This article was downloaded by: [Acadia University]

On: 08 May 2013, At: 03:19

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Consumption Markets & Culture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmc20

Rethinking the social and cultural

dimensions of charitable giving
a
Domen Bajde
a
Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia
Published online: 11 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Domen Bajde (2009): Rethinking the social and cultural dimensions of
charitable giving, Consumption Markets & Culture, 12:1, 65-84

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253860802560870

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Consumption Markets & Culture
Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2009, 65–84

Rethinking the social and cultural dimensions of charitable giving

Domen Bajde*

Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Consumption
10.1080/10253860802560870
GCMC_A_356255.sgm
1025-3866
Original
Taylor
102008
12
domen.bajde@ef.uni-lj.si
DomenBajde
00000December
and
&Article
Francis
(print)/1477-223X
Francis
Markets
2008
Ltdand Culture
(online)

Gifts to distant others, such as charitable giving, represent an important segment

of contemporary gift-giving that has often been overlooked due to the excessive
focus on dyadic giving between intimate individuals. In response, this paper adopts
a sociological systemic perspective on gift-giving and focuses on charitable gifts
as an emblem of postmodern gift-giving to distant others. Historical evidence and
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

sociological theory on postmodern solidarity are combined to shed light on the fluid
duality of contemporary giving and the importance of the imaginary in charitable
giving. The outlined socially symbolic dimensions of charitable giving are critically
examined in light of postmodern consumer culture and the recent social corporate
responsibility trends. By openly engaging the proposed complexities of gift-giving,
our vocabulary and understanding of postmodern giving can be revised so as to
invite novel routes of investigation.
Keywords: gifts to distant others; charitable giving; systemic perspective; gift’s
imaginary; imagined community; humanity; postmodern charity

Introduction
Postmodern times offer not only a diversity of market-related and state-related prac-
tices but also a colorful range of gift-giving practices. For the most part, gifts are given
to people who are in our closest physical and social proximity (Joy 2001). Yet we also
give gifts to our dead, to gods and to unknown distant others (e.g., a beggar on the
street). We generally present our gifts personally (Cheal 1988), but on certain occa-
sions we give anonymously, be it through imaginary entities such as Santa Claus and
the Tooth Fairy, or via intermediary institutions such as charitable organizations or
corporate organizations in the case of participating in cause-related promotions.
Despite their colorful diversity these varied practices belong to the single category of
gift-giving. However, gift-giving is a category difficult to define, a category that
defies one-sided reductions which ignore the dialectic and dynamic of gift-giving.
To begin with, the gift is neither a-cultural nor a-historical (Gregory 1982; Parry
1986), and any treatment of the gift as a universal object of study detached from its
socio-historical context conceals many important nuances of gift-giving. As a result,
I employ a historical approach that does not offer a complete history of gift-giving but
a historical perspective on several aspects of contemporary gift-giving. Due to the
excessive focus on dyadic giving between intimate individuals, the existing theory
neglects gift-giving to distant others (e.g., charitable giving). Accordingly, the paper
has four central aims. First, it aims to reintroduce gifts to distant others (charitable
giving in particular) to gift-giving theory, which is currently dominated by the intimate

*Email: domen.bajde@ef.uni-lj.si

ISSN 1025-3866 print/ISSN 1477-223X online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10253860802560870
http://www.informaworld.com
 66 D. Bajde

gift. Second, I aim to advance a sociological systemic perspective of gift-giving and

extend it into the context of charitable giving. Third, the paper demonstrates the
important role of the imaginary (i.e., imagined communities) in charitable gift-giving.
Fourth, I conclude by examining the contours of postmodern charity within the
proposed theoretical framework.
Throughout the outlined progression, the paper sheds light on the complex duality
of postmodern gift, namely, its oscillation between intimate giving and giving to
distant others. The focus is set on charitable giving, a vital yet less explored form of
giving to distant others. Due to the failure of fully appreciating the historical view-
points on gift-giving and the reluctance to recognize the “imaginary” underpinning
charitable giving (Payton 1989), the social and symbolic nature of charitable giving
have been discounted in the past. These neglected aspects of contemporary gift-giving
represent an important topic for both consumer research and marketing. Postmodern
charity entails a complex and ambiguous relationship with the market and postmodern
consumer culture. By openly engaging these complexities, our vocabulary and
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

understanding of gift-giving can be revised, and novel routes of investigation can be

opened up.

The systemic perspective

Vaughan (1997, 2006) argues that the gift is not merely a category of behavior but also
a paradigm, a cosmological stance. This view is consistent with the systemic approach
(Giesler 2006) to gift-giving adopted by earlier theoreticians of the gift (e.g., Mauss
[1950] 1990). The systemic perspective approaches gift-giving as a manifestation of
solidarity (Komter 2005), a “total social fact” (Mauss [1950] 1990) that serves as a
religious, political, economic and social pillar of the community. The systemic view
is contrasted with the atomistic approaches, which reduce the social dimension of gift-
giving to the (re)creation of dyadic ties between particular donors and recipients
(Giesler 2006). Conversely, the systemic view emphasizes the important role of gift-
giving in constructing broader social networks (Komter 2005). Berking claims that the
significance of gift-giving is not only manifested in singular exchanges of gifts, but
rather in the totality of the gift circuit, a circuit that becomes much more expansive
and abstract in contemporary societies. Gifts do not just consolidate relationships
between particular individuals. They also consolidate the collective and the moral, thus
performing a community-stabilizing function (Berking 1999). To fully capture the
social nature of gift-giving, the atomistic, socio-psychological treatment of gift-giving
needs to be complemented by a systemic sociological perspective.
However, it is sometimes difficult to think systemically of gift-giving within the
theories of gift-giving dominant in consumer research and marketing. A systemic
perspective on gift-giving challenges the trope of contemporary gift as a withdrawal
into small social worlds of private, intimate relations (Cheal 1996). Solidarity and
social cohesion are communal notions that transcend the local relations among few
intimate individuals (Turner and Rojek 2001). This is especially true of large contem-
porary communities, where gifts (as is the case with charitable gifts) often transcend
local relations (Porterfield 2003). What is more, the systemic perspective also
challenges the uncritical separation of gift-giving from the imaginary that underpins
it. Social actions can only be understood vis-à-vis the subjective meanings attached to
them (Weber [1947] 1968). These subjective meanings are not idiosyncratic or
random, but rather (at least in part) derive from the collective/cultural “imaginary”
 Consumption Markets & Culture 67

(Durkheim 1984; Godelier 1999). The imaginary of the gift subsumes the existing gift
ideology and the position of gift-giving within the prevalent social “attitude or orien-
tation toward world activity” (Parsons 1968, 79). Godelier (1999) demonstrates the
important role that imaginary constructions, which underpin a person’s relationships
with Nature, the supernatural, ancestors and distant others, play in gift-giving. It is by
exploring the ways in which people employ gift-giving to construct themselves, their
world and their relation to the world that the true sociological nature of gift-giving is
brought to the surface.
Whereas consumer research has shown considerable interest in the intimate gift
ideology (Belk 1996, 2005), the imaginary that underpins giving to distant others
remains largely uncharted. This paper aims to rectify this shortcoming by shedding
light on elements of modern gift ideology pertaining to charitable giving. The charity
ethos shares some elements of the intimate gift ideology but also maintains a certain
opposition to the exclusive, particularizing nature of intimate giving. Yet, the abstract
universality and non-exclusiveness of charitable giving does not preclude charity from
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

retaining a social, personal quality. To explore the contours of the unique sociality and
solidarity of charitable giving, I turn to the notion of imagined community, an imagi-
nary construction that often underpins charitable giving and provides an important
basis for the modern individual’s identity construction. This move enables me to
outline a systemic approach to charitable giving that fully acknowledges the distinc-
tive social nature of charitable gifts. In the second part of the paper, the systemic
perspective is retained, while at the same time examined critically in light of the post-
modern manifestations of charity. The paper concludes by offering a short critical
discussion of the relevant gift terminology and the limitations and prospects for future
exploration.

The dually pure modern gift

Due to its focus on how gifts should be (i.e., the ideal, pure gift) the gift ideology is
rarely a reliable reflection of actual gift-giving. It is nevertheless a vital indicator of
how people become people and how communities are maintained. The question of
whether pure gifts are in fact possible is not of primary interest here. In agreement
with Carrier (1995), Belk (1996) and Godelier (1999), I believe that even the fact that
a certain ideology might be exceedingly utopian does not preclude this ideology from
being materialized in everyday practices. More importantly, the question, are pure
gifts possible? conceals other crucial questions, such as: What does the idea of pure
gifts contain? Why do we need to purify our gifts in the first place? How do we purify
them? etc. My approach to gift ideology focuses on these questions by delving into
the notion of pure (i.e., ideal) gifts and related imaginary constructions that might not
tell us much about the “universal reality” of gifts as such, but do reveal a great deal
about how people think of gifts in a particular socio-historic setting (i.e., the meanings
that underlie giving). In other words, the pure gift ideology is a “story” that might tell
us little about the world yet a lot about the people who narrate it (Hammersley and
Atkinson 2002). Along these lines, two conflicting yet complementary dimensions of
pure gift ideology are outlined and examined from a historical perspective.
The contemporary “Western” understanding of gifts and gift-giving derives from
the socio-cultural dynamics that have transpired in Western societies (Carrier 1995).
With the arrival of modernity, the West has experienced a profound transformation of
social structures that have transformed conceptions of friendship, love, solidarity and
 68 D. Bajde

gift-giving (Berking 1999; Bossy 1985; Komter 2005; Nelson 1969). Among these
transformations, Silver (1990) outlines the dawn of a crucial modern separation
between utilitarian economic and private sentimental relations with others. This
separation facilitates two parallel cultural “revolutions” that are emblematic of the
early modern period: the economic revolution fuelled by the notion of free markets
and the sentimental revolution asserting the significance of individuals’ feelings
(Barker-Benfield 2003). Together these developments facilitated a balanced transfor-
mation of the ways in which individuals interact with each other. The idea of free
markets demands that distant others be treated not as aliens or enemies but as neutral
“cordial strangers” (Hyde 1999). Correspondingly, this transitional period also marks
an ascent of universal morality (Weber [1947] 1968) grounded in modern ideas of
common humanity (Berking 1999; Silver 1990; Turner and Rojek 2001). For instance,
Adam Smith based his call for free market exchange on the universal benevolence and
compassion for others that makes us human (Friedman 2003). On the other hand, the
swelling modern market and state begin to overflow social interaction, cornering the
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

gift into the sphere of close-range intimate relations between family and friends
(Carrier 1995; Godbout and Caille 1998).
It is imperative to note the duality of the proposed sentimental revolution, which
on one hand, entails the romanticization of intimate relationships (for a thorough
review, see Belk 1996, 2005) and on the other hand, gives rise to philanthropic sensi-
tivity (Barker-Benfield 2003). For instance, by the eighteenth century the medieval
“caritas” (Bossy 1985) as a form of giving to one’s kin or members of one’s fraternity
was rivaled by the “new philanthropy” of the humanist tradition which accentuates
anonymous gift-giving to socially distant others and society at large. These develop-
ments have had an impact on the modern gift ideology by promoting the notion of
pure anonymous charitable gifts to needy strangers, gifts that reassert the donors’
quintessential humanity and express their universal sympathy for all fellow human
beings (Geremek 1994).1 As a result, the modern gift ideology exhibits a striking dual-
ity by simultaneously venerating the particularizing intimate gift (Belk 1996; Carrier
1995; Cheal 1996) and the anonymous gift to a distant stranger (Godbout and Caille
1998; Godelier 1999). Whereas the “sacred element” of intimate gifts resides in reaf-
firming the uniqueness and particularity of the donor, the recipient and their intimate
bond, gifts between strangers operate as signifiers of the donor’s ability to transcend
exclusivist relationships with intimates. In the case of charitable giving, the spirit of
the gift relates less to particularity and intimacy and more to a fundamentally shared
humanity, to being one among many of the same kind (Klein and Lowrey 2006; Nagel
1970).2
The proposed duality of the modern gift ideology has, at least partly, also been
acknowledged in consumer research. Belk and Coon’s (1993) seminal introduction of
the “agapic model” of gift-giving seriously challenges the frequent reductions of gift-
giving to self-interested exchange and power struggles. The agapic dimension of the
gift is not a mere curiosity: it presents itself as one of the core characteristics of the
modern gift. Yet, whereas the existing consumer research literature offers several
investigations of agapic gifts as signifiers of particularistic bonds between recipients
and donors (Belk and Coon 1993; Joy 2001), the social expressivity of gifts to distant
others remains under-explored. The dominant conceptualizations of gift-giving in
consumer research construe gifts as guardians of special bonds between singularized
individuals. Cheal (1988, 1996) and Belk conceptualize gift-giving as a historically
determined response to the alienating potential of modernity, an “antidote to the
 Consumption Markets & Culture 69

overly impersonal and rational modern world” (Belk 1996, 78). However, the gift’s
response to modern alienation is generally construed in light of the “a symbolic sphere
of redundant transactions” between intimates (Cheal 1996, 92), thus accentuating the
gift’s withdrawal into the sphere of private intimate relations. Conversely, consider-
ably less heed has been given to the social potential of anonymous gifts to distant
others (Godbout and Caille 1998; Godelier 1999).
Ironically, although often neglected or rejected as a legitimate topic of investiga-
tion, the ideology of giving to distant others exerts a pervasive influence on scholarly
investigations of charitable giving. The inhibition to explore the social dimensions of
charitable giving can partly be attributed to the ideology of anonymous gifts. For
instance, modern writers such as Bernard de Mandeville claimed that the ideal of a
truly benevolent charitable gift is erected not only upon a strict abnegation of self-
interested utilitarian reasoning, but also on the basis of the gift being offered to a
complete stranger with whom the donor has no social ties (Geremek 1994). This ideo-
logical demand for the absence of traditional (local) social ties between donors and
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

recipients is often taken as a sign of the absolute asocial nature of charitable giving
and subsequently as evidence of the internal inconsistency and fallacy of unilateral
“free gifts” (Douglas 1990; Derrida 1992). However, charitable giving is far from
asocial. The “asocial free gift argument” fails to acknowledge the solidarity that tran-
scends traditional, local social structures. In line with the duality of the modern gift
ideology, contemporary sociality entails a simultaneous closing into local enclaves
maintained via intimate gift-giving and a parallel efflorescence of global, abstract
communities maintained via gift-giving to distant others (Turner and Rojek 2001).3
For example, the advent of modernity coincides with an unprecedented rise of the
notion of the imagined community of human beings (i.e., humanity), thus transform-
ing previous models of personhood, solidarity and charitable giving.

Imagined communities and gifts of charity

I feel like all I’ve done my whole life is be pretty. I mean, all I’ve done is be born! I’m
a failed actress, a failed artist… I’m not much good as a mother. Come to think of it, I’m
not even that pretty anymore. I have failed at everything … but I won’t fail as a human
being! (Ava Fontaine in Lord of War)

Imagined communities are discussed by Anderson (1991), who construes them as a

basis for commitment and solidarity between socially distant individuals. These
communities are imagined inasmuch as the communion that they encapsulate prima-
rily exists in the mind not in the physical proximity and direct interaction between
members of a particular imagined community. They are communal in the sense that
they inspire solidarity and horizontal comradeship between its members. Similar to
the notion of the gift, imaginary communities are products of the socio-historical
environment. For instance, the ascent of national communities, prime exemplars of
modern imagined communities, is associated with the dusk of the religious and
dynastic system and the advent of capitalism (Anderson 1991). Along similar lines,
the previously described historical developments that gave rise to modern charitable
giving (i.e., philanthropy) can also be approached by adopting the imagined commu-
nity perspective.
Whereas the notion of imagined communities cannot be restricted to Western
modernity alone, it is clear that the relevance of this phenomenon increases with the
 70 D. Bajde

transformations connected to the advent of modernity. According to Anderson, imag-

ined communities primarily function as transformers of [individuals’] “fatality into
[communal] continuity, contingency into meaning” (1991, 11). The socio-historical
changes of the Enlightenment era include a further weakening of traditional local
social networks, the ascent of science and the decline of the religious system
(Durkheim [1893] 1984; Weber [1930] 1992). These changes further intensified indi-
viduals’ need to find novel ways of coping with fatality and selfhood (Turner and
Rojek 2001). Not surprisingly, the Enlightenment era was also a period of regard and
admiration of humanity (i.e., mankind) as a unified force parallel to God (Maffesoli
1996). The notion of humanity is a prime example of an abstract imagined commu-
nity. On one hand, the modern scientific and industrial advances have perpetuated the
spatial and temporal shrinkage of the world, thus empowering the modern individual’s
imagination and multiplying the possibilities for communication and interaction with
distant others. On the other hand, these transformations are further amplified by the
increasing individualization of modern individuals, which leads to the “extended
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

identification” and emergence of large abstract communities (Komter 2005). In other

words, the modern advances both necessitate and inspire people to envision new
worlds, perceive themselves as active agents of progress and seek novel ways of creat-
ing “good societies” (Friedman 2003). The “good societies” become evermore
abstracted (i.e., imagined) and deterritorialized (Berking 1999; Turner and Rojek
2001). They are no longer restricted solely to local communal enclaves and can attain
global proportions (e.g., Geremek 1994; Porterfield 2003).
I claim that an imagined community is (among other ways) produced and main-
tained through giving to distant others. It is difficult to imagine a meaningful national
community in the absence of past, present and future patriotic gifts. Correspondingly,
it is hard to conceive of the idea of humanity devoid of humanitarian, charitable gifts.
The imagined community of humanity becomes an entity that can receive gifts. For
example, instead of being aimed at particular individuals, charitable gifts are often
construed as gifts to society as a whole, as “giving back” to society (Strathern 1997).
Conversely, the global social ills are sometimes dubbed an “embarrassment to human-
ity,” while serious violations of the humanitarian sensibility represent “crimes against
humanity.” Not surprisingly, those who do not demonstrate the basic human sentiment
of benevolence when faced with the severe plights of their fellow human beings are
generally deemed inhuman(e). As argued by Maffesoli (1996), it is the communal
sensibility that underpins modern sociality. Charitable gift-giving serves as an outlet
for expressing and reaffirming a humanitarian sensibility, which represents the
“pinnacle of human sensuousness” (Turner and Rojek 2001, 216). Charitable giving
thus represents an important constituent of collective and individual identity, and
individuals need to prove themselves as human beings (Berking 1999).

Selfhood and humanity

The social nature of selfhood is by no means a novel idea (e.g., see Mead [1934]
1962). The importance of the relation of the self to the other (i.e., intersubjectivity) in
identity construction is emphasized by Ricoeur ([1990] 1992), who envisioned no
selfhood devoid of “alterity” (i.e., the other). The compassionate responses to the
“other” play a vital role in the production of the self (Bajde 2006a). The autonomous,
assertive, self-made self produced by modernity is also a fragmented self starving for
social and personal reintegration (Maffesoli 1996; Turner and Rojek 2001). Although
 Consumption Markets & Culture 71

the social desirability of charitable giving varies across culture and time (Geremek
1994; Ilchman, Katz, and Queen 1998), giving and social engagement remain a vital
element of individuals’ identity (Vaughan 2006). Along these lines, I claim that
individuals attain their selfhood not only through their relations to intimate others, but
also via their response to distant others (i.e., charitable giving).
Although a person is born human by default, one’s “humanity” needs to be
preserved if not earned through proper relations with distant others (Berking 1999).
This claim is best evidenced in the idea of “having failed as a human being.” It under-
lies both the primary position of humanity within selfhood and the potential danger of
having failed in this respect. One’s benevolence and humanity is generally considered
as the basis, the core foundation of one’s personhood (Vaughan 2006). To employ
Godelier’s (1999) terminology, it represents the “sacred” element of each person –
something that must be kept and nourished so that we can continue giving and taking.
Losing one’s humanity equals losing one’s soul or being heartless. People who behave
inhuman(e)ly are often accused of having no soul or of being stonehearted, thus
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

putting into question their existence as moral persons. A person’s failure as a human
being is generally met with social castigation that can in extreme cases lead to social
exclusion. Despite the exceedingly voluntary nature of charitable gifts (Godbout and
Caille 1998, Komter 2005), a persistent failure to participate in the imagined commu-
nity of humanity denotes immorality and can have damaging repercussions.
Conversely, gift-giving brings life and increases and solidifies the moral collective
(Berking 1999; Carrier 1995; Hyde 1999). As argued by Godbout and Caille:

The gift is the most complex social phenomenon… that not only enables the individual
to become a part of the collective but also that opens onto a universal network, onto the
world, onto life, onto other states, onto belonging to something greater than oneself.

Paradoxically, anonymous charitable giving that seemingly denies naming and indi-
viduality in reality provides an invaluable resource for the construction of selfhood.
Gifts to distant others can be infused with strong communal, moral and spiritual mean-
ings (Hyde 1999). Charitable gifts are anonymous and impersonal only so far as the
superficial view of dyadic relationship between donor and recipient goes, but can be
very personal and intimate in light of the relevant imaginary constructions. Anony-
mous unilateral gift-giving does not preclude the donors (and recipients) from framing
their gift within the imagined community context. As demonstrated later, unilateral
gifts often involve a sense of communal indebtedness along with a strong moral and
emotional expressiveness. Such framing is an essential component of the charitable
gift’s imaginary and facilitates the reproduction of humanity via charitable giving,
enabling individuals to become people (i.e., human) through giving to distant others.

A systemic perspective on charitable gifts

The systemic approach to gift-giving is advocated by Giesler (2006), who when studying
solidarity between participants of the Napster gift system, argues against narrowing the
social dimensions of giving to a dyadic gift exchange and the reinforcement of intimate
bonds. The author substantiates the existence of the Napster gift system by outlining
three key gift system elements: (1) the social distinctions; (2) the norms of reciprocity;
and (3) its rituals and symbolisms. Based on a systematic examination of these elements,
the Napster gift system is described as a “more nomadic and noncommittal type of gift
 72 D. Bajde

giving solidarity” where diversity and plurality, voluntariness and flexibility supersede
the uniformity and necessity constraints of traditional organic gift systems studied
previously (Giesler 2006, 289). Although the term is never employed by Giesler, the
Napster community could readily be described as a technologically enhanced imagined
community based on giving to and receiving from distant others.
To fully appreciate the distinctions, reciprocity and symbolism of imagined
communities, such as humanity, a systemic perspective needs to be adopted. For
instance, by insisting on the dyadic, socio-psychological perspective on gift-giving,
Fischer, Gainer and Arnold (1996) conclude that charitable donations are not gifts at
all. Retracing Sherry’s (1983) and Belk’s (1979) steps in conceptualizing gift-giving,
the authors conclude that charitable donations fail to reproduce social relationships
between donor and recipient and do not entail any significant communication between
the donor and the recipient. Accordingly, charitable donations fail to accomplish the
functions that define (intimate) gifts: they fail to construct small social worlds and fall
short of “conveying any message about the honor, respect, or familiarity the donor has
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

with any particular recipient” (Fischer, Gainer, and Arnold 1996, 183).
However, the problem of locating the social dimensions of charitable giving lies
not in charity’s incompatibility with the concept of the gift as such, but rather in
Fischer and colleagues’ perspective which falls short of envisioning relationships
outside of physical proximity and dyadic reciprocity and thus fails to fully appreciate
the communicative charge of charity. The relationships that define gifts are not limited
to physical closeness (i.e., small social worlds) and direct dyadic communication
between donor and recipient. Whereas it may seem that reciprocity and communica-
tion are absent from charitable giving, a broader perspective will show that this is not
the case. As demonstrated in the earlier discussion of the modern gift ideology,
conceptualizations of gift-giving cannot be reduced to intimate giving. The intimate
gifts’ communication that revolves around the singularization of the recipient achieved
through the selection of a perfectly suited gift (Belk 1996) is matched by the charitable
gifts’ symbolic recognition of the other grounded in a sense of shared humanity estab-
lished not so much via gift selection but primarily through participation in the gift
itself. The subsequent social function of charitable gifts is to reinforce broader imag-
ined communities and their messages refer to the transcendence of a closed, small
social world (Godelier 1999). In the case of charity, the substantial social distance
between donors and recipients serves not as an indication of the absence of a relation-
ship but as the basis for meaningful giving and subsequent social integration.
Even a superficial examination of charitable giving from a systemic perspective
shows that charitable gifts entail all three of the gift system elements proposed by
Giesler (2006). First, the distinctive gift ethos (for a detailed examination, see Belk
1996; Godbout and Caille 1998) is just as relevant to charitable giving as it is in the
case of intimate gifts. Despite the wide ranging, seemingly all-inclusive, nature of
imagined communities such as humanity, the mark of humanness needs to be earned
and maintained. Terms like charity, humanitarian and philanthropic entail a stark
contrast to selfishness, non-empathic individualism and cold-hearted instrumentalism.
Second, the seemingly absent reciprocity and indebtedness are not foreign to charita-
ble giving. Even donors who have themselves never received charitable gifts repeat-
edly construe their donations as reciprocal gifts “given back” to society (Vaughan
1997). Similarly, there is little doubt that charitable gifts can produce a sense of
indebtedness with the recipients as well. Yet, the indebtedness and the subsequent
reciprocity are rarely restricted to the donor of a particular charitable gift but instead
 Consumption Markets & Culture 73

entail “passing the gift on.” Of course, in opposition to communities based on direct,
physical proximity, imaginary communities do not necessitate a matching construal of
charity on both the donor’s and the recipient’s side. The social symbolism of charity
can survive even in cases where only one side (e.g., the donor) adopts an imagined
community orientation, while the other side (e.g., the recipient) fails to construe the
transaction as a binding gift. Clearly, the bonding potential of gift-giving is not auto-
matically lost in the case of anonymous charitable gifts but can instead often operate
on a more abstract, imagined community level (Komter 2005). Third, the symbolism
and communicative charge of charitable giving is undeniable. As demonstrated
earlier, the charity rituals reproduce imagined communities and strengthen the self in
ways that are less attainable through intimate gift-giving. It could well be that the
described social dimensions of charitable giving are not as strong as those associated
with intimate gifts but they nevertheless represent a legitimate facet of modern
sociality.
The systemic perspective and the notion of imagined community suggested here
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

are in step but not transposable with Giesler’s efforts (2006). The relationships and
gifts pertaining to the imagined community of humanity are for the most part less
stringent and binding than those associated with intimate relationships (e.g., friend-
ship, kinship or romance). Yet, the humanitarian solidarity is flexible and non-
committal only in terms of its actualization. The abstractness and universality of
humanity (Bossy 1985; Komter 2005) result in endless opportunities to give that
cannot be ordered and conventionalized in the sense that intimate gifts are (e.g., via
gift-giving occasions). Our humanity is not questioned each time we decline an
invitation to give to charity, and charitable gifts are voluntary in a sense that intimate
gifts cannot be. On the other hand, predicaments of distant others summon us in ways
that run counter to the nomadic character of gift systems such as Napster. We
generally do not choose whether to participate in humanity as an imagined commu-
nity. We only choose in what manner and to what extent we participate. An outright
violation of the humanitarian ethos is not a minor matter and can result in serious
moral ostracizing and a deep personal crisis. Evidently, the imagined community of
humanity is less nomadic and fleeting in comparison to the Napster community. It is
also less consumption-oriented and, at least on an ideological plane, it more patently
revolves around the needs of others.
The lacking focus on products and consumption and the lacking physical proxim-
ity between donors and the recipient accentuates the importance of the imaginary. Not
surprisingly, charitable giving entails a set of imaginary constructions that extend
beyond the communion of human beings and involve one’s relation to God(s)
(Bremner 2000; Oates 2003), ancestors (Hyde 1999), nature and the Cosmos (Grim
1998). The focus here on humanity as an example of an imagined community can
easily be extended to other types of imagined communities that underpin charitable
giving (e.g., the community of individuals having lost a relative to cancer, a commu-
nity of AIDS-afflicted individuals, a community of modern art lovers, a community
of living beings). My aim here is not to suggest that imaginary communities underpin
every charitable gift, but merely to propose that this perspective represents an impor-
tant aspect of the contemporary Western gift imaginary. This imaginary and its mate-
rializations are exceedingly complex and involve continual negotiations and
transformations of norms, values, ideas and interpretations. The diverse and fluid
nature of the imaginary and ideological constructions related to charitable giving are
characteristic of postmodern charity and provoke several insightful observations
 74 D. Bajde

regarding the relationship between postmodern charity and the market (i.e., consumer
culture and the marketing discourse).

Postmodern charity

Which favourite national pastime employs more than 500,000 people in 136,000 organ-
isations, turns over £14 billion a year, gives pleasure to millions of people in Britain and
is renowned across the world? If you are expecting the answer “British television,” you
are in for a surprise. It is charitable giving and the voluntary sector. (The Times 2001)

The relationship between the market and charitable giving is ambiguous. On one hand,
the modern gift ideology and to a large extent also the gift-giving theories construe
gift-giving as oppositional to market exchange (Belk 1996; Berking 1999; Gregory
1982, 1997). Parallel to the donors of intimate gifts, those involved in charity regularly
emphasize the distinctiveness between consumption and donation, and for the most
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

part fail to appreciate the intrusion of the market rhetoric into the sphere of charitable
giving (Bajde 2006b). On the other hand, the market has played a significant role in
shaping charitable giving and the imaginary underpinning it. Anderson (1991) attrib-
uted the market, the print industry in particular, with a pivotal role in setting up the
emergence of eighteenth-century national imagined communities. Although moder-
nity (i.e., the ascent of the market) has repeatedly been charged for diminishing the
communal spirit, recent evidence shows that the market also gives rise to new forms
of community (Maffesoli 1996; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Schouten and Alexander
1995).
Scientific and industrial advances have perpetuated the spatial and temporal
shrinkage of the world, thus empowering the modern individual’s imagination and
facilitating novel forms of sociality. Godbout and Caille describe the market as a
“tangled network” infinitely extensible in space, a network that played a crucial role
in the (modern) “arrival of the stranger as social category” (1998, 144). Along similar
lines, Maffesoli (1996), Komter (2005), Turner and Rojek (2001), and others credit
modernity with creating new possibilities for solidarity. Komter (2005) believes it is
impossible to talk about a decline or increase in solidarity in general terms. The
decline in immediate face-to-face reciprocity caused by the advent of modernity is
offset by novel long-distance virtual reciprocity giving rise to abstract, anonymous
forms of solidarity.
In view of these claims, the market cannot be univocally blamed for the loss of
community and diminished solidarity. It is better to perceive it as an important facili-
tator of the transformations giving rise to postmodern sociality. That is, of course, not
to suggest that these transformations are beyond criticism. It is merely a cautioning
against social critiques that insist on “measuring” postmodern sociality with dated
devices, subsequently stripping postmodern gift-giving to distant others of its social
nature. If the proposed transformations of solidarity and the social dimensions of
charitable giving are brought into focus, which insights into the ways of postmodern
charitable giving can we attain? By adopting a systemic perspective of charitable
giving that is receptive to ideas of imagined communities and abstract solidarity,
significant observations regarding the postmodern charitable culture and its relations
to the market can be made. I begin the proposed discussion by outlining the unique
nature of solidarity entailed in postmodern charitable giving. Next, the postmodern
charity spectacle is explored in light of the presented framework. The importance of
 Consumption Markets & Culture 75

charity-related imagined communities is also discussed in the context of the corporate

social responsibility debate.

Charity in the age of spectacle

In this day and age, the ideology of giving to distant others manifests itself in a partic-
ularly postmodern manner. It involves an abstract, thin solidarity (Turner and Rojek
2001) of selective and limited commitment. Due to the abstractness of and the distance
to the recipients of charity, donors can participate in imagined communities at will and
with limited discomfort. The lack of thick, “direct personal responsibility and the low
level of personal and emotional commitment facilitate the mobilization of large
numbers of people … but they reduce solidarity to exchange of information,
consciousness raising, or a simple donation” (Komter 2005, 198). In this sense, charity
sometimes becomes a symbolic act of long distance empathy and emotional support
devoid of actual material giving. For example, attending a Live 8 concert can thus in
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

itself constitute an act of charity and reinforce the attendee’s participation in the imag-
ined community of humanity. The line between intimate and charitable gifts becomes
blurred. Despite the painfully practical problems provoking the calls for charity,
charitable responses mimic the superfluity of intimate gifts, which function as “pure
signifiers” operating in the “symbolic sphere of redundant transactions” (Cheal 1996,
92). Paradoxically, when pushed to its extreme, the pure gift ideology erected to
protect the very essence of giving (i.e., concern for others) potentially contributes to
the gift’s dissolution into an empty, abstract symbol detached from the recipients’
actual plight.
The ability to abstract and imagine at the same time enables and complicates the
interaction between distant others. It is imperative to note that despite its imaginative
ability, the human mind remains embodied (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and grounded
in concrete human-scale experience (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). Accordingly, the
abstract is never foreign to the concrete and anonymity cannot be completely detached
from intimacy and the personal. The postmodern charity rituals corroborate these
tensions in various ways. First, the fluid ephemeral divide between the abstract and
the concrete is reflected in the often-encountered symbolic reductions of the “face-
less” masses of the needy to a few carefully selected individuals that represent the
misery of this world (Godelier 1999), the so-called “global poor” (Geremek 1994).
These “hyperreal” images (Darling 2000) often obtain a life of their own as they
become more real than the abstract and distant reality that they stand for. Along these
lines, charity marketing produces high-profile, personalized images of “idealized”
recipients and Western donors are invited to participate in intimate one-on-one
relationships with the global poor (e.g., to “adopt” African children and receive
personalized recipient feedback).
Through marketing schemes and the donors’ imagination, anonymous charitable
gifts are often converted into personalized intimate gifts while at the same time retain-
ing their original gift-to-distant-other symbolism. The intimate gift and the charitable
gift are no longer merely oppositional (if they ever were), but rather borrow from one
another and flow into each other. Such a fluidity of charitable giving can enhance the
donors’ participation and engagement, yet can also carry less desirable consequences.
As has been observed elsewhere about intimate gift-giving, the drive to particularize
the recipient, the donor and their bond (Cheal 1996) leads to superfluous giving
subordinated to the emotional and symbolic at the expense of actual material support
 76 D. Bajde

(Carrier 1995). Such gifts aim towards the spectacular and contradict the anonymity
and humility of the charity ethos.
As suggested earlier, the market provides essential structural support for postmod-
ern charity. Foremost, charity is becoming heavily dependent on the global media
superstructure and its appetite for the spectacular and the hyperreal (Darling 2000). As
a result, instead of operating on a consistent basis, the thin solidarity of postmodern
charitable giving often manifests itself in sporadic spectacular bursts. The communi-
cative charge of charitable giving is often condensed in media-exposed charity spec-
tacles. In many ways, the charitable causes must first establish a certain entertainment
value in order to pass through the media sieve and effectively reach the masses of
potential donors. For instance, Live Aid and Live 8 were not only global initiatives
aimed at alleviating the plight of the Third World poor but also “a defining moment”
for media giants such as MTV and AOL (Jones 2005). In many ways, charitable
giving is becoming spectacularized. The spectacular is erected both by way of “scaling
down” and “scaling up” charity. On one hand, we are invited to partake in embroi-
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

dered, highly intimate, reality-show type presentations of individual recipients (i.e.,

scaling down) while, on the other, we are “dazzled” by powerful images of epic
catastrophes and colossal, record-breaking mobilizations of charitable support (i.e.,
scaling up). Ironically, in the age of a seemingly boundless need for help, the spectac-
ularization of charity often results in excessive donations to a single high-profile
recipient or to a narrow highly publicized charitable cause. Such “excessive”
donations need to be later redistributed “behind the backs” of the devoted donors.
In some ways, the spectacularization of charity increases the distance between
donors and recipients and accentuates the role of charitable organizations and the
media. Charitable organizations do not merely enhance anonymous giving and enable
the effective redistribution of resources between distant others. They are also active
agents of the ongoing spectacularization of charitable giving. They facilitate the scal-
ing down of charity, thus increasing the intimacy of charitable gifts (i.e., making them
personal and reciprocal), while at the same time promoting the notion of a universal
imagined community through the scaling up of charity (i.e., by nurturing ideas of the
global poor and humanity). Paradoxically, the overflow of intimate images and
emotions and the celebration of nonexclusive universality coincide and both the inti-
mate and the universal elements of postmodern charity are heavily mediated. That is
not to suggest that postmodern charity is exclusively spectacular and hyperreal.
Conventional forms of charitable giving as well as novel technologically enhanced
charity (e.g., online donations, donation via mobile messaging) are not always spec-
tacular and hyperreal in the sense expressed here. Yet, the described developments
entail several advantages and difficulties that are historically unique.
At least two dangers emerge from the coinciding “scaling down” and “scaling up”
processes. First, scaling down (i.e., zooming in) invades the privacy and dignity of the
recipient in ways that are oppositional to the idea of anonymous charity. It can lead to
exploitation and the perverse production of emphatic sentiment through the
exploitative stripping down of dependent recipients. The postmodern gift ideology is
contradictory inasmuch as it promotes giving and charitableness while at the same
time producing an environment in which it is increasingly difficult to accept help in a
dignified manner. Second, scaling up (i.e., going colossal) often promotes an
antagonistic, potlatch-like atmosphere where the competitive record-breaking attitude
overshadows the charitable cause (Godelier 1999). Success is measured in terms of the
number of people participating in the charitable spectacle, the amount of the donations
 Consumption Markets & Culture 77

amassed, or in terms of one’s position within the donor hierarchy rather than in light
of the recipients’ predicaments. Postmodern charity in the age of spectacle thus exhib-
its a potential to transform itself into a spectacular happening that incites the senses
and provokes passionate responses while often failing in its fundamental mission.
Such charitable gifts retain their symbolism and continue to reinforce imagined
communities but begin to operate on a somewhat superfluous symbolic plane of
sentiment devoid of effective material support.

Corporate charity
The imagined community perspective on charitable giving offers several contributions
to the corporate social responsibility debate. Brands, both in the corporate or product
context, are themselves imaginative constructions that occupy a “prominent position
in the discourse of modernity, community, and society” (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001,
413). Relationships with distant others and communal engagement constitute a vital
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

element of corporate brand identity; even more so than in the case of product brand
identity (Keller and Richey 2006). Corporate personality and image exert a positive or
negative effect on consumers, shareholders, employees, governments and the wider
public (Schultz and Kitchen 2004). According to Keller and Richey (2006), corpora-
tions are increasingly anthropomorphized, that is, thought of in terms of personality
traits divided into three categories: the heart, the mind and the body. The “heart” of
the company is strongly related to the corporation’s compassionateness with stake-
holders and society as a whole. Not surprisingly, corporations find it both right and
smart to engage in charitable initiatives.
Recently, social corporate responsibility initiatives and corporate charity have
obtained unprecedented clout in both social and business discussions. Here, it helps to
recall that Anderson (1991) based his imagined community idea on the individuals’
response to the looming fatality of their bounded existence. Along similar lines,
Turner and Rojek (2001) pointed to the individual’s frailty and the precariousness of
traditional social institutions as the fundamental causes of the emergence of the “thin”
postmodern sociality. The vulnerability and precariousness of postmodern life is
manifested in various ways, many of which are related to global issues such as global
warming, transnational health scares and human rights violations. These predicaments
extend the need for the so-called “one world solidarity” which transcends local and
national boundaries (Turner and Rojek 2001, 212). Berking (1999) claims we are
witnessing a remoralization of the individual-society-nature triad. The subsequent
increase in social and moral sensibility has, among other things, considerably
increased the pressure exerted on multinational corporations, which are often
construed as the germ of and potential cure for global social ills. The pressure placed
on corporate entities to participate in imagined communities is unprecedented and
corporations often turn to charitable giving in order to attain or defend the “humanity”
demanded of them.
However, this is where the complex symbolic character of charitable giving comes
into play. The contemporary Western understanding of the gift draws from the
so-called “two world theory” (Berking 1999, 144), which postulates a separate market
sphere of instrumental rationality and profit orientation, and a gift sphere of solidarity
and sentiment (Godbout and Caille 1998). The outlined ideology of charitable giving
fundamentally rejects calculative, self-aggrandizing gifts, instead promoting silent,
anonymous giving (Derrida 1992). Not surprisingly, in the case of corporate charity,
 78 D. Bajde

the instrumental business rhetoric and the charity ethos often fail to find common
ground. Although, as demonstrated earlier, postmodern individuals prove very
imaginative when it comes to charitable giving and find it relatively effortless to
combine notions of relationship and social distance, intimacy and anonymity, these
same individuals are far less flexible and imaginative when it comes to construing
corporate charity. The Western gift ethos is pervaded by the discourse of suspicion
(Berking 1999; Schrift 1997), and the cultural differentiation of the market and the gift
sphere provides a fertile ground for disbelief in genuine corporate charitableness.
Being heavily ingrained in the market sphere, corporations are observed with an
accentuated suspicion when it comes to their motives for charitable endeavors.
Corporations find themselves in an awkward position where their actions and
words are heavily scrutinized, and volatile perceptions of corporate charity are
formed. Accordingly, routine, non-innovative charitable efforts are quickly perceived
as being devoid of any true engagement, and heavily publicized initiatives promptly
arouse accusations of “false” charity. The narrow business rationale often fails to
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

acknowledge the importance of human imagination and sentiment essential to chari-

table giving. It is the thought, the intent that count not only the amount of resources
devoted and the effect of giving on recipients. As claimed earlier, corporations are
judged as social entities. In such circumstances, only sensitively performed charitable
endeavors are likely to fill in the “apparent emptiness of so many of today’s corporate
entities” (Schultz and Kitchen 2004, 349). Above all, even more so than for individual
donors, it is imperative for corporations to continuously search for a well-balanced
compromise between anonymity and publicity, the local and the global, the intimate
and the universal.

The gift vocabulary

The presented treatise enables a critical revision of established yet often contested
expressions such as intimate gift, gifts to distant others, charity and philanthropy. It is
imperative to reiterate that the gift cannot be delineated as a universal, ahistorical
concept (Parry 1986). Rather, it is inseparably tied to the imaginary constructions that
underpin a particular socio-historic understanding of gift-giving. The modern ideol-
ogy and understanding of gift-giving offers two complementary types of gifts: those
presented to intimates and those extended to distant others. The intimate gift strives to
particularize and results in direct reciprocity, while gifts to distant others aim to
universalize via unilateral gifts extended within imagined communities (gift systems).
Unfortunately, the ideological divisions between highly personal intimate giving and
non-exclusive anonymous gifts prove very malleable in practice. To begin with, there
are several common denominators that make both types of giving gifts. Gifts are
personal, moral and binding in both their intimate and anonymous form. They are
above all acts of solidarity and commitment, acts of welcoming and recognition, be it
of intimates or of distant others. To deny these core gift attributes to either intimate
gifts or gifts to distant others is to deny the meaning of contemporary gift itself. Our
attention should be given over to an exploration of how these core aspects of gifts are
manifested in different gift practices (e.g., birthday gifts, charitable giving).
Second, as demonstrated throughout the discussion on postmodern charity the divi-
sion between intimate gifts and charitable gifts is indeed malleable. The idea of nonex-
clusive giving to distant others often meanders into highly intimate charitable gifts to
particular recipients. Yet, it is precisely the ability to attain such benevolent intimacy
 Consumption Markets & Culture 79

with a distant other that distinguishes such gifts from the gifts offered to intimates.
Even when charitable gifts fail to follow the anonymity credo, they can still uphold
the imagined community principle (i.e., reaching out to distant fellow human beings).
In addition, the model of the intimate relationship is not to be taken as being in oppo-
sition to charity-based relationships. Imagined communities such as humanity follow
“the family model” to a considerable extent and entail a “combination of family feeling
and humanity,” thus “signifying the existence of kinship that transcends blood”
(Barker-Benfield 2003, 79). Let it suffice here to point to the prominent role of paternal
and maternal imagery in charity fundraising and the special position of children
(orphans in particular) as charity recipients in contemporary Western societies.
These conclusions carry important implications for another modern division,
namely that between charity and philanthropy (Ilchman, Katz, and Queen 1998).
Payton (1989) distinguishes between two terminal aspects of philanthropic value:
charity and philanthropy. Whereas charity involves affectionate, personal gift-giving
to fellow human beings, philanthropy suggests an interest in humanity rather than the
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

individual. Charity is construed as being analogous to the Christian doctrine of

humility and salvation, while philanthropy corresponds more to the modern ideals of
social reform and humanitarianism. Along similar lines, Gross (2003) separates these
two strands as two historical traditions. The first, charity, is dominant in the pre-
Enlightenment period and entails the more concrete and personal, religiously inspired
giving to the local poor. Philanthropy, on the other hand, constitutes the second
tradition of less religious benevolence in sync with modern ideas of social reform and
progression that have subsequently led to wholesale, professionalized, scientific
philanthropy (Friedman 2003).
The proposed division between charity and philanthropy undoubtedly accentuates
several important historical and cultural transitions (Ilchmann, Katz, and Queen
1998). However, it also obscures the shared elements that persist in both “traditions.”
Even in its most secular and abstracted form, philanthropy is not an impersonal,
asocial act. Enlightenment humanitarian ideas do not run counter to the religious calls
for benevolence (i.e. caritas), nor do they postulate a detached self-interested individ-
ual. The “modernist philanthropy” (i.e., the modern gift ideology) merely rejects
certain aspects of caritas (e.g., the notion of salvation as payment for charity) and
accentuates others (e.g., the need to address social problems systematically at their
roots). The core, however, remains the same in both cases. Gifts to distant others are
based upon communal notions of similitude, belonging and indebtedness, be it in
concrete local forms or in those of a more abstract, universalistic variety. Payton
(1989) labeled this common denominator as “philanthropic value.” Along these lines,
I employ the expression charitable giving throughout the paper to accentuate a
dynamic continuity of the charity ethos. I believe the aim of consumer research is to
shed light on the transitions and meanderings of social practices such as gift-giving.
This cannot be achieved as long as we deny the gift’s continuity and change by artifi-
cially separating charity from gift-giving or charity from philanthropy.

Boundaries and prospects

This paper aimed to provide a historically grounded, illustrative argumentation of the
social nature of charitable giving by first extending the systemic perspective of gift-
giving to gifts offered to distant others, and by later fleshing out the importance of the
imaginary (i.e., the imagined community of humanity in particular) in charitable
 80 D. Bajde

giving. Yet, the journey undertaken here led across perilous grounds as it tried to
negotiate the socio-historical fluidity of gift-giving and charity with an analysis of the
contemporary gift ideology (i.e., the postmodern gift imaginary). In order to supply a
coherent, smooth progression of the argument, several important concerns and limita-
tions have been eschewed throughout the text and need to be delved into here.
First, much additional work will be required to better flesh out the notion of an
imagined community (Anderson 1991) and to provide a more in-depth understanding
of the role that gifts to distant others play in producing and maintaining these commu-
nities. Empirical research is needed to confirm the suggested relationship between
thin, abstract forms of solidarity and charitable giving, and to attain more detailed
contextualized descriptions of the charitable giving practices. Second, attention needs
to be paid to the political dimension of charitable giving (Benthall 2001). In contrast
to intimate gifts, gifts to distant others transcend the private sphere and enter into the
public arena (Godelier 1999). When the distance between donors and recipients
grows, the focus shifts from maintaining intimate social ties to the moral and political
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

issues of fairness, development, ecology, globalization and other public issues (Fried-
man and McGarvie 2003). The process of the politicization and professionalization of
charity commencing in the early twentieth century (Sealander 2003) results not only
in the intensification of the discussed relationship between the market and charity, but
also between the state and charity. This relationship and its transformations call for
additional research.
Third, just as there are limitations on the gift ideology in the case of intimate
giving there is also a parallel “dark side” of charitable giving. The task undertaken in
this paper has led us to focus on the idealized notion of charitable giving and the
meanings attached to it, but it also brought several pitfalls of postmodern charity to
the surface. However, the difficulties owed to the spectacular and hyperreal nature of
postmodern charity do not exhaust the dark side of today’s charitable giving. Despite
the undoubtedly important role of ideology in guiding consumer behavior (Belk
1996), charitable giving seldom lives up to the ideals of pure charitable gifts. There
are notable limits to our engagement and commitment in imagined societies. Even
imagined communities have boundaries that curb gift-giving. Despite its underpinning
ideology of equal regard and shared humanity, charitable giving is far from immune
to the expulsion and preferential treatment of certain groups. There are always those
who fall outside the boundaries of our imagined communities. If we are to obtain a
comprehensive understanding of charitable giving, the nature of these boundaries
needs to be explored together with the ways in which individuals negotiate them in
everyday giving practices. Issues of recipient hierarchies based on deservingness offer
a particularly interesting topic for future exploration.
Our commitments to imagined communities are often restricted solely to cases of
extreme predicaments such as serious violations of human rights, hunger, pandemics
etc. In this sense, our sensitivity to the needs of distant others is inferior when
compared with the empathy felt for our intimates. Perhaps this is a welcomed and
inescapable reality, considering the number of pleas a typical donor is exposed to
daily. The sheer magnitude of the predicaments faced by those who belong to our
imagined communities prevents us from committing in a manner parallel to our
commitments to intimates. Further research is needed to explore the strategies
employed to face the overpowering pleas aimed at a donor with limited resources and
conflicting commitments. Imagined communities are by nature more fluid and volun-
tary than the organic communities of the past. The possibility of charitable giving
 Consumption Markets & Culture 81

functioning as a way of experiencing communality devoid of substantial commitment

and genuine engagement needs to be investigated further.
Fourth, despite the importance of horizontal comradeship as a building block of
humanity, even the most genuinely heartfelt charitable giving sometimes fails to
produce a positive communal effect. Rosenberg’s (2003) historical analysis of chari-
table giving shows that charitable gifts sometimes increase rather than reduce the
distance between donors and recipients. Whereas the humanitarian discourse
promotes ideas of shared universal sentiment and human experience, charitable giving
sometimes reaffirms the divisive hierarchical makeup of society and thus maintains
exploitative relations. Ironically, charitable giving can sometimes be “imperious,
expressing chauvinism, special destiny, and cultural difference; but it could also build
transnational networks of people whose efforts at change came to redefine the bound-
aries of national loyalties and to exalt a more universal ideal” (Rosenberg 2003, 257).
These contradictory facets of charitable giving sometimes get misused by those who
attempt to promote one-sided views on charitable endeavors. In addition to exploring
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

the integrative communal spirit of charity, the ways in which charity promotes donors’
superiority and exceptionalism and maintains the existing social hierarchy via social
control of recipients should be addressed.
Finally, further research should examine the ways potential conflicts between the
commitments to intimates and those of a more universal nature are resolved. As
suggested earlier, the proposed duality of intimate and charitable gift-giving is an
analytic construct rather than a clear-cut empirical observation. My attention has
predominately focused on humanity as an abstract, imagined community underpin-
ning charitable gift-giving. Yet, a continuum of other imagined communities ranging
from the more intimate, small-scale communities such as a local community of
fellow blood donors to the seemingly boundless cosmic communities such as those
connecting us with animals and nature can also guide giving. This paper sought not
so much to map a particular imagined community as it did to demonstrate the impor-
tance of a systemic social perspective on charitable giving, a perspective that accen-
tuates the importance of the imaginary underpinning gift-giving. These listed
limitations humble the author and mean the suppositions offered in this paper are as
preliminary at best. Much additional research needs to be performed in order to attain
a comprehensive understanding of charitable giving and its position in postmodern
society.

Notes
1. As evidenced by examples taken from world religions (e.g., Christianity), universalis-
tic morality of this type is not a strictly modern phenomenon. However, the social
reality of early modern times (i.e., the accelerated shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesell-
schaft-type communities) together with the scientific, economic and technological
advances of the era provide fertile ground for an unprecedented ascendancy and evolu-
tion of universalistic ideas and sentiments (Berking 1999). This is not to imply that
modernity inescapably leads towards a superior, universal moral life. As shown by
Geremek’s (1994) analysis of early modern responses to poverty, the reverse is some-
times the case.
2. This aspect of giving is eloquently described by Hyde, who argues that the circulation of
gifts “nourishes those parts of our spirit that are not entirely personal, parts that derive from
nature, the group, the race, or the gods” (1999, 38).
3. Communities revolving around consumption also represent good examples of such
enclaves (e.g., Internet fan communities, brand communities).
 82 D. Bajde

References
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso.
Bajde, Domen. 2006a. Other-centered behavior and the dialectics of self and other. Consump-
tion, Markets and Culture 9, no. 4: 301–16.
Bajde, Domen. 2006b. Exploring the dialectic of charity marketing and the charity Ethos.
Economic Business Review 8, no. 4: 359–72.
Barker-Benfield, G.J. 2003. The origins of Anglo American sensibility. In Charity, philan-
thropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D.
McGarvie, 71–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belk, Russell W. 1979. Gift giving behavior. In Research in marketing, vol. 2, ed. Jagdish
Sheth, 95–126. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Belk, Russell W. 1996. The perfect gift. In Gift giving: A research anthology, ed. Cele Otnes
and Richard F. Beltramini, 59–83. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University
Popular Press.
Belk, Russell W. 2005. Exchange taboos from an interpretive perspective. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 15, no. 1: 16–21.
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

Belk, Russell W., and Gregory S. Coon. 1993. Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the
exchange paradigm based on dating. Journal of Consumer Research 20, no. 1: 393–416.
Benthall, Jonathan. 2001. Time to look “the gift” into the mouth. Anthropology Today 17,
no. 4: 1–2.
Berking, Helmuth. 1999. Sociology of giving. Trans. Patrick Camiller. London: Sage
Bossy, John. 1985. Christianity in the West 1400–1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bremner, Robert H. 2000. Giving: Charity and philanthropy in history. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Carrier, James G. 1995. Gifts and commodities: Exchange and Western capitalism since 1700.
London: Routledge.
Cheal, David. 1988. The gift economy. London and New York: Routledge.
Cheal, David. 1996. Gifts in contemporary North America. In Gift giving: A research anthol-
ogy, ed. Cele Otnes and Richard F. Beltramini, 85–97. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling
Green State University Popular Press.
Darling, Andrew. 2000. Visual digital culture: Surface play in new media genres. London:
Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 1992. Given time: I. Counterfeit money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, Mary. 1990. Foreword. In The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic
societies, by Marcel Mauss, ix–xxiii. London: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1893/1984. The division of labour in society. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the
mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fischer, Eileen, Gainer Brenda, and Stephen J. Arnold. 1996. Gift giving and charitable
donating: How (dis)similar are they? In Gift giving: A research anthology, ed. Cele Otnes
and Richard F. Beltramini, 175–94. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University
Popular Press.
Friedman, Lawrence J. 2003. Philanthropy in America: Historicism and its discontents. In
Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and
Mark D. McGarvie, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, Lawrence J., and Mark D. McGarvie. 2003. Charity, philanthropy, and civility in
American history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geremek, Bronis l aw. 1994. Poverty: A history. Oxford: Blackwell.
orstkl[]

Giesler, Markus. 2006. Consumer gift systems. Journal of Consumer Research 33, no. 2:
283–90.
Godbout, Jacques T., and Alain Caille. 1998. The world of the gift. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press.
Godelier, Maurice. 1999. The enigma of the gift. Trans. Nora Scott. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gregory, Chris A. 1982. Gifts and commodities. London: Academic Press.
Gregory, Chris A. 1997. Savage money: The anthropology and politics of commodity
exchange. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
 Consumption Markets & Culture 83

Grim, John A. 1998. A comparative study in Native American philanthropy. In Philanthropy

in the world’s traditions, ed. Warren F. Ilchman, Stanley N. Katz, and Edward L. Queen
II, 25–53. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gross, Robert A. 2003. Giving in America: From charity to philanthropy. In Charity, philan-
thropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D.
McGarvie, 29–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hammersley, Martin, and Paul Atkinson. 2002. Ethnography: Principles in practice. London:
Routledge.
Hyde, Lewis. 1999. The gift: Imagination and the erotic life of property. London: Vintage.
Ilchman, Warren F., Stanley N. Katz, and Edward L. Queen II. 1998. Philanthropy in the
world’s traditions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jones, Chris. 2005. Live 8’s Bob Geldof on the inside. Chicago Tribune, June 28.
Joy, Annamma. 2001. Gift giving in Hong Kong and the continuum of social ties. Journal of
Consumer Research 28, no. 2: 239–56.
Keller, Kevin Lane, and Keith Richey. 2006. The importance of corporate brand personality
traits to a successful 21st century business. Brand Management 14, no. 1/2: 74–81.
Klein, Jill G., and Tina M. Lowrey. 2006. Giving and receiving humanity: Gifts among
prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. In Advances in consumer research, vol. 33, ed.
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013

Connie Pechman and Linda Price, 659. Vancouver: Association for Consumer Research.
Komter, Aafke E. 2005. Social solidarity and the gift. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its
challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lord of War. Directed by Andrew Niccol. USA: Entertainment Manufacturing Company,
2005.
Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society.
Trans. Don Smith. London: Sage.
Mauss, Marcel. 1950/1990. The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies.
London: Routledge.
Mead, George H. 1934/1962. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand community. Journal of
Consumer Research 27, no. 4: 412–32.
Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The possibility of altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nelson, Benjamin. 1969. The idea of usury: From tribal brotherhood to universal otherhood.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oates, Mary J. 2003. Faith in good works: Catholic giving and taking. In Charity, philan-
thropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D.
McGarvie, 281–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parry, Jonathan. 1986. The gift, the Indian gift, and the Indian “gift.” Man 21, no. 3:
453–73.
Parsons, Talcott. 1968. Introduction. In The Theory of social and economic organization, by
Max Weber, 3–86. New York: Free Press.
Payton, Robert L. 1989. Philanthropic values. In Philanthropic giving: Studies in varieties
and goals, ed. Richard Magat, 29–45. New York: Oxford University Press.
Porterfield, Amanda. 2003. Protestant missionaries: Pioneers of American philanthropy. In
Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and
Mark D. McGarvie, 49–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1990/1992. Oneself as another. Trans. Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Rosenberg, Emily S. 2003. Missions to the world: Philanthropy abroad. In Charity, philan-
thropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie,
241–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schouten, J.W., and J. Alexander. 1995. Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the
new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 22, no. 1: 43–52.
Schrift, Alan D. 1997. The logic of the gift. New York: Routledge.
Schultz, Don E., and Philip J. Kitchen. 2004. Managing the changes in corporate branding and
communication: Closing and re-opening the corporate umbrella. Corporate Reputation
Review 8, no. 4: 347–66.
 84 D. Bajde

Sealander, Judith. 2003. Curing evils at their source: The arrival of scientific giving. In
Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history, ed. Lawrence J. Friedman and
Mark D. McGarvie, 217–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sherry, John F., Jr. 1983. Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research 10, no. 2: 157–68.
Silver, Allan. 1990. Friendship in commercial society: Eighteenth-century social theory and
modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 6: 1474–504.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1997. Partner and consumers: Making relations visible. In The logic of the
gift, ed. A.D. Schrift, 292–311. New York: Routledge.
The Times. 2001. TV as a charity box. August 10.
Turner, Bryan S., and Chris Rojek. 2001. Society and culture: Principles of scarcity and solidarity.
London: Sage.
Vaughan, Genevieve. 1997. For-giving: A feminist criticism of exchange. Austin, TX: Plain
View Press.
Vaughan, Genevieve. 2006. Homo Donans. Austin, TX: Anomaly Press.
Weber, Max. 1930/1992. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge.
Weber, Max. 1947/1968. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free
Press.
Downloaded by [Acadia University] at 03:19 08 May 2013