pjn (home page: contents and index)
Exchange and Identity. (‘Identity
Exchange’ or ‘disjunctive reciprocity’).
(footnote
28 from ‘Ritual and Identity in Late-twentieth century American
Drama’, in Journal of Dramatic
Theory & Criticism XIX.2 (Spring, 2005).
The theoretical
implications of the view of 'rituality' expressed here, with its central
concept of 'identity exchange', would suggest one solution or alternative route
to the debates surrounding 'the gift' and 'exchange'. If utopian thought has
preferred a gift which is pure and selfless, then others have pointed out that
any gift can always be re-appropriated into a network of exchange relations
which appear to belie this purity. George Bataille, a major inheritor of the
Durkheim/Mauss tradition in gift exchange and a major influence on current
thinking on the subject (see especially Visions
of Excess (Minneapolis, U of Minnesota P, 1985) and The Accursed Share: Vol. I (NY: Zone, 1988)), has, in his own
original contribution to this debate, suggested an otherwise unreachable
outside to everyday sublunary exchange relations (of things, people, signs)
which inspires intense ritual experiences and which is the true end of
sacrificial forms of gift exchange (potlatch, kula). Bataille's reading takes
us beyond reciprocity, and also apparently beyond utility and function. The
rhetoric of exteriority (here linked to a rhetoric of the sublime or, in
temporal terms, of eternity) has been much discussed in deconstructive
philosophy; the 'outside' is found to be a means of shoring up an otherwise
foundationless structure on the 'inside', that is, the 'return' on 'the gift'
is the possibility of exchange itself, of society _ on this reading, there is
no exchange-free gift. We may, of course simply read Bataille's account as
phenomenologically accurate in terms of the symbolic meaning of such events,
but find that the social function of such exchange-free gifts is to cement
community identity, to suture the individual into the community, (and when
apposite, into a position in the hierarchy of that community, often, again when
apposite, in relation to other communities). All of this presupposes a poverty
stricken, not to say ideologically loaded, misrecognition of so-called 'gift
exchange' in modern societies; the gift is neither the solution (utopians) nor
the problem (free-marketeers), but in fact a range of differing relationships.
Relationships that not only testify to the survival of gift-type relations in
our administered capitalist world, their ubiquity, variety, and fundamental
role in human life, but also their fusion with their supposed anti-theses, the
commodity form and rational (structuring and exchange) relations. See for
example: (i) gift exchanges between relatives and friends (the investment is in
the relationships, and also in one's role, the self of the giver as confirmed
by the gift; charity, donations, etc). (ii) Destructive sacrifices of the other
(rather than of self) pogroms, bigotry, and other forms negative Othering (symbolic
destruction) as community affirming; the purchase of commodities for identity
purposes as opposed to investment as capital (fashion, conspicuous consumption
_ 'symbolic capital' in a more democratic sense than that given by Bourdieu,
who limits the term to that which can be turned into things/material reward at
a later, deferred, stage). (iii) Finally and most tellingly, the passing up and
down of goods and favours (from patronage, promotion, and 'tips' to cyclic
present giving), such that 'larger' go downward and 'smaller' go upwards (the
relative sizes marking place in hierarchy) in the tightly organised structures
of modern organisations, universities included. At the very heart of modern
rational-bureaucratic institutions is replicated the gift type of exchange of
any and every 'closed', close-knit and supposedly 'primitive' social form (only
the technology is primitive or 'simple'). For Weber and for Marx, proponents of
the domination of instrumental reason and the commodity, there is in these examples
some considerable irony.
In
place then, of absolute (materialist) reciprocity and absolute (idealist) gift,
I wish to suggest a 'disjunctive reciprocity' as recognising the interaction of
both levels, of symbol and function, of the translation (in all senses of the
word) that takes place between sign and matter, between idea or symbol and
things (or bodies), where the destruction of one leads, not to an absence, loss
or irrational, unprofitable waste, nor a metaphysical positing of a sublime
realm (both evincing the same error). Rather the 'return',
or result of the exchange relation appears on the other side of this
(metaphysical) fundamental heterogeny: matter becomes identity; blood and burnt
offerings (actual or symbolic) become self and beget community. This exchange,
however, is an identity exchange, its field of operation is recognition, and we
none of us function without it. Repetition offers its everyday form; rituality.
Repetition plus intensity (with the sublime appeal to the rhetoric of eternity,
the absolute 'outside') is its cyclic manifestation, the participation in which
unfailingly leads to the question of identity as recognition _ identity as
belonging. As in those great proclaimers of the ineffable relation to the
'otherside', mysticism and asceticism, the apparent disavowal of self leads in
practice to a renewal of self.
Copyright 2005 Peter Nesteruk