Extract
[...] Secondly, it is clear that for Maurice Godelier, the sacred has always been socially constructed. Sacred objects or beings become factors that rationalize the domination of men over women, elders over the young, and kings over subjects, for example. Since its existence resides in the imaginary, not in this world, and that the sacred enters as a validation of the social position of individuals, the latter cannot be "given" in exchange. It can only move individually to the extent that it evolves within the group for which it provides ethical legitimation. [...]
[...] Indeed, the powers of the sacred are often inspired by these things that symbolize them, making the boundary between the symbolic and the sacred eventually blurred. But the symbolic, as a general category, most often refers to non-sacred things; and we observe that these things are also commonly considered to be outside the domain of exchanges. II. The Sacred Object Therefore, Maurice Godelier, in his 'Enigma of the Gift', returns to many questions posed by Marcel Mauss in his famous 'Essay on the Gift'6 », and notably on 'the things that must not be sold or given, but must be transmitted'7» (Godelier, 1996). [...]
[...] In fact, in this current work, we will attempt, thanks notably to Mr. Godelier's book, to understand how the notion of the sacred can be correlated with the gift. This will allow us to appreciate the different kinds of gifts in our contemporary societies via notably charitable giving, in the light of our proposal on the relationship to the sacred and symbolism. I. The sacred, a story of social bond? For Maurice Godelier, the sacred is certain type of relationship between men and the origin of things5 » (Godelier, 1996). [...]
[...] The discussion by Maurice Godelier on Marcel Mauss could be considered as an intellectual history, and he certainly is interested in the process and change over time. However, a basic premise of the work, which he shares with Mauss and many theorists, is that the gift is an elementary social principle whose origins date back to the very beginning of collective life. He therefore addresses change in an evolutionary framework, which is reflected in his interest in the way in which relatively egalitarian systems of the 'Great Men'10 » transform into systems of Potlatch, or of Big Men. [...]
[...] In this sense, social charity, especially in our contemporary Western societies, remains prevalent by the predominantly Judeo-Christian tradition that is ours. It enters into a 'straight line' with a social organization. However, charitable giving can always 'stigmatize', to use the terminology of Erving Goffman14, disadvantaged populations, and can in some cases be instrumentalized. This is what the anthropologist Sandrine Chastang shows. According to her, 'giving food can also be a weapon because, contrary to what one imagines, the gift of food is not always generous. [...]
