5: Mostly said to be a Stockholm thing and that times have changed since the 1980′s.
Most said you’d be served coffee and biscuit. (Notice, this is mostly the smallest of the “gifts”)
So basically, self-sufficiency was the rule prior to the famine, and the pride that includes (as noted, Sami aren’t included in this–different cultural attitude and different ethnicity.), the famine hit and instead of turning to generalized reciprocity, they turned to individualized reciprocity to try to keep with the self-sufficiency model. (See first link)
The thing is that as I’ve been taught, reciprocity creates increasing obligation and entanglement of the parties involved. You give your grandmother a gift. She feels obligated to give you a gift. If she gets you get a gift, well, then shouldn’t you also get her a gift? And sometimes that means showing each other up. (As with various redistribution ceremonies worldwide, such as Pot latch.)
The more entangled you are, the more obligation you have to be close to them over time and the more interdependent you become.
Excuse me while I pull out my Anthropology source (made easier to read by wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay)
The less obligation you have, the less ties you need, but the more self-sufficient you are.
Hospitality, is generally seen as generalized reciprocity: Generalized reciprocity is the phenomenon that individuals treat others in the same way that others treated them in the past
You give to store your second hand clothes, in the hopes it will go to the community. If you’re ever in need, you might use the second hand store.
What Swedish in the example are practicing is balanced reciprocity (individual)
Balanced reciprocity obligates the recipient to return, within a specific time limit, items understood to be of equal value. When we expect that we will receive a gift of equal value from someone that we have given a gift to, that is an example of balanced reciprocity.
But it’s on the nervousness of Negative reciprocity. Negative reciprocity refers to exchanges where one party attempts to act entirely in their own self-interest in pursuit of material advantage or profit. If generalized reciprocity tips the balance in favor of selfless giving without expectation of immediate receipt, then negative reciprocity does the opposite.
So that would be the Anthropology explanation, I think. Everyone else in the world sees hospitality as generalized, not balanced, because the idea of everyone will be a traveler.
As drilled into me, hospitality in the desert is absolutely required. That person is several feet or distance of, you go and greet them, because it might mean life and death later. That’s why the story of the Good Samaritan would be so striking to desert-dwelling folks. You simply don’t refuse using your hospitality. Several stories in the Torah, Bible, Avesta, etc drill it in your head that’s simply what you do for that reason.
But I am kinda interested in this idea of cultural self-sufficiency as being a cause for thinking about hospitality as balanced rather than generalized reciprocity. ^^;; North Korea has been leaning towards such ideas, but I’ve never heard of North Korea not being polite to guests for all its foibles.
BTW, Koreans tend to be high on the generalized reciprocity list probably because of repeated poverty. The shift is painful for a lot of Koreans.
Jews probably rank slightly, a smidgen lower than that (at least US Jews). But definitely are stuff you silly types.
