The Gift Transaction Spectrum

Consumer capitalism – and indeed, Western civilisation in general – is often accused of making everything in life ‘transactional’. A ‘gift economy’ is suggested as an alternative to this. Transaction BAD, gift GOOD. In the gift economy everyone would just work away at something they were really good at, plus maybe spend a few hours on menial jobs like cleaning toilets or weeding crops. Then whatever each household needs for their day to day life is gifted to them by the society – just as the produce of their labour has been gifted to others. Whether such a system has ever operated in any age or in any place is something of a moot point. But it has been proposed as an ideal by utopian thinkers for generations. Amongst other things it relies on their being a good range of skills available within a reasonable distance and on people having fairly modest needs and desires. And it probably relies on a very good distribution system, to get stuff to the right people and places. It was this last point, in particular, that prompted Frederick Hayek – amongst others – to argue that a market economy is best-placed to achieve this balance. The balance between production and demand is solved by a market economy – any other system is just too cumbersome. Justifiably, we could say that a gift economy, as I’ve just described it, is on the far end of the gift-transaction spectrum. And, at the other end, we could probably argue that there are trends on modern society that push the meaning of transaction to the limit. It might not be possible to get anywhere near a gift economy, but we could certainly hope for a bit more of the spirit of the gift economy in our capitalist societies. How about longer-term investment instead of short-term speculation in the stock market? How about products built for quality, to be long-lasting, easy to repair, easy to recycle and with parts that are consistent with other, similar products? How about better customer care in response to customer feedback? How about better conditions for workers – especially those out of sight in developing countries? All of these, I’d suggest, are ways that the spirit of the gift economy could be brought into the market economy – to make it less transactional. And I’m sure the list could be expanded almost endlessly. All of this is easy to state, and I’d hazard to suggest that there would not be many people who would think that such things would not be a good idea. So why do they not happen? Well, simply that there are a few powerful folk who have no interest in making the world better, but only have an interest in making themselves richer. A small number of people – really a TINY number of people – keep the world doing stupid, costly, inefficient and harmful things just because they put profit above everything else. Talk of great wealth brings out some further strange anomalies in capitalist societies. There was, at one time, a theory that the value of a product was related to the amount of labour that went in to producing it – a ‘labour theory of value’. Of course, it was long-since pointed out that some things buck the system here – some things are valued very much more highly than any amount of labour might suggest. Gemstones and precious metals are obvious examples – along with certain artworks, especially works by folk we might term ‘celebrity’ artists. In the light of this, we could amend the old labour theory of value to be an aspiration rather than a statement of fact. We could say simply that it would be good if a product’s price was genuinely a reflection of the amount of labour that went into making it. It’s probably easier to see the labour theory of value working in the material economy – where wages and costs of materials, equipment and the like are more amenable to being clearly tracked and understood. It’s probably more difficult in the cultural economy – but it’s in the cultural economy that the spirit of the gift is more interesting. Some would even say that art is impossible without gift – without giving. Well, you may agree with that or you may not, but clearly the grossly distorted price of works by celebrity artists – and indeed by celebrities of all types – is becoming the new normal. There are those who seek to challenge this trend – to counteract what they see as a gross distortion of values. Socially-engaged art can be contrasted with contemporary art. Perhaps an individual socially-engaged artist is thinking of something along the lines of the gift economy when producing their work – or perhaps more modest aims. In any case, they will seldom ever be prescriptive – they will seek instead to invite people to engage in their questions, whilst only hinting at solutions. The contrast with celebrity art could not be more stark. Socially-engaged art is often performative rather than productive – in the sense of producing painting, sculpture or installations. Where it is productive the artist might wish to gift their work – setting up a strict contrast with transactional, capitalist culture, and a contrast specifically with much of the contemporary art world. The gifter of art, poetry or prose is on the extreme edge of the gift-transaction spectrum. At least, in the gift economy, we would expect to receive gifts back in return for our efforts. But the artist, poet or writer who gives away their work has no such assurances. And of course, like everyone else, they must buy food, pay their bills and pay their rent or mortgage. So the gifting is a sacrifice, and we might indeed question the motive behind it. Because, let’s face it, there’s something a bit ambiguous about such gifting. At least in the case of charity work or charitable donations, there’s a clear need that’s being met. But the unrequested gift is a bit strange. If we set a price on our efforts then at least we’re giving a clear signal to the world – this is how much I think my efforts are worth. People can make up their minds as to whether we’ve under-valued or over-valued our work. But at least there’s a benchmark – a starting point. With the gift though – well, might someone be saying that they don’t think their efforts are worth anything at all? Or, alternatively, do they think that what they’ve produced is so important that they must reach people by any means they can, which includes giving things away? The former sounds too reticent whilst the latter sounds like hubris. And might not some folk just see a gift as a cynical move to try to drum up interest for some hidden financial project in the future? But gift is an inner state – an aspect of soul – and not just a decision to give things away. Otherwise it would not be gift, it would just be another aspect of transaction. There are of course many ways to share things with others nowadays, and many ways things can be monetised. We no longer have the gate-keepers of galleries, publishers and agents to reassure us of some measure of quality. Perhaps things are changing and there are no longer those concerns over the quality of something in relation to the manner in which it is offered to others. Perhaps sensible online content – free or otherwise – will be seen as welcome and wholly legitimate in the future. Meanwhile, perhaps galleries and publishers – who, let’s face it, have their own profits at least partly in mind – will be seen as less worthy and dependable. In balance, I come down on the side of thinking that the gift – especially the gift of the outputs of the cultural economy – is worthwhile. In particular, it challenges the lunacy of pricing in the contemporary arts world. And it challenges the highly dubious notion that art and other artefacts can be collected –hoarded – solely for their financial worth. Likely there will never be a gift economy. But can we always think about gifting? Can we always be aware of the dangers of transactions, utility value, monetary value and the slide into treating others as if they are commodities rather than sacred fellow human beings? Well, I for one am hoping that we can.