Gratitude, Power, Dependence
Thus far, I have spoken about gratitude only as a positive emotion and a
social force bringing about community and cohesion.However, gratitude
is not always the positive and unproblematic phenomenon we would like
it to be but may be complicated by issues of power and dependence. For
instance, the principle of reciprocity can be disturbed if returns are not
equivalent. One party may not have enough resources to meet the other’s
expectations of what counts as proper returns. Power may be involved in
reciprocity, causing asymmetry, with one party feeling it should give, or
being actually obliged to give, much more than the other. In such cases,
gratitude looks different than in situations dominated by more or less
symmetrical reciprocity.
The sociologist Alvin Gouldner (1973a) was the first to elaborate upon
the role of power in situations of asymmetrical reciprocity. The respective
levels of the resources of giver and recipient should be taken into account,
as well as the needs of the recipient and the freedom the giver has either
to give or not. Giving may be compelled by other people or by strong
normative expectations to do so, thus restricting the spontaneity and
voluntariness of the gift giving. This probably affects the way gratitude
is experienced. Unfortunately Gouldner, like most of his sociological
and anthropological colleagues, does not elaborate upon that particular
subject.
As is often the casewith really fundamental issues, literatureofferssome
interesting insights that are notoriously absent in the social science field.
The Russian writer and poet Marina Tsvetajeva, who wrote most of her
work just after the Russian Revolution in 1917, has a very uncommon but
enlightening view on the vicissitudes of gratitude. She deeply mistrusted
the Bolshevik rulers and their oppressive political tactics. This distrust
was reciprocal. The Bolshevik regardedTsvetajeva as a hostile element and
obstructed publication of her work, necessitating her to live with her two
small children in one icy room at her parents’ house. Poverty and hunger
made her dependent on alms offered to her by friends and acquaintances
fromtime to time. In this type of situation, gratitude looks quite different
from what we are used to. What feelings toward the giver does a poor
person have on receiving a loaf of bread, and what kind of expectations
does the giver have? In analyzing this example, taken literally from her
own life, Tsvetajeva claims that the actors here are not a real giver and a
real recipient, each with their own person reflected in their actions, but
merely a giving hand and a receiving stomach.When a stomach receives
bread, this has nothing to do with the personal being of either the giver
or the recipient. It is merely two pieces of flesh that are involved in the
act of exchange, and it would be absurd for one piece of flesh to demand
gratitude from the other. Gratitude, in that case, would degenerate into
paid love, prostitution, and be an outright offense to the giver as well as
the recipient.
AsTsvetajeva says, only souls can be grateful, “but only because of other
souls. Thank you for your existence. Everything else is offense” (2000:
201). Ultimately only silent gratitude, gratitude not expressed in words
or acts, is acceptable because the mere expression of gratitude already
implies some reproach or humiliation for the giver: he has something
the recipient does not have, a painful confrontation between having and
not-having. The best solution is to give, to receive, and then rapidly to
forget about it, so as to preclude any feelings of gratitude at all: to give and
withdraw, to receive and withdraw, without any consequences. In such
an unequal power relationship, the moral obligation to express gratitude
is derogatory and an obstacle to the development of lasting ties.
In gift exchange, a subtle balance of dependence and independence
is involved, causing power and control to be deeply ingrained. Schwartz
called this the balance of debt, as we saw in Chapter 2. Depending on
the personal biography and specific psychological makeup, people react
differently to this balance of debt. Some have great difficulty receiving
help or material goods from others, because they cannot deal with feelings
of gratitude or being indebted to another person. The balance of
debt may be disturbed in several ways. One means to exercise power is
to keep another person indebted by way of overreciprocation. Another
offense is to return a gift too quickly. Giving immediately in return can be
interpreted as a sign of ingratitude.As Seneca stated, “a personwho wants
to repay ag ift too quickly with ag ift in return is an unwilling debtor and
an ungrateful person” (quoted in Gouldner 1973a: 258, n. 46). A certain
period between the gift and the return gift is also needed, because the
resources to be able to return the gift properly have to be found and mobilized.
The reason why, according to Schwartz, the balance of debt should
never be brought into complete equilibrium connects to gratitude: “The
continuing balance of debt – nowin favour of one member, nowin favour
of the other – insures that the relationship between the two continues,
for gratitude will always constitute a part of the bond linking them”
(1967: 8).
Not only a disequilibrium on the debt balance but also rivalry may
disturb the “normal” development of feelings of gratitude, as is demonstrated
in the potlatch. Gift giving in this practice should not be confused
with acting on the grounds of a moral obligation to return gifts.What is
seemingly an act of gratitude is ultimately one of power and greed.
In the preceding sections, gratitude appears as a personal asset aswell as
a moral virtue: a capacity one has to learn.Moreover, gratitude has been
analyzed as the moral basis of reciprocity. By acting as a moral obligation
to give in return, gratitude not only serves to reinforce bonds at the level
of social relationships, but is also a means for establishing social cohesion
and creating a shared culture. It is important, at this point, to emphasize
that indebtedness is not in any way contrary to gratitude but rather is its
moral core.