The Gift As a Worldview in Indigenous Thought[1]
By Rauna Kuokkanen
(Published in Il Dono/The Gift: A Feminist Analysis, a special
edition in English of the Athanor Journal, published by Meltemi
Press in Italy.)
For the most part, the gift is understood and approached either as a mode
of economy (e.g., as part of informal local economies) or a form of exchange.
While exchange can also be a form of economy, some literature discusses
gift exchanges outside the economic realm, something that takes place
between individuals particularly in contemporary society. Instead of viewing
the gift as a form of exchange or having only an economic function, the
gift in indigenous societies is a reflection of a particular world view
characterized by a perception of the natural environment as a living entity
which gives itsgifts and abundance to people if it is treated with respect
and gratitude (i.e., if certain responsibilities are observed).[2] Central
to this perception is that the world as a whole is constituted of an infinite
web of relationships extended to and incorporated into the entire social
condition of the individual. Social ties apply to everybody and everything,
including the land. People are related to their physical and natural surroundings
through genealogies, oral tradition and their personal and collective
experiences pertaining to certain locations. Interrelatedness is reflected
in indigenous systems of knowledge, which often are explained in terms
of relations and arranged in a circular format consisting mostly or solely
of sets of relationships seeking to explain phenomena. In many of these
systems of knowledge, concepts do not stand alone, but are constituted
of "the elements of other ideas to which they were related" (Deloria 1999:
48).
It is a well-established argument that the gift functions primarily as
a system of social relations, that it forms alliances, solidarity and
communities and "binds collectives together" (Berking 1999: 35).[3] What
is often ignored, however, is that the gift in indigenous worldviews extends
beyond interpersonal relationships to "all my relations."[4] In other
words, according to this philosophy, giving is an active relationship
between human and natural worlds based on a close interaction of sustaining
and renewing the balance in the socio-cosmic order. The foundational principle
of indigenous worldviews -- the intimate and intricate relationships with
the land and community -- are established and affirmed by gifts. These
relationships also form the ethical basis of indigenous worldviews, sustaining
cultural and ecological survival (LaRocque 2001: 67; see also Deloria
1999, ch. 26).
In this article, I will discuss the gift philosophy in indigenous thought
as a central manifestation of the special relationship that indigenous
peoples have with their lands and territories. In this philosophy, the
gifts are given back and shared with the larger cosmos as a means of recognizing
and thanking the land and cosmos for its gifts. Through the act of giving,
the kinship or relationships are actively recognized, not taken for granted
or ignored. This creates a collective sense of respect, reciprocity and
responsibility. In short, it could be suggested that in indigenous societies,
the gift is one of the most important organizing principles around which
values and perceptions of the world are attached.
While discussing some of the general, shared principles and aspects of
indigenous peoples' worldview of the gift, I will draw my examples from
the Sami people, the indigenous people of Northern Europe, who, in the
course of colonial history, have been divided by the nation-states of
Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.[5] My consideration is by no means
a comprehensive study of the functions, philosophy or logic of the gift
within indigenous systems of thinking -- it is clear that anything like
that would deserve and require a separate study. It also is beyond the
scope of my inquiry to raise and address the vast array of issues in various
anthropological and other analyses of the gift. What is, however, necessary
is to explain what is meant when we discuss the relationship that indigenous
peoples have with their lands.
Indigenous Peoples' Relationship with the Land
For indigenous peoples, the relationship with their homelands and territories
is a fundamental issue, forming the basis of survival as a people. In
this context, survival does not imply only physical sustenance and an
ability or right to practice certain livelihoods, but that the very existence
of a distinct people with a culture, language, worldview and value and
knowledge systems is dependent on the land with which there has been a
historical connection and continuity for generations. In other words,
the collective identity of indigenous peoples are intricately and inseparably
linked to their physical surroundings. The profound relationship indigenous
peoples have to their lands has various social, cultural, spiritual, economic
and political dimensions and responsibilities (Daes 1999). An indigenous
people is connected to a certain location through its history and genealogies
traditionally told and reflected in oral tradition -- stories, songs,
myths, legends, proverbs and other verbal expressions.[6] A common view
among indigenous peoples is that stories tell who 'we' are as a people.
This includes stories of origin and of ancestors, worldview and values,
knowledge for everyday and long-term survival. Various forms of oral tradition
are rooted in and draw upon certain places and locations and they are
used to explain and interpret experiences (Basso 1996, Cruikshank 1990).
The connection relationship with a specific territory is also reflected
in names of places and people: in many indigenous cultures including the
Sami, families and also individuals are commonly identified by or named
after places and locations.
The relationship that indigenous peoples have with their lands also has
a spiritual dimension rooted in a specific worldview. This understanding
of the cosmological order emphasizes relationships and interconnectedness
instead of causality and separation of human from the rest of the world.
Australian Aboriginal historian and activist Jaggie Huggins articulates
this view as follows:
Like most Aboriginal people it is my spiritual and religious belief that
we come from this land, hence the term "the land my mother." This land
is our birthing place, our "cradle"; it offers us connection with the
creatures, the trees, the mountains, the rivers, and all living things.
This is the place of my dreaming. There are no stories of migration in
our Dreamtime stories. Our creation stories are linked intrinsically to
the earth. This is why place and land are so important to us, regardless
of where and when we were born. (1998: 106)
Others have explained this understanding by comparing it to the dominant
western perceptions of the human relationship with the phenomenal world
which foreground the mastery and control over nature (Brody 2000, Vickers
1998: 142-3).[7] In other words, it is necessary to understand that when
we talk about indigenous peoples' relationship with their lands, we are
not talking about a relationship on an individual level. The question
is rather about a worldview -- a specific way of knowing and being in
the world which is transmitted through values and cultural practices.
Naturally, it is important to distinguish between the indigenous philosophy
and individual thinking and behaviour which may not always reflect or
comply with the former. There is, therefore, a need for a different conceptual
framework to understand this relationship as suggested by the UN Special
Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes (1999).
Classic Gift Theories on Giving to Nature
In Marcel Mauss's classic essay on the gift, Essai sur le don, forme archaique
de l'echange, (1967[1924]), one of the themes in the economy and morality
of the gift is gift giving to gods or nature. Mauss does not, however,
advance a theory on this theme, partly because of the lack of facts in
this area but also because of its "strongly marked mythological element,
which we do not yet fully understand" (1967: 12). Similarly, most other
considerations of the gift that address this aspect of giving at all only
give meager attention to gift giving to the natural world, often imbued
by assumptions of primitiveness, strangeness and antiquity.[8] One of
the reasons many scholars do not give non-western systems of thought the
serious and rigorous attention they do to western counterparts is the
insistence, as Vine Deloria Jr. notes, that non-Western peoples represent
an earlier stage of their own cultural evolution -- often that tribal
cultures represent failed efforts to understand natural world [...]. Non-Western
knowledge is believed to originate from primitive efforts to explain mysterious
universe. In this view, the alleged failure of primitive/tribal man [sic]
to control nature mechanically is evidence of his ignorance and his inability
to conceive of abstract general principles and concepts. (1996: 37)
Classic gift theories are also usually characterized by serious misinterpretations
simply because the analysis is informed by paradigms and thought of modernity
which are incapable of adequately grasping the deeper meanings of gift
giving to the natural world. In other words, there is a need for a theory
of the gift that would focus on this largely neglected and misconstrued
area. In this article, my intention is to discuss and reexamine some of
the central aspects of the gift to the non-human realm, hoping to offer
critical insights to previous gift theories.
Instead of viewing gift giving to gods and nature as a reflection of indigenous
worldviews founded on active recognition of kinship relations that extend
beyond human realm, Mauss explains it as a "theory of sacrifice" in which
people have -- they must make -- exchange contracts with the spirits of
the dead and the gods who are the real owners of the world's wealth. He
gives the Toradja of the Celebes, Indonesia, as a classic example of people
who believe that "one has to buy from the gods and that the gods know
how to repay the price" (1967: 14). Moreover, for Mauss, "the idea of
purchase from gods and spirits is universally understood" (ibid.). This
is, however, a gross misinterpretation of the Toradja and other indigenous
worldviews which are based on an understanding that the socio-cosmic order
is maintained through the stability of various relations within that order,
necessarily including the natural world and the ancestors. Following the
teachings of her elders, a Toradja (or Toraja, as the correct spelling
reads) woman explains that according to the understanding of her people,
Deata ("God" or "Creator") provides the Toraja everything and that every
creature has a spirit. The Toraja give gifts or "offerings" to thank Deata
for everything that they have. After the harvest, for instance, the Toraja
hold a ceremony to express gratitude for the season. These practices and
this understanding are definitely not considered a purchase from the gods
but a form of thanking and respecting the natural world (Sombolinggi,
personal communication, 2004).
From this perspective, it is very peculiar indeed that Mauss, critical
of the economic interpretations of the gift, has to resort to interpreting
a practice reflecting a perception of the world that postulates a moral
universe founded on respect and responsibility toward other forms of life
by means of the terminology of economics (exchange contracts, purchase).
In a similar fashion, Godbout analyzes the underlying philosophy of the
"archaic" gift only cursorily and with a condescending tone, referring
to gift practices as something "strange," "curious" and "primitive"(1998:
134).
While Godbout recognizes that "the gift represents the overall complex
of relationships that brings together ... all the personalized powers
that inhabit the primitive cosmos: human, animal, vegetable, mineral,
or divine" (ibid. 135), he reduces it, however, into what he calls "the
strange law of alternation" which rules that in archaic societies, giving
is only possible by taking turns.[9] In his view, this might be "a primitive
democratic requirement" motivated by the fear of revenge and destruction
(ibid. 134). This kind of interpretation is reductionistic because it
"consists of elements (values, structures, gender roles) which it has
naturalized without heeding the animistic [sic] world's own attitudes
towards life" (Kailo, forthcoming). It is also masculinist as Kaarina
Kailo suggests, for this kind of giving "did not necessarily get organized
along those dichotomous, conflictual lines that [many theorists] take
for granted" (ibid.). In worldviews characterized by gift giving to the
land and its various representatives or elements, the emphasis is not
on apprehension or retaliation but on expressing gratitude for its gifts
and kinship.
Starting with Mauss, most gift theories view the gift as a mode of exchange
characterized by obligations, countergifts, pay-backs, debts, forced reciprocity
and other mandatory acts. Mauss's central thesis was that the gift is
constituted by three obligations of giving, receiving and paying back.
Existing within distinctive social rules, the gift is both constrained
and interested even if may first appear voluntary and disinterested. For
Mauss the gift exchange represents a disguise and replacement for a deeper
hostility, an alternative to war. In the same fashion, Claude Lévi-Strauss,
though criticizing Mauss's analysis of ambiguity, has suggested that exchange
is the primary structuring principle of society. In his view, all societies
are founded on various forms kinship, economy, culture of exchange.
Building on Mauss's agonistic notion of the gift exchange as a substitute
for hostility, Pierre Bourdieu has analyzed the gift as symbolic violence,
which for him is "the most economical mode of domination" (1997: 218).
In his view, the gift exchange ultimately leads to the accumulation of
social capital of obligations and debts that are paid back, among other
things, in the form of homage, respect and loyalty, Material capital thus
produces symbolic capital, which is actively "misrecognized" as something
else such as obligations, relationships and gratitude. In this system,
the gift implies power acquired by giving (ibid. 217).
For Bourdieu, gift-giving is an observation of 'moral obligations,' an
active denial and misrecognition of the embedded symbolic violence. He
suggests that "the pre-capitalist economy is the site par excellence of
symbolic violence" for in this system, the only way to establish and reinforce
relations of domination is through strategies of which the true nature
cannot be revealed -- it would destroy them -- but instead must be masked,
transformed and euphemized. It is interesting that Bourdieu should want
to interpret a social order constituted mostly of non-adversarial relationships
observed through mutual responsibilities as a site par excellence of a
form of violence. While there is no need to romanticize indigenous (or
'pre-capitalist') communities as nostalgic examples of societies without
violence, it hardly does any justice either to the complexity of the logic
of the gift or the social order which largely depended on cooperation
and nonaggression to reduce one of the central structuring principles,
the gift, to a form of violence, however subtle and symbolic.
Violence has never been absent in any societies, including indigenous
ones who have, like other nations, fought wars both among themselves as
well as with and against various colonizers. Traditionally, however, violence
has never characterized indigenous societies in the same way as it does
the modern, western society which Pueblo Laguna scholar and writer Paula
Gunn Allen calls a culture of death; culture where the presence of death
is evident everywhere around us (Allen 1990: 30; see also Allen 1986:
127-35).[10] Could it be possible that Bourdieu's interpretation is informed
by his own cultural notions of adversarial, competitive and dominating
relationships more than anything else, preventing him from seeing other
functions and logic?
Bourdieu's and many others' analysis of the logic of the gift ignores
giving and sharing that exist outside the restrained system of indebtedness
in spite of countless examples that indicate otherwise. One such example
is the Sami 'grave gifts' in which the dead person is given a gift related
to her or his livelihood while alive as well as food and tobacco.[11]
Tobacco was also "put down in the earth to the departed" every time a
person passed by a grave (Backman 1978: 35, 40).[12] The function of these
Sami grave gifts is not economic but preeminently social and spiritual,
ensuring the continuance of a congenial relationship between the deceased
and her or his living relatives (ibid. 36). This type of giving is often
called an "offering" to the spirit world and thereby considered separate
from (or perhaps a sub-category of) the gift proper.
As with other traditional livelihoods, Sami livelihoods of hunting, fishing
and reindeer-herding are contingent upon a stable and continuous relationship
between the human and natural worlds. Thus, knowledge of taking care of
that relationship has traditionally been an integral part of social structures
and practices, including spiritual practices (cf. Mulk 1994: 127-8).
The Sami cosmos consists of a complex, multilayered order of different
realms and spheres inhabited by humans, animals, ancestors, spirits, deities
and guardians, all of whom traditionally have had specific roles and functions
in Sami cosmic order. An interesting, almost completely ignored aspect
in the analyses of Sami cosmology and 'religion' is the role of the female
deities in giving the gift of life (both human and domestic animal, mainly
reindeer) and the connection to the land. One could suggest that the Sami
deity Mattarahkka with her three daughters signified the very foundation
in the Sami cosmic order for they were the deities of new life who conveyed
the soul of a child, created its body and also assisted with menstruation,
childbirth and protection of children (Rank 1955: 31).
Thus the most significant gift or all, a new life, was the duty of these
female deities that often in ethnographic literature have been relegated
to a mere status of wives of male deities (reflecting the patriarchal
bias of these interpretations). Moreover, Mattarahkka could be translated
as 'Earthmother' (the root word mattar refers to earth and later also
to ancestors). Initially, she could have also been an individual ancestress
(ibid. 19). Moreover, words for 'earth' and 'mother' in the everyday Sami
language also derive from the same root (eanan and eadni respectively).
The role of women and female deities in Sami cosmology and the world order
of giving and relations is a neglected area of study but should be noted
here when considering Sami notions of giving.[13]
The Sami view of the cosmos is reflected, for example, in the Sami drum.
Traditionally, the main users of drums in Sami society have been noaidis
who were spiritual leaders of siidas, the Sami self-governing units of
extended families. They were also healers and visionaries and thus were
the first ones to be exterminated amongst the Sami by church and state
representatives (Paltto 1998: 28). Today, there are still noaidis but
their knowledge and practice exist mostly in hiding. Noaidi used a drum
depicting the Sami cosmos with its various elements and deities both to
foresee future events and enter a trance which took him or her into journeys
in other realms. In this way, a noaidi was able to communicate with animals
and dead ancestors.
The goodwill of the deities, spirits and guardians who share the gifts
of the land with humans plays a significant role in the well-being and
survival of humans. In this system of thought and practice, relations
with the spirit world and larger cosmos are secured by sharing the gifts
of the land, returning the remains of an animal back to the land, and
observing certain ceremonies and restrictions which guaranteed the continuance
of the social and cosmic order, preventing serious, and often life-threatening
ruptures.
Traditionally, one of the most important ways to maintain established
relations and the socio-cosmic order has been the practice of giving to
various sieidis. Sieidi, a sacred place of the gift, usually consists
of a stone or wood to which the gift was directed. The common location
for sieidis are in the vicinity of sacred places, camp grounds or fishing
and hunting sites. Stone or rock sieidis are usually natural formations
of unusual shapes, functioning as natural landmarks particularly in the
mountains. Wooden sieidis are either trees with the lowest branches removed,
carved stumps or fallen trunks. For the Sami, sieidis were considered
alive although many ethnographers thought they represented merely inert
stones and structures. This is well captured in the description by Sami
reindeer herder John Turi in the early twentieth century:
Some sieidis were satisfied if they received antlers, and others were
content with all the bones, which meant every single bone, even the most
wee ones. Fish sieidi did not demand less than a half of the catch but
then it directed to the nets as much fish as people could collect. Some
sieidis wanted a whole reindeer, which needed to be embellished with all
kinds of decorations, cloth, threads, silver and gold. (1987: 108)[14]
Sieidis require regular attention and if neglected, the consequences could
be drastic: a loss of hunting, fishing or reindeer luck, illness or at
worst, death. Although Christianity has severely eroded the Sami gift-giving
to and sharing with the land by banning it as a pagan form of devil worshipping,
there is a relatively large body of evidence that the practice of sieidi
gifting is still practiced (Kjellstrom 1987; see also Juuso 1998: 137).[15]
These gifts are, particularly in ethnographic literature, almost invariably
referred to as 'sacrifice,' usually defined as a gift (or gift exchange)
to gods and nature. As a forfeiture of something for the sake of receiving
something else, sacrifice is not voluntary but given under certain pressures
or conditions. Jacques Derrida notes:
Sacrifice will always be distinguished from the pure gift (if there is
any). The sacrifice proposes an offering but only in the form of a destruction
against which it exchanges, hopes for, or counts on a benefit, namely,
a surplus-value or at least an amortization, a protection, and a security.
(1992a: 137)
I argue that giving to sieidis, however, cannot be completely understood
through the concept of sacrifice. If sieidi gifts do have aspects of sacrifice,
they are not, however, and should not be seen solely as such. They may
have other dimensions that can be as significant if not more so than
the aspect of sacrifice. Bones are given back, the catch shared and reindeer
given to the gods and goddesses of hunting, fishing and reindeer luck
represented by sieidi sites as an expression of gratitude for their goodwill
and for ensuring abundance also in the future. In this sense, giving to
sieidis appears involuntary as it is done for the protection and security
of both the individual and the community. On the other hand, however,
sieidis are considered an inseparable part of one's social order and thus
it is an individual and collective responsibility to look after them.
While it may appear that such a gift is an exchange and a mandatory forfeit
(especially when interpreted from the framework of a foreign worldview),
it is rather a voluntary expression of a particular worldview. Reflecting
the Sami worldview of respect of and intimate relationship with the land,
the practice of sieidi gifts is a manifestation of circular or loose reciprocity
which should not be confused with restrained reciprocity present in systems
of exchange.
It is, of course, possible to argue that any kind of giving is always
a form of exchange that even in the framework of indigenous worldviews
gifts are exchanged for collective well-being. Discussing the bear ceremony
in which the bones of the bear are ritually returned to nature and the
spirit of the animal, Kailo notes that even if it might be "rooted in
the exchange of gifts between hunters, the bear and the other actors of
the bear drama [...], the attitudes, mood, values and philosophical context
are very different"(forthcoming).[16] She notes that while the ethnographic
accounts on bear rituals do not explicitly discuss the underlying paradigms
the interpretations are based upon, one can observe the implicit ideology
of the nineteenth century nationalism and its unexamined assumptions of
'primitive' cultures and male interpretations which stress the primacy
self-interest, guilt and aggression. In other words, these ethnographic
interpretations are usually rooted in certain colonial, Eurocentric and
patriarchal worldviews, ideologies and values (Kailo, personal communication
2004).[17]
To suggest that the gift necessarily extends beyond interpretations of
exchange economy is not to deny the role of the gift also in the economic
sphere of indigenous societies. There is a need, however, to question
the economic bias that appears to inform the majority of interpretations
of the archaic gift (Godbout 1998: 128). In this regard, Mauss's interpretation
represents an exception for it recognizes how in archaic societies,[18]
the gift is a 'total social phenomenon' with legal, economic, religious,
aesthetic, morphological, political and domestic dimensions (1967: 76-7).
Though recognizing the gift as representing various aspects and functions
in society, Mauss's interpretation in many occasions tends, however, to
emphasize the gift as an exchange economy which is a predecessor of the
current market system and thereby implying evolutionary phases from primitivism
to more civilized and highly developed forms of exchange. Writes Mauss:
"We may then consider that the spirit of gift-exchange is characteric
of societies which have passed the phase of 'total prestation' ... but
have not yet reached the stage of pure individual contract, the money
market, sale proper, fixed price, and weighed and coined money" (ibid.
45).[19] In spite of Mauss's ability to see the complexity of the gift
in 'archaic' societies, the western society and its models serve as the
norm to which other societies and practices are inevitably compared.
Different Types of Reciprocity
The underlying logic of the exchange paradigm is that gifts cannot be
given unless the receipt of countergifts is guaranteed. Reciprocity, usually
defined as giving back in kind or quantity, is considered the condition
of the gift by many theorists. In Bourdieu's view, the gift can remain
unreciprocated only when one gives to an 'ungrateful person' (1997: 190).
This kind of constrained reciprocity -- "a binary give-and-take" (Hyde
1983: 74) -- emphasizes the movement inward and toward self, seeking to
maintain the independence of the self. It requires that gifts be 'paid
off' by giving exact value back in order to remain self-contained and
independent from others. In constrained reciprocity, based on the worldview
of individualism and the notion of the Cartesian subject, dependency on
others is considered a burden.[20] The desired norm of individualist subject
views dependency on other people with trepidation -- the common attitude
of 'no strings attached' or 'even steven' supports the existence of separate,
self-contained individuals with minimal responsibilities toward the other
(cf. Tyler 2002: 78). In its extreme, receiving gifts in this model is
considered a burden for it implies owing something of at least equal value
to the giver:
Behind every gift lurks the ulterior motive of the giver who expects a
return, and it is the recipient's perception of the giver's ulterior motive
that impels him to 'give as good as he gets' in order to be free of obligations
or, conversely, to be locked into an ongoing relationship of reciprocal
relationship of reciprocal exchanges over time. (ibid.)
According to this thinking, dependency and responsibility are regarded
as something negative -- an obligation and a duty external to oneself
imposed by others, whether individuals or society at large. According
to such an understanding, responsibilities are no longer seen as necessary
for the well-being of an individual or community (even if they are) --
in other words, the connection between the self and the world has been
weakened.[21] For Helene Cixous (1981), this view is a reflection of the
masculine economy characterized by uneasiness when confronted by generosity.
As an alternative, she suggests feminist economies which do not imply
a form of exchange but affirmation of generosity and establishment of
relationships. This is also a central argument for Genevieve Vaughan who
maintains that reciprocity is problematic for it is "a way of maintaining
the self-interest of both of the parties involved in the interaction"
(1997: 58). Others have also opposed the idea of strict reciprocity of
the gift, viewing constrained reciprocity as opposed to direct giving
and receiving. In Derrida's (1992a) view, it is the very reciprocity that
makes the gift impossible. For him, the prerequisite of the gift is that
it is neither recognized nor reciprocated. Once the gift is recognized
as a gift, it ceases being a gift and becomes an object of exchange.[22]
Hyde on the other hand suggests that there are two forms of giving, reciprocal
and circular, which differ from one another in several ways. Reciprocal
giving is a simplest form of gift exchange while in circular giving one
has to give blindly, i.e., "to someone from whom I do not receive (and
yet I do receive elsewhere)"(Hyde 1983, 16). [23] For him, the condition
of the gift is not constrained reciprocity but circulation and keeping
the gift moving: "[a] gift that cannot move loses its gift properties"
(1983: 8). The circulation of gifts is recognized also by Mauss who points
out that "it is something other than utility which makes goods circulate
in these multifarious and fairly enlightened societies" (1967: 70).
Reciprocity is commonly quoted as one of the central dimensions of indigenous
thought. Stemming from world views and practices rooted in the close relationship
with the natural world, it encompasses the aspects of sharing and giving
back. This kind of reciprocity, however, goes beyond the reductionist
'binary give-and-take' and more often takes the form of circular reciprocity
and sharing, sometimes also called 'ceremonial reciprocity' (cf. Kailo
forthcoming, Richter 2001: 14-5).[24] In this kind of reciprocity, gifts
are not given first and foremost to ensure a countergift later on, but
to actively acknowledge the sense of kinship and coexistence with the
world without which survival (of human beings but also other living beings)
would not be possible. The main function of circular or ceremonial reciprocity
is to affirm the myriad relationships in the world from which stems the
sense of collective and individual necessity "to act responsibly toward
other forms of life" (Deloria 1999: 51).
This kind of reciprocity thus implies response-ability -- ability to respond
-- ability to remain attuned to the world beyond self and willingness
to recognize its existence by means of gifts. This sense of responsibility
embedded in the gift is a result of living within an ecosystem and being
dependent on it and as indigenous peoples continue to be culturally, socially,
economically and spiritually more directly dependent on their lands and
surrounding natural environments. It is quite obvious that this thinking
remains a central part of indigenous philosophies while for many other
peoples, this previously existing connection and relationship with the
physical surroundings has started to erode generations ago as a result
of modernization, urbanization and other developments since the Renaissance
and Enlightenment which continue today in the form of neocolonialism,
capitalism, consumerism and globalization.[25]
In circular reciprocity, responsibility is commonly regarded as an integral
part of being human and inseparable part of one's identity. Okanagan writer
Jeannette Armstrong articulates this kind of understanding of responsibility
in terms of her relationship to the surrounding environment:
I know the mountains, and by birth, the river is my responsibility: They
are part of me. I cannot be separated from my place or my land. When I
introduce myself to my own people in my own language, I describe these
things because it tells them what my responsibilities are and what my
goal is. (1996: 461)
Armstrong's notion of self is not limited to her as a individual but inseparably
entails the connection to a certain place toward which she has certain
responsibilities. By recognizing those responsibilities, she knows her
location and her role; in short, she knows who she is (ibid. 462). A common
way of carrying out these kinds of responsibilities, besides not treating
them as taken-for-granted resources or commodities, is through acknowledging
their existence with gifts, and acknowledging their gifts by sharing those
gifts with them.
This understanding stems from a perception of the world in which the well-being
of the mountains and river is related to her personal well-being and to
the well-being of her community. In other words, it is an understanding
which does not separate the self from the world to an extent that it would
be possible to view human beings as independent from the rest of the creation.
This understanding is embedded in the notion that personal and collective
responsibility toward the natural environment is the foundation of society
(Happynook 2000).[26] Nuu-chah-nulth chair of the World Council of Whalers
Tom Mexsis Happynook elaborates this understanding as follows:
When we talk about indigenous cultural practices we are in fact talking
about responsibilities that have evolved into unwritten tribal laws over
millennia. These responsibilities and laws are directly tied to nature
and is a product of the slow integration of cultures within their environment
and the ecosystems. Thus, the environment is not a place of divisions
but rather a place of relations, a place where cultural diversity and
bio-diversity are not separate but in fact need each other. (2000)
As with many classic interpretations of giving to nature in indigenous
worldviews, analyses of indigenous understandings of responsibility are
often characterized by assumptions grounded on different worldviews and
values which remain blind to other ways of knowing and relating to the
world. For instance, Bourdieu contends that the circulation of gifts is
nothing more than "mechanical interlockings of obligatory practices" (1997:
198). While it is not incorrect to suggest that giving to nature is one
of the many forms of socialization whereby the individual learns to conform
to certain cultural norms and rules, it is however extremely reductionistic
and dismissive to interpret indigenous (or any other) gift practices as
merely rules which are blindly obeyed and conformed to only out of duty.
Such views lack an understanding of different ethics and ways of being
in the world and thus deny it from other peoples and cultures. Instead
of being mechanically observed practices, giving to nature is the basis
of the ethical behaviour and a concrete manifestation of worldviews which
emphasize the primacy of relationships and balance in the world upon which
the wellbeing of all is contingent .
References
Ahlback, Tore, ed. (1987). Saami Religion., Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Allen, Paula Gunn (1986). The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in
American Indian Traditions, Beacon Press, Boston..
________ (1990). "Interview." Winged Words. American Indian Writers Speak.
Ed. Laura Coltelli, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London:
11-40.
Armstrong, Jeannette (1996) "Sharing One Skin." Okanagan Community. The
Case Against the Global Economy. And for a Turn Toward the Local, Eds.
Jerry Mander & Edward Goldsmith, Sierra Club Books,San Francisco: 460-470.
________ (2000). "The Ones from the Land Who Dream: An Interview with
Jeannette Armstrong." With Mary E. Gomez. ReVision 23.2.: 3-9.
Basso, Keith (1996) Wisdom Sits in Places, Landscape and Language Among
the Western Apache. U on New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Bataille, Georges (1988). An Accused Share: An Essay on General Economy.
Trans. Robert Hurley, Zone, New York.
Berking, Helmut (1999). Sociology of Giving, Sage, London.
Bordo, Susan R. (1987) The Flight to Objectivity. Essays on Cartesianism
and Culture. State University of New York Press, New York.
Bourdieu, Pierre(1997) "Selections from The Logic of Practice." The Logic
of the Gift. Toward and Ethic of Generosity. Ed. Alan D. Schrift. Routledge,
New York & London:190-230.
Brody, Hugh (2000). The Other Side of Eden. Hunters, Farmers and the Shaping
of the World, Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver & Toronto:.
Backman, Louise (1978). "The Dead as Helpers? Conceptions of Death Among
the Saamit (Lapps)." Temenos 14: 25-53.
________ (1978) & Åke Hultkrantz, eds. Studies in Lapp Shamanism. Acta
Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion.
16, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Cixous, Helene.(1981) "The Laugh of the Medusa." New French Feminisms.
Ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron, Trans. K. Cohen & P. Cohen,
Harvester, Brighton: 245-64.
Cobo, Jose R. Martinez (1983) Cobo Report. Study of the Problem of Discrimination
Against Indigenous Peoples by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, Special Rapporteur
of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minoritie,. United Nations,
Cruikshank, Julie(1990) with Angela Sidney, Kitty Smith and Annie Ned.
Life Lived Like a Story: Life Stories of Three Yukon Native Elders, UBC
Press, Vancouver.
Daes, Erica-Irene A.(1999) "Indigenous people and their relationship to
land." Second Progress Report on the Working Paper prepared for the UN
Commission on Human Rights. UN Official Reports no. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/18.
Deloria, Vine, Jr.(1996). "If You Think About It, You Will See That It
Is True." ReVision 18.3: 37-44.
________ (1999) Spirit & Reason. The Vine Deloria, Jr., Reader. Eds. Barbara
Deloria, Kristen Foehner and Sam Scinta. Golden, CO: Fulcrum, 1999.
Derrida, Jacques.(1992a) Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money. Trans. Peggy
Kamuf, Chicago University Press, Chicago & London.
________ (1992b) The Gift of Death. Trans. David Wills, U of Chicago Press,
Chicago..
________ (1997). Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault
and Michael Naas. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Durkheim Emile.(1964). The Division of Labour in Society. Trans. W. D.
Halls. London..
Gasche, Rodolphe. "Heliocentric Exchange." The Logic of the Gift. Toward
and Ethic of Generosity. Ed. Alan D. Schrift, Routledge, New York & London:
100-20.
Godbout, Jacques T.(1998). The World of the Gift, Trans. Donald Winkler,
McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.
Goux, Jean-Joseph (2002). "Seneca against Derrida: Gift and Alterity."
The Enigma of Gift and Sacrifice. Ed. Edith Wyschogrod, Jean-Joseph Goux
and Eric Boynton., Fordham U P, New York: 148-60.
Happynook, Tom Mexsis. (2000). "Indigenous Relationships with Their Environment."
Paper presented at a conference hosted by the International Institute
of Fisheries Economics and Trade. Corvalis, Oregon, July 11-14. Available
at:
Holmberg, Uno. (1987) Lapparnas Religion. Uppsala Multiethnic Papers 10.
Huggins, Jackie (1998). Sister Girl, U of Queensland Press, St. Lucia.
Hyde, Lewis (1983) The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property,
Random House, New York.
ILO Convention no. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries. International Labour Organization, (1989).
International Cancun Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (2003), 5th WTO
Ministerial Conference - Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 12 September 2003,
Juuso, Inga(1998). "Yoiking Acts as Medicine for Me." No Beginning, No
End. The Sami Speak Up. Eds. Kaarina Kailo & Elina Helander. Canadian
Circumpolar Institute/Nordic Sami Institute, Edmonton.: 132-46.
Kailo, Kaarina. "From the Unbearable Bond to the Gift Gaze Women, Bears
and Blood Rituals." The Gift Gaze. Wo/Men & Bears. Transgressing Back
Into Nature as Culture, Inanna, Toronto, forthcoming.
________ (2004) Personal communication. Oulu, Finland. Feb. 19.
Karsten, Rafael. Samefolkets Religion: De Nordiska Lapparnas Hedniska
Tro och Kult i Religionshistorisk Belysning, Söderström, Helsingfors.
Kjellstrom, Rolf(1984). "On the Continuity of Old Saami Religion."
Saami Religion: Based on Papers at the Symposium on Saami Religion held
in Turku, Finland 16-18 August, Ed. Tore Ahlbäck, The Donner Institute
for Research in Religious and Cultural History, Abo: 24-33.
Kuokkanen, Rauna(2004). "Toward the Hospitality of Academia: The (Im)Possible
Gift of Indigenous Epistemes." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British
Columbia (forthcoming).
LaRocque, Emma (1993). "Violence in Aboriginal Communities." The Path
to Healing. Report of the National Round Table of Aboriginal Health and
Social Issues, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa, 72-89.
________ (1997)."Re-examining Culturally Appropriate Models in Criminal
Justice Applications." Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays
on Law, Equity and Respect for Difference. Ed. Michael Asch, University
of British Columbia Press, Vancouver: 75-96.
________ (2001). "From the Land to the Classroom: Broadening Epistemology."
Pushing the Margins. Native and Northern Studies. Ed. Jill Oakes, Rick
Riewe, Marlyn Bennett and Brenda Chrishold, Native Studies Press, Winnipeg:
62-75.
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1987). Introduction to the Work of Marcell Mauss.
Trans. Felicity Baker, Routledge & Kegan Paul,London.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account
of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian
New Guinea., Routledge, London.
Mander, Jerry. (1991).In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology
and the Survival of the Indian Nations, Sierra Club, San Francisco, 1991.
Manker, Ernst (1938). Die Lappische Zaubertrommel 1. Acta Lapponica I.
Stockholm.
________ (1950) Die Lappische Zaubertrommel 2. Acta Lapponica VI. Uppsala.
Mauss, Marcel(1967). The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic
Societies. Trans. Ian Cunnison, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1967.
Mulk, Inga-Maria (1994). "Sacrificial Places and their Meaning in Saami
Society." Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. Eds. David L. Carmichael, Jane
Hubert, Brian Reeves & Audhild Schanche, Routledge, London & New York:
121-131.
Paltto, Kirsti (1998). "One Cannot Leave One's Soul by a Tree Trunk."
No Beginning, No End. The Sami Speak Up, Eds. Kaarina Kailo & Elina Helander.
Canadian Circumpolar Institute/Nordic Sami Institute, Edmonton:23-42.
Pentikainen, Juha(1995). Saamelaiset - Pohjoisen Kansan Mytologia. SKS,
Helsinki.
Richter, Daniel K.(2001). Facing East from Indian Country. A Native History
of Early America., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA & London.
Ränk, Gustav. (1955) "Lapp Female Deities of the Madder-akka Group." Studia
Septentrionalia VI: 7-79.
Sahlins, Marshall(1972). Stone Age Economics., Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.
Scheffer, Johannes (1751). The history of Lapland: Shewing the Original,
Manner, Habits, Religion and Trade of that People: with a Particular Account
of their Gods and Sacrifices, Marriage Ceremonies, Conjurations, Diabolical
Rites, &c. &c. R. Griffiths, London.
Silko, Leslie Marmon (1996). Yellow Woman and a Beauty of the Spirit:
Essays on Native American Life Today, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Sombolinggi, Rukka(2004). Personal e-mail communication. 3 Feb .
Sommarström, Bo(1991) The Saami Shaman's Drum and the Star Horizon, Scripta
Instituti Donneriani XVI, Stockholm.
Turi, Johan.(1987 [1910] Muitalus sámiid birra. Sámi Girjjit, Jokkmokk.
Tyler, Stephen A.(2002) "'Even Steven,' or 'No Strings Attached'." The
Enigma of Gift and Sacrifice. Ed. Edith Wyschogrod, Jean-Joseph Goux and
Eric Boynton, Fordham U P, New York: 77-90.
Vaughan, Genevieve (!997). For-Giving. A Feminist Criticism of Exchange.
Austin: Plain View Press & Anomaly Press, 1997.
Vorren, Ornulf (1962). Lapp Life And Customs., Oxford University Press,
London and New York, 1962.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] I would like to thank Dr. Kaarina Kailo for her helpful feedback and
comments to this article. I would also like to acknowledge her long-standing,
invaluable support and guidance in the vagaries of the academic world.
[2] By the term 'indigenous peoples,' I refer to those peoples and individuals
who are considered indigenous as defined in ILO Convention No. 169 (1989)
and the Cobo Report (1983). While there is no single, fixed definition
of indigenous peoples, the ones in these two documents are widely accepted
as informal working definitions. They emphasize the historical continuity
in the territory later invaded or occupied by other people as well as
the non-dominant status in society. It is important to distinguish between
indigenous peoples and (ethnic) minorities, groups or populations. Indigenous
peoples are often referred to as peoples who remain colonized or peoples
without nation-states.
[3] Besides Mauss, other early work on this theme includes Durkheim (1964),
Lévi-Strauss (1987) and Sahlins (1972).
[4] The expression 'all my relations' (or 'all my relatives') is commonly
used by indigenous people in North America as an opening invocation and
closing blessing of ceremonies and meetings (e.g., Deloria 1996: 41).
Moreover, as Deloria contends, the phrase "describes the epistemology
of the Indian worldview, providing the methodological basis for the gathering
of information about the world" (1999: 52).
[5] Previously called the Lapps or Laplanders by outsiders, the Sami have
claimed their right for their own collective term deriving from their
own languages (sápmelas in Northern Sami). Moreover, the terms 'Lapp'
or 'Laplander' is considered negative and derogative and today, is used
particularly by Finns living in Northern Finland (aka Lapland) to refer
to themselves to further confuse the already complex and conflicting issue
of Sami land rights.
[6] Oral traditions have often been referred as 'folklore'. This however
has been rejected by many non-Western people. Métis writer and critic
Emma LaRocque for instance writes how "[o]ral traditions have been dismissed
as savage or primitive folklore. Such dismissal has been based on the
self-serving colonial cultural myth that Europeans (and descendants thereof)
were/are more developed ('civilized') than Aboriginal peoples ('savage')"
(1990: xvi). The common divisions of the Western paradigm between high
and low culture, literature and folklore, history and story, oral and
written, have been increasingly put under a critical, deconstructive light
by more recent theories of poststructuralism, postmodern and feminist
discourses, and of course, by growing critique of indigenous (and other
non-Western) peoples themselves.
[7] For instance in Genesis (1:28), human beings are commanded to "Be
fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." Later
this understanding was secularized by the Cartesian epistemology characterized
by dualism, mechanistic worldview and detachment (assumptions which emanated
from classical Greek philosophy, particularly Plato's articulations).
As Susan Bordo notes, the separation of the self and the world (human/nature),
was not an innocent exercise but was characterized with explicit attachment
of value and hierarchy to those categories. Mind was elevated to possess
godly qualities such as freedom, will and consciousness, whereas body
and nature represented "res extensa," unconscious, brute materiality,
"totally devoid of mind and thought" (Bordo 1987: 99). This thinking continues
today in neoliberal corporate ideologies and practices which regard nature
as a potential for economic profit, posing serious risks on the survival
of indigenous peoples, communities, cultures and livelihoods. See, for
instance, the International Cancun Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (2003)
which states that the economic globalization and neoliberal agenda and
p<> olicies have resulted in a situation where indigenous peoples rights
to self-determination, to land, their knowledge, culture and identities
are grossly violated.
[8] For instance, Sahlins considers the gift as "the social contract for
the primitives" (1972: 169)
[9] Also Berking argues that in "archaic" societies, nobody is free to
escape the duty of giving which "cannot simply be equated with the reproduction
cycle of social community," including the dead and gods (1999: 34).
[10] On violence in contemporary indigenous communities, see, for example,
LaRocque (1993). She indicates, like many others, that the main cause
for the present-day social problems and violence in Native communities
is the ongoing process of colonization. LaRocque argues: "There are indications
of violence against women in Aboriginal societies prior to European contact.
[...] It should not be assumed that matriarchies necessarily prevented
men from exhibiting oppressive behaviour toward women. ... There is little
question, however, that European invasion exacerbated whatever the extent,
nature or potential violence there was in original cultures" (75).
[11] Hyde calls this type of gifts as 'threshold gifts' or 'gifts of passage'
(1983: 40, 41).
[12] Sami scholar of religion Louise Bäckman notes that, "In pre-Christian
times the dead were buried in individual graves in the wilderness" (1978:
30).
[13] It would be worthwhile to pursue this line of thought further but
such an undertaking is, however, beyond the scope of this inquiry.
[14] My English translation.
[15] The Sami 'religion' has drawn the attention of outsiders for centuries
and it has been the subject of innumerable ethnographic, anthropological
and religious studies around the world. See, for instance, Ahlbäck (1987),
Bäckman and Hultkrantz (1978), Holmberg (1987), Karsten (1952), Manker
(1938, 1950), Pentikäinen (1995), Scheffer (1751), Sommarström (1991)
and Vorren (1962).
[16] According to Kailo (forthcoming), the bear ritual is "an effort to
give back and pay tribute to the totem animal [who is] also venerated
as half relative." Traditionally, the Sami have also conducted bear ceremonies.
[17] Kailo also questions the often taken-for-granted view that the western
assumptions of human nature, for instance, are somehow more correct and
legitimate than those of indigenous peoples and that such considerations
are always necessarily interpretations as humanity or human nature cannot
be scientifically measured.
[18] The term 'archaic societies' is used by Mauss to refer to indigenous
and other non-western societies that maintain a vital and active link
to their social and cultural practices. To discuss the logic of the gift
in indigenous societies and thought does not imply that similar values
do not exist in other societies and cultures. Values of giving and sharing
as well as the sense of responsibility for the other are present in many
other cultures and religions, including Christianity (see, for example,
analyses in Derrida 1992b and 1997).
[19] Bataille (1988) is, however, critical of this view, demonstrating
the shortcomings of mechanistic model in analyzing human existence which
seeks to reduce all of its aspects to classical economic balance between
production and consumption
[20] Here I refer to individualism as rooted particularly in Renaissance
humanism and characterized by a strong emphasis on unique, self-sufficient,
independent individuals whose possibilities and freedoms are viewed as
limitless. This does not imply that the notion of individual is nonexistent
in indigenous communities. Emma LaRocque asserts that the question of
collective vs. individual is more complex than generally perceived by
many non-Natives and Natives alike. She argues that, "The issue of 'individual'
versus 'collective' rights is a perfect example of Natives resorting to
a cultural framework when boxed in by western liberal democratic tradition
that are associated with individualism. Perhaps unavoidably, Native leaders
have had to overemphasize collective rights to make the point that such
rights are even culturally feasible. However, the fact that native cultures
were egalitarian in organization does not mean Native peoples acted on
some instinct akin to a buffalo herd with no regard for the well-being
of individuals!" (1997: 87).
[21] Radical exclusion and hierarchization of realms of the self and the
world has a long history in the intellectual tradition of the West, starting
from the Greek philosophers and further articulated by Descartes. Though
it is beyond the scope of my inquiry to delve into this in detail at this
point, it would be good to point out that this is one the cardinal differences
between philosophical traditions of the western and indigenous worlds
(cf. e.g. Silko 1996: 37 and Mander 1991: 212-24). Armstrong has also
pointed out how the traditional Okanagan teachings and prophesies caution
"that we are cutting ourselves off from the ability to live well by distancing
ourselves from the natural world. This is what my generation has been
told by our elders. We are cutting off the abilities that we previously
had that gave us the best chance to be in a healthy relationship with
ourselves as people and with the rest of the world" (2000: 7).
[22] It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss Derrida's argument
in detail. In my doctoral dissertation, I suggest along the lines of Derrida's
(and others') thought that due to commonplace, often sanctioned ignorance
in the academy. indigenous epistemes remain an impossible gift (Kuokkanen
2004). A longer version of this article can also be found in my dissertation.
[23] As examples of circular giving, Hyde mentions the kula circuit of
the the Trobriand Islanders in Papua New Guinea, one of the best-known
circular gift practices, as well as several stories from European folklore
tradition. For the kula, see particularly Malinowski (1922, esp. ch 3)<>
.
[24] This is not to assume, however, that circulation of gifts (or goods)
exists only in indigenous or 'pre-capitalist' societies. As Rodolphe Gasché
notes, modern economy is also characterized by circulation. Yet the circulation
of the modern economy "seems to be somehow deficient because a certain
privilege of accumulation tends to produce absolute impoverishment. The
privilege of accumulation makes closure of the circle of circulation as
well as its compensatory action simply impossible" (1997: 107).
[25] These differences are not, of course, absolute between the different
systems of thought. Many modern concepts, for example, are imbued with
a Christian tradition of hospitality.
[26] Happynook observes how in the colonial context, these cultural responsibilities
have been forced into a framework of 'Aboriginal rights' to be defended
usually "in an adversarial system of justice." These rights are, however,
at their root first and foremost responsibilities (2000: 11).
