[As a brief word of introduction, this paper, which does
challenge the logical value of Christmas gifts is NOT a paper that is
discussing the cloying Christian trope of society’s commercialization of and
war on Christmas; rather, this is a paper that challenges the very practice
that devout Christians often hold so dear.]
A traditional practice for the Christmas holiday is the
exchanging of gifts. This practice is further practiced on some other special
occasions (birthdays, anniversaries, baby showers, weddings, etc.) as well and
this paper would additionally apply to them; I focus here on Christmas simply
because it is the most common time in which gifts are given. Indeed, the
practice of gift giving and the Christmas holiday have become ubiquitous. Even
those who do not really celebrate much of a Christmas at all, still give gifts.
This paper, though, wonders what is truly being exchanged and whether those can
truly be called “gifts” or not. If it is truly a giving of gifts, why is it
that such things are frequently paired with emotional regret and frustration?
Why is it that these need to be followed with “Thank you” cards or even worse –
they have to be opened in the presence of the giver so that the reaction can be
observed? It is as if the “gift” is not really “given” at all – instead, it is
something that requires some kind of exchange – something that expects
something in return. This paper argues that holiday gift giving is illogical
and contradictory. Further, it is something that is not very honest – rather
than it actually being an exchange of items symbolizing the relationship
between two people, it is instead identity discourse which reifies one’s own identity in a public way to satisfy
the demands of an oppressive societal nomos
(order).
A gift is something that is to be freely proffered to one
party to another. This is something that can show appreciation and symbolizes
love and care. Further, for something to be a gift, it has to be offered
“freely.” This is true in both its senses. On the one hand, it is “free” in the
sense that the one offering the gift did not have to offer it. It was offered
spontaneously and if it were not offered, there would have been no negative
consequences. For a gift to be presented, it cannot be an obligation –
otherwise, its nature as a gift is in question. Second, the “free” aspect of a
gift is that it expects nothing in return – it is “economically” free. The one
receiving the gift has no obligations of any kind (no “strings attached”). The
receiver does not have to keep the gift, does not have to provide compensation,
nor does the receiver have to even appreciate the gift. The gift is free
because it is a complete transfer of ownership. The gift used to belong to
giver x and now after a proper gift giving ritual now belongs to owner y.
Whatever happens to the gift is completely up to owner y and giver x is no
longer involved. If the giver wanted to control the object, it would need to be
a contract rather than a gift.
While these things are logically sound, practically, they
are rarely followed. Very few people truly “give” anything. They expect some
kind of praxis once the gift is given. Usually this includes a variety of
responses: 1). An appreciation of the gift – the giver recognizes the gift as
valuable, will keep the gift, and use it regularly; 2). An exchange of some
kind of thanks; 3). A compensatory gift or action ensuring equality; 4). Some
kind of parity in thought and value of the compensatory gift; or 5). An
emotional uplifting of the relationship of the two parties by means of this
gift giving ritual. All of these
are, at a bare minimum, expectations that accompany a gift and call into
question whether a gift is actually free. In fact, the fact that the term “free
gift” has been coined is simply to show how rarely it truly is such.
At the end, the gift giving ritual is based upon
reciprocity. If one party x gives a gift that is of very much value to party y,
and party y gives a gift of little value to party x, the “thought” that is
supposed to be behind the gifts are called into question. If this was simply
economic value, then there would be no problem. However, what is actually
needed reciprocally is the “thought” included in the gift. The “thought that
counts” can be better understood as the gift being a symbol of one’s
relationship. It is a measure of how important and meaningful the relationship
is to the giver to be able to identify a gift. This, is precisely why, it is
based upon reciprocity. If one person gives a gift of large value and the other
one of little value, then it suggests that one person does not think of the
relationship as highly as the other, thereby being a physical object of
disparity in the center of the room. For the relationship to be on equal
footing, the gift needs to be on equal footing.
What is worse, is that “value” is not economic. If it were,
then the two parties could generally follow the standard practice of getting
for one another things that are of generally equal monetary value. Instead,
though, “value” is measured based upon future use. It shouldn’t matter how much
it costs, so long as it is something that the receiver will really use. The
closer the relationship, the more useful the gift – seemingly. The problem, of
course with this, is that a gift that could be very useful is not use at all if
the receiver already owns this item. Use is amazingly subjective and creates a
wild disparity.
A further consequence of this is the type of comparisons
that gifts provide as physical markers of relationships. When parents have
multiple children, it is standard that the children will compare their gifts
with one another. Children can become distraught if one gift is superior to the
others. The children, in this case, are not stupid and understand the societal
problem – that the symbol of the relationship with one child is stronger than
the same for the others. What has occurred is that the children have been
ranked by means of this gift giving system. Further, comparison is done by the
giver when gifts are being doled out. It is not uncommon to hear a trope such
as “I spent x dollars on recipient a, so I really need to spend a similar
amount for recipient b.” The comparison of relationships based upon gifts is
tremendously acute.
Another complication with the sentiment “that it is the
thought that counts” is that it is not simply a transfer of ownership. A gift
is not something that is given from person a to person b. Instead, it is an
ongoing symbol of the relationship. Given that, the original source of the gift preceding its being purchased and given is important. It is
apparently uncouth to “re-gift” something. If the “thought” that symbolizes the
relationship is in the gift, its source should not matter – whether it was re-gifted,
stolen, bought, or bartered. However, it matters very much. What this leads
toward is the illogical nature of gifts – it is not the gift at all, it is the action of the giver. The commensurate
measure of gifts to ensure the relationship is in the amount of work done. It
is not actually based upon any type of meaning that the gift might provide.
Finally, the practical challenge of gift giving that makes
what is done at Christmas not actually gift giving is what is expected after
the gift is given. The gift is a symbol of the relationship, and as such, there
are expectations as to what will be done with it. If the gift is expected to be used. If the gift is
edible or an article of clothing, the expectation is that the gifts will be
eventually used up, but barring those restrictions, gifts are expected to be
kept and used. One is not free to simply throw out the gift. To do so is to,
apparently, throw out the relationship. The gift needs to remain in the
possession of the receiver as a monument to the friendship that has been
fostered so long as it continues. The gift can only be discarded when the
relationship has soured and therefore the symbolic value of the gift has been
lost.
The reason gift giving is illogical is because what is done
is not the giving of gifts; rather, what is done is an exchange in Derrida’s terms. An exchange is a relational quid pro
quo whereas a gift is something that expects nothing in return.[1]
A Christmas gift is coupled with an expectation of thanks. While the practice
of the official thank you card wanes, it is very common to expect that the one
receiving the gift will state their thanks to the giver. Children are taught to
do this at a very young age – even if they aren’t thankful for the gift that
well could be slightly manipulative (e.g. an uncle who is a football enthusiast
gives a football to a child who has made it very clear he has no interest in
sports). This is even more telling by the portion of the ritual where they
expect to watch someone open the gifts that they are given. It is a process
wherein the giver sits attentively and watches the every move of the receiver
to ensure that the receiver really wants it. This is at least slightly creepy
and puts the receiver in a very awkward position. The positive goal, of course,
is to attempt for the receiver to actually want the gift, provide the giver
with the emotional thank you that their relationship is sound, and reify the
bond. However, throughout the ritual it is amazingly clear that the “gift” is
not given – it is exchanged. It is an action for an action – the giving of a
gift for the response of the individual.
The only pure gift, then, is one where there is no exchange.
It is the gift that is given with no expectation of anything in return. While most
everyone says they do this, they
rarely do. If a receiver gets a gift, laughs out loud, tosses the gift in the
trash, the giver is usually quite offended. The receiver took the gift wrongly.
This receiver is so crass that “no one could give him a gift.” That, logically,
should be the only person to whom a gift could be given. It is as Derrida says
of Forgiveness – the only things that could actually be “forgiven” are those
that are utterly unforgivable.[2]
Similarly here, the only people to whom gifts could be “given” are utterly
“ungiftable.”
The crass way of understanding these gifts is that it is
between the two people – person a gives person b a gift and person b
commensurates person a with a similar gift in this economy of exchange. Aside
from this system being impractical – as my favorite comedian David Mitchell
hilariously points out (Gifts:
David Mitchell's Soapbox who points out that we usually know what we want
better than other people in addition to the horrible frustrations of not being
allowed to simply purchase things we really need because it happens to be
nearing Christmas) – it is also not very honest. We are not actually appeasing
our friend or relative with this gift – they are our friends and relatives,
they don’t really care if we give gifts or not – particularly those who are
fiscally well off. Rather, we are fulfilling our role in society. The exchange is not even between the person giving and the
person receiving. Both of those figures are simply enacting their given role in
the societal nomos.[3]
This is, in Lacanian terms, the “big Other” – the symbolic universe that we all
silently buy into in order to preserve meaning and identity.
Society as a whole has set these norms and practices in
order that we can find our own identity.
The goal of the giving of gifts is not that “society” really needs us to –
society could continue to function with or without gifts. The “Big Other” would
simply change to be a symbolic world without any place for holiday exchanges.
However, when the person enacts these rituals and participates in these
exchanges, they do so to tell themselves that
they are filling their proper duty
and as such, they know they are active participants in society. When they act
in the way that society expects, they feel they are part of the society and
they are grounded in timeless truths.
Society, generally, while being a living construct, is not
illogical. It is known that this exchange is an obligation, and hence it really
is not a gift – instead it is simply a personal statement of filling the role
expected of the individual in order to remind oneself that he or she is a
member of the society. Society, then, emphasizes the chosenness of this gift giving. To give the gift was a choice and
therefore is not a simple societal obligation. However, upon closer
examination, this is what Zizek calls a “forced choice.” The person has to buy
into the system of their own free-will; however, the consequences of not buying
into the system are very real and looming. If one did not buy into it, they
would be social outcasts, would be ostracized and scorned. While that is true,
there still is some vague idea that this is really chosen. It is some kind of
logic like “Well, you could choose to turn your back on everyone and everything
that matters to you, have no sense of belonging, and be punished – or you could
choose to participate.” Anyone who is not an idiot knows that this is not a
choice. Zizek calls this choice one that occurred sometime in the past. We act
in the present as if we had made the
choice to participate in the past.[4]
The reality, of course, is that no one truly made the choice. The choice was
made long ago that this system was set and there is no choice but to
participate in it.
While this essay can be accused of catastrophizing the
situation, real question should be asked. While it is easy enough to say that
gift giving really does not matter an that this is a superfluous ritual, it is
more significant than one expects. Consider how frequently gifts are given.
This essay has focused on Christmas simply for ease of reference, but the
general gatherings of family systems are nearly always centered around a ritual
where gifts are given. It seems superfluous, but it really is not. If one
decided to simply recuse himself or herself from the ritual, that person would
be recusing himself or herself from nearly all family events, and thereby
family relationships.
[1] Jacques
Derrida On Cosmopolotanism and Forgiveness,
trans. Mark Dooley and Michael Hughes (London and New York: Routledge,
2001), 28-32.
[2] Derrida, On Forgiveness, 32.
[3]Peter L.
Berger The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a
Sociological Theory of Religion (New Yorks: Anchor Books, 1967).
[4] Slavoj Zizek
The Sublime Object of Ideology (London
and New York: Verso, 1989, repr. 2008), 186-187.
No comments:
Post a Comment