So, all of you who say you give gifts for the pleasure of giving. If you give gifts and get cold silence, and turned backs in return, do you still keep giving? Is it still a pleasure?
You see, in my mind, exchange is more than material things. It’s about relationships. We do use material things to symbolize feelings, but it’s about the relationship. I have a hard time believing that people will give and give into a black hole when they get nothing, not a peep, back. Isn’t that why we teach our children to write thank you letters? Isn’t that what formal politeness is about?
People want to be acknowledged for who they are, and the role they play in your life. Gifts are one way of doing that. It’s best, of course, when you give someone something that makes their eyes light up. But that’s the exchange you are receiving in return for your gift.
We say, “it’s the thought that counts,” and so we even look excited when we get a gift that we don’t care for, and will take back to the store for an exchange the next day. It’s about the thought. It really is. And the exchange is another thought: appreciation. And I seriously have a hard time believing any of you would keep on giving if you didn’t get appreciation. No one is that saintly. If Mother Theresa had gotten turned backs and approbation for helping the poor get housing and food in India, she wouldn’t have continued. I mean, why? What do you get out giving someone something they don’t want? Do you still feel good about yourself because you gave something useless and unwanted to the other person?
Gifts are symbols, just as words and hugs and everything we do is. A carefully made dinner says how much you care. And Trudacia, I have to wonder, if you were in my kitchen when I was making my autumn soup, I think there’s a good chance we’d become much more interested in each other. But this is not about individual persons. I’m married, and I’m not about to make my soup for someone who misinterprets my words, twists them around, and makes a personal dig at me. Next time, I hope you’ll read all my words, so you’ll see the context of those remarks.
I think we live in a web of social connections. The world is full of strings—metaphorical strings—that connect us, and nothing, not even gifts, comes without strings attached, as CAK suggests. She denigrates her own value when she says that others gave knowing she couldn’t give back. She gave back, and in spades, if I know anything about her. It just wasn’t material things that she gave back.
We live in a web of social connections, and that includes obligations. Maybe some would refer to it as guilt. Others believe they can never do enough. But we all have these ties: to family, to other people in so many contexts, to our pets, to nature in general; the list goes on and on.
When someone gives a gift, maybe to a stranger at a bar, or maybe to someone they know well, but have hurt badly, they are seeking to establish a stronger bond. The bonds are everywhere, but you can’t see them with your normal eyes.