You are here
The Gift
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
Gift disclosure and limitations are an important part of government
ethics. But rarely do we think of what gifts mean. Usually this goes
little further than politicians saying, "I can't be bought."
But gifts aren't about buying. In fact, gifts are the opposite of buying, according to Lewis Hyde in his 1983 book, The Gift. "[A] gift is a thing we do not get by our own efforts. We cannot buy it; we cannot acquire it through an act of will. It is bestowed upon us."
What is most important about gifts for our purposes is what Hyde shows the reader in his descriptions of gift-giving in primitive and modern societies: "the giving of a gift tends to establish a relationship between the parties involved."
We tend to think of political gifts in terms of quid pro quo, but something given with the expectation of something in return is not a gift at all. Even when it just looks a gift is not really a gift, it bothers us, it doesn't seem right, even when we're not talking about politicians. We exchange gifts, certainly, but we give them out of affection, not out of the desire to get something for ourselves. And when we give gifts to strangers, usually indirectly via charitable contribution, we expect nothing in return but the satisfaction of giving.
When we give a contribution to a politician, it is more self-serving, but not in any specific way. We want to be represented by someone whose views coincide with ours, or by someone we think will do a good job. This isn't really a gift, but an odd sort of investment that might pay off, but without the expectation of a specific return.
In our society, gifts are something different from what they used to be in more primitive societies. Gifts used to be part of a circle of giving. They were the way a tribe acknowledged and strengthened their communal relationship. Gifts were not meant to be consumed, at least not in full, or paid directly back, but passed on through a chain. Gift-giving was in the public interest. In gift-giving societies, the big man was the one who gave the most, not the man who acquired the most.
Ironically, one of the few gift-giving societies in our modern culture is the political community, with its patronage and lobbying, all accomplished using not one's own acquisitions, but rather gifts that pass into the participants' hands. In a political community, gifts do pass through a circle. But these are not the gifts referred to in the gift provisions of ethics code.
Outside of the political community, the modern chain is usually limited to two people (although some families and offices create temporary chains to keep gift spending down), and gift-giving is not in the public interest. The relationship created by gift-giving is not communal, but individual. And this is the biggest problem with gifts to government officials. They create a special relationship with obligations that often conflict with the official's obligations to the public interest. This is why one solution to receiving a gift is to give it to the city, to turn it into a communal gift.
Of the conflict situation, Hyde wrote, "Because gifts do have the power to join people together, there are many gifts that must be refused. ... If I am to negotiate a contract, I do well to pause when the man who wants my signature offers a three-course meal with wine. For, if I am a man of goodwill, I may subsequently feel my generosity rise as the time comes to put my name on the line. A gift, no matter how well-intentioned, deflects objective judgment. Persons whose position in society demands that they maintain their objectivity ... are expected, even required, to refrain from gift exchange."
In a footnote to this paragraph, Hyde wrote, "The prohibition on gifts to public servants has always been a problem because our expectations are conflicting: we want such people to become a part of their community, but we do not want them to be beholden to one particular element."
Yes, gifts to government officials are also bad because they create the appearance that an official is concerned more with his personal interests than with the public interest. But there's more than this. Someone in a position of trust should not be involved in this sort of gift exchange at all, should not be forming special relationships with anyone outside of government and family and friends who have nothing to gain from the particular government.
It's about obligations and interests, yes, but it's also about relationships, feelings of gratitude, and the preservation of objective judgment. Any amount is large enough not to buy someone, but to affect him emotionally. Anyone who says she can't be bought should be reminded of this. Even forming friendships with contractors and developers affects an official's feelings, which is why their meetings should be limited and, as much as possible, public or not one-on-one.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
But gifts aren't about buying. In fact, gifts are the opposite of buying, according to Lewis Hyde in his 1983 book, The Gift. "[A] gift is a thing we do not get by our own efforts. We cannot buy it; we cannot acquire it through an act of will. It is bestowed upon us."
What is most important about gifts for our purposes is what Hyde shows the reader in his descriptions of gift-giving in primitive and modern societies: "the giving of a gift tends to establish a relationship between the parties involved."
We tend to think of political gifts in terms of quid pro quo, but something given with the expectation of something in return is not a gift at all. Even when it just looks a gift is not really a gift, it bothers us, it doesn't seem right, even when we're not talking about politicians. We exchange gifts, certainly, but we give them out of affection, not out of the desire to get something for ourselves. And when we give gifts to strangers, usually indirectly via charitable contribution, we expect nothing in return but the satisfaction of giving.
When we give a contribution to a politician, it is more self-serving, but not in any specific way. We want to be represented by someone whose views coincide with ours, or by someone we think will do a good job. This isn't really a gift, but an odd sort of investment that might pay off, but without the expectation of a specific return.
In our society, gifts are something different from what they used to be in more primitive societies. Gifts used to be part of a circle of giving. They were the way a tribe acknowledged and strengthened their communal relationship. Gifts were not meant to be consumed, at least not in full, or paid directly back, but passed on through a chain. Gift-giving was in the public interest. In gift-giving societies, the big man was the one who gave the most, not the man who acquired the most.
Ironically, one of the few gift-giving societies in our modern culture is the political community, with its patronage and lobbying, all accomplished using not one's own acquisitions, but rather gifts that pass into the participants' hands. In a political community, gifts do pass through a circle. But these are not the gifts referred to in the gift provisions of ethics code.
Outside of the political community, the modern chain is usually limited to two people (although some families and offices create temporary chains to keep gift spending down), and gift-giving is not in the public interest. The relationship created by gift-giving is not communal, but individual. And this is the biggest problem with gifts to government officials. They create a special relationship with obligations that often conflict with the official's obligations to the public interest. This is why one solution to receiving a gift is to give it to the city, to turn it into a communal gift.
Of the conflict situation, Hyde wrote, "Because gifts do have the power to join people together, there are many gifts that must be refused. ... If I am to negotiate a contract, I do well to pause when the man who wants my signature offers a three-course meal with wine. For, if I am a man of goodwill, I may subsequently feel my generosity rise as the time comes to put my name on the line. A gift, no matter how well-intentioned, deflects objective judgment. Persons whose position in society demands that they maintain their objectivity ... are expected, even required, to refrain from gift exchange."
In a footnote to this paragraph, Hyde wrote, "The prohibition on gifts to public servants has always been a problem because our expectations are conflicting: we want such people to become a part of their community, but we do not want them to be beholden to one particular element."
Yes, gifts to government officials are also bad because they create the appearance that an official is concerned more with his personal interests than with the public interest. But there's more than this. Someone in a position of trust should not be involved in this sort of gift exchange at all, should not be forming special relationships with anyone outside of government and family and friends who have nothing to gain from the particular government.
It's about obligations and interests, yes, but it's also about relationships, feelings of gratitude, and the preservation of objective judgment. Any amount is large enough not to buy someone, but to affect him emotionally. Anyone who says she can't be bought should be reminded of this. Even forming friendships with contractors and developers affects an official's feelings, which is why their meetings should be limited and, as much as possible, public or not one-on-one.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
promotional pens (not verified) says:
Wed, 2009-07-15 05:55
Permalink
Quite agree a polition almost needs to be seperated from anyone invovled including pressure groups to make fair decisions