Abstract
Hannah Arendt’s exposition of the human condition provides the basic framework for a theoretical perspective on close relationships. According to Arendt, the human condition is comprised of three modes of activity: labor, work, and action. Labor is need-driven behavior, work concerns goal-directed activity and the fabrication of things, and action involves the mutual validation of unique individuals. Within this framework, the gift is the means by which relational ties are made concrete. I propose a model of gift-giving organized by two axes: whether or not the partner is singularized by the gift and whether or not the gift is given with an expectation of a return gift. I then apply this model to the three modes of the human condition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In many cases, such behaviors result in more direct disconfirmation of the person (e.g., teasing). Overlooking, then, redresses the potential for loss of face. Nevertheless, even if momentarily, the offender is treated as if he/she did not exist, or at least, not as a social person.
In nature, one finds only species. Individual specimens may display different behavior patterns (e.g., an alpha male), but these differences do not make them unique individuals. This same argument can be turned back upon we ourselves: dominance displays do not make us unique as persons.
Arendt contends that the capacity for speech is “the decisive distinction between human and animal life” (1998, p. 205). Both humans and other animals emit behavior and can communicate with sounds, but only human beings can speak. I infer that the greatness of deeds is at least partially bestowed upon certain kinds of human behaviors precisely by speaking of them.
In the modern age, the distinction between work and labor sometimes get blurred. Many jobholders are not “craftsmen” in the traditional sense of fabricating objects. In fact, they may work on only a small part of a larger production process. Nevertheless, the job may involve a level of cognitive activity (e.g., goal-setting, planning) that is not found in traditional manual labor. This cognitive activity is what would allow them to be classified as homo faber.
Though many jobholders work on projects with teams, each individual typically brings the results of his or her own independent cognitive activity to the table, where those contributions are then coordinated toward completion of the project.
To the jobholder, time spent attending to the relational level rather than the task level of a group project may be perceived as “idle busybodyness and idle talk” (Arendt 1998, p. 208). To the worker, information is a necessary means to achieving the end; for the citizen, information is an end in itself.
This view is consistent with a discussion of charitable giving advanced by Eileen et al. (1996). The point of their analysis was to raise the possibility of discounting such donations as gifts. However, their analysis began with a failure to support hypotheses regarding sex differences and charitable giving. Specifically, they found that men and women did not differ in charitable giving at Christmastime. Given that donors do not expect a return and do not validate the recipient with their giving, no social tie is required. Hence, there is no reason to expect differences by sex or gender in donating.
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Arendt, H. (1992). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil (Rev. ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Arendt, H. (1993). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. New York: Penguin Books (Original edition published 1968).
Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H. (2003). Responsibility and judgment. New York: Schocken Books.
Arendt, H. (2005). The promise of politics. Schocken Books.
Bataille, G. (1989). The accursed share (Vol. 1). (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Zone Books. (Original work published 1967).
Bataille, G. (1991). The accursed share (Vol. 2 and 3). (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Zone Books. (Original work published 1976).
Bataille, G. (1992). Theory of religion. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Zone Books. (Original work published 1973).
Baxter, L. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22.
Beatty, S. E., Yoon, M.-H., Grunert, S. C., & Helgeson, J. G. (1996). An examination of gift-giving behaviors and personal values in four countries. In C. Otnes, & R. F. Beltramini (Eds.), Gift-giving: A research anthology (pp. 19–36). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling State Green University Popular Press.
Becker, G. (1994). Metaphors in disrupted lives: Infertility and cultural constructions of continuity. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8, 383–410.
Belk, R. W. (1996). The perfect gift. In C. Otnes, & R. F. Beltramini (Eds.), Gift giving: A research anthology (pp. 59–84). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Press.
Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393–417.
Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 39–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berscheid, E. (1995). Help wanted: A grand theorist of interpersonal relationships, sociologist or anthropologist preferred. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 529–533.
Boon, S. D. (1994). Dispelling doubt and uncertainty: Trust in romantic relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships (pp. 86–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheal, D. (1996). ‘Showing them you love them’: Gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy. In A. E. Komter (Ed.), The gift: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 95–106). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derrida, J. (1992). Given time: 1. Counterfeit money (P. Kamul, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1991).
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1996). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption. New York: Routledge (Original work published 1979).
Fennell, L. A. (2002). Unpacking the gift: Illiquid goods and empathetic dialogue. In M. Osteen (Ed.), The question of the gift: Essays across disciplines (pp. 85–101). New York: Routledge.
Fischer, E., Gainer, B., & Arnold, S. J. (1996). Gift giving and charitable donating: How (dis)similar are they? In C. Otnes & R. F. Beltramini (Eds.), Gift-giving: A research anthology (pp. 175–194). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling State Green University Popular Press.
Fromm, E. (1947). Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. New York: Henry Holt.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Godbout, J. T., & Caillé, A. (1998). The world of the gift. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Godelier, M. (2002). Some things you give, some things you sell, but some things you must keep for yourselves: What Mauss did not say about sacred objects. In E. Wyschogrod, J-J. Goux, & E. Boynton (Eds.), The enigma of gift and sacrifice (pp. 19–37). New York: Fordham University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goux, J.-J. (2002). Seneca against Derrida: Gift and alterity. In E. Wyschogrod, J-J. Goux & E. Boynton (Eds.), The enigma of gift and sacrifice (pp. 148–160). New York: Fordham University Press.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2007). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and others. New York: Pantheon.
Lohmann, A., Arriaga, X. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2003). Close relationships and placemaking: Do objects in a couple’s home reflect couplehood? Personal Relationships, 10, 437–449.
Mauss, M. (1967). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (I. Cunnison, Trans.). New York: Norton. (Original work published 1925).
Miczo, N. (2002). Hobbes, Rousseau, and the “gift” in interpersonal relationships. Human Studies, 25, 207–231.
Miller, D. (1998). A theory of shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Molé, P. (2003). Ockham’s razor cuts both ways: The uses and abuses of simplicity in scientific theories. Skeptic, 10, 40–47.
Osteen, M. (2002). Gift or commodity? In M. Osteen (Ed.), The question of the gift: Essays across disciplines (pp. 229–247). New York: Routledge.
Peperzak, A. (2002). Giving. In E. Wyschogrod, J-J. Goux & E. Boynton (Eds.), The enigma of gift and sacrifice (pp. 161–175). New York: Fordham University Press.
Ridley, M. (1993). The red queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. New York: Penguin.
Roth, N. L. (1996). Identity, subjectivity, and agency in conversations about disease. In H. B. Mokros (Ed.), Interaction and identity (pp. 171–194). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Rucker, M., Freitas, A., & Kangas, A. (1996). The role of ethnic identity in gift giving. In C. Otnes & R. F. Beltramini (Ed.), Gift giving: A research anthology (pp. 143–159). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Press.
Sahlins, M. D. (1996). On the sociology of primitive exchange. In A. E. Komter (Ed.), The gift: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 26–38). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Schutz, W. C. (1971). The postulate of interpersonal needs: Description. In K. Giffin & B. R. Patton (Eds.), Basic readings in interpersonal communication (pp. 65–93). New York: Harper and Row.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1990). The roots of thinking. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Sherry, J. F. Jr. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 157–168.
Strathern, M. (1997). Partners and consumers: Making relations visible. In A. D. Schrift (Ed.), The logic of the gift: Toward an ethic of generosity (pp. 292–311). New York: Routledge.
Turner, V. (1985). On the edge of the bush: Anthropology as experience. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Tyler, S. A. (2002). “Even steven,” or “No strings attached.” In E. Wyschogrod, J-J. Goux & E. Boynton (Eds.), The enigma of gift and sacrifice (pp. 77–90). New York: Fordham University Press.
Vaughn, G. (2002). Mothering, co-muni-cation, and the gifts of language. In E. Wyschogrod, J-J. Goux & E. Boynton (Eds.), The enigma of gift and sacrifice (pp. 91–113). New York: Fordham University Press.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Scribner’s. (Original work published 1920).
Wilkinson, C. A. (1996). Expressing affection: A vocabulary of loving messages. In K. M. Galvin & P. Cooper (Eds.), Making connections: Readings in relational communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.
Williams, K. D. (1995). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Lisa Miczo, as well as Lenore Langsdorf and two anonymous reviewers, for feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division, National Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL, November 2004.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miczo, N. The Human Condition and the Gift: Towards a Theoretical Perspective on Close Relationships. Hum Stud 31, 133–155 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-008-9084-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-008-9084-y