The Art Of Giving
A Socio-Historical Perspective

John Samuel

The art of giving is as old as human relationship and civilisation. Charity begins at home, the old Jewish saying, exemplifies some of the basic characteristics of ‘giving’ in the making of even the most primary relationship and kinship ties. The institutionalisation of giving is one of the most telling characteristics of almost all major civilisations and ethical traditions. A historical understanding of ‘giving’ shows the theological, ethical and socio-economic roots of the institution of giving. The vedic notion of daana, the Christian notion of charity, the Islamic doctrine of zakaat and the Greek idea of philanthropy and altruism point to the universal validity of ‘giving’ as a primary socio-religious need. Giving to the God and people became an inherent ingredient of religious or spiritual devotion and considered as a necessary human virtue. The growth and sustenance of the institution of giving can be better understood in the context socio-economic and political changes. The role ‘mutual aid’ in the making of human civilisation found expression in Darwin’s famous theory of ‘the law of mutual aid’. Anthropological and historical studies on gift making clearly show the important social and economic functions of ‘giving’ as a means of redistribution of social wealth or as a mode of exchanging goods in a pre-market economy.


The origins of ‘giving’ can be traced back to the very beginning of human evolution, right from the period of savagery. Studies by Darwin, Peter Kropotkin and Kesseler1 show that mutual aid formed an important aspect of the evolutionary process, for physical weakness of human beings can be counter-balanced only through their intellectual faculties and social qualities which lead them to give and receive aid from other men or women. Mutual aid form the basis of joint hunting expeditions or collective agricultural operation and provided some socio-economic security to the primitive communities. In almost all tribal cultures, the mutuality and reciprocity of aid form an important aspect of their communitarian living and collective spirit. In many tribal cultures people share the existing surplus food in the hope that they will get it back in the hour of need. In societies with a pastoral economy or shifting cultivation, gift making can be seen as an aspect of redistribution of communal wealth. Prior to the growth of personal property, the accumulation of the surplus was not meant for the benefit of an individual but in the interest of collectives. This give rise to the periodic distribution of wealth owned in common by the whole group. In a pastoral order, war was one of the chief sources of accumulating wealth. The distribution of the spoils of war among the community members by the Chieftain helped him to derive a sense power and authority within the community or tribal clan.

The sociological beginning of the institution gift making is best explained in the work of Marcel Mauss. His classic study, Essai sur le don (paris 1925) (translated as The Gift (1954) in English), shows that the exchange of gifts is the very means by which value can be taught and understood in a society; provoking people to productivity but at the same time inspiring a sense of an intangible presence in the things to be distributed. Mauss rightly pointed out that “spirit of gift exchanges is charecteristic of societies which have not yet reached the state of pure individual contract, the money market, sale proper and fixed prize”. In his sociological analysis of Poltatch, practised by Kwakiutul tribe in the North-West cost of America, the custom of an ostentatious distribution of gifts is linked to the social stratification and the perceived status or power one achieve by giving more within the community. The significance of Mauss study is that it treats the institution of gift making in totality. With considerable anthropological evidence he explain Poltatch as a ‘total’ phenomena with legal, religious, economic and social implications. Through Poltatch, the donor invested capital that gave him high status in the community. In a sense he ‘lent’ gifts to the community with the expectation that he would get back all the distributed items with interest at a future Poltatch. The distribution of gifts by a tribal chief acting as a host to the other chiefs and kins men has very strong political connotations. The traditional feast and distribution at Poltatch is almost like a squandering march, a direct challenge to those who are now obliged to repay with equal munificence or else endure a loss of prestige and power in the clan or tribe2. Such an exchange of gifts was not only an effective means asserting political power but also a mode of keeping goods in circulation in an economy devoid of the notion of money. One of the interesting aspect of a socially institutionalised form of aid is that ‘giving’ is never a one-way process. Though all gifts are supposed to be voluntary, disinterested and spontaneous, studies indicate that exchange of gifts are often motivated by societal obligation as well as self interest. This help us to get a sense of the underlying political economy of aid that continued right from the beginning of human civilisation to the highly institutionalised form of the contemporary international aid system.

The distributory function of gift making continued even in a commercially more advanced economy. In a stratified socio-economic order, the institutions of gift making also served as a sort of levelling mechanism. In the course of history, gift making in the form of charity and religious benefaction found to as an instrument of diverting some of the surpluses concentrated in the hands of very rich towards the marginalised sections. As it has been pointed out elsewhere3 “The economies of egalitarian societies are primarily organised through reciprocity; those of rank societies through redistribution, and those of stratified societies through market exchange”. In all these socio-economic formations the exchange of gift or mutual aid serve a social, political and ethical function. The historical studies by D.D. Kosambi, Romila Thaper and R. S. Sharma clearly stress the socio-economic functions of gift making as socio-religious institution. In his study of Rigveda, J. Gonda provides a sociological analysis through etymological discussions of the term ‘daana’ and explain the motives of giftmaking and its role in sustaining social relationship.


Religious and Ethical traditions

The terms such as charity, daana and zakaat have very clear theological and ethical connotations. All major religious traditions emphasise the predominant role of giving for a larger cause. The two important aspects of gift making in the religious context are : (a) gift giving is incorporated in variety of ways within the religious customs and sanctions that regulate social behaviour and (b) gift giving is an offering to deity or deities, an essential part of rituals and sacrifices. Both aspects of such gift giving signify the relationship and obligation between the God and human beings and the mutual relationship between human beings themselves.

The mutual relationship between within an society or community is perceived as an extension or reflection of the perennial relationship between the God and the devotees. The Ishopanishad puts it succinctly “Whatever in this world is HIS. Only those who have received, who has given”. The term Daana occurs repeatedly in the Rigveda and other vedic literature. In its broadest sense it means unilateral giftmaking. It denotes not only monetary endowment and gifts to monks and Brahmins, but also alms to beggars or needy travellers, the construction of vihaaras, alms halls rest-houses, wells and other works of public welfare. The importance of giving during the vedic period is evident in a verse of the Tattiriya Aaranyaka. “Everything rests on daana. Through it those who hates become friends”. Mamhati a synonym for daana is used in the Rigveda in the dual sense of “to give or to grow or increase”. One of the hyms from Rigveda show the element of expectations and reciprocity involved in the process of giving “Bounteous is he who gives unto the beggar, who comes to him in want of food and feeble. Success attends him in the shout of battle. He makes a friend of him in future trouble” (RV x.117). This idea finds greater clarity in the Dharmasaatra texts. Though during the vedic period daana was more or less confined to the occasions of big sacrifices, patronised by chieftains or Kings, later on in post Vedic period daana has become much more prevalent practise among the common people. The Buddhist and Jainist movement from the sixth century BC onwards gave rise to a large number of renounces and wandering mendicants who lived exclusively on alms. Such alms (bhikshaa) are described as daana in the early Paali and Sanskrit texts. There are extensive description about the typology and norms of daana in the early Buddhist literature. Daana is classified as dhammadaanam (gift of spiritual blessings) and aamisadaanam (gift of temporal blessings). In the process of codification of religious practices giftmaking became an obligatory religious practice. Manusmruti clearly ordains : “Let him (householder) without tiring always offer sacrifices and performs work of charity with faith”.

The motives for gift making is best explained in the ancient Sanskrit literature and Puranas. In the Mahabharata, Bhishma tells Yudhisthara “Indeed, I shall tell you , how gift should be made unto all the orders of men. From desire of merit, from desire of profits, from fear, from free choice and from pity gifts are made”. In the Buddhist and Jaina inscriptions, there are numerous indications about the motives of the donor The underlying motives of self interest and egotism behind gift making was sought to be reduced by lawgivers. Daana is classified in the Bhagavadgita into three comparable categories viz., rajasa tamasa and saattvika. While tamasa and rajasa categories imply relatively a high amount self interest, Saattvika daana imply more of self-less giving.

An important principle of Greek religion and social thought was that divinity is good and the cause of good. Neither God or man/woman can be really good without communicating goodness to others. The term charity is derived from the Latin caritas and can be traced back to the Greek charis. The Greek charis originally meant a gift or favour inspired the Charites (the three Graces), goddesses who personified not only physical attributes such as charm, grace and beauty but also kindness good-will and gratitude. In the ancient socio-religious practise of Greek, charity was perceived as a duty toward all “broken and humanity wherever found”. It was a moral and religious obligation. In the Greek as well a Christian religious tradition, charity has conceptually meant both possessive and self-less love as well as favour, grace, mercy, kindness, righteousness and liberality. The practical application of charity denotes the distribution of goods and service to the poor and the destitute.

The Christian notion of charity is greatly influenced by the Hebrew thought which itself was influenced by the Babylonian, Egyptian and other cultures of Near East. The Christian charity can be theologically understood better in relation to the Hebrew term aheb and the Greek agape. These terms theologically denote Divine Love; God’s Love for human beings and vice versa and love among human beings. Ones love for other people is a reflection of one’s love for God. The New Testament teaching stress that “love is of God ...and he who does not love does not know God; for God is Love” God’s love requires men love one another. This moral obligations arising from such theological and societal relationship can be seen as one of the motivating forces behind the institutionalised form of giftmaking. “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord and he will reward him for what he has done” (Proverb 19:17, The Bible). In the early Christian community surrendering one’s wealth to the community for equitable distribution was obligatory. Apart from general charity, the New Testament prescribes all believers to offer ten percent of income as a measure for gratitude for God


In the Islamic tradition charity include both voluntary offering (sadaqaat) and legally prescribed ones (zakaat) and good treatment of parents, orphans and the elderly. A summary of Islam’s moral code on charity is given in the Quraan’s seventeenth surah (23-39): “The Lord has decreed .....kindness to parents...Give the kinsman his due and the needy and the wayfarer....Come not near the wealth of the orphan”. As per the Islamic tradition, God is Omnipotent and human beings not only receive God’s mercy but also in danger of incurring his wrath. Hence a believer needs to serve God regularly by means good works and giftmaking.


One of the most important ethical underpinning of the act of giving is the principle of social justice and equality. The evidence from ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilisations indicate that charity in the sense of social justice was a predominant ethical principle. The reforms of King Urukagina (2400 BC) indicate that “he freed the inhabitants of Lagash from usury...hunger....The widow and orphans were no longer at the mercy of the powerful”. The ideals of giftmaking and charity were redefined from time to time in consonance with the socio-economic and political changes from time to time. Socio-political circumstances like human oppression and suffering paved way for reform movement that sought to redefine the basic religious and ethical principles and ideals. Thus with the advent of Buddhism and Jainism from 6th century onwards gave sought to redefine the concept of daana. In the ancient Egyptian tradition, the goddess Nanshe and the god Utu, the orphan’s mother and father, were the guarantors of justice, cared for the widow, sought out justice for the poorest and brought refugees shelter. Probably the first legislation on social justice was by the King Hammurabi (1750 BC) when he sought to eliminate the social inequity that had been perpetuated by the elites in the Babylonian society. An element social justice in the institutionalised form giftmaking was prevalent in the Greek as well as Hebrew tradition. The Old Testament God is a God of Justice. “If a man shuts his ear to the cry of poor he too will cry and not be answered. A gift given in secret sooths anger... when justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to the evil doers” (Proverb 21. 13-15 the Bible).

In the Greek tradition the Stoics gave great emphasis to the principle of social justice. The practice of philanthropia was accompanied by the ideal of social justice .The ideal of social justice was incorporated in the institutions of gift making partly because of ethical validity and to a large extent because of political strategy. The ethical principles are clearer in the Hebrew tradition. In Judaism, the highest form of charity is not to give alms but to help the poor rehabilitate themselves by lending them money, taking them into partnership or employing them. Charity or the act of giving was not supposed to undermine the dignity and self-respect of the recipient of gift .The strategic aspect of giftmaking, with social justice, is underscored by Aristotle as well as Kautilya. Aristotle maintained that prevalence of poverty can lead to the erosion of a democratic state and can form the basis of social revolts (Politics 6.3-4). Kautilya stressed the diplomatic function of daana for winning over the people in a newly occupied area. The strategic use of institution of giftmaking as political tool to diffuse social crisis was clear in many of the ancient Indian literature.

Historically the growth of the institutions of giftmaking is on the hand derived from the socio-religious ethos and on the other hand continuously remoulded by the prevailing socio-economic and political equations from time to time. There are number of Buddhist inscription indicating that the monastic caves were mostly patronised and liberally supported by merchants. The close connection between Karle caves and the merchant community is evident in Karle inscriptions. The growth of individualism and the institutionalised form of Philanthropy also seemed to be closely connected. The institutionalised form of gift making in the colonial era grew in close relation to the trade and process of colonilisation.

Though the basic teachings of almost all religious and ethical streams give great validity to the act of giving, one can find the underplay of power relations in almost all the traditions. While the act of giving is supposed to be a self-less act, almost all teachings emphasise the moral obligation by providing the hope that giving helps to gain more reward in the future, either from an all benevolent or Omnipotent God or from the future course of events. Charity has become almost like a means for exchanging material gifts for divine bounties. While theologically and ethically this is an effective persuasive factor, the formal institutions of almost all religious stream subverted this noble idea into a revenue earning mechanism. In the course of history, the vedic and upanishadic tradition of Daana has been subverted into a series of ritual practices and income generation for the priestly class. A formalised and politically powerful Church made it obligatory to pay for sustaining its institutions and political predominance. Particularly during the medieval period the formalised religious institutions extracted as much as they can in the name of God. It was after renaissance and the seventeenth century Enlightenment, some of the original motives and ethical streams of charity was reclaimed.


The present of international aid system seem to have assimilated both ethical as well as strategic aspect of giftmaking. The contemporary form of international aid system can be traced back to the Marshall plan in the fiftees to provide aid for the reconstruction of European nations in the aftermath of the second world war. The highly institutionalised aid system clearly reflect the tension between ‘daana or charity’ as an ethical ideal and the modern aid system as strategic political and economic tool. A socio-historical perspective of the aid system becomes important to rediscover the ethical spirit of giving in an increasingly dehumanised system of international aid.

Notes :
1. (a) Charlers Darwin - The Descent of Man
(b).Kessler - The Law of Mutual Aid
(c). Peter Krpotkin - Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution
2. Dretmeier - Kinship and Community in Early India
3. Serena Nanda - Cultural Anthropology Pg. 176