MG Anspach says that “To give a gift in return, to recognize the generosity of the first giver through a corresponding gesture of reciprocity, is to recognize the relation for which the initial gift is only a vehicle.” This helpfully highlights the fact that the return gift is less a matter of gift-for-gift, and more a matter of gift-for-giver. But this isn’t quite right either, since the gift is not a response to the giver himself so much as to the relation that the giver intends to and has established with the recipient through his gift.
This might also help to distinguish gift exchanges from other sorts of exchanges: When I purchase a cup of coffee, I don’t give my money in recognition of the relation I have established with the barrista. I give money-for-coffee. It’s that extra thing, the relation, that is the focus of gifts.
(I’m hesitant about the “vehicle” language; or, perhaps, I’m hesitant about that “only.”)
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Classroom Heals the Wounds of Generations
“Hope,” wrote the German-American polymath Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, “is the deity of youth.” Wholly dependent on adults, children…
Still Life, Still Sacred
Renaissance painters would use life-sized wooden dolls called manichini to study how drapery folds on the human…
Letters
I am writing not to address any particular article, but rather to register my concern about the…
