What's In A Gift?

A tiny box secured with a red ribbon.

A hand-written note that reads - “I saw this and thought of you”.

There’s an influx of emotions one usually goes through while giving or receiving a gift. You tap into the concepts of effort, time and love in order to make someone feel appreciated. It’s the manner in which an emotional thought translates into a tangible (or intangible) form that speaks to me the most. However, when it comes to gifting, there’s more than meets the eye. Have you ever drawn parallels between gifting and the barter system - you give a gift, only to expect one in return? Are your thoughts always so pure when it comes to buying, creating or receiving gifts? This is my honest attempt at understanding the value, thought and exchange relations that take place in the gift-giving process that ideally seems so fluid.

The disciplines of anthropology, sociology and social psychology have each delved into understanding gift exchange either by looking at it as a socio-economic exchange or comprehending the social norms that make one want to partake in giving and receiving gifts. As a form of reciprocity or exchange, gift giving is one of the processes that integrates a society. To put it simply, reciprocity is the process of exchanging things with other people in order to gain a mutual benefit. The norm of reciprocity, sometimes referred to as the rule of reciprocity, is a social norm where if someone does something for you, you then feel obligated to return the favour.

French sociologist, Marcel Mauss, offered a sociological analysis on exchanging gifts and the idea of reciprocity within different primitive and archaic cultures in his 1925 essay titled, ‘The Gift’. He explored the manner in which people feel obliged to give and receive gifts - however, laying emphasis on the equal or greater value of the gift that is received by a person. Reading this rather fascinating essay by Mauss made me want to re-evaluate gift giving in a new light - keeping in mind the emotional, social and economic relations that go beyond something that is seen to be so simple.

Mauss identified three obligations associated with gift exchange:

1. Giving, which he equates with the first step in building a social relationship.

2. Receiving, which signifies acceptance of the social relationship.

3. Reciprocating, which demonstrates the recipient’s integrity.

He went on to express that when gifts are refused or unreciprocated, relationships can be threatened. He argued that presents are tied up with strict obligations thus stating,

“To refuse to give, to fail to invite, just as to refuse to accept, is tantamount to declaring war; it is to reject the bond of alliance and commonality."

While gift giving can be perceived to be a physical symbol of a relationship between two individuals, it is equally important to comprehend the expression of the social and cultural ties that bring these individuals together through the medium of the gift (and lack thereof). Keeping this in mind, giving a gift could inevitably create a debt-balance - however, this debt-balance is rather silent in nature. To simplify this, hypothetically, if someone were to give me a gift, I would feel obligated to give a gift back, keeping in mind an estimate of the price paid or the thought that went behind gifting that specific item.

In his 1967 essay ‘The Social Psychology of the Gift’, Barry Schwartz examines the relationship between gift exchange and social behavior, exploring how the gift imposes an identity on the giver as well as the receiver. Schwartz posited how reciprocity isn’t as simple as matching your gifts in value. Interestingly, he remarked,

“A gift giver will experience discomfort if reciprocity fails to occur, but will be equally discomforted if they’re given perfect reciprocity”.

To put it simply, if the equilibrium is too perfect, the act of gifting will feel more like an economical exchange than a social one.

There have been a number of consumer behavior researchers, along with social psychologists, who have recognized that gift-giving is an intrinsically semiotic activity. In her research study, Mary Wolfinbarger mentioned how an example of symbolism can be noticed in the faux paus that results when price tags on gifts are not removed. Even in the case when a recipient knows the price of a gift, the tag will be carefully removed. The removal of the tag thus symbolizes the non-market, non-economic status of gift giving. Then again, this can be contested when one leaves the tag of a gift on, in an attempt to show the cost of the gift to the receiver.

One could perceive the essence of gift-giving as the protection of a social relationship. After all, gifts symbolize a level of gratitude and appreciation we have for another individual. A tangible (or intangible) reminder of our love and affection, a gift connotes gratitude we wish to communicate to someone dear to us. The anatomy of gratitude is inextricably linked to joy - the joy of receiving something that we will cherish, be it in the form of a handmade present or a store-bought item. Further, there could be an element of surprise on receiving a gift that has been carefully picked for you or the joy of sharing a wishlist with someone, only to have an item from that list delivered at your doorstep!

In an essay on gift-giving motives, Peter Bregman posited a common misconception: the bigger, more valuable the gift, the more it expresses our appreciation. He wrote about how people he knew who received highly expensive gifts still felt under-appreciated in life. This often happens when we try to protect our impression in front of our peers by splurging on gifts that are seemingly superficial - only to lose sight of the real reason behind gifting.

In one such study by Flynn and Adams, they mentioned how gift-givers expected a positive correlation between how much they spent on a gift and the extent to which gift-recipients would appreciate the gift. This is because gift-givers assume that more expensive gifts convey a higher level of thoughtfulness. Conversely, gift-recipients reported no such association between gift price and their actual feelings of appreciation. After all, can money buy love?

To me, a gift can be all kinds of things. It can be a person repulsed by the kitchen who takes effort to learn how to bake a cake. It could be a bathroom singer finding the confidence to sing you your favourite song. It could be an attempt to follow an a-b-a-b rhyme scheme while writing a poem for you. It could be the joy of receiving a pair of shoes you’ve been dying to get your hands on. For a gift can be an experience - it needn’t be tangible in nature. To have your gift appreciated for all that it’s worth, the thought behind the gift needs to be pure. Ever so often, I try and put myself in the receiver’s shoes - what would make them smile while unwrapping their present? I know I’m not one to give advice on gifting and I’m not sure if there’s a recommended guidebook on finding the ‘perfect’ gift. Until then, I’d like to rely on one of my favourite authors, Dan Areiely, for some stellar gifting advice -

“The great challenge lies in making the leap into someone else’s mind. Instead of picking a book from your sister’s Amazon wish list, or giving her what you think she should read, go to a bookstore and try to think like her. It’s a serious social investment.”