According to Emerson, gifts should not be given to cater to the needs of the recipient. Gifts should come from a person’s heart and pertain to the giver’s profession or relationship with the recipient. Emerson states that gifts which only satisfy one’s needs are too easy for someone to give. Also, the giver should not overindulge in the satisfaction that sometimes comes from giving. If a giver is too satisfied with the feeling of giving, the giver is not actually giving but receiving.
A recipient, according to Emerson, should never show hatred for the gifts that he or she receives. However, a recipient should not be overly pleased with the gift that is received, as that would convey that the relationship can be represented by something material. Also, recipients should not try to “flatter their benefactors” after receiving a gift.
Emerson, through talking about the acceptance and giving of gifts, comments on the desire of Americans to want everything in sight when he discusses the negative feeling that Americans have about the lack of receiving gifts. Also, Emerson mentions the desire of Americans to be self sustained and individualist.
Emerson is critiquing the materialistic tendencies of relationships in the United States at the time. Emerson displays disapproval for the common idea that Americans accuse society of not giving gifts to others as if it were a crime. Not all of Emerson’s commentary, however, is necessarily negative. Emerson does not necessarily put down American society when he says that “The hand that feeds us is in danger of being bitten,” meaning that Americans, in Emerson’s mind, are self-sustaining and individualist, two values that are constantly praised by transcendentalists like Emerson.
I cannot think of an Emersonian gift that I have given or received off hand. At the current moment, I think that the best gift I could give someone is one of the two board games that I have designed in the past two years. Even if the recipient does not enjoy board games, these board games are a product of my interests and therefore could be considered Emersonian gifts. When played, the players can see (with enough experience) the characteristics they share with other board games and with the books I have read. Although this gift does have the potential to be an "easy" gift, as in many cases it may satisfy one's desires, many recipients probably would not have wanted a game of any kind above other possible gifts.
One problem with this gift, however, is that it is hard to not expect something in return. I might expect the recipient to try the game or to react to its concept. From their comments, I might receive more help or important information than I gave the recipient in the game. I think that this principle might apply to all gifts. It is hard, if not impossible, to follow all of Emerson's principles when giving someone a gift.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Aaron, I believe your right. Emerson is critiquing culture in terms of its materialism. I agree with Emerson on this point and it can be applied to today's world. I believe some Americans are too concerned with worldly and material items that they miss some of the deeper meanings of life. I hope this changes soon because this path can be dangerous.
On the other hand, I do not agree with Emerson on his idea of gifts. I believe that some material gifts can be useful and do mean a lot. I wrote in my blog about a necklace that I gave to my mom one Christmas. It was meaningful because it was something she would like and I spend good time and money to get it for her. This shows how much I care for her. This situation can be applied to any gift giving situation.
It is important to distinguish my two points. Material gifts can mean a lot but it is when people only think about the gift and not the meaning behind the gift does it become a problem. There is nothing wrong with giving material gifts. The problem arises when the gift is more important than the gift-giver.
What I think is interesting is that Emerson lived some time ago and yet his insight is so applicable today. America goes through the same problems that you mentioned to this day. This is reflected in our current economic crisis, (which actually is more complicated than just materialism and such) but immediate material gratification is preached to us from a very young age. We spend years sitting in front of the television, watching some pointless story most times while ads are constantly flashed at us, it is no wonder we are where are are today.
This is why emerson's idea of a gift is so difficult of a concept for us. We are in an environment where Emersonian gifts are very rare, and don't match with what the society tells us constantly.
In response to George, I understand your point about material things. But I do tend to agree more with Emerson. I believe that it is not the actual necklace that was the greatest part of the gift for your mother but the fact that you went to such great lengths to get it at an age where money isn't really something easy to get a hold of. I cannot speak on behalf of your mother or the occurance as I was not a part of it but that is my impression. Because it is more than a necklace that made it special. I do believe material things can be part of gifts but not gifts in themselves
Post a Comment