History 01/04/2019 bva212 week Eight

History 01/04/2019 bva212 week Eight

Alfred Gell, Art and Agency (1998)

Art and Agency presents an anthropological theory of art. Gell defines an anthropological theory of art as “social relations in the vicinity of objects mediating social agency” (7).

Summary

Gell argues that an anthropological theory of art must focus on the social contexts of art. A social approach is needed in order to examine “the social context of art production, circulation, and reception, rather than the evaluation of particular works of art” (3). Production and circulation are sustained by other social processes like exchange, politics, religion, and kinship. An anthropological theory of art should not elucidate western vs. non-western aesthetic systems. This is a cultural approach to art. Moreover, it assumes that a culture has a universal parameter on which art is produced. To understand art, Gell argues historians must examine the social relationships “between participants in social systems of various kinds” (4).  The need for social relationship in art becomes clear when one tries to define art.

Gell rejects the normative definition of art as “whatever is treated as art by members of the institutionally recognized art world” (5). He also rejects the term “art objects” to describe art works because it assumes that “objects are sign-vehicles, conveying ‘meaning,’ or they are objects made in order to provoke a culturally endorsed aesthetic response” (5). The phrases art and art object do not allow objects to act in social relationships. Gell recognizes that objects have agency, intention, causation, and that they are effective and transformative. Thus, Gell seeks to understand the active and mediatory role of objects.  He suggests that there is no difference between bodies and artefacts. Gell defines these objects, which are equivalent to persons, as “social agents” (7). Gell argues that to understand social agents, historians must examine the biographical elements, or their life-stages of social agents.

Gell calls a social agent (or art, art object, work of art, etc.) an index. An index is “seen as an outcome, and/or the instrument of, social agency” (16). Gell argues that agency is attributable to persons and indexes. Agency is the attribution of intention to a person or thing. Gell defines things, or indexes as primary and secondary agents. Primary agents are “intentional beings who are categorically distinguished from ‘mere’ things or artefacts” (20). Secondary agents are “artefacts, dolls, cars, works of art, etc. through which primary agents distribute their agency in the causal milieu, and thus render their agency effective” (20). Primary and secondary agents work by distributed personhood.

The idea of distributed personhood allows historians to see the distribution of primary agents’ agency through secondary agents. For example, “as agents, they [soldiers] were not just where their bodies were, but in many different places (and times) simultaneously [as mines]. Those mines were components of their identities as human person, just as much as their fingerprints or the litanies of hate and fear which inspired their action” (21). Calling things secondary agents, according to Gell, does not mean they are not agents. It means they are not primary agents “who initiate happenings through acts of will for which they are morally responsible” (20). Secondary agents are “objective embodiments of the power or capacity to will their use” (21). This “objectification in artefact-form is how social agency manifests and realizes itself, via the proliferation of fragments of ‘primary’ intentional agents in their ‘secondary’ artefactual form” (21).

Agents work in a network of social relations. Agents must have a patient. The patient is the “object which is causally affected by the agent’s action” (22). Primary or secondary agents can act as the patient while the other acts as the agent. Manufactured objects are indexes of their makers, or their artists. Sometimes the artist and the index’s origin are forgotten or concealed. The recipients of indexes are “in a social relationship with the index, either as “patients”…or as ‘agents’ in that, but for them, this index would not have come into existence (they have caused it)” (24). An index must always have some specific reception or recipient. This network of social relationships also includes the prototype. The prototype of an index identifies “the entity which the index represents visually (as an icon, depictions, etc.) or non-visually” (26).

Concerns

Gell argues that secondary objects have agency in a social network made of humans and other objects. This agency can be witnessed through a biographical examination of objects in relationships. Despite these claim, Gell does not allows secondary agents to have agency. They are always bound to humans or patients. They can only have agency through a primary agent’s agency, or distributed personhood.  Moreover, secondary agents are not morally responsible for anything. Gell tries to give objects agency, but takes it back when he makes them rely on humans. Objects are mediators of social agency, not actual agent themselves.

References

Brummitt, J. L. (2015). Alfred Gell, Art and Agency. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from jamiebrummitt.com: http://jamiebrummitt.com/alfred-gell-art-and-agency-1998/

Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=DlJxAwAAQBAJ&dq=alfred+Gell

parametera limit or boundary which defines the scope of a particular process or activity.
"the parameters within which the media work"

synonyms:

framework, variable, limit, boundary, limiting factor, limitation, restriction, specification, criterion, guideline;  technicalconstant "they set the parameters of the debate"

transformative/transˈfɔːmətɪv/adjectivecausing a marked change in someone or something.
"the transformative power of technology"

Primary agents - artists

Secondary agents - art work

Marcel Mauss and the psychology of gift-giving

10FridayMay 2013

Posted by Gerry le Roux in Special days

Today we celebrate the birthday of Marcel Mauss (10 May 1872 – 10 Feb 1950), the French sociologist and anthropologist best known for his work on social exchange and gift-giving. His most famous book is ‘The Gift’ (1925).

Mauss had very interesting views about gifts and gift-giving that really makes you re-evaluate the whole custom of giving gifts. His main argument is that gifts are never free. History shows that gifts almost without exception give rise to reciprocal exchange, or at least the expectation thereof. So his basic research question became “What power resides in the object given that causes its recipient to pay it back?”.

This is a complex question with an equally complex answer, and according to Mauss it has to do with the fact that a gift engages the honour of both the giver and receiver. It becomes an almost spiritual artefact. The gift is irreversibly tied to the giver – in Mauss’ words, “the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them.”

The gift – a simple gesture resulting in complex interpersonal social bonds.
(© All Rights Reserved)

Because the gift is so tightly linked with the giver and receiver, the act of giving implies an important social bond, obligating the receiver to reciprocate with a return gift. Not acting on this obligation results in loss of honour and status, and in some cultures may even have detrimental spiritual implications – in Polynesian culture, for example, failure to reciprocate the gift-giving is said to result in a loss of one’s spiritual authority.

What is particularly fascinating in Mauss’ theories is the idea that, unlike something that changes ownership by getting bought and sold, a gift is forever bound to the giver. It never fully changes ownership – it is almost as though it is only given on loan, hence the difficulty of selling, or even giving away, something that was gifted. This also affects the need to reciprocate – by gifting something in return effectively repays the ‘gift-debt’. Now of course the returned gift is again irrevocably tied to the giver, and so a surprisingly strong social tie is created between two people who have exchanged gifts – they effectively own a piece of each other.

All this ‘baggage’ related to a gift really complicates the apparently simple act of giving a gift to someone, doesn’t it? In a way I feel Mauss’ theories over-complicate the whole gift-psychology, but when you think about it, it does really make sense. And while the responsibility to reciprocate feels like a negative concept, the idea of a strong social tie being created between gift-exchangers is quite nice, especially when you exchange gifts with loved ones. Perhaps the whole reason for exchanging gifts is to strengthen the bond between people.

So, next time you consider giving someone a gift, remember that you are entering into a significant social bond. But it’s not a bad thing – it’s exactly these social bonds that form the basis of our larger social cohesion. Gifts link you to others, weaves you into the social fabric of your community, and ties you to loved ones.

So don’t stop giving!

References

Mauss, M. (1990). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. (W. Halls, Trans.) Routledge. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://books.google.co.nz/books/about/The_Gift.html?id=0hwiBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Roux, G. L. (2013). Marcel Mauss and the psychology of gift-giving. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from Sciencelens: https://sciencelens.co.nz/2013/05/10/marcel-mauss-gift-giving/

‘The Gift’ 

Wedding gift given guest would expect to receive a meal.

Not simply an act of charity Maori Gift Exchange

There are two distinct traditions of philanthropy at work in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Māori and the Anglo-Western, deriving from the country’s colonial heritage. At the moment, proponents of the two traditions are at risk of talking past each other because of the misreading of fundamental values associated with the two histories: one of gift exchange and reciprocity, the other of charity.

Anglo-Western philanthropy has deep roots in English history and in its specific context, and from these roots has sprung current NZ legislation such as the Charitable Trusts Act, the Incorporated Societies Act and the Companies Act. The Māori philosophy of gift exchange or philanthropy has its own history. Its meaning is found in the expression ‘Ko te hau tēnā o tō taonga’, which refers to the spirit power and the vital essence embodied in a person that is transmitted with their gift, or taonga or something considered valuable.

One problem of Anglo-Western notions of charity is an implicit understanding of an ancient class system in which there were ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. It became part of the moral and social obligation of the ‘haves’ to assist the ‘have nots’ through acts of charity and mercy.

However, there is no Māori history of feudalism or of class systems but rather categories of mana and rank within the kinship system. In ancient Austronesia-Polynesian-Māori languages, traditional words for being poor and in poverty do not exist. Pōhara, meaning someone who is poor, is a transliteration of ‘poor fulla’ and of recent derivation. Gift exchange and reciprocity are infused with core values that reflect the social and economic experiences of Pacific Asia. It is this history of values that shapes current Māori thinking and response.

Philosophy of Māoritanga and philanthropy
The philosophy of Māoritanga is about humanity and reciprocity, and describes the totality of a Māori way of life. The Māori life view consists of four traditional understandings of hauora, rendered as wellbeing.

The primary form of wellbeing is spiritual and explains the origin of humanity; the second is humanity in the natural environment; the third is humanity embodied in a kinship system with local habitats; and the fourth is humanity and economy and the structures of production.

This assemblage of wellbeings constitutes the Māori understanding of philanthropy as gift exchange and reciprocity, of giving and receiving. It contrasts with the act of giving, which is the practice of charity. The forms of wellbeing and the practice of gift exchange and reciprocity are what Albert Schweitzer calls a life view: a world view consisting of a set of ethics and forms of honourable behaviour. In this sense, philanthropy is not a new idea or practice, as all cultures have specific and general principles associated with such virtuous behaviour. However, for Māori it is the art of giving and receiving and the relationships created by these acts that matters.

Tāmati Ranapiri, an authority on gift exchange, explains the spirituality as follows:

A taonga (gift), irrespective of its value, is given by A to a recipient B – within the gift is the hau or life force of the giver. Later, should the same gift be given by B to another person C, this recipient is now under an obligation to the initial giver A. There is no time limit to these exchanges. It is not the gift itself that drives the relationship, but the hau that seeks to return to its original source.

Hau represents the action of reciprocity, and it was this that motivated the economic activities of traditional economies. Over the millennia, hau became a complex totalizing system of obligatory gift exchange. The exchange followed some basic principles where the intrinsic hau of the taonga and the hau belonging to the donor are imbued in the taonga; these in turn infuse Māori social, economic and religious life with profound implications for the management of social relations and guardianship of the natural world. It is not simply an act of charity. It is a system of mutual trust, obligation and solidarity. And, I would suggest, it is philanthropy.

The adoption of the spirituality and practices of hau and reciprocity might profit Anglo-Western philanthropy by enhancing the virtue of human relationships, and guardianship of the natural world.

Mānuka Hēnare is associate professor, Māori Business Development at the University of Auckland Business School. Email m.henare@auckland.ac.nz

Main image: the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand can be seen as representing gift exchange. Under the treaty, the Crown offered a gift, a most sacred offer of a relationship with Queen Victoria. The Queen guaranteed that Māori life and prosperity would be respected, honoured and protected. In return the Crown would look after its own people living in NZ, and Māori and Pākehā would live together in a mutually beneficial relationship. Māori responded by accepting the gift, reciprocating by agreeing that Pākehā would be able to come to NZ and live in peace and prosperity.

References

Hēnare, M. (2015, September 1). Not simply an act of charity: Maori gift exchange. Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.alliancemagazine.org/opinion/not-simply-an-act-of-charity-maori-gift-exchange/

This is why there was the down fall of Treaty of Waitangi.

Anglo-Western philanthropy has deep roots in English history and in its specific context, and from these roots has sprung current NZ legislation such as the Charitable Trusts Act, the Incorporated Societies Act and the Companies Act.

Someone giving to charity and not expecting anything back in return.

The Māori philosophy of gift exchange or philanthropy has its own history. Its meaning is found in the expression ‘Ko te hau tēnā o tō taonga’, which refers to the spirit power and the vital essence embodied in a person that is transmitted with their gift, or taonga or something considered valuable.  

Gift Giving and the culture significance 

Gift in Antiquity

Michael Satlow and Professor Michael Satlow

he Gift in Antiquity presents a collection of 14 original essays that apply French sociologist Marcel Mauss's notion of gift-giving to the study of antiquity. *  Features a collection of original essays that cover such wide-ranging topics as vows in the Hebrew Bib≤ ancient Greek wedding gifts; Hellenistic civic practices; Latin literature; Roman and Jewish burial practices; and Jewish and Christian religious gifts *  Organizes essays around theoretical concerns rather than chronologically *  Generates unique insights into gift-giving and reciprocity in antiquity   *  Takes an explicitly cross-cultural approach to the study of ancient history.  Satlow, M. (2013). The Gift in Antiquity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Found this book on Ebook Central.  

Watched a Movie on culture appropriation or appreciation, whats the difference.

Appreciation is where you have an understanding of the culture and appropriation have something where it becomes fashionable to wear or have something from another culture and if you have no understanding of the history of the culture.