The Gift

As in Western societies today, the act of gift giving can encompass numerous life events ranging from marriage, the “birth of a child, circumcision, sickness, a daughter’s arrival at puberty, funeral rites, trade” (11). Just as is the case in Samoan societies, Mauss discusses how these gifts solidify social and familial bonds and people create a stronger, unified family structure. The same is true for two opposing tribes attempting to “one up” the other by displaying their wealth and generosity in the form of gift giving. The rarer the gift, oloa (foreign), the more prestige and honor it brings. This idea of oloa exists in contrast to what is tonga (native) (12). Whilst gifts associated with tonga have a place in Samoan culture, it is more closely linked to the “soil, the clan, the family, and the person than certain others that are termed oloa” (12). Thus, Mana (honor, prestige) can be gained or lost depending on the intrinsic value of the gift. The obligation to reciprocate these gifts are paramount to a chief’s standing not only amongst his people but in the tribe as a whole. The tribe is equally held accountable by the gift givers.

Drawing upon ethnographer Elsdon Best, Mauss speaks of the hau (12), or spirit, that the object being gifted possesses. When a gift is bestowed upon someone else, the taonga, or item, is imbued with the gift giver’s hau. This link can never be severed, even if the gift is later given to another party as payment or trade. It will always possess the original gift giver’s spirit. However, this is not to say that the same gift must be returned to the gift giver at a later date. According to Mauss, the gifts that one receives in return for the original gift are the effect of the first gift giver and must then be given to that original giver: “I, for my part, am obliged to give you that thing because I must return to you what is in reality the effect of the hau of your taonga” (14-15). Thus, a power struggle ensues between gift givers and gift receivers as each competes to “dominate the circulation of wealth, tribute, and gifts” (15).

For Mauss, the receiving of gifts is as equally as important as giving a gift. It forms the economic basis of exchange and constitutes total services: “To refuse to give, to fail to invite, just as to refuse to accept, is tantamount to declaring war; it is to reject the bond of alliance and commonality. […] This ownership is expressed and conceived of as a spiritual bond” (16-17). This spiritual bond ensures peace between tribes and allows for each to partake in the ritualistic practices of the potlatch. It speaks to kinship, trade, and politics as much as it does to wealth, economic security, and power. It is intertwined and absent of meaning without the other. However, as Mauss notes, this obligation extends beyond the corporeal needs and wants of humanity and includes the gifts made to the gods.

Mauss introduces the theory of sacrifice and its relevance to ensure that both the gift giver’s desire to manipulate the gift receiver is only matched by their desire to gain favor with the gods they worship and to whom they pay tribute. Mauss refers to societies in Northeast Siberia and among the Eskimos of West Alaska as examples of how the potlatch also pertains to sacrifices to gods. It is through these displays of destruction that the gift givers can demonstrate their wealth and honor for all to see. It elevates them amongst their counterparts and forces the gift receivers, be they human or supernatural, to recognize their power.