Remember gift economies?

They’re back.

I’ve been preoccupied lately with the idea of drawing on anthropology classics to explain what’s happening in technology. It’s a starting point for a new research and teaching program I am helping to launch at University of Aberdeen. The bet is that it works like the cheese and jam sandwich principle: you can take any cheese, any jam, and provided the two individual ingredients are of high quality, you will always end up with a delicious sandwich (Seriously, it works…).

At Aberdeen we had students create technology use scenarios for 5 years in the future, based on a combination of what will become technologically feasible (the cheese), and a more or less arbitrarily selected anthropology classic – Nancy Munn’s Fame of Gawa (aka, the jam). Fame of Gawa looks inside an intricate system of exchange amongst Pacific islanders known as ‘kula.’ Kula trading is the canonical gift economy–a staple case study of all anthropology 101 courses. You show up to a neighboring island on a canoe, loaded with shells to trade, they feed you elaborately in an attempt to create the obligation for you to give away your best shells. In turn, if you are a good shell trader, and have a canoe nice enough to dazzle them into giving away their best shells, your name and the name of your island get known far and wide throughout the shell-trading system: hence the ‘fame’ in Fame of Gawa.

As the students were designing their future technologies, it occurred to me that there were some underlying commonalties between kula trading and new media. New media, particularly of the Facebook/Twitter/YouTube variety, doesn’t work like your average commodity exchange, where one person produces, the other consumes, and at the moment of transaction you are both quits. But the easy ways that we now use ‘gifting’ as a term to describe it carries connotations that really shouldn’t be there. We talk about gift economies like they are nice, feelgood things, where we express our individuality, and celebrate our individual brands. That couldn’t be farther from the ethnographic record. There are four principles of I think underlie kula trading that help us understand how Web 2.0 really works:

a) Giving is about creating obligations: There is no such thing as a freely given gift. It’s not altruistic. We know this already yet somehow the tech industry still talks about content as something that’s “shared.” “Sharing” hardly gets to the fact that if my friend puts lots of things up on Facebook, it can be just be to con me into doing the same. That’s not what my momma taught me about sharing.

b) You need to have something different in order to trade: Most of the trading in kula is not about the one famed shell that everyone wants, its about smaller points of difference. So too Web 2.0: most people are not seeking to be the next David after Dentist. Even though the millions of cute cat videos seem to be nothing but noise, who shot those videos and the context in which they are shot creates these microdifferences that are in fact worthy of exchange.

c) Fame is a function of the ability to control the flow of things: Fame of Gawa is really a study of circulation—how far and wide things travel. It turns out that the only way things can travel far and wide is through the very things that don’t: things that are heavy, things that are connected to the ground rather than the sea and air. The heavy yams that come from the ground and don’t move very far, and given at shell trading meetups, are really what keeps the circulation going, and determine how far the shells go and through what time period. You need both to make the system come alive, and to exert your own power within the system. Through metaphors of lightness and heaviness, Gawans have a wonderful ways of imagining how things flow through systems—something we lack. We talk about circulation of content as a flat ‘network’, with hubs and spokes, links and feeds. It’s a flat description with a thin qualitative imagination. But if we were to use the Gawan point of view, which revolves around exchanging lightness for heaviness and vice versa, we could see that the a world of constant retweets, trackbacks, rss and data aggregations only gets us so far. There needs to be some grounding in order to have something to exchange: someone needs to have done something in the actual non-retweeted, re-aggregated world. If you are nowhere but a sea of retweets and feeds, you have nothing to trade. If you have an idea of where you are in relation to the content you are circulating, the circulations become meaningful. Web 2.0 requires us to be both light and heavy at the same time, both recirculating and producing your own.

d) People are made, they are not born: a Gawan person is literally made through feeding that person yams, and in turn that person has to pay back their own creation through other gifts. People are distinguishable from one another not through some inherent individuality but through the particular set of obligations and relationships they have. If they were tech people they would say I am my network, and my network is not your network. You only get to do anything in Gawa through other people: you can’t just get up and make yourself a sandwich. Similarly, we often think of personal brands and personal identity as something we individually construct: that we lovingly curate our online presence, that we have the ability to project our own coolness, and that the whole sea of blogs, Facebook postings and tweets is a giant exercise in individuation. Maybe it is. But what the Gawans understand better than most is that what we think is individual comes from somewhere outside ourselves. A brand is only meaningful if it speaks to other people. Your brand can’t really be that personal if its going to circulate as a brand. We Westerners can admit we have influences, but on the whole we prefer to think that we do things ourselves. But if we were all as independent as we like to think nobody would be able to have a conversation with anybody. We’d all be mutually unintelligible. Who, then, really makes a personal brand, is up for debate.

So if you fed me some yams recently…. Drop me a line 


~ by dnafus on May 7, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: