Gift giving and the "rationality" of economics
Stephen Dubner, one of the Freaonomics guys, has an idea on how we can avoid all those unwanted holiday gifts: Simply ask for what we want.
From a purely rational point of view, he has a point. The problem I see is one that's an old story with economists: No matter how obvious it might be that we human beings are not completely rational, Mr. Dubner tries to pretend that we are. All too many economists will simply not acknowledge that this is any kind of limitation of their "science", no matter how obvious it may be. Don't get me wrong, I'm an unapologetic economics geek, but everything has its limits and acknowledging those limits is a necessary part of understanding the subject matter.
Even someone like me, usually an ardent defender of the rational, has to acknowledge that rationality can have its limits. By its nature, gift-giving is intertwined with all of the complexities and layers of human relationships. We simply shouldn't expect such things to be rational. And to me that's not a bad thing, because human beings are not simply billiard balls operating in a clockwork mechanistic Newtonian universe. If we were, the human experience would become rather meaningless. Hell, we've even discovered that atoms and subatomic particles are not simply billiard balls even though they are the very objects that prompted the invention of Newtonian physics in the first place.
Viviana Zelizer, the economic sociologist interviewed in the Marketplace story, has a very valid point when she says, "You should not have to ask because if you ask, it means you are spelling out what kind of relationship you have. And part of gift-giving is discovering it."
But I would not suggest that Professor Dubner is completely wrong either. In fact, like most of what he says, this idea makes a lot of sense. If asking for specific gifts works among certain groups of people, then by all means, they should do that. If other social circles find that something else works better or is more desirable, then they should also do what works for them. Human relationships are all different and we shouldn't pretend that we have to impose uniform standards on all of them.
But then what about all of the unwanted gifts? Well, all of those extra neckties and snow globs and other knick knacks are simply part of the price we pay for being human.
Of course, the unwanted knick knacks are also the major rationale of the multi-billion dollar gift certificate and gift card industry, which does make a positive contribution to the economy. And looking to the Internet, as we so often do in this day and age, gives us another good solution: the Amazon.com wish list. Wish lists can, in fact, give us the best of both worlds. Gift givers can browse these lists to get an idea of what their recipients like and want, giving some assurance that whatever gift is given won't be entirely unwanted and useless. At the same time, something of an element of surprise can be preserved, along with the opportunity for gift giving to help us discover the nature of our relationships.
From a purely rational point of view, he has a point. The problem I see is one that's an old story with economists: No matter how obvious it might be that we human beings are not completely rational, Mr. Dubner tries to pretend that we are. All too many economists will simply not acknowledge that this is any kind of limitation of their "science", no matter how obvious it may be. Don't get me wrong, I'm an unapologetic economics geek, but everything has its limits and acknowledging those limits is a necessary part of understanding the subject matter.
Even someone like me, usually an ardent defender of the rational, has to acknowledge that rationality can have its limits. By its nature, gift-giving is intertwined with all of the complexities and layers of human relationships. We simply shouldn't expect such things to be rational. And to me that's not a bad thing, because human beings are not simply billiard balls operating in a clockwork mechanistic Newtonian universe. If we were, the human experience would become rather meaningless. Hell, we've even discovered that atoms and subatomic particles are not simply billiard balls even though they are the very objects that prompted the invention of Newtonian physics in the first place.
Viviana Zelizer, the economic sociologist interviewed in the Marketplace story, has a very valid point when she says, "You should not have to ask because if you ask, it means you are spelling out what kind of relationship you have. And part of gift-giving is discovering it."
But I would not suggest that Professor Dubner is completely wrong either. In fact, like most of what he says, this idea makes a lot of sense. If asking for specific gifts works among certain groups of people, then by all means, they should do that. If other social circles find that something else works better or is more desirable, then they should also do what works for them. Human relationships are all different and we shouldn't pretend that we have to impose uniform standards on all of them.
But then what about all of the unwanted gifts? Well, all of those extra neckties and snow globs and other knick knacks are simply part of the price we pay for being human.
Of course, the unwanted knick knacks are also the major rationale of the multi-billion dollar gift certificate and gift card industry, which does make a positive contribution to the economy. And looking to the Internet, as we so often do in this day and age, gives us another good solution: the Amazon.com wish list. Wish lists can, in fact, give us the best of both worlds. Gift givers can browse these lists to get an idea of what their recipients like and want, giving some assurance that whatever gift is given won't be entirely unwanted and useless. At the same time, something of an element of surprise can be preserved, along with the opportunity for gift giving to help us discover the nature of our relationships.