Can Contemporary Societies Learn from Ancient Economic Systems

            The Gift is as an excerpt from Marcel Mauss’ (2000) studies of economic systems in primitive societies (p. 3). Among diverse social phenomenon, the book addresses the question “What rule of legality and self-interest, in societies of a backward or archaic type, compels the gift that has been received to be obligatorily reciprocated” (Mauss, 2000, p. 4). Mauss (2000) contends that the market is a human phenomenon common to all societies, but with differing systems (p. 5). Mauss seeks to explore how the market functioned before modern forms of contract and sale to shed light on how primordial forms of “morality and organization still function in our own societies”. It is hoped that this inquiry may yield helpful conclusions regarding contemporary challenges related to modern economic systems (Mauss, 2000, p. 5). By exploring “primitive” economic institutions still extant today, we can better understand how our modern societies developed (Mauss, 2000, p. 60). Indeed, Mauss (2000) intends to show how modern systems of law and economies emerged from archaic ones (p. 61). 

Examples of “Archaic” or “Primitive” Societies and Activities

            In ancient Germanic societies, a system of exchange was “clearly defined and well developed” by which clans, tribes, and kings made and maintained alliances (p. 77-8). The obligation to reciprocate was known as the angebinde, and the term gaben refers to gifts given on special occasions that the whole village participated (p. 78). Transactions resulted in each part possessing something of the other, creating a bond by virtue of the inherent power of the object (p. 79). The significance of this obligation is expressed in the fact that diverse Germanic languages have a term for gift that also implies poison (p. 81). A ubiquitous theme in Germanic folklore is the “fatal gift, the present or item of property that is changed into poison” (p. 81). 

In classical Hindu societies, the danadharma – “law of the gift” – determined the duty of giving among the elite Brahmin class (Mauss, 2000, p. 70). A gift generates an equivalent reward for the giver in this life and an increased reward in the next life (Mauss, 2000, p. 72). Gifts are personified as “living creatures with whom one enters into a dialogue”, who desire to be given away and with whom an agreement is established (Mauss, 2000, p. 72). A Brahmin’s property is identified with himself, which can visit harm upon a transgressor (Mauss, 2000, p. 73). Many sanctions exist related to gift giving, such as being directed to another member of the Brahmin caste (p. 73). Brahmins take care to avoid residual benefits from receiving a gift because this makes him dependent on the donor, which would be demeaning (p. 75-6). Thus, “all kinds of archaic precautions are taken” so that “no error is committed” in the gift giving (p. 77). 

            In traditional Chinese law, an unalterable link exists between a think and its original owner (p. 81). Therefore, even after an item has been passed on, a contracted alliance puts the giver or seller and receiver or buyer in “perpetual dependence towards one another” (p. 82). 

Promising Paradigms from Antiquity for Modern Economic Systems

            Mauss sees as “fortunate” the fact that the “atmosphere of the gift” still exists in modern societies, so that everything is not defined in terms of “buying and selling” (p. 83). By analyzing ancient societies, Mauss seeks to demonstrate that charity is still “wounding for him who has accepted it”, “we must give back more than we have received”, and “things sold still have soul” (p. 83-4). The Gift argues that the “old principles react against the rigor, abstraction, and inhumanity” of modern legal codes (p. 85), and contemporary social security schemes represent attempts to return to a “group morality” (p. 87). Mauss promotes such a new morality as consisting of a “moderate blend of reality and the ideal”, amounting to a return to elements of archaic society (p. 88). Listed among the benefits of such a proposal are joy in public giving, generous sponsorship of the arts, hospitality, and private and public celebrations (p. 89). 

            Mauss advocates for a return to a time when man was not a calculating, utilitarian machine (p. 98). The most beneficial economy is not to be found in the “calculation of individual needs” which ends up harming the peace of all, ultimately rebounding upon the individual themself (p. 98). Only by considering society as an integral entity can we perceive what is essential (p. 102). The progress of societies has depended on their success in “stabilizing relationships, giving, receiving, and finally, giving in return” (p. 105). This positive development has occurred as far as societies, subgroups, and individuals succeeded in “stabilizing relationships, giving, receiving, and finally, giving in return” (p. 105). 

            Ancient economic systems teach us that societies built of clans, tribes, and elites can learn to “oppose and to give to one another without sacrificing themselves to one another” (p. 106). The principles of wisdom and solidarity found in the ancient societies Mauss’ studied represent a primordial morality for economic systems (p. 106). Mauss sees the possibility of recovering a balance of both individual and common endeavor as well as the accumulation and redistribution of wealth. Such harmony is possible only through a society-wide education program that encourages “mutual respect and reciprocating generosity” (p. 106). Mauss’ defends the value of researching “civics”, i.e., the “aesthetic, moral, religious, and economic motivations”, and “diverse material and demographic factors” which form the shared life of a society (p. 107). 

References

Mauss, M. (2000). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge Classics.