The Christmas Potlatch: A Refinement on the Sociological Interpretation of Gift Exchange

Author(s): GREGORY J. MOSCHETTI

Source: Sociological Focus, Vol. 12, No. 1 (January, 1979), pp. 1-7
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20831103
Accessed: 12-01-2018 20:58 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Focus

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Christmas Potlatch:
A Refinement on the
Sociological Interpretation
of Gift Exchange
GREGORY J. MOSCHETTI SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
University
TT . Vol.
of
12 No.
Cincinnati
1
January, 1979

This paper examines certain asymmetries in the Christmas gift exchange such that one class
of persons receives more than is given. The classic case is that of children vis-a-vis parents, but
other instances can be found. These asymmetries are examined in terms of their symbolic
significance. That is, they are seen to reflect the differential dependencies of constituent bodies on
the collectivity and each one's authority to act as its agent.

|? ociological interpretations of gift exchange have focused on the reciprocal

nature of such exchanges and their symbolic significance for the integration of the
collectivity or collectivities involved (cf. Levi-Strauss, 1969 translation; Mauss, 1954
translation). From this perspective the exchange of gifts is viewed as flowing from
and reinforcing the moral principle of reciprocity which has consequent effects on
other forms of exchange (e.g., economic). Because reciprocity is viewed as a moral
principle, it follows that gift exchanges are exchanges between persons in their roles
as agents of the collectivity or collectivities involved and not between individuals in
their positions as constituent bodies to the collectivity.1
In keeping with this general collectivistic perspective, it may also follow that
such exchanges can be viewed as reflective of certain aspects of the collectivity's
constitutional structure or morphology (cf . Durkheim and Mauss, 1963 translation).
Several ready hypotheses come to mind. First, the presence or absence of
institutionalized gift exchange in a specified interaction network may be indicative
of the extent to which the network operates as a collectivity or as a non-collective
aggregate. Second, the network of gift exchange, along with its frequency and
intensity, may be useful in defining the boundaries of a collective unit. For example,
the extent to which families operate on a nuclear or extended basis might be reflected
in the pattern of gift exchanges that occur between nuclear units. Third, the
frequency and intensity of gift exchange in the collective unit may vary directly with
its bondedness or collective unity. And, fourth, certain differentiated patterns of gift
exchange within a collectivity may vary isomorphically with its constitutional
structure.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

It is this last hypothesis that provides the focus for this paper. In particula
patterns of gift exchange within collectivities are of two general forms?asymm
and symmetric. In asymmetric gift exchange one receives more than is given (or
versa), while in symmetric gift exchange one receives an equal gift in retu
Asymmetric gift exchange is not to be confused with univocal or indirect exchan
which the donor ultimately receives an equal gift from some party other than
original recipient in the exchange network. Rather, it is a form of mutual reciprocit
in which the gifts exchanged are unequal. Further, the equality or inequality of
may refer to their quantity or variety as well as to their monetary value since
reference is to symbolic rather than strict utilitarian equality. It will be argued
patterns of asymmetric and symmetric gift exchange occur simultaneously in m
collectivities, and that they reflect or symbolize the extent to which depende
constituent bodies are empowered to act as agents of the collectivity.2 This argum
is examined through a discussion of gift relationships associated with t
celebration of Christmas. The conclusions from these examples are then discuss
relation to the more specific details of constitutional systems and the extent to whic
gift exchanges may reflect such systems.

THE CHRISTMAS POTLATCH

Levi-Strauss (1969:56) describes gift exchange at Christmas as follows:

Certain ceremonies and festivals in our society also regulate the periodic return and traditional
style of vast operations of exchange. The exchange of presents at Christmas, during one month
each year, to which all the social classes apply themselves with a sort of sacred ardor, is nothing
else than a gigantic potlatch, which implicates millions of individuals, and at the end of which
many family budgets are confronted by lasting disequilibrium. Christmas cards, richly
decorated, certainly do not attain the value of the "coppers"; but the refinement of selection, their
outstanding designs, their price, the quantity sent or received, give evidence (ritually exhibited on
the mantelpiece during the week of celebration), of the recipient's social bonds and the degree of
his prestige. We may also mention the subtle techniques which govern the wrapping of the
presents and which express in their own way the personal bond between the giver and the
receiver special stickers, paper, ribbon, etc. Through the variety of gifts, their frequent
duplication resulting from the limited range of selection, these exchanges also take the form of a
vast and collective destruction of wealth. There are many little facts in this example to remind one
that even in our society the destruction of wealth is a way to gain prestige.

While Levi-Strauss' depiction may serve to remind us of our ow

"primitiveness," the painting of Christmas in such sweeping and global terms
blinds us to some of the sociologically more interesting aspects of the institutio
That is, the patterns of agency represented by patterns of symmetric a
asymmetric reciprocity in the gift exchange. Christmas may indeed be a "gigan
potlatch" in which the ability of the collectivity to provide for its constituen
symbolized through the destruction and display of wealth by its agents, but it
other more subtle aspects as well.3 Three cases which illustrate these subtler asp
of the Christmas gift exchange are examined?the exchange of gifts within th
family, exchanges between the family and outsiders, and exchanges in small w
organizations. Each of these exemplifies contrasting patterns of asymmetric a
symmetric gift exchange as outlined above.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CHRISTMAS POTLATCH 3

GIFT EXCHANGE WITHIN THE FAMILY

There is a strong popular belief that Christmas is for children. The central
religious figure is a child who, incidently, receives gifts from the agents of three
separate kingdoms. There is a mythical being known as Santa Claus who delivers
presents to good little boys and girls.4 Numerous child-centered charities re-emerge
each Christmas, the primary purpose of which is to ensure gifts for even the poorest
of children. And, no Christmas would be complete without the telling of Dickens' A
Christmas Carol or some other such tale in which a poor child manages a happy
holiday (e.g., Seuss, The Grinch that Solte Christmas).5
The child-centered character of Christmas is most strongly demonstrated in the
fact that gift exchanges within both the nuclear and extended family are asymmetric
with children receiving more than they give. That is, the total monetary value of the
gifts received by each child may be greater than, less than, or equal to the total
monetary value of the gifts received by each adult, but children almost inevitably
receive a larger quantity and variety of gifts than they give. When the symmetries
and asymmetries of the familial Christmas gift exchange are examined more closely,
it is discovered that the asymmetric pattern occurs between children and the parent
generation and that it tends to disappear with the attainment of adulthood.6 Thus,
gift exchanges between parents (grandparents, aunts and uncles) and children tend
to be asymmetric, while exchanges between siblings and cousins tend to be
symmetric regardless of age differences. At the same time, exchanges between
parents and grandparents or between parents or grandparents and children who
have attained adulthood tend to be symmetric.
This asymmetric pattern continues into the broader community where adults
donate money, toys, food, and other gifts items for distribution to abandoned
children, children of the poor, and the poor in general.7 More importantly, it is
replicated in other holidays. Within the family birthday gift exchanges follow the
same pattern, with children generally receiving more than is given. Beyond the
family this pattern can be found in the Halloween celebration where children go from
door-to-door "begging" sweets from their neighbors. These additional instances
indicate that this asymmetric pattern of gift exchange is not limited to the institution
of Christmas, and that it is not limited to exchange within the family. That is, it can
be thought of as a very general pattern. Prior to seeking its explanation, however, it
is reasonable to inquire as to how general it really is. Does it extend beyond children
and does it extend to relationships that do not have a family-like quality to them?

GIFT EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE FAMILY AND OUTSIDERS

Two examples of asymmetric gift exchange between the family and outsiders
have already been expounded?donations to charities at Christmas which have a
strong child or family focus, and the dispensing of sweets at Halloween. There are
two other common kinds of Christmas gift exchanges between families and
outsiders, exchanges between neighbors and exchanges with service personnel.
While the frequency and intensity of gift exchanges between neighbors may vary by
neighborhood, when such exchanges do occur they are generally symmetric. Just as

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

exchanges between adults stand in contrast to exchanges between the pa

generation and children, these exchanges stand in contrast to exchanges betw
families and service personnel.
At Christmas time it is customary to give a gift (usually in the monetary form
a "tip") to those persons who have some regular service contact with the fam
These might include the mailman, paper boy, maid, diaper service, bootlegge
dry county, and, in times gone by, the green grocer, butcher, and the like. While t
gifts may be seen as an extension of the general American institution of tippin
fact is they are given at Christmas time and, in either case, are totally asymm
exchanges.8 This particular example of asymmetric gift exchange is interest
because the "naive" interpretation of it is an almost purely economic one wh
denies its asymmetry (i.e., extra payment for service well done or payment in hope
extra service). While there may be a strong utilitarian flavor to such exchange
does not necessarily mean that they do not have symbolic significance. The pro
this would come in the demonstration that they are not only similar in form to th
gift exchanges which clearly have symbolic significance, but that the form of
participant's relationship to the collectivity in each of these exchanges
similar.

GIFT EXCHANGES IN SMALL WORK GROUPS

It is customary for work organizations, large and small, to celebrate Christmas

in some fashion. The Christmas turkey or bonus, the office party, and the decoration
of hallways, offices, and buildings with Christmas "cheer" all attest to the currency
of this practice. Because the character of these celebrations varies widely and
because to this author's knowledge these have not been adequately mapped,
discussion will focus upon a form of gift exchange found in many small work groups
characterized by a collection of professionals and a small support staff. In such work
groups it is often the custom to hold a random drawing in which each individual
becomes responsible for purchasing a token or "gag" gift for one other individual. In
Levi-Strauss' (1969) terminology this is a totally univocal system of exchange in
which great care is usually taken to assure that it will follow a formal egalitarian
principle (i.e., some dollar limit is usually placed on the gift). However, it is usually
the case that the professionals take up a separate collection to buy gifts of some
higher value for the support personnel. There are a number of variations on this
general form which need not be considered here. The point to be made is that the gift
exchange between the support and professional personnel is asymmetric with the
former receiving more than is given.

DISCUSSION

It has been suggested that gift exchanges between children and the parent
generation tend to be asymmetric with the children receiving more than they give,
that this asymmetry tends to disappear with the attainment of adulthood, and that it
does not appear to be specific to a particular holiday or to the familial institution.
Such exchanges stand in contrast to exchanges between adults regardless of

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CHRISTMAS POTLATCH 5

generational differences and family ties. It has also been suggested that
exchanges between families and service personnel and between professional a
support staff in small work groups follow this sam asymmetric pattern, and
these stand in contrast to exchanges between families (neighbors) and be
professionals in the same work group.
Assuming this to be a correct ethnographic portrayal, the question is "How
we best account for this mixed pattern of asymmetric and symmetric gift exc
within the same collective unit or collective units of similar form?" The answ
suggested at the outset, is in terms of differences in empowerment to act as agent
the collectivity. Children, service personnel, and support staff all stan
constituent body relationship to their respective collectivity. As such, they
some interest in maintaining it. Unlike other constituent bodies, however, the
not empowered to participate in or make decisions on behalf of the collectivity
disparity in agentive empowerment can best be viewed in terms of a distinc
between constituent bodies based upon the extent to which they operate as co-
in their power over the collectivity with lesser bodies being more dependent o
collectivity in the sense that they have less control over the decisions which a
their lives. This greater dependency in turn is seen as being reflected or symbolize
the gift exchange wherein these bodies routinely receive more than they give. It is
a sense, a subtle reminder of this agentive power difference. In the absen
empirical verification, the worth of this interpretation can be evaluated throug
hypotheses it is capable of generating.

SOME PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES CONCERNING GIFT EXCHAN

COLLECTIVITIES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES

If it is taken as a given that patterns of gift exchange reflect the morphology

collectivity, then certain hypotheses readily follow. First, the presence or abse
gift exchange in a specified interaction network can be taken as an indicator
extent to which the network operates as a collectivity or as a non-colle
aggregate. Second, the network of gift exchange, along with its frequency a
intensity, can be used to define the boundaries of the collective unit. For example,
extent to which families operate on a nuclear or extended basis would most like
reflected in the patterns of gift exchange between nuclear units in comparison to
pattern within units. Third, the frequency and intensity of gift exchange i
collective unit should vary directly with the degree of bondedness or collective
of the unit. Fourth, patterns of symmetric and asymmetric gift exchange i
collectivity should vary isomorphically with its constitutional structur
example, one would expect to find asymmetry in gift exchanges between pare
families whose constitutional structure is one of unitary centralism, and symm
in families with a commensal or heterarchical constitutional structure.9 These
hypotheses should apply with equal alacrity to units other than the family su
friendships, neighborhoods, and work organizations.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

CONCLUSIONS

Sociologists of contemporary society have paid scant attention to reflective

symbol systems of the kind that captured the attention of Durkheim and Mauss
(1963) in primitive societies. While such systems may play a lesser role in the
epistemological structure or modern "rational" societies, their study still merits
attention. Davis (1972) has estimated that in 1968 the British spent four percent of
total consumer expenditure on gifts. Whatever else it is, giftgiving is a major social
institution worthy of sociological scrutiny. Perhaps through such scrutiny a balance
to the heavily utilitarian focus of current exchange formulations can be provided (cf.
Ekeh, 1974).

FOOTNOTES

1. Swanson (1971:611-12) makes the following distinction. 'The participants in a collectivity have a dual
status. All of them try to use the collective relationship for their private?their special?interests. But, at the
same time, they find that to use the collectivity they must maintain it and hence must serve as its agents: they
must be sensitive to its requirements and must support its interests. In their first capacity, these participants
are constituent bodies. In the second, they are agents."

2. Swanson (1971:612) notes that constitutional systems differ in the formal recognition they give to the
agent/constituent body distinction. Here, this is taken to mean that participants are differentially
empowered to act as agents.

3. Alternatively, the potlatch can be viewed as a ceremony which leads to individual or constituent body
aggrandizement in terms of power and prestige. This and the above interpretation are treated as equally vaid
within the context of this paper.

4. Although the parents buy and wrap the gifts, they are given by Santa Claus. This practice may be viewed
as a means of effectively separating the parents' agentive role from their actions as constituent bodies.

5. Tales of this type most usually include a constituent body (Scrooge, the Grinch) who refuses to play his
agentive role but in the end relents.

6. Adulthood, here, is to be taken in the "age of reason" sense. This asymmetry begins to disappear when
Santa Claus is exposed and then continues to erode through the pre-teen and teen years.

7. There are numerous similarities between children and the poor vis-a-vis their relationship to the
collectivity. Each are at the receiving end of an asymmetric gift exchange, deserving children receive more
as, presumably, do the deserving poor. This metaphor of the children as poor and the poor as children reveals
much concerning the collective status of each.

8. Some of these personnel do "prime the pump" with a Christmas card. The exchange, however, remains
asymmetric.

9. For definitions of constitutional types see Swanson (197). In unitary centralism "one parent is, without
question, the head of the family," while in commensal or heterarchical systems decision-making is more
uniformly shared.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CHRISTMAS POTLATCH 7

REFERENCES
Levi-Strauss, C. 1963 Primitive Classification. Chicago:
1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship. University of Chicago Press.
Boston: Beacon Press. Ekeh, P. P.
Mauss, M. 1974 Social Exchange Theory. Cambridge:
1967 The Gift. New York: Norton. Harvard University Press.
Davis, J. Swanson, G. E.
1972 "Gifts and the U.K. economy." Man 1971 "An organizational analysis of
7:408-429. collectivities." American Sociological
Durkheim, E. and M. Mauss Review 36:607-624.

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.25 on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:58:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms