Gift exchange is everywhere
The ability
to work together in a team is very important. Not only is this the case during
high school, university and work, but also just with daily life activities. I
believe that no one can live his or her life without any help of others. It is
in our nature that we have to depend on others to get certain things done and
gain from it. Of course we make our own choices but most of the time others
have influence on it.
Working in
a team requires helping each other because every person differs. This often
leads to gift exchange as in the meaning of exchange of knowledge. One might
have better skills in one area than another and by helping each other you can
learn from each other. My own experiences with team production started when I
was young. I have two siblings; one older brother and one younger brother, and
we are raised with the vision to always help each other if needed.
A memorable
moment was the help of my brother in order to hide my teat. At a certain age,
my parents believed that I was too old to still use a teat, but I loved it and
didn’t want to lose it. So my brother hid my teat in our bedroom behind the
curtain, with the thought that mom and dad wouldn’t find it. Beside this one
example, we worked together many other times to let one of us or both gain
something. Nearly always was there no financial motivation to help each other.
In relationships with family members and best friends, I agree strongly with
the statement of D. Brooks (2016), who says that ‘’the moral motivation is much
more powerful than the financial motivations.’’
However, I
don’t believe that the moral motivation is always much more powerful than the
financial motivation. Furthermore I believe that having rather financial
motivations instead of moral motivation in some cases isn’t directly a bad
thing. In certain situations can financial motivations be more effective than
relaying on moral motivations. Not for nothing there is bonus structure in
businesses, which lead to higher performance of employees. I believe it is in
our nature that we are willing to work harder if rewards are higher. It might
be immoral, but I think that we can’t do much about it.
Another
experience of team production during daily life is the help of friends in
certain situations. I believe that there is a non-stop gift exchange between
good friends, because you are always ready for each other; you got each other’s
back. In situations such as relationship problems, having fights while going
out and having trouble with a particular subject in school, good friends are
standing by side and offer help. To be always ready for each other, reminds me
of the theory of implicit contracts. With family and friends you kind of have
implicit contracts and moral motivation to stand side by side. If this all
would be captured in explicit contracts, it might lead to results as described
in the examples of D. Brooks (2016).
In the
article ‘How to get the rich to share the marbles’ J. Haidt describes an
experiment with children and the distribution of marbles. This reminds me of an
economic experiment of the distribution of cash. There is one person who can
receive for example 100 dollars but he will only get it if he gives a part of
it to someone else and that person have to accept it. In this experiment, if
the first person offers 1 dollar to the other person and keeps 99 dollar for
him or herself, the other person won’t accept this most of the time, because
the distribution is unequal; even while he or she now has 0 dollar instead of 1
dollar. From a rational viewpoint, the person who has to accept needs to accept
every offer, but as we see in this experiment inequality and morality play a
role. So most of the time, the distribution of the cash gets closer to an equal
distribution. But what if it isn’t 100 dollar to distribute, but 1 million?
Would the second person accept a 1% offer this time, thus get 10 thousand
dollars, or would he or she refuse it again as seen with the 100 dollar case?
Previous
examples and experiment have a lot to do with opportunism what I’ve written
about before. I believe that most of the people act less opportunistic when it
is morally unjustifiable. However, some people only believe in quid pro quo;
something for something, when they do a favor for someone else. I grew up and
got along that even doing a very small favor, such as giving a compliment to
someone else, can make other people feel much better. Thus, even if we just
watch one another or helping someone in need, there can be gift exchange from
both sides because others will watch you and help you too if needed.
Reference:
- David
Brooks (2016, July 8), The power of Altruism, The New York Times
- Jonathan
Haidt (2012, February 20), How to Get the Rich to Share the Marbles, The New York Times
Drawing from your example of being "good friends" to one another, how can society implement that moral motivation in situations where the involved parties aren't friends with one another. I think that is the interesting problem that some of these articles present. However, I do think that you're right in saying that there might not be very much we can do about the current construct in our society. Financial motivators play a large role in the actions of almost everyone, whether they be related to the direct financial benefits of a choice, or the potential future financial benefit.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that you were getting at in your final paragraph is the idea of paying it forward or good karma. In the US, a majority of kids are taught "The Golden Rule," as children, and it sounds like your parents instilled this principle in you as well. The idea behind the Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you want done unto yourself." If people embodied this principle throughout their lives, the world might be a much better place. But unfortunately, it doesn't seem like this is the case in most instances.
If parties aren't friends as we have seen in the articles, I believe that we act differently then that we act if they were good friends/family. In society is it indeed hard to say how big our moral motivation is in some situations. I think the goodwill factor also plays a role here.
DeleteBack in The Netherlands we also know this kind of 'Golden Rule' and often children grow up with it. My mother taught me this because I have never had any shortage in my life yet. I've been to many countries for holidays, visited amazing places, grew up in a good neighborhood, etc. So helping others is a small thing to do while it can give a huge advantage to others.
I also have a little brother and I can vouch for the excess of gift exchange. I can remember covering for each other when sneaking out of the house, helping each other fake sick to get out of school, and most memorably sneaking candy out of our Halloween stashes when we were really young. We weren't great kids. We still participate in gift exchange on a much tamer level. Last week there was leftover steak from a family dinner that I couldn't make it to. Later that night my little brother drove it over to me since I couldn't be there.
ReplyDeleteI find your sixth paragraph really interesting. It's almost a moral dilemma, weighing how much fairness really means to you. Like you said, for only a dollar, most people would be irrational and reject the offer because they don't believe it's fair. However, still for only 1%, they would probably accept an offer of $10,000 out of a million. I think that if a study could be performed, it would be found that most people accept offers at a certain dollar amount, regardless of the percentage of the total.
I have similar experiences with my brothers. We weren't that great kids too, especially my older brother had some problems during his puberty. However, after all we are all on the good road at the moment. I think it was just that time to try out new stuff etc. Since we both moved out our parents house, the contact between me and my brothers is less. That's why holidays and vacations are a perfect opportunity to get together again. I like your steak story, that shows real brother love and you should maintain such a relationship with your brother!
DeleteGift exchange within the family (in your case with your siblings) is interesting because they stay your family for your entire life and so there is definitely a repeated game aspect to it. In the repeated game you need not be moral to get cooperation out. (In our Excel homework, that depended on the probability of continuing. If it that probability was high enough then there is a cooperative equilibrium even though the situation is a Prisoner's Dilemma.) So, there are multiple possible causes in that case - with people behaving ethically a different possible cause.
ReplyDeleteIn other settings, the ethical situation will still be there but the repeated game explanation may not. What I find interesting and what may be the situation with siblings, is that you may start with the economic motivation to motivate over time but gravitate toward the ethical motivation over time. In the Haidt article, the marbles weren't shared when it was seen that the other kid didn't contribute. So you might want to consider whether older kids would have shared and/or what would it take to get that outcome.
As you may know, I am in Michigan now to visit my younger brother and his family. He is getting an award later today from the Medical School here. When we were kids, he tagged along with me and my friends. Sometime in between then and now, my motivation in interacting with him changed. What was a burden became a pleasure. I can't remember when that changeover occurred, but it did happen.
A related issue is whether these attitudes and lessons within the family transfer outwards to other interactions and, if so, how. That is something else to consider.
As soon as I read the 'repeated game aspect', I smiled. It's nice to see how many things have connections to economic topics. Indeed if its a repeated game, you can't cheat on each other because of the high depended probability or high 'cheat' fines.
DeleteIt would be interesting to see what would be the outcome in the marble game if there were kids with different ages. Would a older kid give marbles to a much younger kid because he feels 'guilty' or should he keep them because he knows that the younger kid can't stand up for himself. My brothers also gave me certain things which had less value to him (for example a small toy) but big value to me, because I was still 'young'.