shared world view. The exchange system that unites giver and recipient requires
everyone to benefit. The relational system of gift and counter-gift is ternary. Each of
the elements of the exchange results in three obligations: giving, receiving and
reciprocating. The exchange is based on the capacity of each party to receive,
therefore to assess what is received and what should be given at a later date. Their
shared understanding of what has been received defines the gift and the counter-gift
and maintains the momentum.
The market and gift paradigms highlight different views of exchanges. In the
case of the market, the relationship is unsustainable as it is ended by a payment. The
relationship and conflict must be renewed, beginning again from zero. In the case of
gift giving there is no end-point, although an inability to reciprocate unbalances the
exchange and changes its modalities. The unbalanced relationship becomes fixed,
and the party that cannot reciprocate becomes beholden to the gift giver. They are
left at the mercy of the donor and the subject of their political decisions.
The reconciliation of these paradigms with the concept of loss appears to be a
very useful heuristic. The question is: does loss correspond better to the market
paradigm or the gift giving dynamic? This leads to another question: what, in both
cases, drives the dynamic?
4.3 Consequences for the Definition of the Concept of Loss
Before considering some answers to these questions, it is first necessary to consider
two important elements related to the concept of loss.
First, does the definition of loss form part of a temporally closed exchange
system (e.g. a breakdown, accident and recovery) or, an open exchange system (e.g.
between a disaster, an ongoing catastrophe and resilience)?
9 In both cases, we need
to clearly define environmental, political or industrial compensation on the one
hand, and the scope of resilience, on the other.
Second, we must not forget that loss can only be defined or assessed if victims
can be identified. This usually requires a third party, a mediator who can identify
both the loss and its victims. It assumes that the victims and the party responsible
for the loss share an understanding of the situation that led to the loss and that there
is no need for mediation. Identifying losses and victims becomes difficult or
impossible when the victims are silent, either because they are incapable of speech
or because they are not asked to speak. However, acknowledging the views of the
parties involved is essential in understanding not only the material consequences of
the disaster, but also its symbolic construction, considered to be one of the key
phases of psychological and social resilience.
9
Here, ecological resilience refers to the ability of the overall system to rebalance itself in the long
term; it does not necessarily mean that it returns to the state that it was in prior to the disaster,
which may be impossible to achieve [10].
28
D. Pecaud
everyone to benefit. The relational system of gift and counter-gift is ternary. Each of
the elements of the exchange results in three obligations: giving, receiving and
reciprocating. The exchange is based on the capacity of each party to receive,
therefore to assess what is received and what should be given at a later date. Their
shared understanding of what has been received defines the gift and the counter-gift
and maintains the momentum.
The market and gift paradigms highlight different views of exchanges. In the
case of the market, the relationship is unsustainable as it is ended by a payment. The
relationship and conflict must be renewed, beginning again from zero. In the case of
gift giving there is no end-point, although an inability to reciprocate unbalances the
exchange and changes its modalities. The unbalanced relationship becomes fixed,
and the party that cannot reciprocate becomes beholden to the gift giver. They are
left at the mercy of the donor and the subject of their political decisions.
The reconciliation of these paradigms with the concept of loss appears to be a
very useful heuristic. The question is: does loss correspond better to the market
paradigm or the gift giving dynamic? This leads to another question: what, in both
cases, drives the dynamic?
4.3 Consequences for the Definition of the Concept of Loss
Before considering some answers to these questions, it is first necessary to consider
two important elements related to the concept of loss.
First, does the definition of loss form part of a temporally closed exchange
system (e.g. a breakdown, accident and recovery) or, an open exchange system (e.g.
between a disaster, an ongoing catastrophe and resilience)?
9 In both cases, we need
to clearly define environmental, political or industrial compensation on the one
hand, and the scope of resilience, on the other.
Second, we must not forget that loss can only be defined or assessed if victims
can be identified. This usually requires a third party, a mediator who can identify
both the loss and its victims. It assumes that the victims and the party responsible
for the loss share an understanding of the situation that led to the loss and that there
is no need for mediation. Identifying losses and victims becomes difficult or
impossible when the victims are silent, either because they are incapable of speech
or because they are not asked to speak. However, acknowledging the views of the
parties involved is essential in understanding not only the material consequences of
the disaster, but also its symbolic construction, considered to be one of the key
phases of psychological and social resilience.
9
Here, ecological resilience refers to the ability of the overall system to rebalance itself in the long
term; it does not necessarily mean that it returns to the state that it was in prior to the disaster,
which may be impossible to achieve [10].
28
D. Pecaud