Customer Reviews

The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Years ago there was a reader comment in Harper's Magazine to the effect that the spirit of a place is a residue of emotions from the person who cared for it. Examples were the backseat of a taxicab and a favorite aunt's guest bedroom. Imagine the one, a robotic garage worker, mindlessly vacuuming and swabbing, and now Aunt Sally in a sunny kitchen starching linens and putting flowers in a vase.

The reader was attempting to pinpoint a distinction of spirit that we recognize but can't define. Lewis Hyde confronts this problem as he tries to explain the difference between schlock and art. It is the dilemma that so vexed Potter Stewart as he tried to define pornography-"I know it when I see it, but I can't say what it is." Like Potter Stewart, Hyde can give examples, but no explanation. Hyde, however, is too game for surrender in the face of the ineffable.

Hyde starts with a hypothesis: Art acquires a spiritual quality that comes from a giving heart, And a corollary: The spiritual quality of art is lost if disrespected by the recipient. Hyde hypothesizes that the artist, recipient of an unearned talent from a giving god, must share it in turn with a giving heart. (Does this mean art cannot be sold? Oops, we're getting ahead ... .)

In seven chapters, two questions predominate: What is the spiritual quality that differentiates gifts from non-gifts ("commodities" in Hyde's parlance)? And, what is the nature of the disrespect that will so profane the gift as to nullify it? Here are some of his suggestions.

Gifts are not-as some suppose-without strings. (Forget flowers or a `thank you' to Aunt Sally, you'll see.) Rather, gifts and commodities differ because gifts are ambiguous and variable as to value. First, gifts and their reciprocals may not be equivalent in price, but it is bad manners to compare. (One does not "look a gift horse in the mouth." Right? "It is the thought that counts." Right? See, you already know this stuff.) And second, although the price of a gift may be low, the "thought that counts" (the spirit of the gift) causes a gift to increase in value as it is passed along. Aunt Sally gives you a frayed scrap of lace your grandmother and she both wore at their weddings. It is tattered, yet, from one generation to the next, each exchange has enhanced its value. Later, you send fudge to Aunt Sally. She invites friends to share and brags about your thoughtfulness. Lousy stale resort fudge, it may be awful, but it is bad manners to say so. It is the fact that these tokens came as gifts that gives them value.

Ambiguity and variability mean gifts, literally, do "keep on giving". In a commodity exchange, I trade corn, you trade tomatoes, we agree on equivalent values, we exchange, we are quit. In a gift exchange inequivalencies of price together with increases in value leave a residuum, an indefiniteness of obligation that binds both parties to future transactions. We have not balanced our account; we are not quit. We have a continuing duty to make future exchanges to extend the longer-term relationship.

Reciprocity creates gift circles. Where the circle is greater than two, a gift to one is a proxy gift to all. Thus, when Aunt Sally invites you to stay, she may not think her son will one day come stay with you, but when he does, your gift to him is a reciprocal gift to Aunt Sally as well. Every gift enhances the bonds with all whom we perceive to be within the circle.

Disrespect of a gift weakens our sense of community with the one who disrespects it. This is true on the level of mundane-when Uncle Henry skips family Christmas for a cruise with country club friends-and the sublime-when we perceive that others devalue divine gifts. For instance, why is society uncomfortable with sales of kidneys? Why is society uncomfortable with slavery? Do sales of people and parts profane what others believe to be a gift? Why is post-modern society so uncomfortable with pornography and prostitution? Does commercialization profane something that many believe is a gift between partners? Why are emotions so high in the debates on abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty? Do the objectors believe these actions profane a gift?

Hyde uses the themes from the first seven chapters to devise a theory of literary criticism that he applies to Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound. Like some of the other reviewers, I did not feel that the theory's application was as engaging as its development. It seems to work better with Whitman. This is in part because Whitman's effusive spirituality lends itself to discussions of the artist as medium, but I may also be influenced by the fact that I am stingier with appreciation of Pound. Hyde, himself, admits that by the time he has completed his proofs he is no longer as convinced of his premise as he was at the outset. He acknowledges that art may be sold in some circumstances and does not always become profaned thereby.

Though the theory's application is perhaps not successful in the way Hyde hoped it would be, still, the book is a stunning work. It succeeds in so many ways that a copy (with marginal notes) resides permanently on the topmost select shelf in my non-lending library. I keep copies on hand to give to friends.

Frankly, first time through, this book was difficult. Hyde is a poet, first and after all, and each paragraph is dense with meaning, so I read it in small bites with careful digestion in between. He uses words (`erotic' and `copulative' come to mind) in ways that are so far removed from modern usage as to be confusing at first. But take the time; make the effort. This book is a gift to all of us. It would be churlish not to appreciate it.

In many aspects this is an exceptional book. It not only discusses the history of gift in culture but through the work of Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound it discusses the gift in poetry and art as well. The book focuses on the importance of gift, the flow and movement of gift, and the impact that the modern market place has had on the circle of gift.

From the opening pages when Hyde amuzingly discloses the premise of gift by juxtaposing the Indian Giver with White Man Keeper, the book progresses gift through community, folktale and art.

If you have ever been dismayed by the modern or postmodern. If you have ever wanted to make your money, cash out and leave the madness, you should read this book. Not only does it give you hope, it may rejunvenate your idea of community.

Gift is a tremendous piece of scholarship and for it to lay, largely undiscovered, is a shame indeed.

I read this more than five years ago. It is scholarly but well written. When I finished it, I wondered how practical it would be. In the last five years, I have thought about it several times. I cannot say that about 90% of the books I have read.

I believe it is a good example of "history of ideas" literature. It is a deconstruction of the notion of economics and commerce. By focusing on the narrow subject of gift giving, it opens the window to a critical understanding of common ideas like "interest," "usury," and "economic community." After all, what makes up a global economy? How do people bind themselves to "beliefs" that enable cooperation.

The book is not prescriptive. Instead, it is provocative to the extent that it challenges assumptions. I recommend it to the reader who is looking for an intellectual escape into the historically possible.

The first essay in this compilation of three is one of those pieces that can potentially change a person's life. Any student of the social sciences becomes aware that there are many important exchanges made in society which are not and cannot be valued in market transactions. Hyde offers a thoughtful analysis of the social function of goods and services exchanged outside the structure of the market. These arguments are essential as a counterbalance to the positivism expressed in most economic thought today.

A good deal of the material from which Hyde draws can be found in Marcel Mauss's book, also called in English, *The Gift* (Essai sur le don). Anybody who has loved Hyde's book will want to read Mauss's as well.

I read this book on the recommendation of a dear friend of mine, and after reading it i can understand why she recommended it. This philosophic and poetic book deals with a very important facet of human lives and societies that is all too often overlooked in economic analyis, namely the act of giving where no market is involved. This book is not your usual and often too facile critique of the market economy. The latter gets its proper due but not only in a negative sense; after all, market economic systems generate goods and choices in a particular area of scarcity in more efficient ways than tried out on other systems. Yes, it is certainly true, as the author points out, that the social act and economics of the commodity exchange is something else entirely than the social act of giving outside of the market economy, and both the analyis and implications in the book make that deservedly clear. As an economist i found the discussion on usury and the different categories of values that can be atttached to a product very interesting and basic. At the same time, I had not yet encountered such an interesting discussion on the act of giving as part of a society and the linkages with a commodity producing market economy. And as a person taking part of society I found the discussion on the creative act of giving and the trace of social bonds this engenders inspiring on a personal level as well. The writer here mixes analysis with what is for me enlightening poetic language, and the role of the artist here is also well put. As other reviewers, I found the first part very interesting while the further discussion on Whitman and Pound was harder going. Although certainly not always an easy read as a scholarly study, I can certainly recommend this unusual book on the abundance and generosity of spirit that living in society can bring, as a conscious act with magic of inspiration.

Lewis Hyde is, I am certain, an excellent Humanities professor. I have nothing at all against professors of Humanities - on the contrary, I believe that every university should have one. The problem with this effort is that he slips into areas where he not only has no expertise, but even worse - it seems that he does not realize that he has none. For example, one could almost call this book an economics text, in that he profers theories of economics throughout; specifically, "gift economies" vs "market economies". The problem is, there are no "gift economies" in the world, and never have been. The examples he uses, such as the Kula of New Guinea, have a very elaborate traditional gifting ritual, but Hyde does not seem to understand that this is wholly separate from their economy, which stands apart from the gifting practices. The gifts of shells that are passed around the ranking Kula males have nothing at all to do with their living; it is a social ritual. The Kula have other methods of providing food, shelter and clothing for their people, and it has no connection with their gifting practices.

In this book, Hyde ventures into many areas outside of his field of expertise: economics, sociology, secular and religious history, political science, and more. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but he demonstrates woeful deficiencies in these areas. For example, he bemoans the conclusions drawn by Martin Luther and others in the sixteenth century that allowed "usury" to become common practice. (By this, he means the charging of interest of any amount on loans.) This, he explains, ripped the world out of a golden age of free thinking, creativity, and gifting, into a deadly era of logic, commodity trading and profit. This golden age of gifting whose passing he mourns is more commonly referred to as "the dark ages" for very good reason. During this time, there was no "usury" in the form of common banking systems as we now know them, it is true. There was also nearly universal illiteracy, no hope for improvement of ones birth-lot, constant epidemics, witch-burnings, inquisitions, etc.

After this unthinkable introduction of "usury", the world was transformed, but not at all according to Hyde's dolorous version of history. The Renaissance, according to Hyde, was a calamitous step backward. Yet, within a century, witch burnings were a lamented legacy of a bygone era; education for the masses was becoming a reality; medical advances were beginning to chip away at the terrible mortality rates; social consciousness was rearing its head - people were beginning to ask hard questions of the ruling classes. Hyde doesn't see any of this as genuine progress.

As other reviewers have pointed out, Hyde conflates two entirely different definitions of the term "gift" and thus leaves this work in a hopeless muddle. A "gift" in the sense of a freely given item bestowed upon one person or group by another person or group, is not at all the same thing as the the concept of divinely bestowed talents for creativity. We call the artists among us gifted, in the sense that it was once believed that the Gods had provided this ability to create, and thus the artist had received a "gift". This superstition provides Hyde with the entree to extend his economic theories of gifting to the sphere of creativity, when in fact, there is no connection between the two.

I give the work three stars because the last two chapters - pertaining to Whitman and Pound - provide excellent insights into the forces that shaped these two poets into the artists that they were. This is Hyde's field, and he clearly has some deep insights into the inner workings of the minds of these two geniuses. This alone is worth the price of the book and the time to read it.

Of course, one must ignore his attempts to draw conclusions from this analysis in the world at large, but that is easily done, because he himself admits that he was wrong, in his conclusion. He doesn't go quite far enough, I must say, but it's very strange to read an entire book, and then see the author's concluding chapter where he says, "I was wrong". Unfortunately, he admits only partial error - not enough to rewrite the entire tome. This is sad to me, because I get the sense from this book that Hyde had some very profound insights into the nature of gifts. Had he not felt compelled to muddy the waters by bringing in his amateurish economic theories, and then totally departing into irrelevancies by conflating giftedness with gifting - we could have had quite a "gift" here. As it is, it will impress a few who do not care to think too deeply about what the author is actually saying. The rest will dig for the few pearls buried in the dross, and shake their heads at the rest.

The first seven chapters of this book are great. After reading them, I realized a number of things that I had never even considered before. The remaining three chapters (with extensive discussion of Ezra Pound and Walt Whitman) were not nearly as interesting or helpful to me. Nevertheless, the beginning of the book makes it more than worth reading.

The connections Lewis Hyde makes spawned many spirited conversations. We found applications in working with our children, in building community, and in maintaining a strong container in our men's group. Allowing the first gift of life to mature and move through you and out to others provides renewal to everyone. If all you do is 'make an effort' in life what you tend to get is tired a lot. Paying attention to the bonds and energy that giving correctly produces new energy that is not merely a product of the will. An inspiring worthwhile read!

The other reviewers have captured the essence of THE GIFT -- itself a gift, from the author to his readers. It has not lost any relevance since its first appearance in 1977: gifting is still the most important type of transaction, more fundamental than marketplace selling and buying.

I'm beginning a book on the gift economy. THE GIFT is my foundation. It boosts me easily into the stratosphere, so strong is Hyde's presentation. Thank you, Lewis.

A colleague, influenced by reading this book years ago, posted a recommendation, and as I am interested in the Sociology of Art and being a for-profit composer, I thought it might be pertinent.

Unfortunately, this book reminds me of that old joke, that there are two kinds of people in this world - those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world, and those who don't.

In his general criticism of the limits of Capitalism, Mr. Hyde says things that will warm the hearts of any liberal. For example, "There is a place for volunteer labor, for mutual aid, for in-house work, for healings that require sympathetic contact or a cohesive support group, for strengthening the bonds of kinship, for intellectual community, for creative idleness, for the slow maturation of talent, for the creation and preservation and dissemination of culture, and so on." It's a great sentence, and deserves mulling. Compare that with this later nonsense: "We have, on the one hand, imagination, synthetic thought, gift exchange, use value, and gift-increase, all of which are linked by a common element of eros, or relationship, binding, 'shaping into one.' And we have, on the other hand, analytic or dialectical thought, self-reflection, logic, market exchange, exchange value, and interest on loans, all of which share a touch of logos, of differentiating into parts."

Must Mr. Hyde equivalence everything? Must everything that the marketplace has difficulty in valuing be called a "gift"? Must the world be broken into Capitalism and gifts? How about Capitalism and lots of things not covered by Capitalism? And he definitely needs to read some Buber.

As a poet, Mr. Hyde should understand the difference between saying that a person is "gifted"; i.e., has received a gift FROM GOD, and whether the work done is a "gift" to others. It's as if the entire first half of his book is based around a coincidental quirk of colloquial English - definition one and two in the dictionary.

It's a shame, because in the last three chapters, Hyde writes about what he really wants to: Whitman's homosexuality, and Pound's politics. Unfortunately, Hyde confuses his approval of the former (which led to the care of Civil War casualties) and condemnation of the latter (which led to anti-Semitic tirades) with judgements of the worth of each's poetry during these times. It's a weak thesis, and bears little relation to all the "gift" theory in the beginning, which suffers from the same Jungian equivalence syndrome (all fairy tales are the same, blah, blah, blah).

And then, in the last chapter, he throws away the theory and writes a conclusion which is observant, in its way.

So there's much good in this book, but it's mixed in with so much bad (the soul, spirit, greatness - the usual hack work), that it's not worth a thorough read. And he completely ignores Warhol, conceptualism, performance art - all kinds of recent challenges to the old theory of "art" that in 1979-83 he should have been fully aware of.