Displays of Authenticity (11)—Valentine's Day

Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series Displays of Authenticity.

It's Valentine's Day, and all over the world gendered giving and receiving is taking place. You may wonder why I am being so evasive. It's because I have lived in Japan. More on that later. Or...o.k., right now. On 2/14, women in Japan give gifts to men; on 3/14, men give gifts in return. There is nothing simple about it (the cultural rules and expectations on all sides of all oceans are complex). Still, simple or not, it boils down to this: there are gifts, and there are replies.

[b] Sugary RF

Today, though, I simply want to explore some of the ideas behind this little holiday dating back to the late-fifth century (and pushing even further into the Roman past if you wish to pursue the threads). On top of that, I am going to take the little slice of time and space that is called the United States in the early twenty-first century and, from there, think a little bit about how "authenticity" is constructed around this holiday. Mostly, I just have a basketful of observations and questions. That is what anthropologists do. Historians? We just take all of those questions and observations and bring them to periods for which we have insufficient sources. It's a little bit like living the movie Memento. This is an apt historiographical point, but a peculiarly inapt one to make on...Valentine's Day.

[c] 1911 RF

Let's get to love, like, infatuation, and their cultural representations. So I've been reading newspapers and magazines the last few days, checking diverse websites, listening to radio advertisements, and even watching a bit of television. I am an ethnographer, and Valentinal (not venal) authenticity is my prey (to coin an adjective). Sports pages are especially rich in proddings and pryings meant to stimulate (as I take it) a combination of heterosexual guilt and desire. Beer commercials have given way, just a bit at least, to flowers, candies, and teddy bears.

What's going on here? The ads are overwhelmingly geared toward men in heterosexual relationships. I'll save for another day a deeper look at the gender politics of Valentine's day in the United States, but it was difficult not to see a cluster of commodities that seem genuinely (authentically?) geared toward this holiday. Roses. Check. These remain the big deal, and two dozen works better than one, we have been told. Indeed, the number and color symbolism of the rose has been analyzed and retailed to baffling degrees. 

[d] Ours RF

What about other gifts? What seems "authentic" on Valentine's Day? Jewelry? Yes. Chocolates? Yes. And so forth. The real question, it seems to me, is how they are mixed, matched, combined, and given. What is the role of dinner in the equation? And how does anyone know how to do it right? If you read social theory, Pierre Bourdieu is lurking in the background here.

Have you ever experienced (or, preferably, just heard about) Valentine's Day overkill—gifts so outrageous for the situation that everyone is embarrassed? I thought so. This particular form of holiday giving is as expensive as it is "inauthentic." Ever heard a story about a simple card and love pouring from two linked hearts? Yup. It's a trope (in a good way...and only if you accept a generic definition of the word "trope").

[e] Authentic? RF

A four-foot teddy bear? At least one company would like you to ditch the chocolates and flowers and get (her) a furry blob the size of a Shetland pony.

What is authenticity? 

I have a peculiar answer today. Instead of defining it (beyond mentioning chocolates, flowers, and teddy bears), I am merely going to quote one of the most famous passages in the history of social theory. Marcel Mauss's introductory remarks in L'essai sur le don (The Gift) says it all. You see, Valentine's Day authenticity has everything to do with reciprocity. That may seem like an evasive answer, and (on the surface) it might be. When you get deeply down into things, though, you will see that it is the entire point.  

Authenticity is about reciprocity.  

If you can really get your thinking around that idea, you've got it. It isn't the thing (we have all been misled on that point). It is the thing being returned...and reciprocated. If you can get your head around that...you will understand a big chunk of everything.

If you were hoping for the answer for the perfectly authentic Valentine's Day gift, well, you haven't been listening clearly. It's not the thing; it's the exchange. Think, reflect, and change your life. You and your loved ones will revel in getting it.

It's not the gift. It's the relationship. What a concept (for everyone, regardless of time, space, or affiliation). No...this is not easy reading. If I have intrigued you enough to read Marcel Mauss's The Gift, I have succeeded. It is one of the great works of the last two centuries. As for Valentine's Day, you probably (at this point) need more time to reflect upon these matters. In the short run, my advice is to buy lots of chocolates, flowers, and teddies. Give it another year, though, and you just might buy the love of your life a book...or a CD...or a health club membership. Authenticity? Heck. It is all about reciprocity. Think about it. 

The Gift (L'essai sur le don)
Marcel Mauss (1923)

[f] Reciprocity ADV

I not only follows after the first recipient, and even, if the occasion arises, a third person, but after any individual to whom the taonga is merely passed on. In reality, it is the hau that wishes to return to its birthplace, to the sanctuary of the forest and the clan, and to teh owner. The taonga or its hau—which is itself moreover possesses a kind of individuality—is attached to this chain of users until these give back from their own property, their taonga, their goods, or from their labour or trading, by way of feasts, festivals, and presents, the equivalent or something of even greater value. This in turn will give the donors authority and power over the first donor, who has become the last recipient. This is the key idea that in Samoa and New Zealand seems to dominate the obligatory circulation of wealth, tribute,and gifts.

[g] Happy! RF

Such a fact throws light upon two important systems of social phenomena in Polynesia and even outside that area. First, we can grasp the nature of the legal tie that arises through the passing on of a thing. We shall come back presently to this point, when we show how these can contribute to a general theory of obligation. For the time being, however, it is clear that in Maori law, the legal tie, a tie occurring through things, is one between souls, because the thing itself possesses a soul, is of the soul. Hence it follows that to make a gift of something to someone is to make a present of some part of oneself. Next, in this way we can better account for the nature of exchange through gifts, of everything that we call "total services," and among these, potlatch. In this system of ideas one clearly and logically realizes that one must give back to another person what is really part and parcel of his nature and substance, because to accept something because to accept something from somebody is to accept some part of his spiritual essence, of his soul. 

To retain that thing would be dangerous and mortal, not only because it would be against law and mortality, but also because that thing coming from the person not only morally, but physically and spiritually, that essence, that food, those goods, whether movable or immovable, those women or those descendants, those rituals or those acts of communion—all exert a magical or religious hold over you. Finally, the thing given is not inactive. Invested with life, often possessing individuality, it seeks to return what Hertz called its "place of origin" or to produce, on behalf of the clan and the native soil from which it sprang, an equivalent to replace it.

[h] Gift-giving-eating RF