mars Trilogy is fabulous. Although it doesn’t go deeply into the emerging social structures in any academic way, it is definitely thought-provoking in terms of the development of new societies. Often the perspectives of human stories can provide context for grappling with and visualizing academic theories.
Vera
April 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Thanks everyone for your comments. This is an interesting thread.