GABlog Generative Anthropology in the Public Sphere

February 23, 2012

One, Two, Three, Many Modernities

Filed under: GA — adam @ 8:06 am

According to Jacques Godbout, in his The World of the Gift, the distinctive form taken by the gift in the modern world is the gift to strangers—everything from philanthropies to blood and organ donations. The specifically modern gift, in other words, to quote the title of a bad movie, based on a good idea, from several years back, pays it “forward” instead of “back.” Rather than reciprocate directly, modern giving prefers acknowledging a gift by giving to someone else with the same needs or potential as that gift enabled one to realize in oneself. This helps avoid the competitive gift giving and compulsory reciprocations which leads the traditional gift economy into the debacle resulting in the seizure of power of the Big Man, who imposes an asymmetrical gift economy on everyone. And giving it forward may also provide the basis for supplanting the modern state behind which, however free and democratic the guise, the contours of the Big Man imposing not only his rule but his inevitability remain visible.

The modernity which has actually become dominant, and led in turn to the romantic and victimary reactions of postmodernism is the one which deployed the emergent market model of early modernity against the gift economy. The best way to bury the gift economy is to insist upon self-origination—anything in the past which has determined what one is now must be some gift demanding repayment; if we are all originators of ourselves, including the past we choose to acknowledge, then there are no gifts from the past—no one has paid forward to us. There are just nagging importunities and unjust exactions demanded by hysterical ghosts, and we must summon up the courage to reject those claims, and accept only those obligations we, like players on the market, have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to.

But history is no more than the gifts we accept from those who have come before—if we reject some it is because we have accepted others. The reason why we need to ground ourselves in some kind of gift economy stretching back in time is suggested by Hermann Lotze’s observation, cited by Walter Benjamin in his “Theses on History,” that “One of the most remarkable characteristics of human nature is, alongside so much selfishness in specific instances, the freedom from envy which the present displays toward the future.” I think this is absolutely true, and while it applies to the present’s attitude toward the past as well, it is especially remarkable in our attitude to the future, which we have every reason to believe will have be better than the present. We simply don’t share the same scene as other time periods, are incapable of desiring the same objects—we can therefore love those who came before and those who will come after unreservedly. We can also, therefore, accept the gifts from the past freely and give freely to those to come after us. And, finally, this gifting relationship across time periods is, as Benjamin goes on to say, an index which refers us to redemption: it is this continuum creating by the gift that enables us to stand back while everyone else is rushing towards the present object of desire and exemplify a possibility not immediately visible.

We could, much more modestly, see modernity as simply the condition in which our relations with strangers outweigh our relations with kin, friends and confederates. The market relation comes to the fore under such conditions, and helps to create them in the first place, because the exchange of commodities for money is ideally suited to maintain the relations between strangers. Modernity in this case would also mean many things we like to associate with it—an openness to the new, to differences, a pleasure in anonymity and privacy, and so on. But modernity in this sense would also allow for acknowledging the gifts we accept and pay forward to some of those strangers, gifts that often circulate centrifugally from more traditional gifts circulating among family and friends—like the use of family wealth to establish charitable foundations. The market and economy could then proceed in concordance with one another, each enriching the other. As soon as we find a way to displace the imperial/ecumenical Big State, which increasingly demands all gifts flow to and from it.


  1. Jesus said, about alms, “let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth”: which “helps avoid the competitive gift giving and compulsory reciprocations.” However, charity in the modern world is still, typically, publicly recognized; and just as important, individuals want to see themselves as compassionate. (And if one is compassionate, then one needs someone else who is not, hence the polarization of current politics)

    Ideologically, the modern world needs to empty out competition (just express yourself, there’s no right or wrong here!), but of course, the modern world is really more competitive then ever.

    At the same time, as you suggest, we need to acknowledge our debt to the past, and the ingratitude of so-called progressive liberals is rather disheartening. The competition with one’s cultural ancestors takes oedipal form, by setting up a straw man in place of any real recognition or understanding. Our cultural heritage is indeed the greatest gift of all, which as moderns we can ill afford to ignore.

    Comment by Q — February 24, 2012 @ 11:55 am

  2. Yes, Maimonedes also has a hierarchy of modes of giving, leading up to the anonymous gift–which shows us the ways that monotheism helped lead the way out of the most destructive gifting cycles, culminating in modernity. For my argument here, though, public recognition it less important than the absence of reciprocity–I might resent Donald Trump for giving to a hospital to clean up his image, but those treated in the hospital won’t, nor will they feel they owe him anything.

    More troubling to me is that I seem to have erred in applying Loetz’s (and Benjamin’s) insight to the past along with the future. Of course, we can envy and resent those who came before–the anxiety of influence is sufficient proof of that. Progressivism’s resentment towards the past is simply one, especially destructive, example.

    I will reformulate as follows then: the way we repay the gifts of the past is forward; we transcend our resentment, or mimetic double bind toward the past (which opens up the very possibilities it seems to close off) by preserving something for the future which frustrates the desire in the present to command the future. Using the past to keep the future open is our gift.

    Comment by adam — February 24, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress