Value Crisis and Maussian Gift: Focusing on David Graeber's Value Theory

Abstract

David Graeber, a proponent of anarchist anthropology, criticizes that some of the major value theories in anthropology is based on misinterpretation of Marcel Mauss’ Essai sur le don, and proposes a return to the basic issues raised by Mauss. This thesis intends to examine some alternative value theories to “hermeneutics of suspicion” on the basis of such discourse. Mauss’ Essai sur le don itself does not suggest a value theory. Rather value theories in anthropology throughout the 20th century can be seen as re-interpretations, either directly or indirectly, of Mauss’ theory. The issue is a return to the basic question of whether a gift is possible. This particular question stems from the definition of reciprocity that Mauss provides at the introduction of Essai sur le don. The dyadic structure that appears constantly in value theories originates from interpreting Mauss’ definition of reciprocity as possibility of gift or its impossibility. Does a gift exist outside or inside the realm of economic cycle, and is it distinguishable from other forms of commodities or is it simply a different form of commodity? Ever since “hermeneutics of suspicion” became generally accepted, the foremost premise in value theory has been the impossibility of a gift. According to Jacques Derrida, the very definition of a gift should eliminate the possibility of a return. If there is such a thing as a gift, it “should not be part of a cycle nor should it be subject to exchange.” If a gift becomes part of a cycle or is subject to an exchange, then it is no longer a gift. Therefore, terms such as gift economy or gift exchange defy the original meaning of a gift. With regard to this particular issue, Graeber points out that such an outcome is the result of defining gift exchange from an economic perspective. In addition, he suggests that at the backdrop of the insistence on the impossibility of gift lies the assumption that value is created not from ‘motive(s)’ or ‘purpose(s)’ of exchange, but is borne from exchange itself.