Enable contrast version

Tutor profile: Stella M.

Inactive
Stella M.
University of Cambridge Undergraduate, International Tutor and University Mentoring
Tutor Satisfaction Guarantee

Questions

Subject: Literature

TutorMe
Question:

How and why is a social group displayed in a particular way in "The Great Gatsby"?

Inactive
Stella M.
Answer:

“The Great Gatsby” criticizes 1920s America through depictions of conspicuous consumption and socioeconomic injustice to tell the story of the tragic hero, Gatsby, and his quest for Daisy Buchanan. Fitzgerald’s portrayal of the new rich as a social group emphasizes how their depraved lifestyle has destroyed America’s righteous potential, which he uses as a vehicle to warn against the dangers of excess and the American Dream. This essay will analyze how Gatsby might be a microcosm for this emerging class, and potentially America, and how Fitzgerald uses him to represent the moral corruption of consumerism and the tragedy of illusion. Fitzgerald portrays the moral degradation of the nouveau riche by emphasizing how Gatsby had near-divine potential but succumbed to the temptations Daisy symbolized. Upon meeting her, Gatsby could “climb, if (..) alone, he could suck on the pap of life (...) the milk of wonder”. The sublime image of the “milk of wonder” reinforces the immaculate sustenance of a - perhaps spiritual - journey to the “pap of life”, the purpose of existence. This lofty image strengthens the notion that Gatsby is a “son of God”, like the Puritan ideal of American society, materialized in Winthrop’s Arbella Sermon. Still, his potential was shattered when he kissed Daisy and “wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath”. Notice the antithesis: a reminder that Gatsby must replace an omnipotent imagination with ephemeral humanity. The juxtaposition between “unutterable” and “perishable” contrasts Gatsby’s marvellous desires with to the speed at which life decays, highlighting how his righteous potential is incompatible with the nature of wealth. Furthermore, the symbol of the kiss, though it might represent sinfulness, takes on a different meaning with Daisy’s status. Perhaps, it stands for the temptation of material wealth, which Gatsby grows to covet: he ostentatiously emulates affluence through illegal means so he can have Daisy. We return to this idea in the final scene, when Nick imagines West Egg’s “inessential houses began to melt away [...into…] a fresh green breast of the new world.” This is a reminder of how the fertility and potential of the Puritans’ ‘creation’ has been corrupted by the “inessential” mansions of consumerists. This showcases the diversion from virtue to greed, but sustains that the dream is still integral to American society and is passionately pursued by those who want to acquire wealth. Fitzgerald uses this to further portray the illusions of the new rich, by showing how Gatsby clings to his unattainable dream. It grows to represent the American Dream, which ironically, none of the characters fulfill. When Nick first sees Gatsby, he is “(stretching) out his arms...trembling…[toward] a single green light”. “Trembling” demonstrates the desperation to reach the motif of the green light - however, it connotes weakness or uncertainty; as if, the new rich are not capable of reaching their desires. The way in which the green light is nothing more than an emblem reinforces the detachment from dreams and reality - mourning how Gatsby’s persistent hope has eclipsed his reality. Fitzgerald returns to the idea that the dream is unreachable at the end of the novel, when Nick imagines how it “must have seemed so close that [Gatsby] could hardly fail to grasp it” but “it was already behind him (...) where the dark fields of the republic rolled on.” The image of the dream hiding underscores a tragic quest for a deception. Yet, it still manages to masking itself in “dark fields”, out of Gatsby’s reach. This agrarian setting implies the dream might be found America’s humble West, from where he fled hoping for a better life. The the ability to go back to his hopeful origins is “already behind him”, affirming the tragedy. This accentuates the idea that dream is lost; suggesting that, in searching for wealth in the urban East, the new rich in 1920s America lost their purpose by relying on a perfidious ideal. Gatsby’s realization that the dream is false disconnects him from reality; a warning that excess of the new rich is unsustainable and apocalyptic. Nick imagines how Gatsby “must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky (...) and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is”. The haunting contrasts in “unfamiliar sky” and “grotesque (...) rose” emphasize how Gatsby’s dependance on his vision has created an aversion to a now-nightmarish natural world. This allows Fitzgerald to highlight how the confidence of the new rich was approaching doom, complemented by Truby’s analysis suggests that when “the full moral ramifications of who [...Gatsby’s character is] breaks through the surface (...) the results is disillusionment”. The dream’s failure seems tied to morality: the new rich are too crooked to hold up the pure ideal. The loss of the dream forms a “a new world, material without being real”. The antithesis recognizes that a “material” world isn’t necessarily “real”, implying that the value of material wealth is deceitful. Structurally, the moment is significant because Gatsby is then killed by Wilson, who represents the unfairly-treated working class. This symbolizes how socioeconomic injustice is unable to support idealism and as a result “the holocaust (is) complete.” The macabre connotations of “holocaust” in the dysphemism seem hyperbolic (particularly to a modern reader), suggesting the scene is an analogy for the breakdown of social order as a result of the new rich’s excessive lifestyle. Wilson and Gatsby, the novels’ greatest dreamers (Gatsby who wants Daisy and Wilson who wants rewards for his work) can’t face reality. Giving their deaths the proportions of a massacre, Fitzgerald manifests his distrust of the American Dream’s promise. Concluding, Fitzgerald’s representation of the new rich, through the microcosm of Gatsby, as corrupted and disillusioned inculcates the idea that it was a rotten class, motivated by false dreams, doomed to destroy society. A Marxist reading reveals resentment for capitalism - suggesting that unfair wealth distribution creates catastrophe; like how Wilson, representing the proletariat, kills Gatsby. This exhibits cynicism towards new money and criticism of a blinded class, which, like Gatsby, desired ‘greatness’ but was too twisted by immorality and illusions to achieve it. Bibliography Fitzgerald, F.Scott. The Great Gatsby. Penguin Books, 1950. Truby, John. “Gatsby: The Great American Story.” Writer's Store, www.writersstore.com/gatsby-the-great-american-story/. Retrieved 23rd March 2018 Trilling, Lionel. “F. Scott Fitzgerald.” From The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Limited, 1951) http://fitzgerald.narod.ru/critics-eng/trilling-fsf.html

Subject: Human Geography

TutorMe
Question:

Explain how anti-immigration movements represent local resistance to global interactions

Inactive
Stella M.
Answer:

Geopolitical conflict, growing international disparities and greater access to information and transport has increased immigration flows worldwide - particularly intensifying LIC to HIC migration routes. Migrants may go in the search of better living conditions or, as is the case with the refugee crisis, escaping hardship. Though certain groups attempt to highlight the benefits this can bring to societies, anti-immigration movements have flared up particularly in Western Europe and the United States. An anti-immigration movement is a civil society group which opposes the entry of immigrants into their home country, often on the grounds on maintaining cultural purity and preserving local pride and economy. The anti-immigration movements of the past decade have grown increasingly associated with the far right and support of leaders like Donald Trump and Marie Le Pen, who espouse appealing nationalist and protectionist ideas to their broad support base. It is the contention of this essay that anti-immigration movements represent local resistance to global interactions by stirring up fear of the threats posed by immigrants, inspiring a right-wing political base which creates anti-immigration policies and through militant action in the streets. Anti-immigration movements represent local resistance by reacting to rising immigrant numbers with cultural and social measures of opposition, such as the formation of ethnic enclaves, which discourage the entry of new immigrants out of fear and promote a growing sense of a national threat. Take, for instance, the town of Boston in the UK. The rapid social shift brought about by a spike in Eastern European immigration has increased local concerns about tainting the local culture and the prospect of immigrants taking ‘their jobs’. This, in turn, has promoted a rise in discrimination - many locals are unwelcoming to immigrants and refuse to serve them in their businesses. The economic deterioration experienced since 2008 has been further associated with immigration for the British population and inspired a longing for the idealised ‘good old days’ of cultural glory. Building on from that, alternative right-wing news sources, particularly in the US, have grown as a source of cultural opposition. Websites like InfoWars antagonise the mainstream media as providers of ‘fake news’, appealing to locals in the American Midwest with suggestions that the reality of immigration is far worse than it appears. Surveys conducted by the Wall Street Journal in the US show this fear mongering has been broadly successful: more Americans fear that their national identity is being destroyed and their country has lost control of its borders than of immigrants taking their jobs. The post 9/11 context has strengthened this notion of threat and continues to inspire everyday acts of discrimination and Islamophobia, which act as the base form of social opposition. Although anti-immigration movements are generally found within civil society, political leaders who rise into positions of power may transfer their nationalist ideology to create further measures of local (and even national) resistance towards immigration. More importantly, local anti-immigration movements can use their political power to vote for parties, like UKIP in the UK, which promise they will fulfill populist desires for harder borders. Trump’s immigration policies illustrate how anti-immigration sentiment has infiltrated mainstream American politics - in 2016, he won the presidential election on promises of building a border wall and stopping Mexican illegal immigration. Now, elements of his policy like the travel ban (implemented in September 2017, prohibiting entry of citizens from 11 predominantly Muslim countries), the dissolution of temporary protection status and his growing emphasis on funding a border wall serve as primary appeals to his supporters. This, in turn, has helped validate their ideology and increased local resistance to the cultural diversity associated with immigration. Discrimination against Muslims, for example, has left many first and second generation immigrants from Africa and the Middle East without a clear place in society and unable to engage in everyday activities. Additionally, movements like Brexit symbolize a junction between socio-cultural and political aspects of anti-immigration sentiment. The ‘leave’ campaign associated with the 2016 referendum was largely associated with anti-immigration and bolstered by the fears of older generations, who conceptualized key changes in their culture as a negative impact of immigration from the European Union. Moreover, anti-immigration movements represent resistance to global interactions through their use of militant action and violent protest. For example, the Chemnitz (Germany) protests in September 2018 demonstrate how resistance to global interactions can escalate beyond the purely social and political into physical demonstration. These actions provide resistance to immigration through the inspiration of fear in both migrants and the local population, who may find themselves pressured to agree out of fear they may lose their place in society. Anti-immigrant militias have also begun sparking up in Central Europe - notably in the Czech Republic and Slovenia - where members of the organisations patrol city streets at night. In the Czech Republic, groups have reached up to 2,500 members and are believed to have links with local police and the foremost right-wing party National Democracy. There is also an important symbolic impact to this: in a social media stunt by a leading Slovenian right-wing politician, a group of 70 masked armed men were portrayed marching through the countryside. The growing ‘invasion psychosis’ may prompt further threats, or potentially displays, of violence in the future. Moreover, the formation of links between these paramilitary groups and institutional politics could turn them into a more concrete aspect of daily life and facilitate the move to authoritarianism in many unstable states. In conclusion, anti-immigration movements represent resistance to global interactions through the manifestation of socio-cultural unrest. This may be translated into national politics, as is the case with the Trump presidency, or the formation of independent militant organisations with strong ideological backbones. The global move towards right-wing politics, seen primarily in HICs, leaves the future uncertain for many minority groups and may destabilize the work of many organisations, including the UN.

Subject: Anthropology

TutorMe
Question:

"Gifts and commodities are often understood as polar opposites". Discuss.

Inactive
Stella M.
Answer:

The Maussian view of exchange, taken a step further by Christopher A. Gregory, adopts a binary distinction between gifts and commodities. Gregory defines them as logical opposites: with gifts as “necessarily personal, reciprocal and social binding”, emphasizing a qualitative relation between transactors, and commodities as alienable, reciprocally independent and centered on a quantitative relation between the objects exchanged (Gregory, 1982). Though many anthropologists identify this distinction as a useful starting point for further analysis, they recognize it is as too rigid and simplistic to encompass the scope of modern human exchange (Herrmann, 1997). It is the contention of this essay that, rather than being understood as a binary opposition, gifts and commodities should be understood within a spectrum – in which the poles are their ideal types: the ‘pure’ gift and the ‘pure’ commodity (possible in theory, but practically almost unreachable), not as opposites but as indivisible extremes. Albeit slightly superficial, this model provides the best framework to manage the complicated crossover between these modes of exchange, as well as the associated questions of alienability. Moreover, it showcases how elements of gift-giving are largely injected into certain ‘commodified’ transactions – for example, in the case of US hospice care and suburban garage sales – while simultaneously, gifts may be re-configured with certain features of commodities, as is the case with braed praesin (bride price) in Vanuatu. These examples, among others, will be explored in this essay, which will ultimately seek to underline how the intense overlap between elements of gift-giving and commodity exchange is fundamentally mediated by social relations, which have the power to construct and transform the objects being exchanged. Anthropological thought surrounding exchange has generally emphasized a logical opposition between gifts and commodities. Mauss posits an evolutionary framework in terms of economic development, highlighting that “gifts are the forerunners of today’s market transactions, they are the way ‘the market’ operated before its characteristic interests (such as money, formal contracts and self-interests” (Laidlaw, 2000, p. 627) emerged. In this view, the commodity is placed beyond gift-exchange economies, such as those of the Trobriand Islanders, and is, in alignment with Marxist tradition, alienable and impersonal. This contrasts sharply with the associated idea of the inalienable gift, which is imbued with the ‘spirit’ of the giver, and establishes obligations of reciprocity and mutual dependence (Ibid.) These ideas permeate Mauss’ analysis of the Trobriand kula system, in which ritual goods exist in continuous yet regimented circulation, sustained through social ties and the associated obligation to reciprocate, around the Pacific islands. He argues that the “vast system of services rendered and reciprocated (…) seems to embrace the whole of Trobriand economic and civil life” – in other words, it is an exchange and gift-centered economy – “the kula is (…) the culminating point of that life” (Mauss, 1925, 2002, p.34). Indeed, the kula provides the framework for a series of other exchanges which help sustain the Trobriand economy and, in which, the lines between gift and commodity become more visibly blurred. To an extent, the parallel system of gimwali (trading of small useful goods alongside ritual kula goods) and practice of regular, mutually obligatory acts of resource exchange embody some of the features of commodity trade. Mauss notes how, within Trobriand villages, villagers engage in regular acts of exchange: for example, a farmer may leave a fisherman some of his produce, with the expectation of receiving fish in repayment. Here, although we see a sense of social debt and inalienability commonly associated with the gift, some of the features of commodities also appear. The quantitative – albeit loosely so – obligation to return and the regular systematization of this practice into the village order creates a greater degree of detachment in exchange. The character of the reciprocity here, moreover, appears to be significantly less charged with the “mythical and imaginary (…) symbolic and collective” (Ibid, p.42) obligations associated to the gift – it is, rather, an mutually necessary exchange which ensures resource distribution to sustain different households, forming the basis of division of labor. Fish and produce are, moreover, examples of fungible goods. Here we can see the gift-distinction binary following apart; though this opposition is a good starting point, it fails to account for many of the idiosyncrasies of exchange. Thus, the need for a reformed conceptualization of exchange: through a spectrum or Venn diagram, accounting for the imbuement of elements traditionally associated to gifts and commodities into goods. Through this model, we can begin to recognize the emergence of the gifted commodity and commodified gift and how they may assume a variety of elements from the ‘pure gift’ or ‘pure commodity’. These ideal types, at either end of the spectrum, are more conceptual framework than concrete reality – most of the exchanges examined in this essay will fit somewhere in between them. However, though more comprehensive, this model does obscure the fact that at their core, the pure gift and commodity share certain characteristics. Laidlaw argues that both are “characterized by the fact that they do not create personal connections and obligations between the parties” (Laidlaw, 2000, p.617), in this way, they are not polar opposites. He subverts the notion of inalienability of the gift and obligation of reciprocity through the grazing practices of Jain renouncers: the renouncers collect small amounts of food from a variety of houses and mix them into a single bowl to share, “effectively subsuming each family’s individual offering” (Ibid, p.623), depersonalizing the donation. Paradoxically, Laidlaw posits, the nature of the free gift is one in which none of the parties involved recognize as it a gift: as soon as it appears to be one, “it becomes part of a cycle and ceases to be a gift” (Ibid, p. 621). Despite the tone of this argument, which places the anthropologist above the subjects they are studying, granting them some sense of ‘intellectual superiority’ – they are the only ones capable of recognizing the gift; it does successfully forward the notion of fluidity in the definition of gifts and commodities, as well as an essential intermixing of characteristics previously assigned to either one or the other, rather than the rigidity of the binary model. This flexibility is, even more than the spectrum model, foundational to successful analysis of economic exchange. An examination of gift-like elements in what modern societies might see as purely market commodities is particularly illustrative of how the binary gift-commodity distinction falls short. Firstly, because it lacks a gradation of how much of a commodity a good is, one must assume that within the Maussian model all commodities have the same levels of alienability and fungibility – they are all equally replaceable and can be exchanged with the same level of impersonality, as well as reciprocal independence. In a general sense, this is limited in its approach to certain types of commodities – such as works of art, which to a significant extent, embody the will and ‘spirit’ of the artist and equally, are infungible (Ibid). Moreover, it fails to consider modes of exchange, as well as institutions and conducts, which introduce inalienability and relations of reciprocity into what otherwise might be seen as ‘pure commodities’. Take, for example, hospice care in the United States (Russ, 2005). Russ highlights how the provision of care to dying patients “interstices (…) two different economies: one characterized by an ethic of pure gift, sacrifice and charity; the other by standards of efficiency and discipline, cost containment and profit” (Russ, 2005, p.129). She emphasizes that, despite the bureaucratized economic value assigned to both the bodies of patients and the caregivers – the patients through the daily reimbursement allotted by hospice welfare benefits and caregivers by their wages – which commodify them in many ways, caregivers must find a way to transgress institutional limits to “sustain (…) a connection (…) between themselves and patients” (Ibid, p.130). As such, caregivers emerge as both gifts and commodities. Russ identifies this might be conceptualized as “a contractual (commodity) relation (…) progressing to a personal (gift) relation” (Ibid, p.143), with the care provided becoming increasingly inalienable and infungible. Moreover, its “immaterial” (Ibid, p.314) nature may make it more difficult to draw a clear line between when it is mostly a commodity or mostly a gift - regardless of corporate attempts to establish limits, “private sentiments of care are transmuted daily into acts of economic value for public consumption” (Ibid, p.134); with the element of social reciprocity associated with gifts occurring through the relationships in the patient-patient’s family-caregiver triangulation (caregivers may also, for instance, receive presents or additional money as a gestures from families), beyond the realm of economic transaction. A similar phenomenon, by which commodities become charged with the moral and emotional value of gifts, takes place in the context of garage sales (Herrmann, 1997). Despite its “marketlike mechanism”, the US garage sale intensively incorporates the elements of gift exchange into commodities. The fundamentally personal nature of the garage sale, which allows individual actors to construct their own transactions through “elasticity in pricing (…) [taking] social relations into accounts” (Herrmann, 1997, p.910) creates the conditions for the transformation of commodities with varying levels of gift-like elements. Despite the fact that the goods sold at garage sale are, for the most part, fungible consumer goods merely recommodified by selling, the fact that they were previously used allows for separation from the capitalist logic by which prices need to cover costs. This, in turn, creates a flexible sale opportunity: buyers are free to bargain and equally, sellers may choose to sell items at giveaway prices, so that they are ‘semigifts’, with a disproportionally low cost to the buyer. The payment of a sum of money – whatever that may be – is fundamentally what the negotiates degree to which the good is a gift or commodity; it is, for instance, not uncommon for sellers to sell what are essentially “heavily subsidized gifts” (Ibid, p.921) to buyers who can’t afford a good at its marked price but insist on paying as much as they can realistically afford rather than simply accepting a free good, to avoid feelings of indebtedness. This is also intrinsically linked to the highly personal nature of the garage sale: the seller may contribute personal characteristics to the object by describing its “life history”, establishing a sense of inalienability, and equally, their interaction with the buyer transmits a sense of transformation by establishing an emotional connection (Ibid, p.918). Within the context of the American “sympathetic magical law of contagion” (an almost spiritual cultural condition by which people “act as though objects could be permanently affected by contact with people”), this may have even more valence; strengthening a link between the buyer and seller which appears, making the exchange more gift-like than commodity-like (Ibid, p.919). From this, Herrmann concludes that the nature of the garage sale is not typically entirely commercial – in fact, sellers who only try to extract money are generally not well perceived by buyers – but not an act of entirely free giving either. Above all, she notes that social relations are responsible for the transformation of the degree to which the item is a commodity or gift; an idea which also comes into play in Venkatesan’s account of the attempted transformation of a commodity into a gift (Venkatesan, 2011). He recounts how an Indian businessman commissioned a traditional Pattamadai mat with the intention of gifting it to Queen Elizabeth II on her coronation, identifying that the commission established competition between different weaving companies: “as far as the weavers were concerned, the mat was a commodity (…) the mat [during its production] was not a gift; its buyer was the one who would transformed it into a gift.” (Venkatesan, 2011, p.49). This shift in the sense of value attached to an object – from alienable in its production to inalienable as a gift - emphasizes how relations of exchange aren’t fixed in a gift-commodity binary. However, Venkatesan argues that, regardless of any questions of alienability, although commodities are suited to measurement through money, “a gift can (…) fold over a commodity, transforming its monetary value through the addition of other values (descriptively, physically, or both—e.g., by removing a price tag or adding wrapping paper). The gift object here moves between different spheres of value (first of commodity and then of gift) but it is still capable of being measured—by its price, uniqueness, or desirability and, in the case of a reciprocal gift, what it elicits from the recipient in the form of countergifts” (Ibid, p.54). Note here that the fact that the gift was not accepted by Queen illuminates a degree of commodification in the process of gift exchange; the sense that the gift needed to be of a certain standard to merit reciprocation or even acceptance, taking into account her hierarchical status. Though the measurement Venkatestan describes is somewhat abstract, it still highlights a somewhat quantitative concern, which the binary gift-commodity distinction affirms to be external to gift exchange. The “palpable co-presence” (Jolly, 2015, p.64) of commodity and gift elements exists – and has become increasingly visible with the rise of capitalism (and specifically currency) – equally in certain exchange cycles which the gift-commodity distinction might determine to be solely related to gifting. Take for instance, changes occurring to the system of braed praesin (bride prices) in Vanuatu (Jolly, 2015). Recent action by the government and CEDAW activism have resulted in the banning of cash as a payment for bride prices with the reasoning that this treats the exchange as one that is entirely commodified – Valeri and Jolly reject this view, arguing that it was the use of certain tools of commodity transaction which created this impression in what is essentially a gift-exchange of inalienable goods. Valeri posits that bride pricing is fundamentally not a commodity transaction because of the nature of its reciprocal obligation – the bride’s family initially reciprocates the gift of the bride price with valuables – and equally, because payment is not taken on impersonal terms. Rather, it is embedded in ritual practices and composed of multiple intergenerational transactions; much like Mauss’ Chinook potlatch, there is a need for time in between the giving and reciprocating, which in this, takes many years as so to maintain clan alliances (Jolly, 2015). Jolly notes this a sense of dialectical structure in marriage exchanges in Vanuatu: “they begin as commodity transactions (…) but end as gifts by negating the initial payment with an equivalent counterpayment” (p.70). Muduga bride pricing transactions are of similar character. Tharakan notes the gift-commodity coexistence in how “gift transactions contain an element of self-interest and alienation, just as commodity transactions contain an element of mutual obligation” (Tharakan, 2007, p.442). His argument is as follows: though bride pricing among the Muduga follows a commodified model with a sense of a “rate of exchange” on bride prices, as well as female labour and sexual services being described as commodities – a phenomenon exacerbated by the fact that bride pricing is now managed by the instruments of commodity exchange, notably currency - the nature of bridewealth exchange is one of gift-giving. Tharakan notes that the “the essence of commodity exchange inherent in the affinal transaction is negated by the prolonged delay” in reciprocation – bride price may only be paid later at marriage, the death of one the spouses or at the funeral. Moreover, the treatment of the bride as inalienable and infungible points towards the sense that she might be best conceptualized as a commodified gift – simultaneously an “exchange unit of economic wealth” (Ibid, p.449) and “body and bone” (Ibid, p.446), alienable yet inalienable. In conclusion, gifts and commodities as best understood as the fundamentally interlinked and overlapping elements of economic and social exchange. Rather than binary or polar opposites, they emerge as part of a spectrum of exchange, without a clear sense of where one begins and one ends. The case study of a US garage sale is a particularly illuminating one in this sense, as it highlights the fundamental root of how modern objects are injected with gift or commodity elements: human interactions, a sense of history and the connections to commercial or capitalist spirit all determine the extent to which goods may be transformed. Equally, the introduction of the instruments of commodity exchange may lead to a re-shaping of practices which traditionally may have appeared to be mainly governed by a gift-giving logic. This is the case, for instance, with Muduga marriage transactions, which have seen an increasingly greater role assigned to currency as a means to transact in bridewealth, potentially encroaching on ritual ‘payments’ which have negotiated relations of reciprocity in the past. These idiosyncrasies give rise to gift-commodity hybrids, each unique to their context, but, above all, at odds with the rigid distinctions and oppositions that have governed much of economic anthropology in the past. Bibliography 1. Laidlaw, J. (2000). A Free Gift Makes No Friends. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6(4), 617-634. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2661033 2. Venkatesan, S (2011). The social life of a “free” gift. American Ethnologist, 38(1), 44–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01291.x 3. Jolly, M. (2015). Braed Praesin Vanuatu: Both Gifts and Commodities? Oceania, 85(1), 63–78. doi: 10.1002/ocea.5074 4. Murdock, G. (n.d.). Political Economies as Moral Economies: Commodities, Gifts and Public Goods. In J. Wasko & H. Sousa (Eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications (pp. 13–40). Wiley Blackwell. 5. Mauss, M. (2002). The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge. 6. Herrmann, G. (1997). Gift or Commodity: What Changes Hands in the U. S. Garage Sale? American Ethnologist, 24(4), 910-930. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/646815 7. Russ, A. (2005). Love's Labor Paid for: Gift and Commodity at the Threshold of Death. Cultural Anthropology, 20(1), 128-155. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/3651579 8. Tharakan C., G. (2007). Gift and Commodity: On the Nature of Muduga Transaction. Anthropos, 102(2), 441-454. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40389734

Contact tutor

Send a message explaining your
needs and Stella will reply soon.
Contact Stella

Request lesson

Ready now? Request a lesson.
Start Lesson

FAQs

What is a lesson?
A lesson is virtual lesson space on our platform where you and a tutor can communicate. You'll have the option to communicate using video/audio as well as text chat. You can also upload documents, edit papers in real time and use our cutting-edge virtual whiteboard.
How do I begin a lesson?
If the tutor is currently online, you can click the "Start Lesson" button above. If they are offline, you can always send them a message to schedule a lesson.
Who are TutorMe tutors?
Many of our tutors are current college students or recent graduates of top-tier universities like MIT, Harvard and USC. TutorMe has thousands of top-quality tutors available to work with you.