Abstract
This chapter examines the commercial and non-commercial circulation of crystal and porcelain objects as another indicator of their value. It engages with anthropological theories about gift exchange and barter, namely with their political and social relevance, the norm of reciprocity, and the inalienability of objects. I explore the circulation of objects in the informal economy during a period of economic austerity, the involvement of objects in practices of giving away as a sign of trust, and their role in intergenerational relations. By comparing these exchanges of objects with monetary exchanges, the chapter emphasizes the significance of gift exchange and barter beyond self-interest and economic considerations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
For example, through kinship, namely by keeping some objects within the family for several generations as a means to confer value to them.
- 3.
For example, the glass fish is advertisted by sellers as an object “din Epoca de Aur ” (from the Golden Age) or as a communist object on several online stores such as www.okazii.ro and www.olx.ro. There is also a new store, Palatul Vechiturilor (The Palace of Old Things) where people can donate objects they want to get rid of (www.palatulvechiturilor.ro).
- 4.
“Experiences of Socialism in Romanian Museums: Ethical Implications of Display, Hiding, and Engagement” (forthcoming), The Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Review 26/2021.
- 5.
She is referring to ROL, the old currency of Romania that changed to RON in 2005. 1,000,000 ROL equals 100 RON, approximately 20 Euro.
References
Berta, P. (2019). Materializing Difference: Consumer Culture, Politics, and Ethnicity Among Romanian Roma. University of Toronto Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Marginalia-Some Additional Notes on the Gift. In A. D. Schrift (Ed.), The Logic of The Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity (pp. 231–241). Routledge.
Caillé, A. (1982). Anti-Utilitarianism, Economics and the Gift-Paradigm. La Revue du M.A.U.S.S. http://www.revuedumauss.com.fr/media/ACstake.pdf
Fajans, J. (1993). Exchanging Products Producing Exchange. University of Sydney.
Humphrey, C., & Hugh-Jones, S. (1992). Introduction: Barter, Exchange and Value. In C. Humphrey & S. Hugh-Jones (Eds.), Barter, Exchange and Value. An Anthropological Approach (pp. 1–20). Cambridge University Press.
Mauss, M. (2002). The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge.
Patico, J. (2008). Consumption and Social Change in a Pot-Soviet Middle Class. Stanford University Press, Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Schrift, A. D. (1997). Introduction: Why Gift? In A. D. Schrift (Ed.), The Logic of The Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity (pp. 1–19). Routledge.
Weiner, A. (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cristache, M. (2021). Consolidating Social Relations Through Gift Exchange and Barter: Beyond the Norm of Reciprocity. In: Domesticity on Display. Consumption and Public Life. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78783-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78783-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78782-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78783-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)