armağan yalnızca atiye değil ayrıca Âtîdir: türk ... · Öz: mübadele tarzları...

Başvuru: 2 Haziran 2018Kabul: 29 Ağustos 2018

Copyright © 2019 İnsan ve Medeniyet Hareketihttp://toplumsaldegisim.com/

2019 1(1) 101-111

toplumsal değişimÖzgün Makale

1 M.FatihKarakaya,İstanbulÜniversitesi,EdebiyatFakültesi,SosyolojiBölümü,İstanbul. Eposta:[email protected]

Atıf: Karakaya,M.F.(2018).Gift isnotonlythepresent,butalsothefuture:ThefoodofferingpracticeofTurkishwomen.toplumsal değişim, 1, 101–111.

Öz: Mübadele tarzları literatürü, saf armağandan bir borç biçimine doğru dönüşüme örtük bir şekilde gönderme yapan çizgisel bir tarih önermektedir. Hâlbuki, Türk kadınlarının komşularına yaptıkları yemek ikramları pratiği bu çizgisel tarihe döngüsel bir alternatif sunmaktadır. Bir başka deyişle örtük bir borçluluğa dönüştükten sonra Türk kadınlarının komşularına sundukları yemek ikramı, gündelik hayatlarında bir tür çakma-armağana dönüşmüştür. İlk olarak bu çalışma, derinlemesine mülakatlardan elde edilen verileri temel alarak bu yemek ikramı ve sonucunda yaşanan tabak trafiğinin Türk kadınlarının gündelik hayatlarında nasıl gerçekleştiğini detaylıca tasvir etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. İkinci olarak çalışma, bu pratiğin nasıl bir yandan komşular arasındaki ilişki bağlarını gevşeten (Bu nedenle çakma olarak nitelenmektedir.) bir yandan da saf armağana yakın olması itibarıyla komşular arası dayanışma potansiyelini hâlen içinde barındıran bir tür çakma-pratiğe dönüştüğünü göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Son olaraksa bu çalışma, borç-merkezli piyasa kapitalizminin hâkim olduğu bir dünyada gündelik hayat içerisinde çeşitli mübadele tarzı alternatiflerinin varlığına işaret etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar kelimeler: yemek ikramı • mübadele tarzları • armağan • borçluluk • çakma-armağan

M. Fatih Karakaya1

İstanbul Üniversitesi

Armağan Yalnızca Atiye Değil Ayrıca Âtîdir: Türk Kadınlarının Yemek İkram Pratiği

Received: June 2, 2018Accepted: August 29, 2018

Copyright © 2019 Human and Civilization Movementhttp://toplumsaldegisim.com/en

2019 1(1) 101-111

toplumsal değişimExtended Abstract

1 Correspondence to: M.FatihKarakaya,DepartmentofSociology,IstanbulUniversity, IstanbulTurkey.Email:[email protected]

To cite this article: Karakaya,M.F.(2018).Giftisnotonlythepresent,butalsothefuture:ThefoodofferingpracticeofTurkishwomen.toplumsal değişim, 1, 101–111.

Abstract: The literature on the transformation of modes of exchange tacitly asserts a linear history where the mode of exchange transforms from being a pure gift into being a form of debt. Yet, the transformation of a gift exchange practice by Turkish women where they offer food to their neighbors provides a counter-argument to this linear history, by asserting an alternative cyclical history. In other words, after transforming into a form of latent indebtedness, Turkish women’s food offerings to their neighbors during the course of their daily routines has transformed into a pseudo-gift within a financialized world. Based on the data derived from in-depth interviews, this study first aims at describing in detail how this food and the resulting plate traffic transpires in the daily lives of Turkish women. Secondly, this study seeks to illustrate how this practice has transformed into something of a pseudo-gift that undermines solidarity among neighbors by loosening the social ties among them (this being the reason why it is called pseudo) while still having the potential to maintain solidarity since it is very close to a pure gift. All in all, this study is willing to point out alternative forms of exchange in daily life within a world dominated by debt-oriented market capitalism.

Keywords: food offerings • mode of exchange • gift • indebtedness • pseudo-gift

M. Fatih Karakaya1

Istanbul University

Gift is not only the Present, but also the Future: The Food Offering Practice of Turkish Women

Karakaya/GiftisnotonlythePresent,butalsotheFuture:TheFood...

103

The sociological literature on the transformation of modes of exchange (fromMalinowski[1922]andMauss[1924/2002]toSahlins[1972]andKaratani[2014])tacitlyassertsalinearhistory.Accordingtothatlinearhistory,modesofexchangetendtotransformfrombeingapuregifttoacommodityexchange,atendencyconsideredtobebothacauseandaneffectofchangingsocialsolidarities.Ontheotherhand,the transformation of a small gift practice of Turkish women (i.e., offering foodtoone’sneighborspaves theway foracounter-argument)points toanalternativehistory that is more cyclical than linear. In other words, after transforming intolatentindebtedness,foodofferingsbyTurkishwomentotheirneighborsduringthecourseofdailyroutinestendtotaketheformofapseudo-giftwithinamodernized,individualized,andfinancializedworld.

Traditionally,Turkishwomenwould often, perhaps as an outcomeof a traditionofsharingthefoodwiththosearound,offertheirneighborsasymbolicportionofthefoodcookedforthatnight’sdinneronaplatethattheywouldeitherdeliverorhaveafamilymemberdelivertothem.Thisshareiscalledthe“shareoftheeye.”Employedtoestablishsocialtiesbetweenneighbors,certainfeaturesofthisoffering,includingwhatisoffered,onwhichkindofplateitishandedtotheneighbor,whodeliversittotheneighbor,andhowitispresentedtotheneighbor,areallhavesomedecisiveeffectonthefutureofthosesocialties.Ontheotherhand,thisgiftpracticealsoexposestheneighbor to theproblemofneeding to return the ceramicplate.Since the commonunderstandingputsthatreturninganemptyplatetothefoodofferingneighborisanimproperandaruderesponse,agoodneighbormustreciprocatewithacounterofferingandfilltheoriginalceramicplatewithacounter-giftdeterminedbycertainfeatures,suchasthesizeandshapeoftheplate,thenatureofthefoodoffered,thedegreeofthefirst offering’s ornateness.This potential counter-offeringproposes that thefirstfoodofferingalsoimpliesalatentindebtednessfortheneighborreceivingit.Recently,Turkishwomenhaveoptedtopresenttheofferingwithinaplastic,paper,oraluminumplate so as to prevent the debt implicationof thefirst offering.Bynot providing aconcrete reason, namely a ceramic plate needing to be returned, for reciprocationandthereforebyobviatingadebtrelation,theneighborofferingfoodcancontrolthefrequencyandintimacyoftherelationshipwithherneighbor.Thus,thetransformationoffoodofferingshastransitionedintoapseudo-giftform.Forwhereasagiftoftenhastheideatomaintainandstrengthensocialtiesamongpeoples,thisso-calledpseudo-giftsustainsaloosesocialtie.Hence,thedailypracticeofofferingagifthastransformedintosomethingtoalatentindebtednessaswellastoapseudo-giftform.

Inthisextent,thestudystartswithacritiqueoftheopera magnumoftheliteratureon the gift practice and its linear history followed by a description of the foodofferingpracticeofTurkishwomen.Basedonthecritiqueoftheopera magnumofthegiftliteratureandthefoodofferingdescriptionthencomesanaccountofcyclical

toplumsal değişim

104

historyoffoodofferingpractice.Thestudyisconcludedwiththeassertionhowthiscyclicalhistoryofagiftpractice(dys)functionsinTurkishsociety.Inthisrespect,data derived from in-depth interviewswith 12Turkishwomen selected using thesequentialsamplingmethodwillbeanalyzed2.

The Linear History of the GiftIntheintroduction,itisclaimedthattheliteratureonmodesofexchangetacitly

presumesalinearhistoryforthispracticestartingfromapuregiftandtransformingintoadebtrelationship.Ontheotherhand,abrieflookthroughtheliteraturerevealsthat the origin of this practice being a pure gift ismerely an abstract categoricalassertionlackingconcreteevidenceleftbythosewhopracticeit3.Hence,inordertocriticizethislinearhistoryitisamusttosurveytheopera magnumofthisliteratureinbrief.InhispioneeringanthropologicalstudyonWesternArgonautsofthePacific,Bronislaw Malinowski provides a detailed account of a practice called Kula inwhichgiftsareexchangedacrossaringofislands(Malinowski,1922).Asamodeofexchangebetweentribes,theKulaispracticedbyinhabitantsresidingonalargeringofislandsthatformageographically“closedcircuit”(Malinowski,1922,p.62).Inthisringofislands,accordingtoMalinowski,“inthedirectionofthehandsofaclock,movesconstantly…longnecklacesofredshell…[andin]theoppositedirectionmoves…braceletsofwhiteshell…”(Malinowski,1922,p.62).AsMalinowskiputsit, there is also an ordinary tradewithin theKula ring alongside the exchange ofarm-shellsandnecklaces(Malinowski,1922,p.63).Theconstantexchangesofsuchspecificgoodsincertaindirectionsconstituteadelayedandananonymousreciprocalrelationforeachtwohoopsofthering.ToMalinowski,thisreciprocalrelationseemsasif“[a]tanypointintheKularing,ifweimaginehim[onehoopofthering,MFK]turnedtowardsthecentreofthecircle,hereceivesthearm-shellswithhislefthand,andthenecklaceswithhisright,andthenhandsthembothon.Inotherwords,heconstantlypassesthearm-shellsfromlefttoright,andthenecklacesfromrighttoleft” (Malinowski, 1922, p. 71).Another scholar, Karl Polanyi uses this detailedaccountoftheKula ringinhisbookThe Great Transformation tosupplyrelevantsamples in asserting alternativemodes of exchange to commodity exchange, onebeingreciprocity:

Littleisknownoftheoriginof“duality”;buteachcoastalvillageontheTrobriandIslandsappears to have its counterpart in an inland village, so that the important exchange ofbreadfruitsandfish,thoughdisguisedasareciprocaldistributionofgifts,andactuallydisjointintime,canbeorganizedsmoothly.IntheKulatrade,too,eachindividualhashispartneronanotherisle,thuspersonalizingtoaremarkableextenttherelationshipofreciprocity.But

2 AllnamesusedforIntervieweesarepseudonyms.3 Thatiswhyfromamongscholars,onecanseeJacquesDerrida(1992),MaryDouglas(inMauss2002)

assertingthereisnosuchathingasapuregift.


105

forthefrequencyofthesymmetricalpatterninthesubdivisionsofthetribe,inthelocationofsettlements,aswellasinintertribalrelations,abroadreciprocityrelyingonthelong-runworkingofseparatedactsofgive-and-takewouldbeimpracticable.(Polanyi,2001,p.51)

BesidesthisdetailedaccountfortheKularing,aMaorimythprovidesMarcelMaussarelevantcaseintheorizingthegiftpracticeinhiswell-knownessay.Mauss,basinghistheoryonthisMaorimythofgiftgivingassertsthatthereasonforacountergifttothefirstgiftgiveristhehiddenspiritofthethinggivenasagift,namelyahau.Thus,duetothisspiritofthefirstgiftthatsufferstoturnbacktothefirstgiftgiveranobligationtoofferacounter-giftimposesitselftothereceiverofthefirstgift(Mauss,2002,p.13ff.).InhisbookThe Enigma of the Gift,anotherFrenchanthropologistMauriceGodelierasserts, while evaluating Mauss’ work, that gift giving seems to create a twofoldrelationshipbetweengiftgiverandreceiver,thatofsolidarityasaresultofsharingandthatofsuperiorityasaresultofthedebt,untilherepaysit(Godelier,1999,p.12).

Inhisparadigm-shiftingworkontheeconomicallifeofprimitivepeoples,MarshallSahlins,whileprovidingsomehybridformsconvergingtofree-giftalsopostulatesthatgiftrelationconstitutesaso-called“between”relation.This“between”relationinitiatedbythefirstgifttendstocompleteitselfwitharepayment.Thisrepaymentcanbemoreorlessequaltotheinitialgift(Sahlins,1972,p.127).AsSahlinscitedfromRaymondFirth“…delayedrepaymentsamongMaoriarecustomarilylargerthantheinitialgift’anditissomekindofageneralrulethat,‘thepaymentmust,ifpossible,besomewhatinexcessofwhattheprincipleofequivalencedemanded’”(Firth,1959,p.423ascitedinSahlins,1972,p.160).AccordingtoSahlinsgiftpractice,inadditiontoinitiatingarelationbetweenpeoples,italso“engenderscontinuityintherelation,solidarity–atleastuntiltheobligationtoreciprocateisdischarged.Secondly,fallingunder“theshadowofindebtedness,”therecipientisconstrainedinhisrelationstothegiverofthings”(Sahlins,1972,p.208).

Despitethefactthatattheendofhisworldhistory,thereexistshopeforasupersessiontoacommunisticmodeofexchangeoverglobalcapitalism,KojinKaratanialsofollowsa linear history inmode of exchanges.According toKaratani’smode of exchangematrix,aprimitive-communisticeradominatedbyfreesharingtransformedintogiftdominated reciprocity that gaveway to state-dominated plunder and redistribution,which in turn paved the way to a capital dominated commodity exchange system(Karatani,2014,p.9).SimilartoMalinowski,Mauss,Godelier,Sahlins,andothers,Karatanialsoasserts that thispracticeofexchanginggifts,with itsnon-writtenandlatent reciprocityprinciple,constitutesapeace termbetweenpeoplesand tribes.Asbeingaprimitiveversionofasocialcontract,thispeacetermleadstoanother,albeitthistimenon-reciprocal,modeofexchangesystem,namelyplunder.Karatanidescribestheleapfromgifttoreciprocityandthentoplunderasfollows:

toplumsal değişim

106

Clan society creates a stateofpeaceby establishingahigher-level community through thereciprocityofthegift.Aconfederationoftribesovercomesthestateofwarexistingbetweencommunitiesbymeansofthereciprocityofthegift.Thisisonekindofsocialcontract.Ifthisexpands,ittakesontheformofachiefdom.Thechiefdomhasitsownspatialcapital,whichhostsmeetingsofthecouncilofchiefsandalsobecomesthesiteoftradebetweencommunities.Forthesereasons,wecancallthistheprimaryformofthestateandcity.Tomovefromthistothestateproper—tomovefromchiefdomtomonarchy—requiresagreatleap.Thisisbecausethestateisbasedonanonreciprocalprincipleofexchange.(Karatani,2014,p.65)

Ascanbeseeninthisbriefsurveyoftheopera magnumoftheliteratureonthemodesofexchange,thelatenthistorypostulatesalinearstrike,whichisskewedbythecyclicalhistoryoffoodofferingpracticesofTurkishwomenasdescribedinthefollowingsection.

The Plate Traffic between Neighbors

He is not a believer whose stomach is full while his neighbor is hungry. ProphetMuhammad(p.b.u.h.)

Women are the centrifugal agents of Turkish urban households by being theauthority indetermining thecourseofneighborly relations. In this extent,despitethe fact that they do not have direct authority in shaping the relationswith theirhusbands’andtheirownrelatives,theyarethepersonswhostart,maintain,develop,and conclude relationswith their neighbors.A traditional practice, food offeringsarethekeyritualinstartinganddevelopingrelationsbetweenneighbors.InTurkishculturewhenoneeatsorcooksdishes,hebelievesthatthosearoundhaveacertainsharein,orrightto, thedishbeingeatenorcooked,called“theshareoftheeye.”Especiallybeforetheappearanceofkitchenexhaustfans,thesmellofdishesbeingcooked would inevitably diffuse starting from the closest neighbor to a certaindistance.Asanoutcomeofthistradition,peoplenowtendtoofferasymbolicportionof thefoodeatenorcooked.Thus,accordingone’sneighbors theirduesharemaybeevaluatedwithinthesocial-anthropologicalliteratureongiftexchangepractices.

Whenawomancooksadishfordinner,shetendstoofferashareofittooneormoreofherneighbors.Betül4revealedthatshetendstoofferashareoffoodtoherneighborsmostlywhenshefeelscomfortablewiththedishshecooks.AccordingtothisaccountofBetül,thetimetodecidetoofferashareisthetimeawomanfeelsthatshewillexhibitherskillsamongherneighbors.Severalfactorsimpactherdecisionastowhomshewillofferashare.Zehra5,forinstance,expressedthatshetendstoofferashareofacertain

4 27yearsold,housewife,residinginagatedcommunity.5 48yearsold,teacher,residinginanapartmentbuilding.


107

dishtooneofherneighborswholikesthatspecificdishconsiderablymorethanrestofherneighbors.Anotherwoman,Ayşe6,statedthatsheofferedashareofadishthathadcookedtoaneighborwhohadrecentlymovedintoherfamily’sapartmentbuildingbutwhomshehadbeenunable towelcomepreviously.According toAyşe,offeringfoodprovidesavalidpretext toknockonthedoorofnewlyintegratedneighbor, todeclare that thenewneighborswerewelcomeandtoseekthepossibilityofstartinga relationshipwithher.Thepracticedescribed thus far isnotdissimilar toasimpleexchangeofgiftsinitsmotivesandfunctions.Awomanmayinitiateanofferingoffoodor,toputitmoresimply,agiftgivingpracticebasedonthenatureofthefoodprepared(i.e.,Betül),onthestatusoftheneighbortowhomtheshareoffoodisoffered(i.e.,Ayşe),oronbothfactors(i.e.,Zehra).However,whatmakesthefoodofferingpracticeinterestingiswhatisusedtoconveyortransportthefoodbeingoffered.Offeringfoodasagiftdiffersfromsimilargiftexchangingpracticesbecauseofthetypeofplateonwhichthefoodisplacedandhowtheplateispresented.

Basedontheanswersprovidedbyallof the interviewees,Turkishwomentendtoofferthefoodonanadornedceramicplatesoastoenhanceherself-esteemwiththeoffering.Hence, in addition to feeling confident that the taste andappearanceofthefoodisacceptable,womenalsoseekameanstotransportitinsuchamannerthatfitstheexpectationsofakindoffering.Althoughtheobjectusedtotransportthefood,isaceramicplate,itisnotanindividualpiecefromafullset.Sinceawomanhasseveral suchadornedceramicplates thatarenotpartofamatchingset inherkitchen, theoneshechooses to transport the food isan importantdecision inandofitself.Inthisextent,theverynatureofgoodofferedisthestructuringfactor.Thenaturalcharacteristicsofthefoodoffered,suchaswhetheritisadryfoodorastew,whetheritlooksbetterinanovalplatterorinabowl,whethertheshareofferedisalargeamountorratherasymbolicamountallimpactthedecisionprocess.Alltheintervieweesrevealedthattheytendtobeautifythefoodandplatewithsmalltouchesinsteadofhaphazardlypouringthefoodontoaplateanddeliveringittotheneighbor.Aslı7alsoassertedthatshecaresaboutthepersonassignedtodeliveringtheofferingoffood.Theofferingdeliveredbyalittlechildisdifferentfromanin-persondelivery.Thefoodofferingpracticetendstotakeonaformresemblingagiftgivingritual.

Ascitedabove,ifnotnaturallyinandofitself,duetothefactthatitisathreefoldprocess(i.e.,theobligationtogiveagift,theobligationtoreceivethegift,andtheobligationtoreciprocate),thegiftpracticetendstotaketheformofadebttoberepaidtotheoriginalconferrerassoonasitisgiven.LikewiseinMauss’account,thehauofthegiftisthereasonforareciprocatedgift.Inthecaseoffoodoffering,amaterial/concretehauseemstobethereasonthatnecessitatesagifttobereciprocated.This

6 42yearsold,shopkeeper,residinginagatedcommunity.7 56yearsold,retiredteacher,residinginanapartmentbuilding.

toplumsal değişim

108

material/concretehau,inthiscaseaceramicplate,iswhatisusedtodeliverthefirstoffering.Toputitsimply,whenawomanoffersaportionofthefoodshehascookedtoaneighborinaceramicplate,thatneighborfacesaproblem:returningtheceramicplate.Atraditionalprincipleimpliesthatreturningtheplateinwhichthefirstfoodofferingwasmadeemptytoitsownerisimproperandrudeconduct.Toavoidbeingstigmatized as anunmannerlyneighbor, the receiverof thefirst offering seeks anopportunitytofilltheceramicplatewithfoodandtoofferitasareciprocatedgiftto thefirstneighbor.Dueboth to theprinciple that condemns returninganemptyceramicplateandtotheneighbor’sconcernofnotwantedtobestigmatizedasanunmannerlyneighbor,thisgiftexchangepracticeimmediatelytransformsintoadebtrelationbetweenneighbors. In thisdebtrelation, twofactorsare importantfor thefutureoftheneighborliness,namelythetimeperiodbetweenthetwoofferingsandensuringthatthetwoofferingsareofasimilarnature.

According to the interviewees,while enjoying a nicely cooked dish offered by aneighbor,theproblemofreturningtheplateusedtodeliveritwithinareasonabletimewithanequivalentofferingisatroublesomeissue.AsSherryputitinhisessayongifts,“givingtoomuch,toolittle,ortoolatecanstrainarelationshiptothepointofdissolution”(Sherry,1983,p.158).Esra8revealedthatshesometimesevenwaitedanexcessoftwomonthsinordertobesatisfiedwiththecounter-offeringthatfilledtheplate.Apartfromthetimingofthecounter-offering,thenature,shape,andsizeoftheoriginalgiftoffoodalsoconstitutedconcretepressureontheoriginalrecipient.Itisunderstoodthatspecificdishesrequirefarmorelaborandexpensethanothers.Suchanexpensiveandlabor-intensiveofferingputsrecipientunderapressuretofilltheplatewithadishofatleastequalquality.However,theoriginalrecipientisnotfreetoreciprocatewithadishoflesserorgreaterproportionsincetheshapeandthesizeoftheoriginalplaterestrictsheroptions.Althoughduringtheoriginaloffering,thetypeoffoodoffereddecidedwhichplatewas tobeusedto transport thefood,nowtherolesareswitched,asduringthecounter-offering,itistheplatethatdecideswhichdishtoprepare.Itisobviousherethatthereisaveryrealandburdensomedebtrelationinneighbors’exchangingoffood,anditisinterestingthatinadditiontothefoodoffered,theplateinwhichitistransportedconstitutestheconcretehau,orbond,ofthisindebtednesssincefoodisalreadyofferedtoone’sneighbortobeenjoyedastheshare of the eye.Yet,althoughitisinthepossessionoftherecipient, theplateusedtotransport thefoodisnot itselfapartof theportionoffered.Howmightthisdilemmabesolved?

The Cyclical History of Food OfferingNothingremainsunchangedinsociallife.Everything,nomatterhowdurableit

maybe,willeventuallyfadeaway.So,too,isthisthecasewiththepracticeoffood

8 33yearsold,bankemployee,residinginanapartmentbuilding.


109

offering. Following dramatic changes in neighborly relations, types of residentialarrangements, and women’s employment, the practice of offering food to one’sneighborshasalsochanged.Inthistransformationprocess,womenthemselveshavetakenonanactive roleoutside thehouse andhave repositioned their relationshipwiththeveryobject thatcausedindebtedness, theceramicplate.Forawoman,aseasilyanticipated,itisnotanissuetodecidenottomakeaninitialofferoffoodtoherneighbor.Ontheotherhand,whenaneighborknocksonherdoorwithafullplate,itisnoteasytorejectit.Alloftheintervieweesassuredthattheyhadneverrefusedaneighborinsuchasituation.Theyalsoassurethattheywouldhesitatetorefusesuchanoffer.Additionally,therehasemergedaninterestinginnovationtothispractice,namelychangingthemeansusedtotransportfood.

Recently,womenhaveoptedtochoosecheapandeasilydisposableplastic,paper,oraluminumplatestotransportfoodtotheirneighbors.Bychangingthematerialnatureoftheconveyeroftheofferingandbyeliminatingtheproblemofreturningtheplate,awomancanprecludethepossiblerelationofindebtednesstobeincurredbyherneighbor.Thereseemtobeseveralreasonsforsuchachange.Firstly,asaresultofimprovementsintechnologyeasilydisposableplatesarebothubiquitousandinexpensive.Secondly,the transformation of residential areas from traditional neighborhoods to gatedcommunitieshasatomizedinter-neighborrelations.Thirdly,womenarenowemployedoutsidethehouse,reducingtheamountoftimewomenhavetomakeaninitialofferortheheadacheofhavingtowaitforanemptyplatetobereturned.Fourthly,duetothesecondandthirdreasons,womentendtoconsiderpresentinganofferingoffoodon a ceramic plate instead of a plastic, paper, or aluminum one to be tactlessness.AccordingtoFatma9,herneighborstendtobringherofferingsoffoodinplastic,paper,oraluminumplatesbecause theyconsiderher tooold tobeput intoadebt relationbyanemptyceramicplate.Hence,theremaybeothercontextualreasonsbehindthechangeinconveyerinthispractice.Forinstance,Pakize10revealedthatonceaneighborknockedonherdoorreturningtheceramicplatethatshehademployed,usingitinsteadasatrayonwhichadisposableplatecontainingfoodwasofferedtoher.Pakizestatedthatsheunderstoodherneighbor’smessageasmeaningnottoofferfoodonaceramicplatesoasnottoputanyoneinadebtrelation.Ontheotherhand,Esraexpressedthatsheemployssuchdisposableplatestobeabletomaintainrelationswithherneighborswithinadefinedlimitbyprecludingapretexttoknockonherdoortoreturntheoriginalceramicplate.Allinall,inthisspecificpractice,“themediumisagainthemessage’sitself”asonceMarshallMcLuhanassertedwithinadifferentcontext.

Thus,agiftgivingpracticestemming froma religious,cultural,and traditionalprinciple of sharing a symbolic portion of the dish cooked for dinnerwith one’s

9 73yearsold,housewife,residinginanapartmentbuilding.10 51yearsold,housewife,residinginanapartmentbuilding.

toplumsal değişim

110

closestneighborshastransformedintoadebtrelationasaresultoftheneedtoreturntheemptyceramicplatetoitsowner.Yetasaconsequenceofchanginginter-neighborrelations and technology have opted to offer food in a disposable plate, therebyprecludinganydebt relationbyeliminating thebondof indebtedness, namely theceramicplateanditsneedingtobereturnedtoitsowner.ThisisthecircularhistoryofTurkishwomen’spracticeoffoodofferingtotheirneighbors:fromapuregifttoan action causing indebtedness and then to apseudo-gift.Agiftmaintains and/orstrengthensarelationbetweentwoindividuals.Althoughadebtrelationmayfacilitatesolidarity,itmayalsobeacauseforconflict.Nevertheless,placingalimitoninter-neighborrelationsbyofferingashareof thefoodonehascookedonadisposableplatefollowsacompletelydifferentagenda.Thus,thefinalformofthepracticeisapseudo-giftbecauseitunderminesthesolidarityamongneighborsbylooseningthesocialtiesamongthem(hencethereasonforcallingitpseudo)whilestillhavingthepotentialtomaintainsolidarityamongneighborsduetoitsbeingneartoapuregift.

Conclusion: Gift is not only the Present, but also the FutureAsaconclusionitcanbeclaimedthatwithinafinancializedandatomizedworld

where inter-neighbor relations have experienced dramatic changes, the practice ofexchanginggiftsmaytakeontheformofapseudo-giftaswellastheformofadebtrelation.Whatpushesapuregiftclosertoadebtrelationistheprincipleofreciprocity.InthecaseofTurkishwomen’spracticeoffoodoffering,amaterialhau,toputitinMauss’terms,intheformofaceramicnecessitatessuchreciprocity.However,inanatomizedworldwhereneighborsresideinpreviouslyunseenresidentialarrangements,thereciprocitymaynotfindalinktorealizeitself.Inthisspecificcase,particulartacticsandstrategies(i.e.,usingdisposableplatesastheconveyer)employedbysocialagents(i.e.,women)erodethebondsandtiesofpossiblewaystoreciprocate.ItcanbeseenthathowTurkishwomen’spracticesofofferingfoodhavechangedtogetherwiththiserosionhavepavedthewaytopresentanalternativecircularhistoryofevolvingmodesof exchange to the linear histories described byopera magnum in the sociologicalliterature.Forasaconsequenceofchangingrelationsamongneighborsovertimeandof technology,womenhaveopted tooffer theirneighbor’sportionusingdisposableplates.Thisacthasstartedtoprecludeneighbors’beingputintodebtbyeliminatingtheobjectthatcausesindebtedness,namelytheceramicplate.ThisisthecircularhistoryofTurkishwomen’spracticeoffoodoffering:transformingfrombeingapuregiftintoaformofindebtednessandthenintoapseudo-gift.

Agiftmaintainsand/orstrengthensarelationbetweentwoindividuals.Evenadebtrelationmayfacilitatesolidaritybetweenpeoplewhilealsobeingacauseforconflictbetweenthem.Nevertheless,placingalimitoninter-neighborrelationsbyofferingashareofthefoodonehascookedonadisposableplatefollowsacompletelydifferent


111

agenda.Thus,thefinalformofthepracticeisapseudo-giftbecauseitunderminesthesolidarityamongneighborsbylooseningthesocialtiesamongthem(hencethereason forcalling itpseudo)while stillhaving thepotential tomaintainsolidarityamongneighborsduetoitsbeingneartoapuregift.

ReferencesDerrida,J.(1992).Given time: I. Counterfeit money(P.Kamuf,Trans.).Chicago,IL:Universityof

ChicagoPress.

Godelier,M.(1999).The enigma of the gift(N.Scott,Trans.).Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.Karatani, K. (2014). The structure of world history: From modes of production to modes of

exchange.London,UK:DukeUniversityPress.Malinowski,B. (1922).Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and

adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea.NewYork,NY:E.P.Dutton&Co.Mauss,M.(2002).The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies.London,UK:

Routledge.

Polanyi,K. (2001).The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston,MA:BeaconPress.

Sahlins,M.(1972).Stone age economics.Chicago,IL:Aldine-Atherton.Sherry,J.F.(1983).Giftgivinginanthropologicalperspective.Journal of Consumer Research, 10,

157–168.

armağan yalnızca atiye değil ayrıca Âtîdir: türk ... · Öz: mübadele tarzları...

Documents