This paper provides arguments against the Gift as presented Kowalski’s, “The Gift Marcel Mauss and international aid”. It agrees with the assertion that modernity is against The Gift system by presenting ideas from other scholars.

The Gift plays an important role in creating a relationship between the giver and the receiver. However, the giver is found to have other interests in the relationship beyond just giving. Normally, the gift expects nothing in return. In the gift system, reciprocation is induced by the giver. The magnitude of reciprocity is indeterminate. In many cases, the reciprocity bears a larger magnitude than the gift. The reason for the large magnitude is because the reciprocity may not be material but in other forms like economic, social or even political favor which has great impact in the relationship. The giver is usually interested in symbolizing the nature of their relationship with the recipient. The gift is therefore more of a symbol than a material thing. The true meaning of the relationship is hidden in the gift. The recipient can interpret the meaning of the gift based on the relationship between him or her and the giver. Mauss (2002) asserts that when one gives a gift to the other, they give a part of their nature to them. Thus, giving someone a gift is giving that person a part of your own (Mauss, 2002). There is a sense of exchanges between the giver and the receiver whenever a gift has been featured in their relationship. The giver lays the spear aside. This action is to initiate some exchange between the two parties indirectly. The presence of the gift shows the profound self-interest of the giver in the exchange that is foreseen between the giver and the recipient. The gift opens up the barriers for exchange market between the two involved parties and the giver enjoys the eased exchange in the long run. The opening up of the market relations is the reciprocity that the giver is after (Adloff and Mau, 2006). The Gift system is characterized by three ingredients (Bordieu, 1992). To start with, it is the duty of the giver to give out the gift to the receiver. Then, the receiver is left with two duties which are to receive and to return a gift. Through presenting a gift to the receiver, the giver challenges the receiver such that the receiver must come up with a reply. The reply is solely a decision of the receiver which can be a refusal, incapacity to respond or even giving of a counter gift. The interest in the relationship between the giver and the recipient is expressed by the giver when he or she provides the gift. However, modernity is against the gift system. The arguments against the Gifting system come with the reason that the Gifts usually come with calculated relations which is against the reasoning behind giving pure gift (Stirrat and Henkel, 1997). The modern world does not see The Gifts as pure gifts but as signs of self-interest which need to be done away with (Godbout and Caille, 2000). Gifts which are regarded as development assistance are not preferred as everyone needs to be self-sustained. No one can be happy for relying on gifts in their daily life.

Conclusion

This paper finds out that even though a pure gift does not expect anything in return, The Gift system comes with an obligation to give out something in return. This can be a favor to initiate exchange and the like. This makes the modern world to be incompatible with The Gift system.