On page 20, Mauss comes close to suggesting that gift, as a quintessential mixing together of lives, is the prototype of all trade, even contract and exchange.
In partial defense of this bold thesis, consider the degree to which a written contract is little stronger than a simple verbal commitment. I agree to mow your lawn once a week all summer in exchange for $450, paid out at $40 weekly. There is not much either of us can do if the other doesn't follow through with the commitment, so we decide to put it in writing, formalizing it in hopes of making both the activity and the payment more secure. But notice how much time, trouble, and money it would cost either of us to enforce the contract -- certainly more than it could possibly be worth to either of us.
You might think that a contract with much larger stakes, say between large corporations, would be more worthwhile to litigate, and of course this often happens. However, the process is hugely expensive for both sides, and frequently drags on for many years in the courts, while both sides must do without whatever the contract promised them.
We might re-conceive a contract, then, as a kind of collective prayer that we don't need to litigate it -- an act of shared trust in each other, whether out of good will or the expectation that both sides will see compliance as in their interests. A contract may be, at root, merely an agreement to mingle our lives in a conjoined faith, offered to each other as a gift.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that though a written contract has little practical value (as you say, the trouble and money to sort it through in the courtroom would be more than it's worth) it holds a lot more water than a verbal contract. With a written contract, there's evidence of the agreement, and perhaps even fear of litigation, even if it is very unlikely.
I wonder, though, if a written contract may take away from the respect between the two parties. For example, I agreed to do yard work for someone for the rest of the weekends I'm here, in exchange for $8/hour. If I had made her sign a written contract, I think I would have insulted her and implied that I didn't trust her word, which may in turn make her less trustworthy towards me.
It’s refreshing to hear the terms “collective prayer” and “conjoined faith” in their appropriate context. I think the idea of a contract, as a “shared trust” that connects the lives of people is more powerful than it would seem at first glance. It means that we really have to know the people in our communities, as most of our business dealings will be with these folks. It’s a bit tribal (localized) in that sense.
Shelby made an interesting point with the example of the yard work scenario. I agree that insisting upon a written contract in that situation would likely damage the relationship between Shelby and the yard owner.
This scenario juxtaposed with the concept of a written contract being accepted in the business world relates strongly to the idea of usury in the Old Testament as Hyde explained it; it echoes the idea of working with people inside the circle and outside the circle. Perhaps neither written contracts nor verbal contracts are inherently bettter than the other. Seeemingly, both have their merits and both have their own separate place in society. I think the question then becomes where is each form on contract acceptable and preferable; who is encompassed by the circle and who is not?
i agree with everyone here! haha i would like to add to shelby's comment that perhaps the yard owner should feel secure in your desire for fairness in requiring a written contract because perhaps you'd be naive not to in an unsettling society. to keane's comment, i think without anything else changing, if we change the semantics of the word contract to prayer, the attitude will follow through with bonafide intentions. and to brett, i have put some deep thought about how to distinguish someone who is and isn't part of the circle because i think that the ideal would be to have the security and trust to have the circle encompass everyone, and any short of that would create a group of haves and a group of have nots.
Post a Comment