Introduction

By and large, ‘Maussian’ gift institutions have had a favourable press in anthropology, and ‘commodities’ an unfavourable one (for an extreme case cf. Baudrillard, 1975). ‘Gift–reciprocity–Good/market–exchange–Bad’ is a simple, easy-to-memorise formula. But perhaps the tide is about to turn. Parry (1986, 1987) has exposed the ‘moral ambiguity’ of the gift in an Indian context. In what follows I propose a critique of ‘gift-exchange’ theory in a more familiar context. Melanesia is deservedly famous for the prevalence of ‘ceremonial-exchange’ institutions there, so much so that it is easy to forget that barter or trade was highly developed in ‘old Melanesia’ (i.e. Melanesia as it was in pre-colonial times). This fact is often forgotten, witness the paucity of the treatment given to commodity barter in both of the general monographs on Melanesian exchange and economy which have appeared in recent years (Rubel and Rosman, 1979; Gregory, 1982). I intend to demonstrate that this myopic stance concerning the presence of an indigenous commodity barter economy in old Melanesia has resulted in serious deficiencies in the theoretical treatment of ‘exchange’ in non-commercial contexts as well.

In this essay I propose the evidently rather daring hypothesis that Melanesian ceremonial exchange institutions, particularly the category of prestations which I call ‘reproductive gifts’ are symbolically derived from a ‘template’ which is provided by commodity barter. I believe that it is wrong to polarise ‘gift’ economy as if it were antithetical to commodity exchange, when in fact the relation is one of mutual implication, both materially and symbolically or rhetorically.