It was an early lesson for me. I shared a ten-foot by twelve-foot bedroom with my two brothers until I left for college. While living in our modest home, I shared its one bathroom with my two parents and five siblings. My timing and use of space had to consider the needs of seven other family members. Harmony was maintained when all eight of us shared with each other. Community harmony is established by expanding this concept to all resources necessary for living.
During the fur trading era, sharing was expressed by how Native peoples conducted themselves. All individual trappers, regardless of success rate, turned their furs over to whoever was best at negotiating with white traders. When the pile of furs was exchanged for a pile of goods, community leadership distributed the goods based on need. Whoever did not have an iron pot got one. Blankets were passed out to whoever needed them. Muskets were passed only to those not yet possessing a firearm. French fur traders honored and followed this system, recognizing its usefulness in maintaining community and business relationships. The English fur companies intentionally worked at breaking the “chief system” by negotiating with individual trappers of varying success rates. This allowed individually successful native trappers to do their own distribution of goods, undermining the power of tribal leadership and breaking down traditional community. The English valued individual accumulation of wealth over social harmony. It was an early colonizing impact based on not sharing.
First Nations living along the Pacific Ocean coast institutionalized sharing in the complex system called “potlatch”. Accumulating individual wealth with the goal of giving it away had deep kinship, social, economic, political, and spiritual meaning within many tribes. It is an extraordinary and complex example of giving. Anthropologists and economists refer to it as a “gifting economy” where social and economic prestige is not anchored in the accumulation of wealth but in “gifting” wealth to community members and neighboring tribes. The Canadian Indian Act of 1884 made potlatching illegal. Missionaries and government agents saw the ceremonies as an impediment to Christianizing and westernizing Native peoples. The colonizers saw potlatching as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to “civilized values” of accumulation. The potlatch ban was overturned in 1951.
A “gift economy” or “gift culture” is defined as a system of exchange where valuables are not sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or future reward (Cheal, David J [1988]. The Gift Economy). A gift economy is in contrast to bartering or a market economy, where there is an explicit exchange of value. Some anthropologists argue that gift economies build community while market economies harm community relationships by creating imbalances, resulting in envy, greed, jealousy, resentment, etc.
The argument that sharing builds community is proven in most homes with children and every young child’s classroom. These settings are where this basic human skill is learned by practice. Home and classroom harmony is based on sharing space and resources. Every young child gets the message to share. However, emerging young adults are expected to focus on individualism, not the development of community. So, what happens to the sharing ethic when these children find themselves entering an adult society that expects and facilitates personal accumulation, often at the expense of others?
One answer might be found in the Protestant Reformation of 1517, when Martin Luther published his “Ninety-Five Theses”. Within his writing was the assertion that earthly work was an act of faith. Dedication to whatever job an individual had was a dedication to God. Hard work and its economic and social rewards became defined as the “protestant work ethic”. The ethic inspired men to be responsible to themselves, their society, and their God. Accumulation of wealth and power was seen as earthly rewards for hard work and an acknowledgement from God of being on the right track. Giving and sharing with the greater society is exemplified by the Carnegie libraries and Rockefeller Center as part of a correct relationship with earthly rewards, society, and commitment to God. However, sharing with individuals was interpreted differently by the protestant work ethic. The ethic defined individuals without success as deficient in their commitment to work and God. The assumption by those with success was that everyone could have the same rewards by making a correction within themselves. Outside help or sharing would impede that internal, personal correction.
This worldview was for the benefit of (some) white men. Women were expected to marry “correctly” for their share of God’s favor. My maternal grandmother, a German Lutheran, had several brothers who became multi-millionaires in publishing and manufacturing during WWI and WWII. However, they didn’t share with their sister as she married a “dirt farmer”. My grandfather owned two hundred acres of farmland. He was a well-respected township supervisor, but was “cash poor,” indicating to the uncles some ethical flaws. Further
distance from family grace was created when my mother married my father, who needed the income from three simultaneous jobs to support his family while being a church elder. My wealthy great uncles didn’t share for fear of disincentivizing the path to fix what they saw as incorrect relationships with work and God, indicated by our family’s lack of wealth and social standing.
Martin Luther’s religious writings have been corrupted by secular influence and the market economies of modern times. The economically poor are vilified as lazy and unworthy of “salvation” (safety nets) while celebrities and the wealthy are esteemed and emulated. The original tenet to use wealth for the betterment of community and nation is diminished by competition for top spots on any number of “wealthiest men” lists. Wealth and celebrity status have become the goal in the market-driven economy of a society untethered by a spiritual and moral commitment to humanity. Winning this competition is based on sharing little accumulated wealth or none at all, as demonstrated by the extreme imbalance of wealth and assets in America. It is an egotistical contest about being recognized by society while ignoring the community and its needs. It is a one-way mission of hoarding resources for a static scorecard instead of shepherding assets to a dynamic process in the community.
In spite of economic pressure, most individuals and communities share because we were taught to do so as children. Mature adults recognize the goodwill and harmony created in sharing what we can as remnants of ancient civility. As larger institutions and “newsworthy” people compete for top spots in economic and political realms, at the expense of civility, it is important for individuals and communities to insist on and participate in a “gifting economy” where morality and humanity are top priorities.
