**This is an old revision of the document!**
Reciprocity
Reciprocity, the obligation of the gift, seems so simple and yet upon closer inspection, becomes baffling.
Consider the emotions this term evokes. It sounds like a word for fairness. And yet, there's this poem:
Tit for tat.
Butter for fat.
If you kick my dog,
I'll kick your cat.
Ouch!
And then there's the old saying: “If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.” Sounds a bit shady.
Also, did you know that <anthro>the Inuit people of Greenland have a saying… “Gifts make slaves like whips make dogs.”</anthro>
So, although Mauss tries to link the act of gift giving and reciprocity to a sense of moral unity and solidarity with one's community, often people do not experience reciprocity in this way. They see reciprocity as a quid pro quo, or “If you do something for me, I'll do something for you.” People see that it is in their own self-interest to enter into a reciprocal partnership. Or, they may think that their self-interest is harmed by reciprocity. They are afraid of the gift. This remains a question for anthropologists today. Reciprocity is an obligation, but does that mean that people embrace their obligation to reciprocate as a good thing?
For our purposes, it is important to remember that Mauss's concept of reciprocity is not just tit-for-tat or quid pro quo. He wanted to argue that we needed to look at it from the perspective of the social whole. We need a sociocentric, not egocentric, perspective on the question. Remember, he is Durkheim's nephew and best student. He drank deeply from the cup of functionalist sociological explanation. So reciprocity is a norm of society, an obligation, and people find that their self-interest and the altruistic motives are both reflected in the gift.