Gift-giving and reciprocity in global society: Introducing Marcel Mauss in international studies
| Author | Christine Unrau,Volker M Heins,Kristine Avram |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088218757807 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088218757807
Journal of International Political Theory
2018, Vol. 14(2) 126 –144
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088218757807
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Gift-giving and reciprocity in
global society: Introducing
Marcel Mauss in international
studies
Volker M Heins and Christine Unrau
University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Kristine Avram
University of Marburg, Germany
Abstract
How do multiple obligations to give, to receive, and to reciprocate contribute to the
evolution of international society? This question can be derived from the works of
the French anthropologist and sociologist Marcel Mauss, in particular from his classic
essay The Gift, published in 1925. The aim of this article is to introduce Mauss’ theory
of the gift to international political theorists, to develop a general theoretical argument
from his claim about the universality of gift-giving, and to lay out the plan of the Special
Issue. First, we explore the basic concepts of gift-giving and reciprocity and how they
highlight a type of exchange that differs from market exchange and from other forms
of quid-pro-quo interactions. Second, we consider the Marshall Plan as an iconic
and controversial example of international gift-giving. Third, we use Martin Wight’s
division of international political thought into realism, rationalism, and revolutionism
to locate the work of Mauss and neo-Maussian scholars within the tableau of modern
international thought. Fourth, we take a look at the interplay between analytical and
normative aspects of Mauss’ works and assess the theoretical purchase of these works
for international studies. Finally, we introduce the contributions of the Special Issue.
Keywords
Foreign aid, gift, global cooperation, Marcel Mauss, reciprocity, solidarity
Corresponding author:
Volker M Heins, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation
Research, Schifferstraße 44, D-47059 Duisburg, Germany.
Email: volker.heins@uni-due.de
757807IPT0010.1177/1755088218757807Journal of International Political TheoryHeins et al.
research-article2018
Article
Heins et al. 127
What makes the world hang together?
Neorealism in international relations (IR) and neo-utilitarianism in the social sciences
more generally are often criticized for their normative deficiencies. However, it is per-
haps more appropriate to consider their lack of explanatory power. They have little to say
about ubiquitous yet underexplored practices such as international debt forgiveness,
humanitarian aid, or the willingness of comparatively rich member states of the European
Union to transfer considerable amounts of money to less wealthy members through
structural funds each year. Theories based on neo-utilitarian premises cannot account for
the formation of “societies” of states beyond short-lived alliances. At a more fundamen-
tal level, they do not seem to be interested in the consequences of the evolutionary fact
that humans are not like mythical Hobbesian wolves but rather “ultra-social animals”
(Tomasello, 2014) uniquely equipped to form like-minded groups and to empathize with
others. Those theories cannot really tell us, in the words of John Ruggie (1998), “what
makes the world hang together.” While it is certainly true that international politics is
driven by the struggle for power and wealth at the expense of competitors, we also need
to explain how states and groups in society manage to build trust and cooperate across
political and cultural divides.
At the other end of the spectrum, normative or critical theories in the tradition of
Habermas often adopt an overly harmonious and teleological approach to political con-
flicts, and often take for granted the existence and motivating power of uncontroversial
norms. When Axel Honneth, for example, writes about struggles for recognition, the
term “struggle” is stripped of its existential dimension and reduced to mean only legal
efforts to fully implement the modern ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity
(Honneth, 2014; cf. Heins, 2016).
Among the many responses to the growing dissatisfaction with both neo-utilitarian
and normative theories, we have in recent years witnessed a blossoming of research
inspired by Marcel Mauss’ (1990 [1925]) classic The Gift, which was first published in
1925, as well as attempts to derive a general theoretical argument from his claim about
the universality of gift-giving.1 We define gift-giving, in the spirit of Mauss, as the gen-
erous transfer of socially valued objects without any (legal or contractual) guarantee of
reciprocation. Reciprocity in gift exchange is asynchronous (there is a time interval
between giving and reciprocating) and in kind (the transaction is not measured in mon-
etary terms). This allows gift exchanges to be framed as expressing the social bond
rather than as deferred payback for benefits received earlier. Starting from the concep-
tualization of the specifics of non-market exchanges, Mauss addresses the question of
how clans or tribes managed conflicts and established lasting relationships before mar-
kets and contracts came into being. He is particularly interested in the spirit or meaning
attributed to gifts which seem to demand that they are not only accepted but also
returned in one form or another.2 The failure to return a gift changes its very character.
In this case, the gift “poisons” relationships, as Mauss claims, who is fascinated by the
“double meaning” of the word “gift” in Germanic languages where it also means “poi-
son” (1990 [1925]: 81).3
Building on these insights, we go a step further by asking how multiple obligations to
give, to receive, and to give in return contribute to the reproduction and evolution
To continue reading
Request your trial