Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

'The Indian Gift': A critical debate

dc.contributor.authorGregory, Chris
dc.contributor.authorSanchez, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorCarrier, James G
dc.contributor.authorLaidlaw, James
dc.contributor.authorStrathern, Marilyn
dc.contributor.authorYan, Yunxiang
dc.contributor.authorParry, Jonathan
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-20T20:58:06Z
dc.date.available2020-12-20T20:58:06Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.date.updated2020-11-23T11:17:36Z
dc.description.abstractIn 1986 Jonathan Parry’s ‘The Gift, the Indian Gift and the “Indian Gift”’ claimed to overturn conventional understandings of Marcel Mauss, by arguing that market societies most idealize the distinction between gifts and commodities, and gift giving need not entail reciprocity. Based on an analysis of Hindu religious gifts, Parry proposed a broad framework for understanding how ideologies of exchange function in different economic and cosmological contexts. Thirty years later, this symposium considers the intellectual milieu in which The Indian Gift was written, and interrogates whether or not the work remains relevant to contemporary research and analysis. The symposium opens with a short introduction that provides some background to Parry’s essay and incorporates material from a recent interview with him. This is followed by critical comments on it by five influential thinkers on gift exchange: James Carrier, Chris Gregory, James Laidlaw, Marilyn Strathern and Yunxiang Yan. It ends with a short ‘revisionist’ note by Parry in which he tries to identify some of the limits of the Maussian approach for contemporary anthropology.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn0275-7206
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/218486
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.publisherHarwood Academic Publishers
dc.sourceHistory and Anthropology
dc.title'The Indian Gift': A critical debate
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue5
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage583
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage553
local.contributor.affiliationGregory, Chris, College of Arts and Social Sciences, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationSanchez, Andrew, University of Cambridge
local.contributor.affiliationCarrier, James G, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology
local.contributor.affiliationLaidlaw, James, University of Cambridge
local.contributor.affiliationStrathern, Marilyn, University of Cambridge
local.contributor.affiliationYan, Yunxiang, University of California
local.contributor.affiliationParry, Jonathan, London School of Economics and Political Science
local.contributor.authoruidGregory, Chris, u8401628
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor140202 - Economic Development and Growth
local.identifier.absfor160104 - Social and Cultural Anthropology
local.identifier.absfor160101 - Anthropology of Development
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4351680xPUB304
local.identifier.citationvolume28
local.identifier.doi10.1080/02757206.2017.1375489
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85031304473
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads