The Guardian has been having a debate recently about whether wedding lists are a good or a bad thing, started by this piece and followed by this one. What neither article identified is the real genius of wedding lists, namely that they involve a gift economy with maximum fungibility... or nearly maximum fungibility, as I will explain in a moment.
What the authors don't point out is that the bride and groom are not compelled to receive the gifts that are actually selected. If, for example, a wedding list includes 12 plates and one flat-screen TV, but only 10 plates are selected by various attendees, the couple are permitted to shift this 'credit' towards the cost of the flat screen TV. The alternative would be for them to end up with lots of incomplete sets of crockery and cutlery. This solves a fundamental problem of gift economies, which is the difficulty of converting one gift into another, but without resorting to use of money. Both giver and receiver have their choices maximised (giver gets to choose how much to spend; receiver chooses what utility to receive) in a way that is usually only possible in markets.
However, I think I can go one better. Imagine a version of the wedding list in which the giver gets to determine the exact price of their gift, and not simply select the product that corresponds most closely to it. Then imagine that this gave the recipient total freedom over how its used, and not simply a range of finite products with which to make their home more useful or comfortable. Then also imagine that this is still not a gift of money.
That's right, readers: when I get married, each invite will contain details of my Oyster Card, with a request to top it up online. Georg Simmel would be proud...
We tried a different strategy because we were merging two houses into one and already had 2 of everything "housey".
We started a gift account at an art gallery local to where we got married and people bought vouchers which we could then go in and choose. the good thing was that it showcased local artists so had a constantly changing inventory. in fact I think we are still in credit 2 years later. The reasoning was that noone would try to buy art for someone else but they felt that at least it wasn't art. Mauss would have been proud as it worked a treat and we didn't get any dodgy looking crystal or bath towels.
Posted by: Bruce Davis | June 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM
oops - second 'art' should be 'at least it wasn't money'. it wasn't necessarily art either but I know what I like
Posted by: Bruce Davis | June 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I'm not sure that even a Picasso has the full modernist potential of the unlimited freedom of the London bus and tube network. I ommitted to mention that cash performs a crucial function in the pocket of the flaneur, which also needs substituting for.
My idea still wins. Then again, I might need to grow up a little if I'm getting married.
Posted by: Will Davies | June 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM