Aaishah Sharif

Student number: 627484

Word count: 2482
Course title: Introduction to Social Anthropology
Course code: 15 180 1001
Tutors name: Sabiha
Assignment number: 1
Why does Levi Strauss compare women to gifts and what implications does
this have?

The topic of The Gift (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard, 1967) has been long since
debated within the anthropological community, its roots stemming from the
Alliance Theory, also known as the General Theory of Exchanges, which is a
structuralist theory. Social scientists have considered exchange to be a main
form of social interaction and a promoter for forming bonds between individuals
and societies. Many social theorists have studied exchange, including the works
of distinguished figures such as Emile Durkheim (1964), Marcel Mauss (1990)
Bronislaw Malinowski (1961), F. E. Williams (1969), Claude Levi-Strauss (1969),
and Marshall Sahlins (1972) as well as many others. Their research has
uncovered the basis of this theory (Hill, Mark A. 2012). French anthropologist
Claude Levi Strauss is probably one of the most influential anthropologists in this
particular area, with his book Elementary Structures of Kinship, which
investigates structures of kinship in “primitive” societies, those societies that
aren’t based on agriculture and have the simplest forms of technology (Lé vi-
Strauss et al., 1969).

The Alliance Theory, which is based on incest taboo (the prohibition of incest
thus promoting exogamy) simply encourages marriage outside the family
descent lines in order to form alliances amongst other families. The marrying of
ones sister or daughter to someone outside of the family in turn creates a circle
of exchange of women whereby the giver; usually the father is entitled to a
woman from the other kinship tribe. Indeed this circulation of women builds
social bonds between different families and tribes within society. Nonetheless,
comparing women to gifts as Levi Strauss does has certain implications, both
negative and positive. For instance, the increase in social solidarity on one hand
but the objectifying of women and continuing the patriarchy that controls so
many women in this society and previous ones, on the other. This essay will be
divided into two parts: the first of which will assess why Levi Strauss compares
women to gifts and any criticisms he may face, as well as the background of the
anthropological argument based around the gift. The second half of this essay
will discuss the implications of his actions.

Gift giving transactions, as simple as they may sound are anything but. For
example in the ethnography of the Trobriand islanders, Bronislaw Malinowski
identified many different kinds of gift transactions. The main being, the
exchanges of the Kula ring. The participants involved in this exchange sometimes
traveled hundreds of miles to exchange either red shell necklaces (soulava) or
white shell necklaces (mwali). These items are traded in a clockwork circulation.
Once the Kula is received the receiver must soon pass them on to someone else
and so on and so forth. The chiefs are generally the ones who partake in Kula
exchange and thus gain more authority and power. Indeed the Kula exchange of
Trobriand islander’s links to the theory of reciprocity, referring to a mutual
exchange of services or goods among social peers. Cultural traditions describe
how and what may be exchanged (Leon and Leon, 2015). There are two types of
exchange; immediate and delayed. Delayed exchange can establish forms of
hierarchy as a debt can build up depending on how long the recipient takes to
return the gift, allowing the giver to have leverage over them. Malinowski thus
concluded that reciprocity, serves one distinct purpose: to create or change
social ties within society (Bronislaw Malinowski, 1922).

The study of Kula exchange and reciprocity became the subject of debate with
French anthropologist Marcel Mauss, renowned author of The Gift. In contrast to
Malinowski who believed that reciprocity and exchange took place between
individuals and only in certain primitive societies,’ Mauss argued that reciprocity
takes place between larger groups, and the gifts given are a ‘total prestation’, an
obligation rather than choice because if you fail to give back the spirit of the gift
(Maori) will haunt you. Total prestation requires two important factors; the
giving of gifts and the receiving of gifts. These two factors are vital as the failure
to give and receive is the equivalent of declaring war. It suggests an end of a
friendship and a broken bond. (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard, 1967 pp. 6-16).
American anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins identified a three-way typology of
reciprocity in his book Stone Age Economics (Sahlins, 1972); generalised,
balanced and negative. An example of generalised reciprocity would be gift
giving on a friend or family members birthday, this is gift giving without an
immediate return but one is expected at some point in the future, such as on
one’s own birthday. In contrast, balanced reciprocity is when there is an
expectation of immediate return. For instance buying items from a grocery store
and paying for them. Thirdly, negative reciprocity can be likened to haggling or
barter. Each party seeks to maximise on profit (Sahlins, 1972, pp. 193-
195)(Anthro.palomar.edu, 2015). Moreover, Reciprocity was also the general
principal used by Claude Lévi-Strauss to explain the Elementary Structures of
Kinship (1949). Indeed he was highly influenced by Mauss’ work on reciprocity.
Levi Strauss concluded that the transitioning point whereby humans progress
from a world of “nature” to one of “culture” was through the exchanging of gifts.
This action of giving is how he believed that humans discovered the need for
‘oneself’ and the ‘other’.

The reason then why Levi Strauss compares women to gifts is because he
suggests that women’s fertility is vital for the reproduction of the next
generation within a group, ultimately making women the “supreme gift”
comparable to no other. The exchange of one woman must be returned by the
exchange of another women, as this is only fair to both parties. Usually the
exchange is between a brother giving away his sister whereby the brother
receiving a wife must give away his sister, creating categories of “wife givers”
and “wife takers”. Levi Strauss considered women to be the “supreme gift” as
giving your daughter or sister away so to speak formed bonds and alliances with
tribes outside of your immediate family that otherwise couldn’t be replicated by
giving any other type of gift. Basing his work on Mauss’ theory of The Gift (Mauss
and Evans-Pritchard, 1967) Levi Strauss argues that “that exchange in primitive
societies consists not so much in economic transactions as in reciprocal gifts,
that these reciprocal gifts have a far more important function than in our own,
and that this primitive form of exchange is not merely nor essentially of an
economic nature but is what he aptly calls "a total social fact", that is, an event
which has a significance that is at once social and religious, magic and economic,
utilitarian and sentimental, jural and moral.” (Lé vi-Strauss et al., 1969 p. 52)
Indeed this proves just how valuable the exchanging of women is to Strauss.
Furthermore, Levi Strauss’ notion of the exchange of women is based on two
factors. The first of which is reciprocity, the idea that because women are so
priceless the only return gift suitable is indeed another woman and the second
factor being incest taboo. Most researchers view incest taboo as a negative
concept, however Levi Strauss saw it as something positive as it encouraged
marriage outside of the family which in turn created further alliances and social
bonds with other groups. In Elementary Structures of Kinship Levi Strauss
included studies from anthropologist Margaret Mead who conducted research
among the Arapesh. She questioned them regarding whether or not they would
marry their sister and if not why? At first it was difficult to get a concrete
response from the Arapesh however with a little pushing they responded: “What,
you would like to marry your sister? What is the matter with you anyway? Don't
you want a brother-in-law? Don't you realize that if you marry another man's
sister and another man marries your sister, you will have at least two brothers-
in-law, while if you marry your own sister you will have none? With whom will
you hunt, with whom will you garden, who will you visit?” (Mead, 1950 p. 58). It
is clear to see that it wasn’t the marrying your own sister that was the major
concern to the Arapesh but the fact that if you did you wouldn’t have a brother-
in-law. Once again this demonstrates just how valuable these alliances between
men were. The prohibition of incest here “is merely the reverse or counterpart of
a positive obligation…” (Lé vi-Strauss et al., 1969 p. 485) rather than something
negative within itself.

Ultimately Levi Strauss compares women to gifts due to the fact that in certain
types of societies gift exchange instills social solidarity amongst different groups
and tribes, it’s a necessary element to enable society to function harmoniously
and to allow the growth of the community. The sacred transaction of giving your
daughter or sister over to another man is what forges these imperative alliances
between men.

Naturally, there are several implications encountered when comparing women

to gifts. Some of which are positive and others highly critical. Perhaps the most
obvious of the positives is that Levi Strauss comparing women to gifts in doing so
emphasises just how important they are to society and how much they are
appreciated. Without the exchanging of women, the forging of alliances and the
expansion of family diversity would not have been so easily possible in those
primitive societies. As mentioned by Francis Edgar Williams, an Australian
anthropologist (Williams, 1969) and Levi-Strauss (Lé vi-Strauss et al., 1969) this
is the ‘supreme gift’ in exchange networks; a gift that strengthens the
relationship from one based on reciprocity to one with kinship ties and vested
interests in the reproductive and somatic success of the other. This has long
lasting benefits ranging from the simple access to potential spouses, to the
creation of affines and strong alliances.

On the contrary there are some concerning negative implications of comparing

women to gifts, for instance this objectifies women as well as dehumnises them
as it portrays women simply as items who can be given away and received to
whom ever the giver chooses without the woman having any say herself. Women
are simply treated as objects in circulation, passed around from man to man.
Feminist anthropologists such as Gayle Rubin were critical of Levi Strauss and
his approach to women and gift exchange. Rubin combined explanations of
Sigmund Freud and Levi Strauss in her article The Traffic in Women: Notes on the
"Political Economy" of Sex (Rubin, 1975). Rubin identifies that neither Levi
Strauss nor Freud seem to find anything wrong with the way they discuss and
portray women in their research, treating them as if they were objects. “They see
neither the implication of what they are saying, nor the implicit critique which
their work can generate when subjected to a feminist eye.” (Rubin, 1975 p. 534).
Indeed, Rubin believes their works provide evidence of how women are
oppressed in the “sex gender system” when critiqued by a feminist. Additionally,
in relation to Levi Strauss’ kinship theory Rubin argues that “if it is women who
are being transacted, then it is the men who give and take them who are linked,
the women being a conduit of a relationship rather that a partner to it…” (Rubin,
1975 p. 174) she believes that the women in this exchange simply act as a
medium for the two men to form an alliance rather than the supposed husband
and wife. Rubin goes on to conclude that the oppression of women therefore lies
in social systems and not biology. Moreover, poststructuralist’s anthropologists
are also critical of Levi Strauss’s work as he takes a structuralist approach in his
research. He assumes that there is a fundamental difference between nature and
culture. Poststructuralist anthropologist Jacques Derrida attempts to deconstruct
certain aspects of Levi Strauss’s work regarding this element. Levi Strauss’s says
that nature is something universal whereas culture is a set of rules dependent on
where you live. He claims that incest prohibitions are found in all cultures and
are a universal phenomenon, however this isn’t necessarily true.

Another critique of the implications of comparing women to gifts and gift

exchange in general comes from anthropologists Annette b Weiner and her book
Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving (Weiner, 1992).
Inalienable possessions must not be given away, and if given, should eventually
return to the giver. Weiner believes that these objects have the ability to create a
lasting social difference and a social hierarchy. These possessions are thus at the
root of many Polynesian kingdoms, such as Hawaii and Samoa. The book is also
important for introducing a consideration of gender in the gift-giving debate by
placing women at the heart of the political process. (Barbara, 2004 p. 239-41)
whereby unlike Levi Strauss notices their importance as individuals rather than
objects. The inalienable possessions are usually made by a woman, which also
contains the Mana. Weiner believes that the role of women in the exchange
system has been highly undermined, she claims that because Levi Strauss only
sees women as objects he fails too see the role they may play as a sister, mother
aunt, niece etc. Weiner highlights the importance of women in the exchange
system, when women marry out of the family they take with them the inalienable
possession and when they die their brother will take it as to keep it within the
family.

In conclusion, the reason why Levi Strauss compares women to gifts is because
they play a vital role in the exchange system, as they act as the “supreme gift” no
other can replace, given to a man outside of the family in exchange for an alliance
and another women. It is suggested that Levi Strauss perhaps doesn’t mean to
objectify or dehumanise women in his works as he is expressing just how
valuable they are in relation to the functioning of society and for alliances to be
made between men, nevertheless it has occurred, due to him not addressing this
point and completely ignoring the possibility of it coming across as misogynistic
and sexist thus the criticism from feminists and other anthropologists were
deserved. As Weiner points out Levi Strauss failed to account for the importance
of women in regards to inalienable possessions and how they’re at the heart of
such primitive societies. However as far as implications are concerned Levi
Strauss’s comparison has not had such a drastic impact as in todays postmodern
society women are not viewed as a mere gift and marriage exchanges differ from
how Levi Strauss discusses them. It is true that in traditional church weddings
the father “gives’ away his daughter but not in order to form an alliance it is
usually because the daughter has chosen to marry the man. Therefore Levi
Strauss comparing women to gifts may have had negative implications during
the time the book was written but its not so influential to women or marriage
alliances in todays society.

Bibliography

Anthro.palomar.edu, (2015). Economic Systems: Distribution and Exchange.

[online] Available at: http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm
[Accessed 30 Dec. 2015].

Hill, Mark A. 2012. The Benefit of the Gift: Exchange, Ritual, and Emergent
Regional Systems in the Late Archaic Western Great Lakes. International
Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor, Michigan
Leon, A. and Leon, A. (2015). What Is Reciprocity in Anthropology? | eHow.
[online] eHow. Available at: http://www.ehow.com/facts_6171176_reciprocity-
anthropology_.html [Accessed 30 Dec. 2015].

Lé vi-Strauss, Claude et al. The Elementary Structures Of Kinship =. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1969. Print. Pages 52-492

Malinowski, Bronislaw. (1922) Argonauts Of The Western Pacific.

Malinowski, Bronislaw, and Michael W Young. The Ethnography Of Malinowski.

London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1979. Print.

Mauss, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E. (1967). The Gift. New York: Norton.

Mead, M. (1930). The Social Organization of Manua. Bulletin of the Bernice P.

Bishop Museum. Page 58

Mills, B. J. (2004). The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable

Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in the Pueblo
Southwest. American Anthropologist, 106(2). Pages 239-41

Rubin, G. (1975). The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Sex..
In Lewin, L. (ed.): Feminist Anthropology. A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Page 534

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Pages 193-

195

Weiner, A. (1992). Inalienable possessions. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Williams, F. (1969). Papuans of the Trans-Fly. Oxford at the Clarendon Press; 1st
THUS edition.