EXCHANGE, GIFT, AND THEFT

simple reminders pertaining to the grammar of the terms ÒexchangeÓ and Ògift.Ó It amazes me how often theories of exchange and theories of the gift fail to observe these grammars and go against the ordinary usage of the terms, without any preliminary warning. I have never subscribed to Òordinary languageÓ philosophies and, therefore, I do not believe that one can decide on the merits or demerits of a theory on the basis of whether or not the theory welcomes or coins words with a meaning that ordinary language (is there such a thing?) has not sanctioned. But I do believe that a lot can be gleaned from the way words are put to use in everyday discourse. I believe, for example, that the multivocity that words demonstrate in their everyday use is a good thing and that it should be left alone. I also believe that everyday usage has definite ways of picking out from among the many senses and nuances of a word the one required in this particular occurrence, and I think that it is annoying that theories are developed while overlooking this technique of picking out and specifying. These are my reasons for beginning with the ÒgrammarsÓ of ÒexchangeÓ and Ògift.Ó To ÒexchangeÓ means to circulate, to swap, to trade, to give in order to receive. One exchanges something for something else, labor for wages, one commodity for another commodity, sisters and daughters for wives, wealth for prestige, prayers and rituals for divine favors. Exchanges do not have to be simultaneous; an exchange is no less of an exchange when an interval of time lapses between the acts of giving and receiving. Nor do exchanges require subjects or the presence in someoneÕs mind of an intention to exchange: when bodies of different temperatures come in contact with one another, there is an unintentional exchange of heat quanta. And in the cases where subjects and intentions are present, it is not necessary for an exchange to involve more than one subject or mind: I may certainly exchange a tie that I bought yesterday for a scarf that I fancy today. It looks, therefore, as if there is ÒexchangeÓ whenever two items undergo some reciprocal change or other in their properties and/or their locations, owing to the intentional or unintentional behavior of at least one of them towards the other. Yet, it would be a mistake to think that any one instance of exchange represents the essence of exchange practices, in the sense that all other exchanges are named after it. For example, equivalence of the exchanged items does not seem to be an essential characteristic of exchange. What seems to be central to exchange is the availability of at least two things Ð a and b Ð and the swapping of a for b and b for a. But whether essential or not to exchange, the ideas of equivalence, equilibrium, and reciprocity have often been associated with the exchange