Gifting

Gifting is a common practice for craftivists which can been seen in Sarah Corbett & the Craftivist Collectiv’e Living Wage Campaign Against Marks & Spencers (2015). Where this practice comes from is hard to trace because craftivisim is a loosely connected fragmented practice and what may be true for some craftivists will likely not be the same for others. Be that as it may, the common element of crafting and particularly textile crafting which most craftivists practice, is an area with a strong gifting tradition within our culture and is likely to be partly responsible for this gifting culture within craftivism.

My personal philosophy on gifting comes from many places. My Christian up brining led me to view gifting as something to be done in secret as an act of love and what is right in the eyes of God. I grew up in the pacific Northwest Coast on the lands of the Musquem, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh that had the tradition of the potlach, which viewed reciprocity in gifting in a different way than western society. I also view charity and gifting through the lens of my activism work, where charity is viewed as inimical to social justice, allowing it to continue by opaquing the society problems.

Gifting is important within all human societies, so important that it can exemplify what it means to be human: “Mauss’s theory of the exchange of gifts as the total social fact shows that the gift is a cornerstone of the whole of society because it encapsulates the concern with what it means to be human”(Sykes, 2005, p.4). The total social fact being pervasive, magnifying and driving, so that gifting typifies, examines and enlarges what it means to be human. This was stated in terms of anthropology, so that all societies in all eras that we have knowledge of were considered and not simply our own society.

Gifting is something that we all understand by participating in, but not necessarily cognitively deciphering. As someone who is not heavily invested in gifting themselves, I will borrow an existing definition to define a gift. This practical breakdown of what gifting entails or means, also starts with the caveat that not all gifting does in fact follow all of the steps involved, but must involve most of them, because, as there is a myriad of types of gifting, so too must the rules be in flux.

The paradigmatic case of a gift therefore will be understood as: (1) some value (2) intentionally bestowed by a donor who gives it primarily to benefit the recipient upon (3) a recipient who (a) accepts it knowing that it is given as a gift, (b) agreeing with the donor that it is a benefit, (c) who has no right to or claim upon it and (d) who is not expected to pay for it in the future in any usual way (i.e., in no specific way in which roughly equivalent value is returned); and (4) which brings into being a new moral relationship between recipient and donor, part of which consists of recipient obligations to the donor and the acceptance of limits upon the use of the gift.(Camenisch, 1985, p.2)

In short there is a giver, a receiver, obligations are inherent upon receiving the gift, but there is no definitive amount, sum or return required to fulfill these obligations. The most common gifting practice in western society is reciprocal exchanging of gifts. The gifting practice that will be utilized in this research is less standard in western culture, the giving of a gift in order to gain an obligation. This type of gift has (1) value, but is not (2) given primarily for the benefit of the receiver, it does has a (3) recipient, there is some level of (3a) acceptance and (3b) there is some sort of value to receiving it and that it was not already owned or owed (3c) and that there is no (3d) specific value required as a return to accepting it and by accepting it there is now a bond between the giver and the receiver where the receiver has (4) obligations to fulfill in order to satisfy the social contract formed by receiving the gift. While gifting as a petition is less common, it is still something that exists and three examples will be explored, gifting as a form of begging, gifting to solicit charity donations and gifting to change behavior of a loved one.

Gifting as a form of begging is not a universal practice but is something I have encountered multiple times in major cities with high poverty rates. For those not familiar with the practice it consists of a low-income person giving items of low value, such as very cheap tourists trinkets or flowers to people with the expectation of being given money for the item. The receiver is expected to pay for the gift with money, though there is no agreed upon price. In this form of gifting the receiver may or may not be aware that the “gift” is in fact an obligation of monetary recompense and is not a free gift. Failing to pay for this gift may incite anger or rage in the part of the giver and they may require the recipient to give the “gift” back. While the gifting in this scenario may be argued to not be gifting at all, it represents some of the pitfalls involved with gifting in order to receive obligations. The receiver who does not understand the obligations that the gift comes with may feel resentful and cheated and rather than gifting in reciprocity may feel that the obligations now run the other way, that the giver now owes the receiver instead of the other way around. Rather than there being a new moral relationship between the parties which is an intended part of gifting, there is now an immoral relationship, trust is lost. Gifting with the sole intent of receiving obligations can be viewed as predatory within our society.

A form of gifting to solicit obligations that is acceptable is for charities to give gifts. There are three ways that this usually occurs, gifts as a thank you for donations, gifts to solicit donations and gifts meant to be re-gifted through the charity with the help of donations. The gift as a thank you is not obligation gift, but is a gifting that charity uses. The second form of gifting is a cross between a gift and marketing. Marketing is not gifting because it does not hold the lofty human capacity that gifting entails, it does not, for the most part, create obligations nor strengthen bonds. Most marketing “gifts” are free items that people can choose to take or not. Charities, much more so than businesses, will mail out cold call gifts out with the hopes of receiving donations. These mailed gifts cannot really not be accepted—sending them back is a real hassle, though throwing them out or disavowing any responsibility is a form of non-acceptance, it is also possible to keep the item and not feel obliged to donate. The reason charity giving is not simply marketing is because if the person acknowledges that the charity does good work, they feel that they ought to feel obliged even if they do not. The last form of gifting to re-gift is something I have experienced with charities for children in third world countries, where small toys that fit in an envelope were given to me with the hopes that I would regift them along with money to children in the third world. In terms of logistics this proposition is ridiculous, neither the economics nor the items merit this approach, but what this approach offers is the personal connection or moral relationship and reciprocity that gift giving allows that simply donating money does not. 

The last form of the obligation forming gift giving is usually by a friend or family member in order to change behavior or opinions. Within this circumstance there is no new moral relationship, only a continuation of one. The giver and receiver may have drastically different views on the transaction. The giver will see value in the gift while the receiver may only see value in the act of giving (“it’s the thought that counts”) or may in fact see negative value (the gift intended to improve poor performance highlights the poor performance); unless the gift has significant value, the receiver will feel obliged to accept the gift based on their relationship to the giver; the giver believes there is benefit in the gift and the receiver may believe there is none, but both the giver and receiver will still be under obligations; The receiver may believe the obligation is simply gratitude or a reciprocal present while the giver may see the correct obligation be the desired change that the gift was meant to illicit. Because of the nature of gifts, unless the item has significant value, there is no one proper way to fulfill the obligation because there is no one to one exchange value. In my own experience the gifts that I have been given to change my behavior have not worked and have sometimes created resentment, though these are gifts where I know that was the intention. It is likely that I received gifts, particularly as a younger child from my parents, that did in fact promote good behavior, without my being aware of it.

Gifting as an Act of Disruption

Gifting within my Research

Within my research I am using two types of obligation forming gifting in three different applications. The first types of gifting is a cold-call gift sent in the mail with the intention of changing behavior and is used in two different case studies. The second type of gifting involves public shaming and is a different type of gifting then described previously.

Cold Call Gifting

In two of my projects, the Mourning Arms Bands and the pin workshops, the gifting aspect is remarkably similar. An arm band or a pin made from textiles is mailed along with a letter to an unexpecting receiver. The gift has (1) value because of the labour involved in the textile making, the labour involved must be apparent in order for the gift to have value as there is no appropriate scale to measure economic value. The gift is (2) somewhat given to benefit the receiver. While there is nefarious purposes behind the intent, the gift is given with the explicit intention of creating obligations that favour the sender, the gift is meant to be something that the receiver might like. The desire of the receiver is not the main objective when considering what the gift would be, but it was taken into consideration. The items are mailed to (3) recipients. Having them (3a) accept the item is the difficulty with the cold call method. Providing a gift as a thank you to those who have already provided the desired obligation, as charities do with donations, is a much surer way of success, though it limits potential gift recipients considerably and is not compatible with protest. The obligations that the giver is requesting are known, if the receivers does not want to have these obligations the only way for them to accept the gift, is to ensure that the receiver sees (3b) the value of the gift as the benefit of the textile items will likely rest in the value of having a handmade item crafted explicitly for them. The recipient (3c) has no right to the item nor is required to (3d) pay for it. With the accepted gift a (4) new moral relationship with obligations is formed, though as this is not an in person meeting, this relationship and the obligations are abstract at best. In keeping with proper gifting etiquette, there is no specific payment in the obligation. The request is better choices and policies regarding the climate from their position of power, a specific but rather broad request.

The outcome of the gifting exchange can be hypothesized based on these gifting processes. The first potential outcome, before even reaching the gifting possibility is that the gift never reaches the receiver. The value may be seen as nothing, if the textile item is perceived as garbage, it may just be tossed out without a second thought. If there is some value decerned in the item, then it can be accepted or not. The receiver, upon reading the requested obligations of the giver may choose to throw out, give the item away or even send it back to the sender and thus not enter into any gifting obligations. The receiver may also choose to keep the gift without feeling any need to fulfill any obligations, as the gift was freely given, they can actively or passively choose not to feel any obligation. The receiver could receive the gift and feel that the only necessary obligation is gratitude, either explicitly given or simply felt. The receiver could decide that the gift was an appreciation gift and rather than make any further attempts to mitigate climate change could feel self-satisfied for any past efforts. The receiver could accept the gift and when making a future choice to mitigate climate change, doing something they would have chosen regardless of the gift, may then feel their obligation is over. The receiver could receive the gift, accept the obligation and then make the smallest change possible and feel that they have fulfilled the obligations of the gift. The last foreseeable outcome in the gifting ritual is that the receiver could accept the gift, think deeply about the gift and the request of the gift giver, and make a committed effort to further mitigate climate change. Within hypotheticals, there is a possibility that does not entail the gifting process and has more with human nature, is that the gift is accepted and simply forgotten about.

What the acceptance of the gift entails is not a fixed situation. It is possible to give away or even throw away the gift while still mentally accepting the obligations of the gift. Because acceptance relies on the mentality of gifting obligations rather than any action regarding the gift. The textile gifts were sent without prior knowledge of the receiver and etiquette does not dictate that they be mailed back in order to not be accepted as a gift. Etiquette also does not require the keeping of the textile art, if it was accepted as a gift because the value perceived by the receiver was the effort and intentions of the sender rather than any merits of the textile art in the eyes of the receiver. 

In this gifting scenario, the sender may never know if the receiver accepted the gift. The pins are mostly being sent to politicians, who will likely have staff in charge of reading correspondence, but the percentage of responses sent will vary with each office and in the event a response letter is sent may simply be a form letter. The armbands are more personalized, have greater time put into the making of them and are sent to people who are more likely to support climate mitigation actions that was the obligation of accepting the gift. Because of these factors they are more likely than the politicians to provide an active form for gratitude to me, the sender. However, in neither of these scenarios is it a requirement to send notice of the acceptance of the gift and obligations. It would be a curtesy, rather than a necessity to do so.

Public Shaming

Public shaming is not a standard form of gifting it is, however, a standard practice within activism. My friends set up a fake oil pipeline on the lawn of a Vancouver politician to shame them for their stance on allowing a pipeline from the Alberta tar [oil] sands to be built within the province that would increase the output of dirty oil.[citation]

While using gifting as a form of public shaming is not common, it is something that does exist and something that you may hear stories of, even if it is not something that you have encountered personally. There is a nugget in the gifting that makes this an effective tactic, while also remaining an act of shaming. There is a selfless gesture in giving a valuable object to an opponent that matters. Art has the ability to also be a gift of the artist giver themselves—there is an element of the artist within the artwork.