Anthropologists claim that in “gift societies” objects exchanged never become the private property of the recipient. We know this even in our own society: We would never think to use a soup tureen from grandma to feed the cat. Gifts impose an obligation to honor the giver.
Things bought do not bear these obligations. A soup tureen from Walmart can be used for the cat, or as a temporary home for a garter snake, or as a chamber pot. Nobody will care.
Money liberates. It is, as Dostoevsky put it (for different reasons) “coined liberty.” It liberates from the obligations that gifts bear. It liberates so that my bought possessions become mine in a way that gifts never quite do. A money economy is perhaps a pre-requisite for private property. Money also liberates exchange from the constraints of status: Someone who gives me an expensive jewel puts me in debt; if I buy the jewel, I can have it without the shadow of a giver’s domination.
Money exchanges are impersonal exchanges. That too is liberating, and it permits exchanges at distance. But when most exchanges are money exchanges, there seems to be a cost, specifically the cost of depersonalizing economic life.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.