The Wandering of a Philosopher

A gift is a thing of mysterious qualities, it has an element of intent within its essence but should not require one, it becomes part of an economic circle but breaks apart from it. A desire to give a gift for someone is occurrence that is seen as kind and selfless. But the possibility of giving a gift is not too close to reality, it fact it a misconception of reality. The gift does not need any rewards, in fact that need for no reward becomes a sufficient condition for its existence. Although it has no conception of symmetry or reciprocity it is used within a circular revolution of time and economy. In this paper I shall try to explain the true nature of the gift and the harm that it can cause to a relationship between the donor and the other. Also concepts such a time, economy and contractuality will be introduced to expose the beyond the surface of the gift, Death.  

 A gift is an object that comes from the willingness or the desire to give to the other.  It is an object thought to be selflessly given to another person in order to establish a relationship or strengthen an already existing one. It is a given thing that is lost by one person willingly and gained by the other without remorse or need for reward. In order to be a gift it must be in the possession of the donor, a person must acquire and possess the gift before it can be given. In essence it becomes the donor’s property, for if it wasn’t the donor would have no right to give the object and the gift itself would become an object to be taken and not given. One might think that the word take and receive may be similar in relation to the gift, but if a gift was solely taken it would entail that it was not to be received by someone but merely taken by anyone. In simpler words taking something does not need a specific giving or receiving party, it would be available for anyone willing to possess the gift. But a gift has an element of individualization embedded within its giving, a gift is not a gift solely because it is just given willingly but because it is a thought of someone’s character directly correlated with their personality and the donor’s belief of their reaction. Thus the gift is given to her as an object that will be accepted and received, not taken. According to the OED a gift is: “a thing given willingly to someone without payment.” I shall reject the truth of this statement for such definition of a gift would be denying its very nature.  The gift finds its roots within the word “give” and the word “receive,” that we cannot deny, but willingness finds itself nowhere within the essence of a gift, for a gift cannot be given only willingly. If it is true that one does not expect payment from the giving of a gift then how can a will or desire be created from such action?

                By giving a gift an inequality of exchange happens; a thing given must be inherently a thing given away or a thing intentionally lost to the giving away of it as a gift. Such loss, inequality or inequity cannot be paired with the word “willingly” for it would claim that a person would welcome loss as a part of her character. By being able to give willingly without payment there would need to be an unintentional intent of the giving of the gift for it would seem that if one were conscious of her willingness to the giving of the gift she would as well be conscious of a desired intentional loss. Such a person would then be one that would give away her life willingly for nothing in return, no reward and no rational reason. If such would happen then the relation between the giving party and the receiving one would become similar to the relation between a slave and her master. She would lose all freedom to her will to give, a bond servant to a desire that seeks loss. It would then become impossible to gift her anything, for it would be rewarded by the giving of another gift. Such reward can be any responses to the gift, it can be as basic as monetary value or as complicated as the creation of a new relationship.  And such reward would become payment for the gift she has received and thus defy its concept. If she did find a situation where a gift was offered to her, then she would have no choice but to give it back. Her desire to give would create a foundation, for her existence for her gift would be from her to another. Hence the gift would have a primary element of her existence as long as it would be considered a gift. “Seeking through the gesture of the gift to constitute its own unity and, precisely, to get its own identity recognized so that that identity comes back to it, so that it can reappropriate its identity: as its property.”(Derrida, The Time of Kings) 

                In order to stay consistent with her desire to give away, it inherently would mean that she must have disgust of gain, for it would deny her own existence to the other. Because a gift is given away to someone it becomes an affirmation to the receiver of the donor’s relationship with her. But the receiver gains nothing apart from a confirmation of the donor’s existence. It would then follow that she would be able to give her life only for a desire of loss motivated by the affirmation of her own existence. She would become a slave of her desire to give away. But even if you are to reject this past claim, the definition offered but the OED is nothing more but a definition of under what circumstances a gift is given and not necessarily of what a gift is.

I want to come back to the notion of giving for it is found evidently within the gift and addresses the idea of the possibility of the gift. For it is essential to acquire knowledge of the gift’s qualities before being able to define it. A gift is born out of a intent or desire to give whether it is to achieve negative or positive results (that is another question). In order to give there is an elementary notion of receiving for someone cannot give without another receiving. In other words something cannot be given if there is no one to receive it, in the same sense that something cannot be received if nothing has been given. It seems that the two have a reciprocal relation to one another. One cannot be without the other. For a gift to be existing there must be a receiving end to it but also the receiving end must be in compliance with the gift for if it is rejected then it loses its entity as a gift. This means that the gift becomes a contractual object rather than an object that is just given. It becomes a contractual object the moment both parties agree to the giving and the receiving of the gift. It becomes part of the contract not at the moment that the gift is given or received but rather the moment that both parties have agreed to the gift.

                This agreement that is needed for the gift is what makes it a contractual object. The entity must be on agreeable terms for two reasons: (1) if the gift is not agreed upon but still received or given it is then forced by an outside factor which would defy the purpose of a gift and its essence, for as we have seen before the relation between donor and receiver then becomes similar to that of a master and her slave. (2) It would lose its purpose as a gift. Because a gift finds its roots within the words give and receive it is only natural to think that if one of those is negated by the other then the gift would stop being a gift and become a burden.  That which is declined from being given or that which is received forcefully is not a gift for a gift must be an object that can directly be related to the other to which it is given to.  As Emerson says in his essay Gifts “we might convey [a gift] to some person that which properly belonged to his character, and was easily associated with him in thoughts.” (Gifts, Emerson)

Because of its contractual nature, the gift contains a greater element of receiving than giving. A contract is created out of a desire to receive and not out of a desire to give. When someone makes a contract with the other it is so that she can receive what she desires from the other, for she will not agree to receive something that she is not in agreement with. The rejection of a gift would change the gift into a simple object or intent to be taken. Once a gift is rejected, it has been lost by both donor and receiver, for it was already preconceived that the receiving party would accept the gift. But if it is rejected by the other then it has lost its purpose as a gift and the donor cannot make use of its full potentiality, for it was determined to be in the possession of the other. In other words the gift which was given but then rejected becomes an object to be taken. This happens because the gift was associated to the other in thoughts by the donor; this means that the donor would have no use for the gift that was determined to be given. If the donor makes use of the gift it means that she acquired or made a gift that was associated to herself in thought and not the other. Because of this we must not have a conception of the gift that is mostly based upon the giving of the gift, but we must treat the gift as a notion mostly founded upon its desired to be received.

                The contractual nature of the gift also imposes itself on the subject of economy. As Derrida states:

                “Now the gift, if there is any, would no doubt be related to economy. One cannot treat the gift,               this goes without saying, without treating this relation to economy, even to the money   economy” (Derrida, the time of the King)

Economy according to Derrida is a revolution, a circular event that essentially comes back to the law, the nomos, and the home. The Nomos here is not only meant as the law in general but the law of distribution and the law of partition (sharing) as well. In simpler words, Derrida is implying that there are laws when giving and sharing and that those laws revolve in an economical revolution. “As soon as there is law, there is partition: as soon as there is nomy there is economy.” (Derrida, The Time of Kings) In other words the nomos is founded upon an equal distribution and reciprocal partition; it has embedded within its meaning a sense of unity and negotiation. It is there to keep inequality within the oikos (the home). Because of the nomos’ balance that it invokes, economy then becomes a revolution of reciprocal partition. It is circular because it is reciprocal and it is reciprocal because it is circular; just as the sun rises, then falls and then rises again. Because economy is based on exchange it is portrayed within time, for time is the essence for change and thus exchange as well. Since economy is circular this entails that time is as well, for a circular occurrence could not be found inside of a linear event. The notion of circularity is an important one to both my paper and Derrida’s, for it asserts the foundation for which the gift is impossible. The gift, as a contractual exchange, must therefore be in direct relation with the circularity of economy and the nomy, but at the same time breaks the circularity of the economy. Because economy is established as a revolution with time, it means that it would necessarily come back to the home, the starting point. But the gift cannot come back to its starting point for it would deny it of its entity as a gift. A gift cannot be given back; it cannot circulate nor be exchanged, for a gift defies reciprocity and symmetry. The gift would need to keep a sense of alienation to the circle and thus operate outside of economy and time. “It [the gift] must keep a relation of foreignness to the circle. […] It is perhaps in this sense that the gift is the impossible.” (Derrida, The Time of Kings)

                This disruption of the circle of economy and time is a paradox in the occurrence of the giving of the gift. It is temporal and part of the circle but disrupts them. Because the gift happens outside of time it does not happen, it is never happening and cannot happen. It cannot be found in the now since it interrupts the flow of the circle and thus is outside of time. A gift that resists reciprocity and symmetry is therefore impossible to present in the present, for a gift can only be given at the end of time. It can only be given when time stops, for that will be when the circularity of time and economy will cease.

According to Derrida there is a desire to break this circularity, an intentional desire to give a gift. And it is because of that intentionality that the gift cannot be a gift, for the intentionality or desire to give a gift would mean that it also creates contentment for the donor. A sort of fulfillment of the desire to give for a service provided to the receiver. In such an occasion the gift becomes an exchange for an actualization of the donor’s utility, and the receiver of the gift becomes a medium for her desire to give. Her desire to give would then be rewarded by a self-actualization of her existence and of her utility. In this form the gift would then be part of the economic revolution that works within time, and thus it would not be a gift but a mere exchange of services. If a desire to give is originated from someone then the receiver once again obtains the advantage in this contractual circle. In such a case where a desire to give, to break the circle, emerges then the receiver would have the entire power over the gift and the giving of the gift.

                But Derrida fails to give any importance within the contractual notion of the gift to the other although he admits that the notion of the gift is contractual. The other precedes the desire, for a desire of fulfillment to rend a service to the other could not happen without the other. Because of such desire to fulfill, the will to give the gift is already predicated within that desire that a giving will occur, thus the receiving party would have control over the fulfillment desired by the donor. In other words gift would not just be nullified by the intent to be given but also by a possible rejection from the other. The receiver hence has a greater role than the intent to give in order to deny the gift of its entity. If we keep in mind that the gift must be something related to the other in thought as Emerson claimed, then the gift itself would be nullified by the receiver’s desire to receive. If the gift is not accordingly chosen in unity with the receiving party’s desire then it was never a gift. It would be a burdened object imposed by the relationship between the other and the donor. If my mother offered me a gift, if it were possible, that did not comply with what I desired to receive, it would never actualize itself as a gift, but I would be burdened by the ethical relationship that my mother and I have with one another and accept the offer. A response to the gift, either positive or negative, is necessary for its actualization to occur. If no response is given to the gift then it is not a gift, for no receiving party has acknowledged it as received. If no one acknowledges the gift as received then it was never given, thus it would not be a gift but an object to be taken by anyone. But even if a response to the gift was given by the other, then it would become a counter-gift, an actualization of the gift within economy and time. This actualization of the gift within time and economy would therefore make it by its definition, not a gift.

                I would like to look deeper into an aspect of the gift considered by neither Emerson nor Derrida. As we have affirmed the gift is a contractual thing actualized within time and economy that defies symmetry and circularity. Hence a gift is impossible due to the fact that it is that which “happens” outside of time and because of its intent to be given and responded to.  The gift is a contract between donor and receiver, a contractualization of a thing (Une contractualization d’une chose). By simplifying the word contractualization into two words contra- and -actualization we find that the very element of the contract made between a donor and the other the gift becomes the impossibility.  The word contra- comes from the Latin “in opposition” and -actualization which is the same word in both French and English meaning “the making real or give the appearance of reality to” (Princeton dictionary). In essence by its contractualization the gift is an opposition to an appearance of reality. It is a thing that is opposite to the ability of making real (une opposition de la realitee). As the French say, the contract between giver and receiver is un contrat avec le diable (a deal with the devil). It is that which is deceiving and malevolent. It might be a contract that intends goodness but would reveal itself as an unexpected harmful actualization. The Gift thus becomes a deceiving actualization of the desire with a fulfillment created by the giving of das Gift (poison).

                This opposition to an actualization of the gift thus becomes a misleading notion of what we seem to think of gifts and their initial intentional purposes. A purpose that is exists to strengthen or create a relationship between one and the other, but corrodes it away with implications of duty and self-fulfillment. The giving of gift then becomes an economical commodity that is used to strengthen self rather than the other. It is an event that is hidden in between the surface of the gift a combination of kindness and selflessness that hides the destructive nature of the giving of the gift. it is a concept of goodness that will eventually lead to death, for the only actualization that the gift can offer the self is death. In other words, the actualization of the individual self would be confirmed by her own dying, for the only one that will experience her death is herself.

                “My irreplaceability is therefore conferred, delivered, “given,” one could say by death. It is the                 same as a gift, the same source, one could say the same goodness and the law. It is from the          perspective of death as the place of my irreplaceability, that is, of my singularity, that I feel   called to responsibility” (Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death)

As seen here all the notions of the gift are found in the quote above: a “given”, “irreplaceability”, “goodness”, “death” and “responsibility” (in the sense of a response to the gift). It is, almost in a sense, like Derrida is comparing himself to the gift, irreplaceable, given, good and called to be responded upon. And the only actualization of his individuality is death for he is the only one who will suffer his own death.

Works Cited

1.      Derrida, Jacques, and Jacques Derrida. “Beyond: Giving for the Taking And Learning to    Give; Death.” The Gift of Death ; &, Literature in Secret. Chicago: University of          Chicago, 2008. 37-53. Print.

2.      Dictionary, Oxford. “Gift.” Oxford Dictionaries. Web. <http://oxforddictionaries.com?attempted=true>.

3.      Emerson, Ralph W. “The Gift.” The Logic of the Gift. NY: Routledge, 1997. 25-27. Print.

4.      Schrift, Alan D., comp. “The Time of the King.” The Logic of the Gift: toward an Ethic      of Generosity. By Jacques Derrida. New York: Routledge, 2008. 121-47. Print.