notes to pages 99–110 181
niche (Southern Africa) and focused its effort there: “Enjoying a higher level of
socioeconomic development than most countries but still lacking the financial re-
sources of the great powers, Sweden could not afford to provide foreign aid to
all regions of the world, let alone to all countries within a particular region. Like
other middle powers, Sweden was forced to carve out an international niche by
focusing its foreign aid on carefully selected regions or individual countries.” By
focusing its effort on one region the Swedes hoped to gain more conspicuousness.
- Uvin notes that this argument is problematic because food aid only affects
a very small percentage of food stocks in donor countries. It can only be applied
to the first decade of American food aid, in which larger quantities of food were
supplied. Moreover, many donors do not have surpluses and have to purchase the
food for their aid programs in other countries. In fact in many cases food aid is
triangular — i.e., the donor pays for the recipient to buy food from another devel-
oping country — a very costly exercise to the donor (Uvin 1992 , 298 ). - Veblen’s work emphasizes the need to include social factors in economic
analysis as well: “To Veblen, however, the absence of profit calculations is merely
further evidence that economic behavior, primitive as well as modern, must be un-
derstood in broader sociological terms, the result of the deeper motives of prestige
and power” (Diggins 1999 , 96 ). - Mauss was influenced by Veblen’s work and referred to him as “the only
American sociologist of consequence” (Diggins 1999 , 96 ). - According to Derrida a pure gift should fulfill three conditions: it should
entail no expectation of reciprocity; in order for this to occur, it should not be rec-
ognized as a gift by the recipient, and the recipient should not see herself as a re-
cipient; similarly, it should not be recognized as a gift by the donor, and the donor
should not see herself as one (Derrida 1991 ). - Bataille ([ 1976 ] 1991 , 68 ) uses the potlatch example in order to emphasize
the importance of the publicity and conspicuousness of giving (or in the case of the
potlatch, of voluntary self- destruction): “If he destroys the object in solitude, in
silence, no sort of power would result from the act.... But if he destroys the object
in front of another or if he gives it away, the one who gives has actually acquired, in
the other’s eyes, the power of giving or destroying.... He is rich for having ostenta-
tiously consumed what is wealth only if it is consumed.” - In evolutionary terms, one of the shortcomings of this account is that it relies
on group selection. Although Darwin used group selection to explain human behav-
ior, subsequent research suggested that while group selection is theoretically plausi-
ble, it is so unlikely to occur that it can safely be ignored (Wilson 1998 ; Williams 1966 ;
Ruse 1980 ). In recent years, there has been a revival of interest among evolutionary
anthropologists in group selection, and recent theoretical models provide support
for its plausibility. Much of the study of group selection in evolutionary biology is
motivated by the need to explain prosociality (Boehm 1999 ; Wilson 1997 ; Wilson
and Sober 1994 ; Sober and Wilson 1998 ; Wilson 1998 ; Mayr 1997 ; Okasha 2001 ).