The ‘value’ of a gift
In this essay, I study The British Heart Foundation charity alongside Carrier’s (1990) ideology of a perfect gift to argue that the monetary value of an object could be essential for its identity as a perfect gift.
The British Heart Foundation is a charity that funds cardiovascular research. With multiple stores across UK and an impressive online presence, the foundation receives its funding through four ways: direct monetary donations from people, donations received through fundraising events, donations of objects that are in a good condition, and by selling these donated objects in their stores at discounted prices. For this essay, I am only going to focus on their strategy of raising funds which involves object donations.
In his essay on the ideology of a perfect gift, Carrier (1990) is only concerned with gift transactions between two entities – a giver and a recipient. But an institution such as a charity or an organization presents us with a curious case of the meanings these exchanged objects get ascribed through various stages of their movement from the giver to the recipient, when the dyadic transaction is separated by an intermediary. In the case of the British Heart Foundation with the money going towards something as abstract as ‘research,’ the recipient virtually has no identity as it is not a person. Thus, in such a case the recipient(s) could also be framed as the patients who benefit, although indirectly so, from the research. We are also confronted with the problem of the multiple stages of the object-value transaction. Once donated, the object reaches the stores where it is sold. Once sold, the object ceases to exist from this transaction, but its value continues to move through the next stages of funding the research, the research being used by the doctors and finally to the patients. The literal value of the object has ended and what now remains is the simulation of its value.
For Carrier (1990), his ideology of a perfect gift reflects tensions of interest that are usually present in a gift transaction. He categorises two tensions of interest. The first one is ‘the conception of objects as anonymous commodities that are bought and sold’ and the second tension is ‘the conception of people as free and independent individuals’ who are not tied by the mutual obligation of social relations (Carrier 1990: 19).’ In our case, the second tension of Carrier’s ideology is suspended. Carrier also defines this ideology of a perfect gift as a “set of beliefs that define an ideal form of action (Carrier 1990: 19).” Donating for a cause is an ideal form of action. Carrier does not define what is a perfect gift as she discusses the contrasts and tensions that deny a gift its perfection but she does explicate her interest in the identity of the giver. Interestingly, going back to Carrier’s first tension of interest, the objects donated are a perfect gift precisely for their monetary value as anonymous commodities that can be sold and bought. But can donating be a perfect gift if the giver is reciprocated indirectly with social acknowledgement for their selfless good deal? Goods are socially regulated and the giver does get social acknowledgement for his/her/their ‘good deed.’
In their article, “Anthropology at the bottom of the pyramid,” Cross and Street (2009) discuss the marketing strategy of the Anglo-Dutch multinational Unilever with their product Lifebuoy, a hand-soap. Many global companies such as Unilever have products that have been designed with the poor, earning less than two dollars a day, as their target audience. The idea is to uplift the poor while making profits. Cross and Street call it the “human face of contemporary capitalism” (Cross and Street 2009: 5). They further discuss the Lifebuoy hand-soap as a “social good” where the interest of the multiple actors involved in the production of this social good have been ‘successfully modified, enlisted and momentarily aligned’ (Cross and Street 2009: 5).
The British Heart Foundation’s fundraising strategy goes along the same tangent of ‘profit from the bottom of the pyramid.’ The people purchasing items from charity shops are the people from the ‘bottom.’ The exchange between the BHF stores and their consumer is purely one of commodity and yet it is this commodification of the gift that makes it a gift for its ultimate receivers, the patients.
References:
1) Carrier, J., 1990. Gifts in a world of commodities: the ideology of the perfect gift in American society. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, (29), pp.19-37.
2) Cross, J. and Street, A., 2009. Anthropology at the bottom of the pyramid. Anthropology Today, 25(4), pp.4-9.
Contributed by PurvaMhatre on 17/01/2022
