Presentation of gift giving in Kyrgyzstan

1
Presentation of gift giving in Kyrgyzstan

• Lecturer Gulzat Janybekovna Botoeva
• Fall 2006

2
Research questions

• (1) what are the functions of gift exchanges
  among kyrgyz people?
• (2) what is the source of change in gift giving
  practices?
• (3) whiat value is assigned to hashish?
• (4) can it be considered to be a gift and how has
  it managed to assume this function before other
  traditional gifts?
• (5) who exchanges hashish as a gift is it all
  the households in the community or only some of
  them?
• (6) what are the uses of hashish as a gift?

3
Theories used in the research project

• Gifts
• unite society, and create social hierarchy at the
  same time (Mauss, 1980).
• Are as social capital (Bourdieu, 1997a)
• Are as tool for maintaining social networks which
  are needed in order to manipulate them for
  everyday survival (Ilin, 2001 Barsukova, 2002,
  Werner, 1997).
• Are coping responses, is related to the previous
  theory. (Howell, 1996).

4
Mauss theory of gift giving

• All societies have to go through three stages of
  development.
• The first one is total prestation, second is gift
  economy and third is market economy.
• Mauss claims that there are social factors behind
  the gift exchanges. He states that despite their
  seeming willingness to volunteer, great acts of
  generosity are not free from self-interest
  (Mauss, 1980 72).

5
Mauss theory of gift giving

• Gifts help to clans and tribes to unite with each
  other, maintain social relationships of
  transactors. Mauss (1980)
• Gift exchanges facilitate the creation and
  maintenance of social hierarchy within the
  society.
• Gifts are considered to be credit in societies
  where gift economy is empowered one can give now
  and receive more valuable gift another day
  (Mauss, 1980). Thus, it was concluded that credit
  is not new in the market based economy, it
  emerged much earlier in traditional societies
  with gift economy.

6
Goffmans theory of gift giving

• Gifts are used as relationship signals (Goffman,
  1982) because, by interpreting the type of gift
  received and how they are presented, transactors
  can understand the nature of relationships with
  each other.
• This argument is supported by different studies
  focused on gift giving in modern societies, which
  found that not all objects can be considered as
  appropriate gifts

7
Cheals theory of gift giving

• However, at the same time, it was suggested
  (Cheal, 1988) that some gifts might have
  practical functions, objects which receiver
  needs, being not small tokens of friendship or
  love.
• For example, as gifts to the wedding ceremonies
  in Canada, where given presents were mostly
  related to the needs of getting married couple,
  varying from jewellery, electronic equipment,
  clothing and cash (Cheal, 1988).

8
Bourdieus theory of gifts

• Gifts as a form of social capital, where
  individuals invest in order to carry through
  their projects (1977).
• He emphasises the role of social capital which is
  used by analogy with other forms of economic
  capital.
• However, social capital requires usage of it, and
  in opposite to economic capital does not exhaust
  from it.

9
Network theorists about gifts

• Ilin identifies gift exchanges as one of the
  ways of resource exchanges between members of
  social networks.
• It might be a channel for exchanging of different
  types of sources, like providing a labour,
  helping to get a job, or enter the higher
  education, provide information.
• The inclusion into the social network allows to
  the individual to increase the social capital.
• (Ilin, Barsukova)

10
Network theorists about gifts

• The gift might be in the form of material
  investment, or mutual help, in particular for
  those who have insecure economic resources
  (Werner, 1998 Ledeneva, 1998).
• It is accomplished through practical gifts
  (money, clothes, house equipment, in general
  things which receiver needs).
• While the feasts might be used in order to
  broaden a social network of an individual.

11
Coping response theory Howell

• Howell makes a distinction between four key sets
  of responses which households draw upon in
  various combinations to deal with economic
  stress.
• Maintaining response sets
• Reductive response sets
• Depleting response sets
• Regenerative response sets

12
Maintaining response

• It is used by households in order to secure the
  satisfaction of immediate needs and maintain
  current consumption patterns as far as possible
  without depleting their liquid, capital or
  productive assets of diminishing the quality of
  their human capital.
• Responses include borrowing money or food from
  neighbors, relatives outside the household,
  officials and money-lenders (Howell, 1996 57).

13
Reductive response sets

• They help to adapt to economic crisis by
  reducing their consumption of food and luxury
  items (Howell, 1996 58).
• Households have to reduce the consumption of
  daily products such as meat, sugar, milk.
• They have to cut down frequency of hot meals,
  and refrain from purchasing household goods and
  luxury items such as furniture, TV sets, carpets
  and limiting purchases of clothes and shoes to
  the base essentials (Ibid 58).

14
Depleting response sets

• They are used when households withdraw from their
  productive and capital assets.
• They try to sell livestock, or technical
  equipment and household belongings.
• These response sets may help to survive for short
  period, however are very risky for the future of
  the household because they can loose their assets
  which are hard to revive.

15
Regenerative coping sets

• The last coping response sets identified by
  Howell are regenerative ones. They involve
  various ways in which households seek to expand
  the response base such as migration,
  diversification, petty trade, small-scale
  production and provision of services (Ibid 60).
  It is different from the previous ones because it
  helps to address the longer term issues of
  impoverishment.