Narratives and Capitalism: Theories of the gift by Hoeller, Hyde, and Melville

Narratives are enabled by gifts, or to put it differently, gift-giving creates narratives by establishing an open-ended obligation between the giver and the receiver. Furthermore, it is through these patterns of gift-giving that genre, unknowingly or not, arrives. The importance of the gift in the study of narrative has increased over the decades and has spilled over into other disciplines, mainly anthropology and sociology to explain and understand the human condition. But theories of the gift remain abundant in literature and literary studies, and no matter in what discipline a theory of gift originates it can always be transferred, and I would argue is best understood, into the study of narrative. In conjunction with Hildegard Hoeller’s study of the gift in capitalism, this paper will give a brief overview of the gift’s relation to capitalism as put forward in Lewis Hyde’s eloquent book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property (1983) an be furthered complimented by a brief analysis of Melville’s Moby-Dick.

Hoeller

Hildegard Hoeller in her essay "Capitalism, Fiction, and the Inevitable, (Im)Possible, Maddening Importance of the Gift" provides a literary critique and analysis of the novel The Rise of Silas Lapham by William Dean Howells. Her literary critique and analysis is supported by Derrida’s writings on the nature of the gift in his book Given Time (1992). Hoeller relates how gift giving bonds characters together in a very specific way that disrupts or untangles the nature of capitalism. She ends the essay by arguing for further study of the gift in conjunction with studies of capitalism, especially in Marxist studies.

Hoeller states that Howells’ novel has always been categorized as a business novel, even by the author himself, but she states that it is the “confusing, maddening, and binding obligation” (132) of the gifts that causes the novel to “spin itself out” (132) of that business novel category. Hoeller sees the first chapter of the novel as evidence that the gifts and capitalism (business) cannot create a successful narrative together, or more likely, that narratives about capitalism cannot ignore the importance of the gift. In the first chapter a gift arrives, but is rejected mainly because of the pure business-mindedness of Mr. Hubbard, one of the main characters (Hoeller 132). With a gift rejected Hoeller states that the novel has to provide another first chapter (chapter 2) where the intricacies of the gift are not bogged down by the ruthlessness of pure business (i.e. capitalism).

Hoeller sees the novel as a prime example of the need to recognize the importance of the gift, in any narratives whether they are about capitalism or not. He cites literary scholars’ “Marxist training” (132), which interprets capitalism in narratives from a different angle, as a possible reason why gift theory has been ignored. If narratives “cannot exist without gift giving” (132), then it only makes sense to interpret narratives through gift theory in order to understand the “maddening role gifts play in these narratives” (132). The gift serves as a vehicle allowing writers to tell stories about capitalism, while at the same time revealing “their aporias” (132). By this Hoeller means that the gift, through its role in narratives, illustrates those moments where “capitalism has a hard time telling stories about itself” (132), or where the logic of a novel about capitalism or business is not congruent with the logic of narratives except through the gift.

Hoeller also sees the gift as not only a vehicle of narrative but also as a tool that brings coherence to the narrative while at the same time disrupting certain aspects of that coherence. Hoeller points out that the obligation and rules that bind characters together through the gift bring about “stylistic unity” (133) of the narrative, or as I understand it, genre. If we understand the gift as un-willfully tied to genre then we can better understand and analyze those moments where the gift is not reciprocated, where the narrative pushes back and refuses or questions the “stylistic unity” or genre of the narrative, in other words we must not ignore “the mystery, unpredictability, even (im)possibility of the gift, which keeps us reading and wondering and point to the unaccountability, the aporia, of narratives” (Hoeller 133).

Hoeller describes how two of the best theorist on the gift, Derrida and Hyde, respond to Marcel Mauss who initiated his gift study decades before them. While Hyde sees a clear distinction between gift economy and market economy (his theory will be analyzed in detail later), Derrida takes a much more philosophical view of the gift, what he terms the “(im)possible”. (While Derrida’s concept may be hard to grapple with, for the sake of this paper, an understanding of it must be attempted.) Derrida sees the arrival of the gift, in time and in narrative, as a cataclysmic event (event, not act) that causes the gift itself to dissolve. The gift ceases to be a gift the minute it arrives because it has turned into an obligation “and therefore has ceased to be a gift” (Hoeller 134), this is the (im)possibility of the gift, the fact that it cannot arrive and exist simultaneously.

Part of the (im)possibility of the gift, Hoeller writes, is that it disrupts logos (i.e. divine reason or logical reasoning) as a “form of madness that is part of facing the other, God” (134). Just as the gift can disrupt the logos of reason, so too in narratives can the gift disrupts the logos of capitalism: “[the gift] brings us to the brink of reason and language, and therefore opens an aporic space that gestures toward something outside capitalism’s logos” (Hoeller 134). Hoeller cites as evidence of this (im)possibility the ending of The Rise of Silas Lapham where the marriage between the two families, as a result of the gift, leaves the narrator and the characters at a loss for words where silences abound, and characters stop mid-sentence, even the narrator of the novel seems dumbfounded and breaks the fourth wall by moving from third person to first person narration (Hoeller 134-5). Furthermore, Hoeller uses this evidence to pronounce the gift as a discursive site that allows us to “reflect on our economic realities, our relations to others in history, our values and hopes, and our ability to tell stories about ourselves” (Hoeller 135), in other words it helps us untangle, reflect, and question our world through narratives.   

Hyde

Lewis Hyde in The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property starts chapter one by offering a distinction between the “Indian giver” (Hyde 4) and the “white man keeper” (Hyde 4) or capitalist. He states that the nature of the gift is intrinsically anti-capitalist because “the gift must always move” (Hyde 4), meaning it must be re- gifted and not kept, whereas in capitalism the gift is kept and invested or to put it simply, one man’s gift becomes “another man’s capital” (Hyde 4).  

Hyde’s study, indeed his whole book, relies primarily and heavily on native culture and folklore. He makes it implicit that the gift must keep moving. A goat or cattle gifted must keep moving from one clan to another or else used for the whole clan (as in a celebration or festival), but must not be used for investment or profit and folk tales make it clear that “the person who tries to hold on to a gift usually dies” (Hyde 5). A violation of the movement of the gift has dire consequences that extend far from the individual betraying the tradition of the gift. Hyde asserts that when “someone manages to commercialize a tribe’s gift [. . .] the social fabric of the group is invariably destroyed” (5).    

In chapter 2 Hyde elaborates fully on this concept by stating, “a circulation of gifts nourishes those parts of us that are not entirely personal, parts that derive from nature, the group, the race, or the gods” (38), he collectively refers to these parts as “wider spirits” (38) that are bestowed upon us and not ours (these wider spirits are gifts that must move on). The danger lies when we turn these wider spirits or gift property into commodities, “at that point commerce becomes correctly associated with the fragmentation of community and the suppression of liveliness, fertility, and social feeling” (Hyde 38), at this point, Hyde asserts, we are “unable to receive, contribute toward, and pass along the collective treasures we refer to as culture and tradition” (Hyde 39).     

Every chapter in Hyde’s book attempts to make a clear contrast between a gift and a commodity, and makes the case that these two are polar opposites, or at least that something is lost when a gift turns into a commodity. In chapter 4 titled “The Bond” Hyde proposes, “the cardinal difference between gift and commodity exchange [is] that a gift establishes a feeling-bond between two people, while the sale of a commodity leaves no necessary connection” (56). This certainly places a dehumanizing aspect into commodity-exchange economies. We feel no bond with the clerk buying our coffee or groceries from, unless of course we know that person personally. The reason for this is that our coffee is not a gift, but rather an exchange. Both the clerk and me are programmed to know the rules/rituals surrounding commodity-exchange economies: my two dollars, which have pre-set value, are exchanged (not gifted) for a cup of coffee. There is no gift-giving involved and hence there is no human connection or bond initiated. I walk away from the clerk never thinking or probably seeing him/her ever again, until the next transaction. These practices, entrenched in capitalism, are intrinsically anti-social and anti-human. Gift-exchange economies are different and provide the social harmony and solidarity that we as a society/culture need and strive for.

“But a gift makes a connection” (56), Hyde asserts, something that capitalism does not. Hyde states that when a gift is given in an “economic sense nothing has happened" (56), but a “society has appeared where there was none before” (56). A society appears because once a gift is given a bond is created; this bond leads to conversation, friendships/acquaintances, and shared resources, which are fundamental building blocks of a society. This is the bond that is inserted the minute the gift arrives. A community is created by and through the gift, which establishes “the simplest bonds of social life” (Hyde 57), the act of giving.

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-5423383968964279"
     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Melville

While Hyde’s and Hoeller’s theories on the gift and their relation to capitalism are intriguing and eye-opening they can be best understood through if analyzed in a narrative or novel, a mirror of our own world. While many texts can be interpreted through the gift, Moby-Dick, I believe provides the best framework for analyzing the gift in a social setting, even though it is an imagined setting. While this paper’s aim is not a full interpretation of Moby-Dick, it will however use Moby-Dick in a strict theoretical context. In the next section this paper will not only utilize Moby-Dick as a narrative, but more importantly as a theoretical text on the gift.  

In chapter 10 of Moby-Dick entitled “A Bosom Friend” Ishmael and Queequeg share a social smoke and become something more than roommates, they become close friends. Their trajectory from strangers to close friends is rapid and somewhat strange. Only pages before Ishmael had defined him as a “abominable savage” (Melville 34), a “comely looking cannibal” (Melville 34) and a “Newfoundland dog” (Melville 38), but after sharing a bed with him Ishmael’s feelings towards Queequeg start to change, but at this moment it is mere incredulous curiosity. The event that shatters the miscommunication between these two individuals is their first social smoke.

This event, Queequeg sharing of his pipe, and the relationship that is created because of it can be best understood as a gift and through gift theory. In chapter 10 Ishmael narrates that he “proposed a social smoke” (Melville 56), but what holds the real meaning of this event is what happens afterward:

If there yet lurked any ice of indifference towards me in the Pagan’s breast, this pleasant, genial smoke we had, soon thawed it out, and left us cronies. He seemed to take me quite as naturally and unbiddenly as I to him [. . .] and said that henceforth we were married; meaning [. . .] we were bosom friends; he would gladly die for me; if need should be. (Melville 56)

How their relationship took such a drastic, and friendly turn in less than a day seems surprising and unexpected. But if looked at through gift theory this event had to happen in order to solve the conflict between Ishmael and the savage Queequeg; a gift had to initiated in order for the narrative to unfold or continue, and the friendly smoke achieves this. Lewis Hyde, interestingly enough, begins the first page of his book The Gift with a short narrative about this native smoking ritual in order to explain the concept of the “Indian giver”:

Imagine a scene. An Englishman comes into an Indian lodge, and his hosts, wishing to make their guests feel welcome, ask him to share a pipe of tobacco. Carved from a soft red stone, the pipe itself is a peace offering that has traditionally circulated among the local tribes [. . .] And so the Indians, as is polite among their people, give their pipe to their guest [. . .] if he wishes to show them their goodwill he should offer them a smoke” (Hyde 3-4).

And so this gift offering can also be interpreted as a peace offering or a sign of social solidarity. Ironically, it is not Queequeg who initiates the social smoke but Ishmael himself who “proposed a social smoke” (Melville 56), perhaps this was Ishmael’s way of bridging their cultural differences or as an unconscious act of cultural/social understanding. Ishmael might not have known the symbolism behind the offering of the pipe, but by initiating this gift event, he invites Queequeg into an act that holds valuable meaning for him (Queequeg).  

Surprisingly, the pipe tomahawk has been the source of abundant scholarly historical research. Historically, the pipe tomahawk was “crated to serve two functions” (Shannon 590), both as a weapon of war and a symbol of peace. Furthermore it provided the “dual symbolism Melville invested in it. Raised by its owner over the head of another, it conveyed a message of impending violence; passed between them it meant peace and friendship” (Shannon 590-1). Ishmael at first encounter associates the tomahawk, and Queequeg, with the first meaning, with savagery and violence. But after initiating a gift event, he associates it, and Queequeg, with the second meaning, with friendship and solidarity. Ishmael might not have fully understood the meaning behind the pipe offering but for Queequeg it was an all too common and welcomed practice. He fully understands and accepts the symbolism behind it by pressing his forehead against Ishmael and “marrying” him and becoming his bosom friend (Melville 56). Ishmael returns the gift, or favor, by kneeling down with Queequeg and worshipping his pagan idols with him in the next chapter.

It’s important to note that Queequeg does not sell pipe to Ishmael but offers it to him as a gift, as a sign or solidarity and friendship. The gift of the tomahawk pipe fulfills Hyde’s assertion that “a gift establishes a feeling-bond between two people” (56) and also that a “society has appeared where there was none before” (56), in so far as this gift event builds a friendship which then leads to them forming and joining a society in the Pequod. By this act these two inhabitants of Melville’s novel are practicing and accepting the nature of a gift economics, as opposed to commodity economics. Interestedly enough, after this first social smoke Queequeg “threw out thirty silver dollars in silver” (56) and slip his fortune with Ishmael. By this act he symbolically accepts Ishmael as his equal, rejecting the competiveness and value-ridden aspects of a commodity economy and accepting instead the solidarity of a gift economy.  

           

           

Works Cited

Hoeller, Hildegard. "Capitalism, Fiction, and the Inevitable, (Im)Possible, Maddening Importance of the Gift." PMLA 127.1 (2012): 131-36.

Hyde, Lewis. The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. New York: Random House, 1983.

Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick. Ed. Hershel Parker and Harrison Hayford. Second ed. New York: Norton, 2002.

Shannon, T. J. "Queequeg's Tomahawk: A Cultural Biography, 1750-1900." Ethnohistory 52.3 (2005): 589-633.