From: glj27240@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (the cult of Carrie )
Subject: questions about "the gift economy"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:20:08 GMT

this interests me.  i am wondering exactly what it means.  the implications
of even the idea of such an economy have, it seems to me, much to do with
many things already brought up over the past couple of weeks. ultimately i
would like to address the disposition i think necessary for such an economy
and one or two related manners.  the former being namely the nature of 
possession.

since Joe has not explicated what a "gift economy" does more pointedly
imply, and as i assume it presumes a modality of thought outside that
of the economy of exchange, and moreover one beyond that summoned by
popular notions of the 'gift' (as it were still within that economy) i
will reserve comment to what i believe the Milosz recently quoted seems
to indicate.

basically it seems a resignation to the fact of the existent economy
which (the act and economy) stipulates to illsuory notion that 'all there
are left in this world are gifts'.  

practically speaking i see this of the same accord as the comments Sharon
makes of her own poetry 'tending to not be political', rather affect some
one in some small way.  the problem with this (the stance in Milosz) (if
indeed we wish to accord it, as it is, with a notion of a 'gift economy')
is it becoming merely a vacation from the 'normal' (still extant) economy,
and ultimately a reaffirmation of it('s fundamental structures).  this
last, of course, is in the hands, or mind, of the recipient, which is to
point here.  it is easy, perhaps, to see how someone happening upon a poem
and reacting in a manner Sharon describes (in ""s) can be an affirmation
of, on one level:  the individual's 'place' in the system, and subsequently
the system itself -- despite the possible intentions of the author.

-- i admit this a one-dimenstional examanation of the matter.  the very
real ability of such poetry, written 'for this purpose' is to affect the
reader in such as way, with such an affinity of nature (etc.), that the
reader is rather forcibly alienated or ren't _from_ the complacency of
whatever 'place' they occupy in the society of this larger system.  what
procedes from that is another matter.  Sharon points to one or two possi-
bilities --

there are other divisions i do not want to go into but which i think are
necessary for reasons i'll mention later.  Namely these (divisions) are
the dispositions of X and Y where X is the act of the gift and Y the
recipient of the gift.  we may posit X and/or Y within or without the
economy of exchange.  There is perhaps also some consideration as to whether
the gift is a something like a 'poem', or not. (at least at this point).  
One instance inclusive of both these.  This is the gift of the poem in the
sense or manner in which M Peterson (i believe) explained and demonstrated
in a recent post:  even if Y is firmly entrenches within the economy of
exchange there is, through X, a liberation from the obligation of 'exchange'.
(a nice poem by the way).  i mean this ^---               --^  more than
merely in the sense of actual 'exchange':  the liberation is manifest post-
facto in Y rather than in the disposition of X.  this is, rather than the
cause being that X intending it as a 'gift'  outside of the whole economy
of exchange [ where Y might say:  i like this poem.  if you write it on a
piece of paper and sign it, i will give you 5$ ] -- the liberation from
this economy is not merely because the poem is 'free', but in that X (recall
it is an act) _absolves_ Y from the entire imposition or disposition of the
latter economy.  perhaps this is merely the true nature of the gift.  it is
also likely that 'mental liberation' from the economy of exchange is easiest
seen with something such as a poem ( also at times in the parent-child, and
wife/husband/etc. relationshps ).

fine.  enough.  i can hear people pointing to Solomen and the like already.
fine enough.

the second reason i wanted to avoid it.  the first is because what was 
mentioned is a 'gift economy' rather than the 'gift' still within the
economy of exchange.  the former which again i think pre-supposes an
entire alien disposition from that currently the case.

this new dis-position is what i wish to explore.  and will following this.


-- 
							 
                                                  the cult of Carrie 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems