Intracommunity Gifting at the Intersection of Contemporary Moral and Market

Economies
Author(s): Michelle F. Weinberger and Melanie Wallendorf
Source: Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 39, No. 1 (June 2012), pp. 74-92
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662198

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Consumer Research

This content downloaded from

158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Intracommunity Gifting at the Intersection of
Contemporary Moral and Market Economies

MICHELLE F. WEINBERGER
MELANIE WALLENDORF

Consumer research on gifting has primarily focused on the interpersonal meanings

and behavior patterns associated with dyadic gifts that are specifically given from
one individual to another and in which the central goal is interpersonal relationship
maintenance. Yet we find another type of gifting when community members in one
social position give to community members in another position in which the central
goal is intracommunity, rather than interpersonal, relationship work. This ethno-
graphic research details the ritual practices, structural components, and meanings
associated with intracommunity gifts employing the empirical context of the post-
Katrina New Orleans’ community celebration of Mardi Gras. Through this context,
we detail how intracommunity gifting gives prominence to the logics of the moral
economy while still drawing from those of the market economy. Beyond this context,
we use our conclusions about the intersection of the market and moral economies
to understand contemporary ambivalence to corporate sponsorships of local com-
munity events.

C onsumer research on gifting rituals has primarily fo-

cused on the personal meanings and behaviors asso-
ciated with dyadic gifts, gifts that are specifically targeted
from one person to another to maintain or deepen their
existing relationship. Papers on dyadic gifting have con-
tributed substantially to consumer research by detailing the
meanings and practices through which dyadic gifting rituals
communicate and solidify intimate relationships (Belk 1976;
Bradford 2009; Caplow 1982; Cheal 1988; Ruth, Otnes, and
Brunel 1999; Wooten and Wood 2004).
But this work has not heeded Sherry’s early call for “a
Michelle F. Weinberger (m-weinberger@northwestern.edu) is assistant
professor of integrated marketing communications, Medill School, North-
western University, Evanston, IL 60208. Melanie Wallendorf (mwallendorf@
eller.arizona.edu) is Soldwedel Professor of Marketing, Eller College of
Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85716. Correspondence:
Michelle F. Weinberger. This article is based on essay 3 in the first author’s
dissertation, completed at the University of Arizona with the second author
as dissertation chair. For their helpful comments and suggestions, the au-
thors wish to thank the editor, associate editor, and four reviewers, as well
as Tracy Bacon, Charles Lowry, Robert Lusch, Andre Maciel, Tom
O’Guinn, Hope Jensen Schau, and Jane Zavisca. The authors also extend
their gratitude to the New Orleanians who generously participated in this
study.
John Deighton served as editor and Russ Belk served as associate editor
for this article.
Electronically published September 17, 2011
74
shift in focus from a micro perspective to a holistic one” in
order to understand gifting’s “structural components” that
make it “one of the processes that integrates society” (1983,
57). We take a sociocultural approach to studying gifting’s
structural components but not simply because it is sparse
in consumer research (for exceptions, see Bajde 2009; Gies-
ler 2006). We focus on a community-based gifting ritual to
detail the role these collective practices play in contempo-
rary culture. Beyond consumer giving, our research analysis
elucidates the meanings behind and sometimes-problematic
structural components of corporate sponsorships in local
community events.
We use a sociological approach to probe the structural
components of gifts that are given, not between intimates,
but between people without primary ties to each other who
reside in a geographic community of broadly interdependent
actors. Collective gifting rituals in archaic (Hyde 1979; Mal-
inowski 1922/1992; Sahlins 1972; Weiner 1976) and con-
temporary societies (Cheal 1988; Clark 1998; Hyde 1979)
have been deployed to smooth and stabilize community re-
lations. We find that collective gifting rituals are primarily,
but not exclusively, guided by moral economy logics; mar-
ket economy logics play a secondary, but important, role.
While gifts may be trivialized and rationalized by market
economy logics, they are central to the moral economy.
Cheal (1988, 15) defines the moral economy as “a system
of transactions which are defined as socially desirable (i.e.,
moral), because through them social ties are recognized, and
balanced social relationships are maintained.” Of these

䉷 2011 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 39 ● June 2012

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2012/3901-0006$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/662198

This content downloaded from

158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
transactions, our focus is on collective giving, as we ask:
What do collective gifting traditions indicate about how
market logics are both deployed and resisted in service of
the moral economy? Of what import is the moral economy
for market economy firms that give giftlike support to com-
munities? In short, what happens in collective gifting rituals
that occur at the intersection of the market and moral econ-
omies?
By studying a contemporary collective gifting tradition,
this article realizes three theoretical goals: First, it theorizes
the characteristics of a formerly unarticulated form of con-
temporary giving that we term intracommunity gifting to
distinguish it from dyadic gifting. The article focuses on the
structural importance of these gifts apart from their personal
meanings. Second, the article details the rooting of intra-
community gifts primarily in the moral economy, while also
intersecting with the market economy. Third, the empirical
results are used as a foundation for considering tensions
associated with the corporate giving strategies of event spon-
sorships in local communities.
To situate our research theoretically, the next section sum-
marizes key characteristics of dyadic gifts before turning to
our research context and data. Rather than follow the nar-
rative convention of experimental articles that begin with
an extensive literature review to develop the credibility of
hypotheses, we employ the narrative structure of much eth-
nographic research by deploying literature alongside data to
develop the credibility of the theoretical interpretation.
FOCAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
DYADIC GIFT
Gifts are part of the moral economy (Cheal 1988; Godbout
and Caillé 1998), joining individuals and bringing focus to
the desirability or morality of social connections (Belk and
Coon 1993; Sherry 1983). Dyadic gifts act as tie signs,
indicating the nature of the relationship between two people
who know each other and are in an anchored relation (Goff-
man 1956). As such, gifts are enigmatic, leaving an invisible
mark on the giver and the receiver (Hyde 1979).
In comparing gift giving and sharing, Belk (2009) reviews
the extensive literature on gift giving to develop a frame-
work summarizing the key characteristics of gifts that have
been noted in this literature. We use the following six char-
acteristics from his framework as a starting point for con-
sidering the gifting practices in our research context: (1) the
locus of gifting is the dyad; (2) while the gift appears non-
reciprocal, there is a lingering temporal obligation of reci-
procity; (3) the giver’s primary purpose is to please the
recipient; (4) roles include a giver and a chosen recipient;
(5) the gift object is ideally chosen to communicate close
familiarity with the recipient and high importance of the
relationship; and (6) the outcome is inclusion of giver and
recipient in a network. We next summarize extant literature
to clarify each of these six characteristics.
The prototypical locus of gifts as characterized by Belk
(2009) is the giver-receiver dyad. In archaic societies, gift-
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
75
giving systems circulated items across and within small
high-contact communities; the resulting social ties were im-
portant constituent elements of social structure (Barnett
1938; Malinowski 1922/1992; Mauss 1923/1990). However,
contemporary gifting is typically centered in small-scale,
face-to-face relationships (Cheal 1988), fostering and com-
municating interpersonal connections among family and
with friends (Belk 1976; Belk and Coon 1993; Bradford
2009; Fischer and Arnold 1990; Joy 2001; Otnes, Lowrey,
and Kim 1993; Ruth et al. 1999; Wooten 2000). Cheal
(1988) attributes this dyadic locus of gifting to the rise of
capitalism: when obligations to others outside close social
networks become more diffuse as they become mediated by
the market economy, gift economies are no longer the pri-
mary form of mutual aid, support, and relationship. The gift
then changes from a necessary form of support to a se-
questered, symbolic medium for sustaining dyadic connec-
tions.
Prototypically, the gift does not require reciprocity (Belk
2009). Nonetheless, ideally, it creates a lingering obligation
to maintain a tie to the giver, with reciprocal gifting as an
important means of doing so. Reciprocal giving sustains
balance in dyadic relationships as when actor A gives to B,
who later returns a gift of relatively similar value to A,
balancing the obligations (Sahlins 1972). A tie sign is cre-
ated through the obligation one feels to another after re-
ceiving a gift and the reciprocity that balances the relation-
ship when a gift is given in return (Cheal 1988). Norms of
gifting require that a gift not be demanded in return (Belk
and Coon 1993) but also that the gift stay in motion. Rec-
iprocity and obligation to the other are implicitly expected
(Bourdieu 1977; Mauss 1923/1990). Trusting that the re-
ceiver feels a sufficiently strong connection to want to re-
ciprocate is a foundation stone for the communal and moral
side of life (Hyde 1979).
Dyadic gifts between intimates are not just commodity
transfers to serve utilitarian ends. Prototypically, gifts are
expressive and symbolic forms of communication in per-
sonal relationships, even when the item is also useful (Dan-
iels 2009). By seeking to please the recipient (Belk 2009),
the giver increases the likelihood that the recipient will re-
main committed to the relationship, thereby stabilizing it.
In prototypical dyadic gift giving, the relational roles be-
tween giver and recipient are personal (Belk 2009). The
giver and recipient know each other; the giver chooses a
particular gift because he or she considers it an appropriate
match for the person to whom the giver has decided to give
(Otnes et al. 1993). The recipient is not expected to do
anything in order to receive the gift.
Gifts between intimates are prototypically chosen to dem-
onstrate the giver’s familiarity with the recipient through
the selection of an object that communicates knowledge of
the recipient’s needs or preferences. A gift that communi-
cates not only knowledge but also importance of the rela-
tionship by being costly or luxurious is ideal (Belk 1996).
The latent outcome of prototypical dyadic gift giving is
inclusion in a network of intimate ties (Belk 2009). Social
76
networks are defined and maintained by the tie signs formed
by gifts. We next detail our empirical context and then,
through the data analysis and theoretical interpretation, in-
terrogate the applicability of these six gift characteristics to
gifts that are not dyadic.
EMPIRICAL CONTEXT
A Community Gifting Tradition
Our research employs a case study (Sherry 1983) of the
local Mardi Gras celebration in New Orleans, LA, about 6
months after Hurricane Katrina. For local New Orleanians,
Mardi Gras is a community celebration that centers on pa-
rades and gifting. The festival has been a centerpiece of
New Orleans culture since it was brought by French Catholic
settlers in 1835 (Mauldin 2004; Sexton 1999). It has been
held annually since then, despite the 1853 yellow fever ep-
idemic, fires, hurricanes, the Great Depression, and several
wars (Mitchell 2007).
Historically, Carnival season is determined by the Cath-
olic liturgical calendar, going from Twelfth Night (after
Christmas) to Mardi Gras day (a Tuesday). For Catholics,
Carnival is a period of sanctioned exuberance before the
pious, contemplative days of Lent (Tallant 1976). Typically,
it is a holiday of tension management that relaxes many
social constraints (Etzioni 2004).
In New Orleans, fraternal krewes are central to the per-
formance of Mardi Gras. Krewes were initially formed in
1857 by white males from upper-class New Orleans families
to reinforce their status in this stratified Creole society
(Mauldin 2004). In addition to elite private balls, each krewe
began designing and paying for its own elaborate public
parade. In 1890, the parades became noncommercial, with
no commercial funds, logos, or trademarks permitted (Kinser
1990); this remains custom and part of the city ordinances
today (City of New Orleans 1995). Certainly, the wealth of
krewe members derives from commercial enterprise, but
their commercial involvement as owners and employees in
local firms and national corporations is not marked during
parades. Krewe parades are gifts to the city, the focus of
community celebrations; in them, costumed, masked mem-
bers of the sponsoring krewe pose as royalty on floats and
throw token gifts to people watching from the street below.
The parades wind through historic New Orleans neighbor-
hoods where watchers are predominantly locals and end
downtown along Canal Street near the French Quarter where
tourists congregate.
The event’s popularity with tourists has grown over the
past 3 decades (Gotham 2002), attracting about 1.4 million
visitors in 2003, generating roughly $220.5 million for New
Orleans’ economy (Dade 2005). Concurrently, events sur-
rounding the parades have become highly commercialized
in the tourist-oriented sections of town (Gotham 2002). Me-
dia attention has framed the event as centered in the French
Quarter, where conspicuous consumption, debauchery, and
nudity reign among tourists (Shrum and Kilburn 1996).
However, the experiences of local residents that are the focus
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
of this research, away from the tourist sites of the French
Quarter and the Canal Street section of the parade route,
are markedly different.
New Orleanian families spend the weeks leading up to
Mardi Gras along the parade route many blocks and a cul-
tural world away from the French Quarter and Canal Street.
Our data show that locals’ activities bear more resemblance
to college football tailgate parties (Sherry and Bradford
2011) than to a wild street party: days are spent in folding
chairs along grassy St. Charles Avenue with family, friends,
neighbors, and other locals waiting for the parades that occur
periodically through the day and weeks. This is not just a
community party; Carnival is a core cultural festival for New
Orleanians. Schools and many offices close so locals can
spend at least the last few days of the festival watching
parades and catching hundreds of gifts thrown by krewe
members. Residents claim Mardi Gras is as central to their
local culture as Christmas is to other Americans. However,
in the fall of 2005, local and national discussions about
canceling the next Mardi Gras festival emerged.
Threat to Social Order
On August 29, 2005, category 3 Hurricane Katrina struck
the southeastern United States, especially coastal Louisiana
and Mississippi. Due to the storm and subsequent breaks in
New Orleans’ federally designed levee system, 80% of New
Orleans flooded (Murphy 2005). Over 700 people were re-
ported dead in the city (Warner and Travis 2005). Whole
sections of the city were destroyed, and other areas expe-
rienced sufficient damage that they were leveled during the
cleanup. While the hurricane created a natural disaster, gov-
ernmental response turned it into a social nightmare. State
and federal governments were sharply criticized on three
fronts: for ineffective responses that left many stranded or
without resources to survive (White and Whoriskey 2005);
for failure to stop widespread looting; and, once it was safe
to return, for continued failure to reconstruct New Orleans’
communities and infrastructure.
International media coverage of the hurricane drew the
attention of millions, attracting widespread, uncontested do-
nations from individuals, churches, relief agencies, and cor-
porations of time, supplies, and money for emergency aid
for displaced residents. Highly politicized discussions at na-
tional and local levels concerned the future of the city, with
some outsiders arguing that due to its low elevation, the city
should not be rebuilt or resettled (Jacob 2005; Kusky 2005).
The time of the hurricane is not our focus. Instead, we
study a later time when the community was rebuilding cul-
turally and socially, alongside still-needed economic and
physical reconstruction. Six months posthurricane would be
the regular time for Mardi Gras, prompting local and na-
tional discussion about whether to hold it. Parts of the city
still had no electricity, sewer service, or gas, and many
homes and stores were uninhabitable due to destruction or
mold.
Post-Katrina New Orleans is a social context in unsettled
times (Swidler 1986), when social, economic, and civic
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
structures had been disrupted or destroyed. Sociologists have
long constructed social theory by studying sociopolitical
disjunctures and disasters (Collins 2004; Form et al. 1956;
Giddens 1997). Unsettled times provide important windows
into the cultural grounding of human action, meaning, and
relationships; issues that are latent in more settled times
become more salient and discursive (Arnould, Price, and
Moisio 2006; Collins 2010).
In settled times, culture orients people by offering “a ‘tool
kit’ of symbols, stories, rituals, and worldviews, which peo-
ple may use in varying configurations to solve different
kinds of problems” (Swidler 1986, 273). During settled
times, people tacitly draw from that large set of cultural
knowledge to construct strategies of action that they view
as common sense. But when times are unsettled due to po-
litical, economic, social, or natural unrest, culture operates
on human action in different ways (1986). People are awak-
ened to be more self-reflective, deliberate, and ultimately
ideological. The taken-for-grantedness of norms disappears;
people become more explicit and articulate about aspects of
the meaning systems that previously organized their behav-
ior and beliefs. Focus is deeply concentrated on salient is-
sues.
Invoking Turner (1969), we recognize that unsettled times
lack a ritual of transformation to smooth anxiety and un-
certainty about change. No safe liminal space or time has
been created. Previous social structures have been disrupted,
and new ones have not yet been constructed, forcing com-
munity members to consciously and collectively evaluate
their lives and decide what is worth rebuilding or reconfigur-
ing and why. Such periods create a call to action, to define
what the community is and what its beliefs are. Unsettled
times help make visible the changes people desire by dem-
onstrating where they place their emotional, physical, and
financial energies. During these deliberations, actors become
more articulate about the beliefs and ideological perspectives
guiding their actions and hopes.
We study gifting at a community festival during unsettled
times because it allows naturalistic access to actors’ height-
ened articulations about a long-standing gift event occurring
at the intersection of the moral and market economies in
their community. This context is ideal for our study because
what would ordinarily be taken for granted is readily dis-
cussed this year in situ without extensive probing. Consistent
with what Swidler (1986) leads us to expect, plans for Mardi
Gras 2006 were fiercely debated. A highly rationalized na-
tional discourse emerged about locals’ tenuous economic
justifications for holding an event seen by outsiders as a
nonessential luxury. Local discourse focused on the com-
munity’s need for the event, both to revive the local econ-
omy and to revitalize the city’s “spirit.” This debate high-
lights important tensions about gift giving that emerge at
the intersection of moral and market economies.
RESEARCH METHOD
Data were collected in February 2006 by the first author as
a sited ethnography in New Orleans during the first Carnival
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
77
celebration after Hurricane Katrina. This research adopts
varied forms of engagement to accommodate the constraints
of studying a temporally delimited ritual event within an
ongoing geographic community (Wallendorf and Arnould
1991). Geographic and conceptual boundaries sharpened the
focus during the event’s short duration (Emerson, Fretz, and
Shaw 1995; Johnson and Sackett 1998) with central atten-
tion given to activity along the parade route (e.g., the actions
of watchers and krewe members, interactions among watch-
ers, interactions between krewe members and watchers), the
floats themselves, and the throws. The perspectives of local
residents and those closely connected to them (e.g., extended
family, former residents) were specifically targeted. Data-
generation efforts concentrated on areas of primarily local
rather than tourist gifting activities, especially during the
parades and associated events along the St. Charles Avenue
parade route in New Orleans Parish. Areas for participant
observation were defined through secondary research before
Mardi Gras and through knowledge gained by strategically
tagging along, modeled after Geertz’s version of deep hang-
ing out (1998). Data coverage was extended with several in
situ recording modes: audio files, scratch notes, photo-
graphs, and drawings, depending on the researcher role at
the time and the type of interaction desired (Emerson et al.
1995). The resulting data set consists of six types of data.
Lengthy in-context interviews and extended conversa-
tions between the field-worker and 27 local informants pro-
vide emic views from varied age, gender, racial, geographic,
and socioeconomic positions and festival roles (e.g., float
riders and workers). Extended conversations took place over
many hours when discussion and participant observation
intertwined. Other than one interview with a former resident
before Mardi Gras, participants were sought in situ from
both predefined and emergent categories. Krewe members,
locals along the parade route, local business employees, and
Catholic clergy were selected to understand their feelings
about the event, their experience of the event this year, their
knowledge of sponsorship attempts, and the logics they
used. Four additional interviews and extended conversations
with tourists, while not focal, served as a comparison. Audio
recordings and scratch notes extended the first author’s recall
of exact language and gave the second author access to
inflection and tone during data analysis.
Second, participant and distanced observation of 10 pa-
rades’ floats, actions, interactions, gift types and recipients,
sensory experiences, conversations, and activities along the
parade route provide contextual details of the site and par-
ticipants in real time. Field notes include both nominal in-
formation (e.g., catching, yelling, throwing, dropping) and
quantitative information regarding frequency, duration, and
intensity (Johnson and Sackett 1998), such as estimates of
the percentage of parade watchers with hands in the air, the
depth of the crowd watching the floats, the distance between
watchers and floats, and the length of parades. The inter-
views, extended conversations, and real-time observations
and researcher experiences are detailed in 312 pages of field
notes.
78
Third, the first author made 336 photographs of parade
activities and surroundings to provide visual detail for the
written observational data. As a supplement, photos taken
by journalists along the same parade sections were archived
and coded separately. Fourth, a material data repository in-
cludes throws (small gifts of designed cups, beads, dou-
bloons, and stuffed animals) as well as gifts given by parade
attendees to the first author.
The fifth data category includes documents from the city
of New Orleans such as press releases, ordinances, and
schedules. Sixth, local and national news articles, websites,
and blogs from the time around Mardi Gras are archived.
These data permit triangulation and broader access to the
numerous activities and events during the lengthy celebra-
tion. This diversity of data sources was generated to expand
the range of a solitary field-worker in a time-bound context.
After data collection, field notes were completed to in-
clude details of observation and full transcriptions of inter-
views. Websites and documents were archived to compare
with emic perspectives, and photos were annotated. NVIVO
7/8 was used for organization, search, and open and axial
coding. Analysis was conducted using grounded theory
methods (Spiggle 1994; Strauss and Corbin 1998) by the
first and the second author, who provided a more distanced
perspective on the data. The formal analysis focuses pri-
marily on observational and interview/conversation data,
with other data used for comparison, deeper analysis, and
triangulation.
GIFTING AT POST-KATRINA
MARDI GRAS
This ethnography proceeds as follows: the first section de-
tails the emic focus and actions of locals in New Orleans
in the time before and during Mardi Gras 2006 to provide
background on the core issues that drew collective focus.
Next, an analysis of gifting styles details what was given
to whom and how. These gifting styles are then compared
to current conceptualizations of archaic and contemporary
gifting, and an addendum to current models of gifting,
termed intracommunity gifting, is proposed as a theoretically
important gift form. Next, the article moves out a level of
abstraction to address the role that intracommunity gifting
plays in diffuse contemporary communities. We describe
tension between the market and moral economies by fo-
cusing on tensions between sponsorship and gifting at Mardi
Gras. By the conclusion of this section, the reader should
understand not only why intracommunity gifting was so
important during this event but also why the idea of cor-
porate givers was met with ambivalence. The article con-
cludes by discussing the broader implications of these find-
ings for sponsorship and future research on gifting.
Moral Logics for Community Ritual
Debate ensued in late 2005 and early 2006 over whether
to hold New Orleans’ Mardi Gras. National pundits used
market logics to argue against holding the event, suggesting
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
that the city should instead allocate any available financial
resources to physical reconstruction. Locals, however, ar-
gued in favor of holding Mardi Gras as it had been for 170
years. Their arguments align with other researchers’ results
regarding an intertwining of both market and moral logics
(Zelizer 1994): the event would revive the local economy,
and its celebratory tone was needed to bring locals back
together. As a compromise, the city sought corporate spon-
sors to pay administrative costs (e.g., security, sanitation)
that are ordinarily paid by the city, and the event was held,
albeit on a smaller scale than in the recent past.
Parade watchers, krewe members, and business owners
all describe Mardi Gras 2006 as a remarkable success, in
part, because of their incredulity at its actually happening
so soon after the hurricane. This perspective is echoed in
over 2,000 media outlets calling the event a sign of the
city’s resurgence (Tourism Marketing Corporation 2006).
As always, the elaborate parades put on by elite krewes for
local residents during the weeks before Mardi Gras remain
the centerpiece for the community. Families, couples, and
friends line St. Charles Avenue in eager anticipation of the
parades. They mark their parade-watching spaces with chairs
around tables filled with enough food and drink to last well
into the evening. For the time between parades, they bring
other entertainment, such as footballs, TVs with generators,
playing cards, and jump ropes made on the spot from beads
strung together. Similar to many family tailgating parties,
some alcohol is consumed by adults. Although festive, the
behavior of watchers is regarded by all as appropriate for
the young children who are present even in the evening;
there are no observed or reported instances of nudity or
problematic drunkenness in our coverage of these neigh-
borhood areas. However, despite signs of the city’s resur-
gence, the Mardi Gras season, crowds, and parades are no-
tably smaller than in previous years, and they are surrounded
by abundant physical evidence of destruction indicating that
daily life has not returned to normal.
Rebirth. We interpret the first element of locals’ moral
logic for holding and subsequently regarding the event as
successful under the heading of rebirth. For many New Or-
leans residents, this festival’s occurrence and their copres-
ence with other locals is of existential significance in a city
recently underwater and evacuated. Tamika, an African
American parade watcher in her late teens, remarks that,
despite the changes, it “brings the people out” and “brings
the city back to life.” Her perspective is echoed by two
separate groups of female krewe members (both groups are
Caucasian, in their 50s and 60s):
Nadine (krewe group 1): Well, the people—I’m telling you,
there’s something going on with people in New Orleans; it’s
like we’re all walking around in a fog. Christmas came and
Christmas went, and nobody was in the mood for it. But,
you do it because it’s time to do it. And that’s why I was
kinda concerned about Mardi Gras. This is the first time I’d
really felt into something since the hurricane.
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
Katherine (krewe group 2): [They talked about the contro-
versy about holding Mardi Gras] on TV yesterday. They had
Christmas, didn’t they?
Cecile: Yeah.
Viviane: It’s the same thing.
Melissa: We need, we need . . .
Cecile: You know. But they just want to ride, because it’s
important to our lives. . . .
Katherine: A lot of it was already paid for. . . .
Cecile: All your dues, for your costumes and your ride,
you’ve already ordered a lot of the stuff you’re going to
throw, so it’s already paid for, anyway.
Viviane: So quit your mopin’, and get on the float! [laughter]
Cecile: That’s right. Get out of that dust and debris. . . .
Viviane: That’s right, get out of there.
Themes of rising up, rebirth, and resurrection recur in the
data, an intriguing metaphor in light of Mardi Gras’ jux-
taposition with Lent and Easter. While family-oriented, dy-
adic Christmas gifting did not get them out of the “fog,”
somehow the collective celebration of Mardi Gras does.
They literally and metaphorically describe the event lifting
them out of on-the-ground destruction and up onto the float.
The event facilitates recovery as they rise up, leaving some
of the pain from the hurricane in the “dust and debris”; they
feel strengthened to get back to living life again.
Why did Mardi Gras accomplish this when Christmas did
not? Is it simply that Christmas came too soon after the
hurricane? Or, is there some quality that differentiates the
two gifting rituals and their benefits? As it proceeds, our
analysis points to differences in the two forms of gift giving
that are at the heart of understanding their different structural
consequences.
Krewe members’ symbolic rebirth is echoed on the com-
memorative poster sold in tourist-oriented areas. It pictures
a woman’s face surrounded by feathers and three strands of
beads and reads, “The Spirit of New Orleans, Mardi Gras,
Phoenix Rising.” It references the ancient myth of the phoe-
nix rising from the ashes of its own death and reinforces
locals’ tacit understanding of the cultural process at work.
It symbolizes for others what locals experience: the event
is facilitating the rebirth of the “spirit of the city,” the re-
lationships that constitute the community.
Observational data also include many forms of rising up.
Thousands of parade watchers do more than just watch; they
exhibit an embodied upward reach to catch throws tossed
by krewes. Both throwing and catching precipitate an ex-
aggerated upward physical stretch that Joy and Sherry
(2003) term an embodied attraction metaphor. As parade
watchers reach vertically into the air with fingers out-
stretched and their backs hyperextended, they yell to attract
krewe members’ attention and throws. The motion is similar
to the collective wave performed by sporting event spec-
tators, but it is repeated over hours at Mardi Gras parades.
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
79
The stretch and release is invigorating, an embodied as well
as metaphorical rising up after the destruction.
We, the People. Analysis of emic language points to a
way this gifting event has structural consequences that differ
from what is achieved by dyadic gifting at Christmas. Cul-
tural analysis of informants’ use of pronouns (Sunderland
and Denny 2007) elucidates a recurrent collective orienta-
tion. Maude (Caucasian, 60s, wearing a purple dress and
beads) talks with the first author after a Sunday church
service. She attends this Catholic church during Mardi Gras
because it is close to where her family watches the parades.
She shifts from singular to plural first-person pronouns and
then to a collective noun that includes herself: “I know we’ve
been very much criticized because of the money and about
the means, but I think the people really need a lift.” Locals’
discourse about Mardi Gras frequently employs first-person
plural pronouns: Mike, an African American door attendant
at a restaurant between the local and the tourist sections of
the parade route, notes that Mardi Gras this year “brings us
back to the way we were.” A female krewe member remarks,
“We need something to remind us of what we used to be
and what we’re going to be in the future.”
Their language does not refer to individual motivations
(e.g., “I need”) but rather to collective evaluations (“we,”
“us,” or “the people”). This unprompted concern with “we-
ness” (Kanter 1972) is usually taken as a sign of perceived
social cohesion (Owen 1985). Collective language recurs
across locals in varied social positions: both watchers and
krewe members say “we,” referring to the whole community
rather than just others in their status position. They nostal-
gically seek stability, structure, and order such as they re-
member in the past, when schools and hospitals were open,
streetlights guided traffic, and houses without mold had
functioning electricity and plumbing. At this time, New Or-
leanians do not seek fragmentation or the “abandonment of
history, origin, and context” that are characteristic of post-
modernity (Firat and Venkatesh 1995, 252). Instead, they
seek the stability and order that allow people to rely on
commonsense logics and taken-for-granted common activ-
ities to organize daily life in settled times (Swidler 2001).
In seeking this form of stability, they assert collective iden-
tity with other locals, regardless of social position. Further,
part of their attempt to restore these aspects of social struc-
ture is through traditional means, namely, the enactment of
long-standing cultural ritual.
Collective rituals define the contours of a community, the
“we”; participation defines or redefines who is a member.
As social actions, rituals have a number of outcomes (Durk-
heim 1912/2001). Historically, Mardi Gras had been a col-
lective ritual of tension management, the initial phase in
Lent and Easter’s temporal sequence of release/control/re-
lease. Mardi Gras is not usually interpreted as a recommit-
ment ritual through which commitments to a community are
reborn or intensified (Etzioni 2000). Yet, locals’ pervasive
concern with we-ness indicates that this year’s event is also
seen as fostering recommitment to community (Terian
2004), and therefore they regard it as successful. In this
80
sense, informants are correct in noting that Mardi Gras dif-
fers from dyadic gifts given at Christmas, where the “we”
that is primarily defined is family (Caplow 1982).
The Mardi Gras gifts at the core of this recommitment
ritual not only define the boundaries around the “we” but
also give form to the structure of relationships within the
community. Camerer (1988) portrays a gift as a signal of
willingness to invest in a relationship. By gifting the event
to the city, krewe members tacitly show a willingness to
reinvest in their relationship to the community. By accepting
the krewes’ gift of the event and throws, locals tacitly agree
to allow the community to continue and for krewe members
to resume their position in the social hierarchy. Simulta-
neously, a collective “we” and a stratified “we” are defined.
A test of this interpretation is to see whether nonlocals’
reactions to the ritual differ. They do. Characteristic of non-
locals, a tourist family from Mississippi (mid-30s Caucasian
adults, son age 7) watches parades from the more tourist-
oriented Canal Street area.
Michelle: What do you think about them actually having the
event this year?
Crystal: I think they have more things to worry about than
Mardi Gras, honestly. I mean [her husband Don laughs]
there’s other issues to me, in my opinion, that are more
important than Mardi Gras, but since they’re having it, I . . .
Don: It does bring money in.
Crystal: Yeah, it does bring money. But it’s like all you ever
heard within a couple of days after the hurricane was, “Oh,
we’re still having Mardi Gras,” but I felt like there’s other
things that were more important, like homes and people’s
lives and stuff like that.
Locals lobby for the event privileging moral economy logics
of community rebirth and renewed collective identity. But
nonlocal informants only use market economy logics to jus-
tify holding it or sometimes to openly criticize “them” for
holding it, even when they have traveled to attend. Crystal
and Don provide a rational economic argument about the
primacy of material needs. What is missing in nonlocals’
views is any attention to collective needs to repair the social
fabric. While locals could prioritize material needs, which
certainly still exist, they do not. Remarkably, local infor-
mants’ reactions are uniformly positive across racial, ethnic,
and class lines. Despite continued material needs, much local
money and time is directed toward enacting the collective
gifting ritual. But why? What do locals experience that out-
siders do not? Their emic experience is detailed next.
The Gifts and Givers
The most prevalent, emblematic, and focal gifts given at
Mardi Gras are those given by krewe members to parade
attendees, who in 2006 are predominantly locals. Gifts from
krewe members to attendees exist at two levels: the gift of
the parade to the city and those who watch and gifts of
throws from krewe members to parade watchers. Next, we
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
interpret the cultural implications of each of these forms of
gift.
Giving the Event. While both krewe members and local
parade watchers herald the parades as a free event, in reality,
the parade costs are paid by krewe members as a gift to
watchers and local business owners who profit from addi-
tional revenue during the event. Historically, krewes have
been composed of the social elite of New Orleans, many of
whom are business owners and professionals in practice in
the local community. After their initial formation in the
1800s, krewes continued as exclusive (white, wealthy, male)
clubs. In the 1950s, the number and size of some krewes
increased, making membership slightly more accessible to
the lower upper class, but still an elite exclusive position in
contrast to those who are not members. Despite this in-
creased openness in access, in 1991 it was clear that racial
discrimination still prevailed (Gill 1997). While parades put
on by very elite krewes such as Rex are still central to Mardi
Gras festivities, megakrewes (large and less exclusive), fe-
male krewes, African American krewes, and less elaborate
organizations now also put on parades that are well attended
by locals and less focal for tourists. But even these events
require expensive outlays by krewe members, a high barrier
to entry for many New Orleanians, enacting a sharp social
distinction between the status position of gift-giving krewe
members on floats and that of parade watchers receiving the
gifts.
Krewe members take on the financial obligations of put-
ting on a parade. Robert, from an all-male megakrewe that
puts on an evening parade, spent $4,000–$5,000; two local
women who ride in a less attended, afternoon, all-female
parade each spent about $500. Expenses are higher for the
most elite krewes. Many krewes require members to pay
for dues, parade permits, the design and construction of the
elaborate floats and costumes, generator rentals, wages for
tractor drivers and mechanics, school bus transportation, and
fees charged by participating high school marching bands
and African American fire carriers (at some evening pa-
rades).
The result for each krewe is a well-orchestrated, hours-
long parade of masked, costumed krewe members riding on
themed floats as they throw small gifts to parade watchers
screaming below. Although tractors pulling floats frequently
break down, creating a pause in parade movement (and de-
lays for those parades scheduled to follow the route later in
the day), there are no complaints heard in the crowd. One
woman indicates that this is just part of the normal flow of
parades, elongating the day and the celebration. The parades
are what locals look forward to because they are “what
makes Mardi Gras, Mardi Gras,” as one informant ex-
plained.
Brief Connections through Gifting. Beyond the expense
of getting the parade rolling, each krewe member purchases
large quantities of token gifts to throw. While sometimes
krewe members toss throws to no one in particular, this is
not the norm observed in the nontourist sections of the route.
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
Instead, there is a subtle interaction in this participatory
festive performance (Deighton 1992): a parade watcher tries
to make eye contact with a masked rider by smiling or
yelling “hey” or “cups.” The watcher then poses with arms
stretched overhead, signaling to the krewe member that the
watcher wants what the krewe member is giving. The krewe
member may then toss the item toward the watcher: some-
times it lands in the hands of the intended recipient, some-
times in the hands of those nearby, and sometimes it misfires
and hits the head of the intended catcher or someone not
paying attention. Occasionally, if the throw does not reach
the intended recipient and the float has not yet moved, the
krewe member throws another item, often after pointing out
the intended recipient to others. Seasoned parade watchers
are keenly aware of this interaction’s importance: they de-
scribe it when instructing the first author on accumulating
throws after noting her lack of initial success.
The gifting interchange may also be initiated by krewe
members. Typically, beginning with subtle eye contact, a
krewe member may point to a parade watcher who has not
requested a throw; after the watcher acknowledges the point,
the krewe member throws an item to that watcher. Children
often sit in specially designed seats on top of a ladder held
by an adult. These seats not only keep them from being hit
by the floats but also put them closer to eye level to be
noticed by krewe members, aiding their accumulation of
throws. Krewe members typically throw what is in their
hands but occasionally choose an item based on a watcher’s
observable demographics. Despite initiating fewer connec-
tions with krewe members, children are thrown a dispro-
portionate share of items, particularly toys; older women
more often receive long strands of white beads. Quite often,
intended connections are not successful because a cacoph-
ony of voices and a sea of eyes interact at once as the float
moves, albeit slowly, along the street.
Krewe members and watchers show no signs of personally
recognizing one another. Their connection takes a few sec-
onds, a very brief interaction between strangers. None of
our informants report knowing someone in the parades they
attend. Even if a watcher knew a rider, the long parade route,
depth of crowds, and float movement would make it difficult
for the two to connect. Since krewe members are masked
and uniformly costumed on floats, watchers would find it
difficult to identify individual givers; in fact, in a geographic
community, the masks may have developed as a means of
preventing individual recognition by neighbors and co-
workers. Masked krewe members give to a sea of watchers:
the gift moves from a masked member of one community
group to strangers occupying a different social position
within the community, without either one expecting personal
recognition or future interaction.
Gifts among Watchers. The krewes’ gifts of the parades
and throws are locals’ primary focus. Yet some secondary
gifting also occurs among watchers. Watchers in friendly
competition to catch throws spend time between parades
socializing with nearby locals, friends, neighbors, and family
visiting one another’s encampments. Rick and Marsha, a
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
81
middle-aged, middle-class Caucasian couple brought a table
and lawn chairs, sunscreen, hand sanitizer, and enough pic-
nic-style food, sodas, and wine to be able to host their adult
children and any friends who stopped by. They eagerly of-
fered the first author food, drinks, and a place to store her
throws while spending hours with her. Like others near them,
they selectively give some of their throws to other watchers.
This regifting is targeted especially at children, often after
their expressed desire to catch a type of throw that a listener
has many of. These ancillary gifts resemble dyadic Christ-
mas gifts in being given to please closer ties and flowing
downward in an age hierarchy. Yet, the fact that they can
be immediately regifted distinguishes krewe gifts of beads
from prototypical dyadic gifts at Christmas.
While some gifts of beads, food, and drinks among watch-
ers are reciprocated over the course of the parades, most are
not. Like reciprocated dyadic gifts at Christmas, but unlike
unreciprocated nondyadic gifts from krewes, gifts among
watchers express interpersonal bonds and social hierarchies,
in this case between unmasked givers and receivers on the
ground. Locals giving unreciprocated dyadic gifts establish
their role vis-à-vis others in the community.
Emic Value. Megakrewe member Robert claims that the
beads he throws “only have value in the air” before people
catch them, but watchers hoping to catch beads indicate that
beads do not lose their value when caught; they hold special
meaning even after Mardi Gras. They are kept and displayed
in New Orleanians’ homes and even put to various uses in
arts-and-crafts projects that three generations of the Jackson
family proudly describe and show to the first author. Beads
are meaningful enough that no one reported throwing these
trinkets away before the hurricane, even when asked if they
did. The hurricane changed this. Craig, a mid-20s Caucasian
student and musician, sadly threw out boxes of mold-cov-
ered beads, despite never having done so before. A balcony
banner along St. Charles Avenue urges: “Re-New, Re-Build,
Re-Bead.” Rebeading is part of this year’s symbolic process
of becoming whole, replacing important tokens that signify
life as usual in New Orleans. Of course, beads could be
replaced by bulk purchases or charitable distributions by
bead manufacturers, but they were not. Instead, their sacred
value is constructed through copresence at the event, with
krewe members gifting this symbolic recovery of what was
lost. In the interaction, throws are infused with meanings
that adhere for a long time (Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry
1989). While some beads and doubloons are seen as par-
ticularly sacred—separated from the others, displayed or
kept in special places—others are occasionally repurposed
or even sold, not carrying these meanings so strongly. None-
theless, a line is still drawn at discarding new beads as trash.
These gifts hold meaning and value, even after the event
(Godelier 1999).
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
Intracommunity gifting, such as at Mardi Gras 2006, differs
from dyadic gift giving in important ways. Rather than being
82
located in an intimate dyadic pair, intracommunity gift givers
and receivers do not personally know each other. In fact,
Mardi Gras gift givers are masked, preventing the formation
of a tie sign between the two. Intracommunity gifts connect
members of a community group in a higher social position
with other community members in a lower social position,
all residing in the same geographic community. After clar-
ifying varied uses of the concept of community, we next
use the six characteristics of gifts outlined earlier to examine
theoretically important ways that intracommunity gifting
differs structurally from other forms of gift giving, including
dyadic, archaic, and rhizomatic gifting.
Community
The term community has been used for more than a cen-
tury in many fields to refer to a variety of social collectives.
Early sociologists (Durkheim 1893/1997; Tönnies 1897/
2002) used the term primarily as a contrast with another
social form, society, which was of keen interest as they
reflected on early modernity (Gusfield 1975). Consumer cul-
ture theory research has used the term community to refer
to several types of social groups. This more recent work
has convincingly shown that one variant of community
emerges when people are connected by a shared elective
affinity for a brand or product (Kozinets 2001; Muñiz and
O’Guinn 2001; Muñiz and Schau 2005). Other consumer
research finds that another variant of community emerges
when people travel from many places to come together tem-
porarily to share an elective affinity for a leisure activity
(Arnould and Price 1993; Kozinets 2002). Both of these
types of community are primarily oriented toward bonding
(Gittell and Vidal 1998) people who are relatively homog-
enous in their elective interest in a brand or product within
the portion of their lives that focuses on that brand or prod-
uct. They choose when to go to a Star Trek fan club and
when to go on a river-rafting trip. Connection to these two
forms of community is elective and typically episodic.
Another form of community that differs from brand com-
munities and temporary communities is the geographic com-
munity where people physically live. Geographic commu-
nities are elective only in a singular way (whether to live
there) and continuously surround many if not all aspects of
their members’ lives. While people vary in their civic en-
gagement (Putnam 2000), all geographic community mem-
bers are broadly interdependent because of their contermi-
nous location. Yet unlike brand or temporary communities,
there is no shared elective affinity for a product, brand, or
leisure activity. Because of the diversity that they encom-
pass, geographic communities are primarily oriented toward
bridging rather than bonding (Gittell and Vidal 1998) people
“across diverse social cleavages” (Putnam 2000, 22). When
floods, tornados, or epidemics move across space without
regard to these social cleavages, geographic community be-
comes especially salient for its bridging capacity, as we will
discuss.
Our use of the term community in intracommunity gifting
refers to the broadly interdependent set of social relations
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
in geographic, enduring, corporeal social contexts in which
most of daily life is lived and a basic sense of moral ob-
ligation to others is foundational. Even with social media
and virtual commuting, embodied geographic communities
remain important, where daily practices in shared spaces
such as sidewalks, parks, stores, restaurants, and doctors’
offices constitute the social fabric that necessarily has to
bridge some social cleavages, at least some of the time.
Through the broad set of social relations that comprise geo-
graphic communities, members make explicit and implicit
collective decisions on moral and civic issues with con-
sequential impacts on their daily lives and interactions,
despite not having close dyadic ties to each member of the
community. For example, community members’ individual
decisions and behaviors determine neighborhood safety
(Sampson and Groves 1989), the level of parental involve-
ment in and the quality of local schools (Putnam 2000), and
norms guiding those who might help push a stalled car in
an intersection. The location of intracommunity gifts in this
embodied form of geographic community is important in
determining their structural characteristics, to which we now
turn.
Masking and Reciprocity
Unlike dyadic gifts that flow from one individual to an-
other, the primary gifts given at Mardi Gras flow from mem-
bers of a community group to other community members
in a different social position. On behalf of their krewe, in-
dividual members wearing identical costumes and masks
throw gifts to other locals within the sea of watchers. Throw
recipients, although singled out in the moment of the throw,
do not form enduring personal relations with the giver.
Because krewe members’ masks prevent the giver and
recipient from forming a personal relation, dyadic reciproc-
ity cannot occur. Although krewe members give an abun-
dance of throws to watchers, rarely are any material items
given to krewe members in return. Remarkably, our data
show no immediate reciprocal exchange of material items,
no mentions of expectations of material reciprocity for
throws, and no reports of guilt about not reciprocating. The
gifting practiced at Mardi Gras does not adhere to the rec-
iprocity characteristic of dyadic gifting.
The gifting locus and process for parade throws is mark-
edly different from other forms of gifting as well. In the
communal giving detailed in classical anthropological the-
ory, the individual giver is made known to receivers. In
early celebrations of the potlatch, giving was done within
the community to celebrate the ascent of a new chief and,
in later years, to solidify his status within and between com-
munities (Hyde 1979; Mauss 1923/1990). A new chief gave
to presumed followers or other friendly tribes to assert his
and his tribe’s social status, with his identity visible and
known to the recipients. He therefore could command status
and fealty in return. Similarly, in the Kula ring observed in
Trobriands by Malinowski (1922/1992), members of the two
communities engage in direct, face-to-face reciprocity as
white shell armbands are given in a counterclockwise di-
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
rection, while red shell necklaces move clockwise through
the islands. This face-to-face, continuous form of reciprocity
creates long-term connection and obligation; it differs from
masked giving at Mardi Gras in which direct reciprocity is
difficult and not expected.
Sahlins’s (1963) research on the big man in Melanesia
focuses on an individual seeking informal authority by be-
coming renowned for redistributing gains among local com-
munity members and among other big men. As with pot-
latch, such gifts are given by one known person to members
of the same community who are in a lower status position;
these gifts are similar to the material manifestation of no-
blesse oblige from European nobles in early modernity. By
contrast, krewe members cannot attain personal renown
among recipients because their masks preclude individual
notoriety, and they give tokens with little economic or use
value.
Giesler’s (2006) work on the Napster music collective
goes beyond other research on dyadic gifts by connecting
dyadic relations between multiple givers and recipients in
a rhizomatic network. But this rhizomatic network differs
from intracommunity gifting in its key characteristics. Since
multiple Napster givers granted access to the same music
piece, and in turn became recipients accessing music shared
by multiple others, participants shifted between givers and
receivers across music pieces. Unlike intracommunity gift-
ing at Mardi Gras, the giver and the recipient roles were
not mutually exclusive; reciprocity occurred by being a re-
cipient of some pieces of music and a provider of others
but not necessarily reciprocating in the initial gift dyads.
Further, Napster givers and recipients were individually
identifiable to each other in the virtual world, so adherence
to reciprocity norms could be monitored by participants,
creating social distinctions. In this context, giving had lim-
ited consequences since recordings could be given to others
while still being retained for one’s own use. In short, the
Napster collectivity had strong norms of reciprocity that did
not operate within an initial gift dyad. In these respects, the
rhizomatic reciprocity structure of Napster gifts is dissimilar
to both dyadic gifts and the intracommunity gift structure.
Cheal (1988) argues that community forms of gifting are
archaic and no longer characterize relations in contemporary
capitalist societies. Rather, he claims that in contemporary
society, dyadic gifts maintain ties and power relations among
intimates with regular, long-term contact. He claims that
obligations to nonintimates are not addressed through the
moral economy but are mediated by the market economy.
Yet contrary to Cheal, intracommunity gifting at Mardi Gras
persists, drawing extensive local participation at the inter-
section of the moral and market economies. Extant literature
is insufficient to explain whether and what forms of reci-
procity exist in its midst or the consequences of such gifting.
If reciprocity exists at Mardi Gras, it is within a form of
social relation other than gifts connecting intimate dyads, a
Kula ring, potlatch participants, big-man relations, or virtual
rhizomatic networks.
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
83
Social Relations of Intracommunity Giving
Intracommunity gifting does not create tie strength be-
tween individuals as dyadic gifts do. Instead, intracom-
munity gifting creates and demonstrates tensile strength in
the fabric of a community, the ability of a community to
stretch and extend to meet participants’ needs without help
from outsiders. In unsettled times, demonstrating this ability
is important precisely because its consequences have been
made salient and it requires a greater stretch to accomplish.
We claim that in the fragile temporal space of post-Katrina,
intracommunity gifting at Mardi Gras (1) reinforces the emic
sense of vibrancy of community; (2) awards gratitude, status,
and cultural authority to givers; and (3) creates feelings of
inclusion that counteract alienation and fragmentation within
a community in crisis. We discuss each of these in turn.
Reinforces Emic Sense of Vibrancy of Community. In-
tracommunity gifting reinforces felt communality. No local
parade watchers or local media commentators express dis-
trust, dismay, or criticism of krewe gifts, even when probed
and after long periods of engagement when they criticize
other entities (especially government). Instead, emic com-
ments are positive regarding enhanced inclusion, together-
ness, and solidarity. Characteristic of a narrowed focus in
unsettled times (Swidler 1986), locals employ a coherent
rhetoric about the need for community stability.
Informants’ actions and expressions demonstrate Turner-
ian communitas (Turner 1969): this year’s Mardi Gras acts
as a rite of intensification in which those of differing class
and ethnic backgrounds reexperience their sense of being
inextricably bound together. Unlike members of temporary
communities who come from diverse geographic areas for
a short time, local Mardi Gras celebrants already share col-
lective cultural knowledge allowing them to enact the ritual
without needing to develop a consciousness of kind. Locals’
long-term engagement in New Orleans means that unlike
members of temporary communities, they experience com-
munitas together and then return to daily life together at the
completion of the ritual cycle (1969). Communitas, as clas-
sically described by Turner, is more than a moment of felt
togetherness that might be experienced in a temporary com-
munity. In enduring geographic communities, this conclud-
ing phase in the ritual process is a prerequisite to the con-
struction of a new enduring social structure. Communitas is
experienced by locals as momentarily proving cohesion in
a way that permits movement into the everyday world of
social distinctions and cleavages that also exist in geographic
communities. In particular, since the moral and social fabric
of New Orleans was ruptured in the aftermath of Katrina
as people fought for their lives, a sense that connection and
cohesion were being reestablished was of focal importance
to locals during Mardi Gras.
Our sociological perspective on geographic community
interprets locals’ experiences as focused on a structural out-
come beyond individual experiences of communitas. Com-
munitas is important in the ritual cycle (Turner 1969, 2004)
because it proves something that might otherwise be invis-
84
ible: intracommunity bonds. This ritual meaning helps ex-
plain why strands of beads are well suited to Mardi Gras’
symbolic task. They are not giftwrapped or chosen out of
close knowledge of an intended recipient’s preferences.
Beads are a token, not necessary for daily life but symbolic
of what is. They are the part of the ritual whose material
form is needed to connect givers and receivers in geographic
space. They are not mailed or distributed in help-yourself
baskets but are handed from members of a community group
to community members in a lower social position. As a
circular strand, they link together individual beads that lose
their individual importance: by holding together individual
beads, the strand, the collective, becomes primary. Like the
beads, New Orleanians in different status positions are
joined together in the passing of these gifts. Like all effective
rituals, this one proves what might otherwise be invisible:
an enduring connection between the community’s status
groups.
Instead of reinforcing and mapping out a clear hierarchy
of intimate relationships such as what happens through dy-
adic Christmas gifts centered in a family (Caplow 1982),
intracommunity gifts provide a broader but no less mean-
ingful assertion of both connection and status differentiation
between the givers and the receivers. Intracommunity gifts
draw a boundary around the community in creating a sense
of we-ness while also asserting acceptance of a hierarchical
relation between different community members.
Gratitude for Generosity. The absence of material rec-
iprocity for krewe gifts does not imply that nothing is given
in return (Hyde 1979). Parade watchers give intangible grat-
itude, status, and cultural authority to krewes in return for
their generosity. Verbal expressions of gratitude are often
heard in locals’ parade route sections. Field notes record
Marsha (the mid-50s spouse of Rick) and the first author
laughing in self-consciousness at the repetition of “thank
you” that they and others utter to throwers after catching a
gift. Interactions with krewe members along locals’ parade
route sections are more intimate as floats pass dangerously
close to watchers; krewe members are within earshot of
expressions of gratitude. In contrast, the more tourist-ori-
ented areas do not facilitate such interactions as watchers
and riders are separated by more distance and metal barriers
along the wide boulevard, putting riders out of earshot from
watchers.
Another form of expression of gratitude is shown in pho-
tos of numerous parade watchers holding handmade posters
thanking krewes for putting on the parades. After a parade,
Nadine, a krewe member (Caucasian, early 60s, middle
class) whose family owns an upscale New Orleans restau-
rant, and her sister Joyce, who has returned to New Orleans
for Mardi Gras, reflect:
Nadine: Everyone was just like “thanks for doing it” and
flying these banners.
Michelle: What do you think about them actually having the
event this year?
Joyce: It really brought tears to my eyes.
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Michelle: Yeah?
Nadine: Yeah, just to see the signs about “thank you for
doing it,” because I think the people need it to happen. You
know.
Despite not being personally directed at them, these gen-
eralized forms of gratitude are meaningful to krewe mem-
bers and reinforce their collective orientation in “doing it,”
validating their notion of serving “the people.” Krewe mem-
ber Robert also expresses surprise about the “incredible en-
thusiasm of the crowds,” noting signs held by watchers this
year. Both Nadine and Robert use third-person plural rather
than referring to a specific person; both the krewes’ gen-
erosity and the crowds’ expressions of gratitude are collec-
tively oriented. Unlike other forms of nonreciprocal giving
or generalized reciprocity in small groups in which obli-
gations and social ties are already strong (Cheal 1988; Sah-
lins 1972), at Mardi Gras, intimate dyadic bonds between
individual giver and recipient do not exist. Like the gifts
themselves but in reverse, gratitude flows from community
members to members of a community group in a different
social position.
There is no consensus among scholars about gratitude’s
role in gifting. Some claim that gratitude is essential for
successful gift giving. Without gratitude and appreciation,
“the donor feels he has been taken advantage of,” resulting
in an unsuccessful gift (Godbout and Caillé 1998, 93). Other
scholars, most notably Douglas (1990) in agreement with
Mauss (1923/1990), do not regard gratitude as an essential
response. Instead, Douglas asserts that there are “no free
gifts”; instead, an “obligation to the giver” (1990, vii) is
expected in return. To avoid such obligations, some people
turn to the market rather than the moral economy, such as
those relying on professional movers rather than friends
when moving to a new house (Marcoux 2009). In locals’
Mardi Gras celebrations, expressions of gratitude prevail.
Not one informant expresses cynicism or holds an emic
understanding of enduring obligations, as described by Doug-
las (1990) and Mauss (1923/2000) and in Sherry, McGrath,
and Levy’s (1993) analyses of the dark side of gift-giving
obligation. Since there is neither immediate material reci-
procity nor any longer-term interaction, immediate expres-
sions of gratitude are emotionally touching to krewe mem-
bers and make them feel encouraged about continuing the
practice of intracommunity gifting. But beyond its imme-
diate emotional impact, our analysis indicates that gratitude
has an important structural outcome. Gratitude is essential
in the process of conferring status on givers.
Status through Generosity. Being a krewe member giv-
ing gifts to parade watchers brings status to givers but not
through dyadic ties between giver and recipient. While grat-
itude is expressed from an individual receiving the throw
to the giver, such dyads cannot carry an implied obligation
to reciprocate since the giver is masked. Instead, status
within the community is awarded by watchers to the krewe
group and its members. It is in this sense that the gifts are
reciprocated intracommunally, rather than interpersonally.
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
By showing gratitude and deference to a krewe, watchers
allow Mardi Gras parade traditions to continue and also
allow krewe members to form social relationships with one
another. Through shared responsibility in planning fund-
raising and community charity events, enacting the parades,
and later attending private balls, members of a krewe cul-
tivate and invest in social capital among themselves. This
continues at the many social events held during the year for
krewe members, including debutante parties and balls for
their daughters. It is not necessary that individual krewe
members be recognized by gift recipients so that they can
receive deference in later face-to-face interactions (Goffman
1956). Instead, by being masked in public but unmasked at
private krewe events, social capital is accumulated among
elites who can later draw on other krewe members and their
networks for resources in this moral economy. In this sense,
Mardi Gras parade throws could be viewed as gifts to ap-
pease those not invited to be part of the krewe’s private
events. Gratitude from parade watchers to krewe members
tacitly grants permission for elites to hold their status po-
sition. Parade watchers indicate gratitude for krewe mem-
bers upholding their position of responsibility to the com-
munity as much as they express gratitude for the beads
themselves. Gratitude from recipients is essential as a bed-
rock foundation for elites’ unchallenged accumulation and
reproduction of social capital.
Notably, there are no comparative comments about the
quality of beads this year versus other years. It is not the
quality of the beads but rather the quality of the generosity
of elites in assuming their status positions that is lauded as
being of utmost importance. The fact that they choose to
connect with the populace through the parades is of struc-
tural consequence in reestablishing the form of “we” that
will prevail.
Beyond the good feelings of communitas, community is
an inherently political construct; as Collins (2010, 8) reminds
the field of sociology, “Recasting the notion of community
as a political construct highlights how social inequalities are
organized via structural principles of community and are
made comprehensible through a language of community.”
Community is a social form in which social inequality and
the power relations associated with it are constructed, main-
tained, resisted, contested, and renegotiated. This year’s
Mardi Gras reasserts a boundary around a unified sense of
“we” and proves the ability of the community to persist
despite challenge, while also asserting social inequality and
the moral responsibilities associated with higher status.
Hegemonic Cultural Authority. Intracommunity gifting
grants cultural authority to givers. In designing and creating
the gift of the parades, krewes develop float themes for
public consumption. In 2006, two krewes’ parade themes
celebrated the culture of New Orleans with floats depicting
the French Market, riverboats, New Orleans food, fishing,
casinos, and even Mardi Gras. When they represent New
Orleans culture for locals and tourists, krewes shape col-
lective understanding of important community markers.
Mardi Gras parades are an important assertion of a version
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
85
of cultural identity; krewes are given considerable power in
being permitted to author depictions as if they reflect locals’
shared experience.
Two krewes known for their satirical themes, D’état and
Mid-City, created many of their floats posthurricane. For
centuries, satire has been a device for providing social com-
mentary about those who are more powerful (Bronowski
and Mazlish 1960). In this case, the krewes’ satirical social
commentaries are aimed at federal, state, and, occasionally,
local governments. Krewe D’état combines an Olympic
Games and hurricane theme to communicate satirical cri-
tiques. One float has “Who Dropped It?” written on a vol-
leyball, while another float portrays a woman jumping over
hurdles while proudly holding a government permit for
housing reconstruction.
In such images, krewes frame the situation as one in which
New Orleanians were collectively wronged by government.
By contrast, the stark racial and economic disparities re-
vealed in the hurricane’s aftermath are not represented on
floats. While krewes could have turned their satire on the
city’s social problems, such as high levels of poverty and
racial inequality, doing so might call into question the very
social structure that grants krewe members an elite position.
By not doing so, krewes simultaneously assert their power
as an elite group and direct blame at the government as the
villain in the social drama of Katrina’s aftermath.
In summary, by bankrolling parades rather than simply
holding private balls, krewes involve the community in cre-
ating a particular form of hegemonic social relationship
(Gramsci 1992). Local parade watchers’ grateful acceptance
of the gift rewards krewes with status and an opportunity
to accumulate additional social capital through private
events with other members: these benefits accrue beyond
the time of the ritual. As a result, material reciprocity for
the token gifts is not necessary or even desired. The gift is
given sincerely with an intention of creating and maintaining
generalized connections and collective renewal (Godbout
and Caillé 1998, 96), but in the formation of such connec-
tions, obligation still resides. The status position of krewes
grants them the opportunity to present floats that assert their
perspectives on social conditions.
Locals recognize the krewes’ support of the city’s culture
and economy; the broader impact of their gifts is not ques-
tioned or refuted by watchers. After the sharp class cleavages
revealed by the hurricane and its subsequent looting and vi-
olence, one could imagine that locals might revolt against
elites displaying and celebrating the frivolity of Mardi Gras.
Instead, however, this year local parade watchers embrace the
gifting ritual as being at the heart of their culture. Affirmation
is given to givers that the gift, and the giver’s accompanying
social position, is accepted within a rewoven community fab-
ric that allows for a widespread sense of connection, with
differential status and cultural authority for givers. This is com-
munity as “a dynamic dimension of lived experience rather
than as a simple taxonomic category” (Collins 2010, 13).
Strength and Shape of the “We.” Intracommunity gifting
affects both the strength and the form of community ties
86
that are reinforced and celebrated, as well as the primary
ties built within the community. In archaic community gift
systems, separation between the time of gift receipt and
reciprocation is essential to solidify the connection and ob-
ligation between communities (Bourdieu 1977; Malinowski
1922/1992; Mauss 1923/1990), just as it is in connecting
individuals in contemporary dyadic gift exchange (Cheal
1988). In this time of indebtedness, social obligations and
ties are cemented, connecting people over time and space.
However, intracommunity gifting from masked givers to
receivers does not allow for delayed dyadic reciprocity. In-
stead, the reciprocity of gratitude and status affirmation is
diffuse and immaterial and therefore cannot reinforce con-
crete dyadic relationships in the way that dyadic gifts do.
Intracommunity gifts bind together community members in
two different social positions but not as strongly as dyadic
gifts bind individuals together. Nonetheless, the ties con-
firmed in intracommunity gifts serve as a bedrock for stable
dyadic relationships within the community (Putnam 2000).
The community composition reinforced by intracommun-
ity gifting is not focal in emic verbal accounts but still needs
interpretive analysis. Kimberly, a 25-year-old Caucasian for-
mer resident who returned for this Mardi Gras, provided a
common emic perspective on inclusion: “[At] Mardi Gras,
it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor. If you were the
uppitiest of the uppitiest and they have some seriously upper-
class old-money people here, you come out to the ‘neutral
ground’ [local term for grassy area on a road’s median facing
the parade side of a divided road] or you go to the side of
the road; every year you have the corner of whatever street
you go to and you watch the parades. Or you’re in the parade
or whatever.” She echoes a common emic belief that the
event creates communality by including New Orleanians
from all economic and status groups in the reasserted “we.”
Yet Kimberly later notes a change this year: there are far
fewer people in the “neutral ground.” Some watchers in this
mixed-race area and krewe members on floats comment on
the significantly smaller proportion of African Americans
in the crowd. Interestingly, the term neutral ground was
coined in the nineteenth century for the median separating
Spanish Creole and French land areas, a place where mixed
company was acceptable.
At post-Katrina Mardi Gras, the relative sizes of the two
contemporary cultural groups that share the neutral ground
have changed. Census data analyzed by the Brookings In-
stitute (Frey and Singer 2006) and state data verify that the
population of New Orleans parish has decreased dramati-
cally, with sharp changes in its racial and economic com-
position. Before the hurricane, 36% of New Orleanians were
African American, but 5 months posthurricane, among those
who returned, it has dropped to 21%. Single African Amer-
ican women in the lowest income bracket who had children
returned in the lowest numbers. New Orleanians who re-
turned were likely to be homeowners who own a car and
have a job as well as a vested stake in the community and
the financial means to return (2006). While intracommunity
gifting is experienced as supporting community cohesion,
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
it can simultaneously modify social structure, disintegrating
groups through exclusion (Etzioni 2000). Mardi Gras’ in-
tracommunity gifting tradition is perceived by locals as help-
ing reconstitute their sense of community, yet cultural
groups that are absent are unable to use it to reconstitute
themselves as part of the community or as stewards of cul-
tural information. Participation in intracommunity gifting
asserts a definition of “we”; its corollary is a definition of
who is not (any longer) part of the community.
As shown in table 1, intracommunity gifting differs from
contemporary dyadic gift giving. Rather than individual to
individual, its locus is from members of a community group
to other community members in another social position.
Future dyadic reciprocity is not possible. Its purpose is social
capital accumulation among givers, as well as bridging the
social divide between givers and recipients. The giver role
includes identity masking, and the recipient role includes
doing something to “catch” the gift. The object is a token
with considerable similarity across recipients, and the out-
comes are social solidarity with acceptance of status dif-
ferentiation. Further, intracommunity gifting differs from
other contemporary gift forms such as rhizomatic network
gifts like Napster music and from archaic community gift
forms such as potlatch, Kula, and redistribution from a big
man. While rooted in tradition, intracommunity gifting plays
an important role in contemporary culture and reveals struc-
tural components of gifting that extend beyond its ritual
cycle. In the following sections, we examine the tensions
underlying the intersection of the moral and market econ-
omies through the context of intracommunity giving and
their implications for common corporate communications
strategies.
The Sponsor’s Gift
We deepen our analysis of the structural components of
intracommunity gifting by turning now to the tensions sur-
rounding corporate sponsorships of Mardi Gras, in order to
highlight the central importance of particular characteristics
of intracommunity gifts. In contrast to outsiders who de-
ployed an economic rhetoric for canceling what they see as
a frivolous event, locals advocated holding the event using
a different logic. Exemplary is material from a blog writer
on the website of the local newspaper, the Times-Picayune
(http://www.nola.com/):
I am sick and tired of all this talk about canceling Mardi
Gras. First of all, you can’t cancel Mardi Gras—you can
cancel the parades, but you can’t take a date off the calendar.
The naysayers ask, “How we can celebrate when people are
suffering?” But how would it help to add to the suffering?
Think of all the people who depend on Mardi Gras for their
livelihood: musicians, artists, dressmakers, photographers,
hospitality workers, float builders, retailers, the list goes on
and on. You would take away one of their primary sources
of income. Ask anyone picking through the mold and wreck-
age of their home: Why are you doing this? Why not just
turn your back and walk away? “I’m trying to save what I
 TABLE 1

FORMS OF GIFT EXCHANGE

Intracommunity gift Dyadic gift Potlatch Big man Kula Rhizomatic network Sponsorship
Locus Members of a commu- One individual to Chief to own com- Known person to Community mem- Virtual network of Corporate entity to
nity group in a another munity or to other community bers, mainly elite dyads community
higher social position friendly
to community mem- community
bers in a lower so-
cial position
Reciprocity No material reciprocity Implicit obligation to Nonmaterial fealty Nonmaterial esteem Immediate reci- Implicit expectation Implicit obligation to
obligation, but grati- reciprocate expected expected procity between to shift between buy; may be
tude often given materially groups giver and receiver explicit
roles
Giver’s purpose Appease recipients; Please recipient; Assert and retain Personal renown Status and social Gain wider access to Favorable local busi-
accumulate social stabilize formal status and power capital object for self ness climate; long-
capital from other relationship position run profit for
givers shareholders
Role No personal relation- Personal relation- Giver known but Giver known but Recipient takes No personal relation- No personal relation-
ship; giver masked; ship; giver not necessarily close personal possession but ship; giver and re- ship; giver fea-
giver may or may chooses recipient close personal relations not not ownership; cipient identified tured; recipients’
not choose intended and object relations with all necessary connected to virtually but not agent solicits giver
recipient; receiver recipients previous owners physically
must catch through story

This content downloaded from

Object Token, not gift Wrapped; meet Partial redistribution Partial redistribution Token; possession Access rather than Funding for select

158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC

wrapped; all receive needs or prefer- of gains of wealth rather than own- object is given; costs of holding a
similar, with some ences to show ership is trans- can give and keep community event

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

attempts to match personal knowl- ferred; same ob-
gift with visible recip- edge of recipient; jects passed to
ient characteristics luxury to show each member
importance of
relationship
Latent outcome Enhanced social soli- Inclusion in network Social solidarity Personal power Long-term connec- Wider access for Increased sponsor
darity with accepted of intimate dyads around accepted through obliga- tion and obliga- participants at profit as consumer
differentiation with defined leader tion; temporarily tion through the lower price; lower awareness and
structure accepted chain of giving royalties for object loyalty generate in-
differentiation creators; web of cremental sales
virtual
relationships
88
can,” they answer as they search for their most precious
treasures: the photo albums and mementoes that remind them
of who they are and people they love. Mardi Gras is a treasure
worth saving. It is part of what makes us who we are. It is
a celebration of community, a time when all races and classes
take to the streets and enjoy what we have in common. Any-
one who thinks that Mardi Gras is just for rich people has
never seen a truck parade, the Mardi Gras Indians or a neigh-
borhood marching group. This is the Mardi Gras that can’t
be cancelled. (Watt 2006)
Across our data, local parade watchers intertwine eco-
nomic (market) and sociocultural (moral) logics for holding
the event now. Similarly, krewe members weave the two
logics in conversation:
Viviane: [Mardi Gras] is essential for the spirit of New Or-
leans, because . . .
Cecile: Plus it pumps a lot of money into the economy, which
they need. A lot of jobs, all the people who build the floats
and make the costumes, and sell all the junk you throw.
Viviane: We’ve lost so much; we need something to remind
us of what we used to be, and what we’re going to be in the
future.
Despite being social elites who could recover from property
losses more easily than others, these krewe members insert
themselves into the “we” who “lost so much,” referring as
much to the lost moral order of community as to lost prop-
erty. Locals in both social positions intertwine the perceived
importance of the market economy (“a lot of money . . .
a lot of jobs”) and the moral economy (“the spirit of New
Orleans”) in facilitating recovery. Locals understand the rit-
ual as building the moral economy of the community by
connecting locals and as building the market economy
through increased economic activity. Clearly, businesses
producing costumes and “all the junk you throw” are often
located outside New Orleans, even in China (Redmon 2005).
Nonetheless, the businesses imagined in the members’ com-
ments are centrally located in the local economy.
Despite using market logics with moral ones to justify
holding the event, locals are hesitant to invite market actors
to be event sponsors. Mardi Gras parades are noncommercial
by long-standing custom and city ordinance. But for the first
time ever, in 2006 the city sought corporate sponsorship of
the overall event to offset its expected $2.7 million admin-
istrative costs. It offered several sponsorship options, in-
cluding event signage, sampling rights, national media cov-
erage, and sector exclusivity rights. It assured presenting
sponsors that their monies would fund police and fire pro-
tection at the event (MediaBuys 2005). Despite city efforts,
only one national sponsor came forward: Glad Products
donated trash bags and contributed toward cleanup costs,
while keeping a low profile. Nadine, a krewe member, con-
siders the idea of corporate sponsors for the event:
Nadine: I don’t like that somebody’s name would have to
be on Mardi Gras; it never has been. It’s just like putting
someone’s name on the Superdome. That’s never been
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
[done], either. But we’re in a new era now. I don’t know
what it’s going to be like. [uncertain tone]
Undeniably, large, nonlocal corporations surround Mardi
Gras with their advertising presence in market institutions,
most conspicuously in bars and restaurants in tourist areas
such as the French Quarter (Gotham 2002). Yet New Or-
leanians and city ordinances try to ensure that signs of the
market economy do not interrupt the sacredness of the moral
economy of gifts (Durkheim 1912/2001). Throughout her
interview, Nadine reveals resistance to the inauthentic visual
encroachment of national businesses into what she regards
as a local cultural domain. Her resistance is about more than
just the visual; sponsorship is problematic because it moves
activity away from the moral economy and more firmly
toward the market economy. No longer would “the people”
take care of themselves by paying administrative costs out
of collective tax funds. Instead, sponsorship shifts the po-
litical power to provide core cultural events from the people
to the corporation. Instead of the people’s contribution to
the festival coming from collectively generated public funds
administered by elected officials, sponsorship funds would
be provided from profits generated in the market economy
by a corporation not subject to public election.
In contrast to masked intracommunity givers who cannot
receive material returns directly, corporate sponsors typi-
cally expect, even contract for, unmasked recognition of
their financial gift. Sponsors are usually given privileged
access to people’s attention through signage, logos, and me-
dia coverage featuring favorable messages about the sponsor.
Often, attendees are explicitly encouraged to “support our
sponsors,” meaning extend patronage to them. Rather than
a primary focus on strengthening the collective social fabric,
corporate sponsors uphold their obligation to shareholders
by expecting strong financial returns for their strategies over
the long term. As a result, even when financial resources
are scarce, sponsorships from nonlocal corporate entities are
viewed with trepidation because they displace locals’ role
in the community’s moral economy.
But rather than outright rejection, the idea of corporate
sponsorship generates a nuanced and complex reaction in
the 2006 Mardi Gras context. At this historic time when the
community is reconfiguring itself, the felt need to prevent
market forces from upstaging the moral economy is palpable
in informants’ voice tones and facial gestures as well as in
their words. Yet despite their discomfort with having a na-
tional corporate sponsor, Shell Oil as (an imagined) sponsor
garners a different reaction among some locals. Krewe mem-
ber Nadine says:
Nadine: I think—what is the group that gave lots of money
to get Mardi Gras back on the streets this year? Some big
company . . . Shell! Shell Oil. But Shell Oil is part of New
Orleans.
Despite its Dutch and British origin and U.S. headquarters
in Houston, Shell Oil’s large office in the center of New
Orleans means it is regarded by some residents as a local
company, an idea reinforced by the firm. A large sign hang-
ing on the Shell building along the parade route claims:
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
“Shell is Coming Home.” While Nadine is mistaken in think-
ing Shell was a Mardi Gras sponsor, her statement is telling.
Because Shell is regarded as a local business where many
residents work, with a form of corporate personhood in the
locality, its (presumed) gift, like those of the krewes, is
considered more acceptable than gifts from outside corpo-
rations. Importantly, two local groups did donate funds to-
ward the festival’s administrative costs but chose not to be
identified as sponsors: one krewe donated $50,000 beyond
its permit fees, and a local hospitality group donated $56,000
(Donley 2006). These financial gifts without markers of de-
sired financial reciprocity are similar to the masked gifts
given by krewes in parades and were uncontested by locals.
Antisponsorship ideologies are prevalent in late moder-
nity in reaction to the perceived encroachment of brands
and corporations into many aspects of life (Klein 2000;
Kozinets 2002; Lasn 1999). Antisponsorship itself has be-
come a collective rallying tool for some consumer resistance
groups (Kozinets and Handelman 2004). By contrast, the
long history of resistance to sponsorship at Mardi Gras orig-
inates not in postmodern anticorporate or anticapitalist ac-
tivism but in the essential, traditional embeddedness of
Mardi Gras in the community’s moral economy. In contrast
to Burning Man wherein resistance to sponsorship is rooted
in the tensions between the establishment and individual
freedom (Kozinets 2002), the resistance to sponsorship at
Mardi Gras is rooted in the tension between two types of
establishments. In New Orleans, the opposition is to gifts
from unmasked corporations employing market-based logics
rather than to gifts from masked local elites grounded pri-
marily in the logics of the moral economy. Even though
many locals, including krewe members, work for large cor-
porations in the market economy, their participation is not
on behalf of these organizations. Underneath this year’s
resistance is a serious reservation about whether intracom-
munity gifting can achieve its desired structural consequences
if it is underwritten, upstaged, or claimed by corporations
outside the community that would not acknowledge and
celebrate the structural relations among locals in different
social positions.
To test this interpretation, we consider the ideas of those
who are more distanced from New Orleans’ community.
Sabrina (mid-20s, upper middle class, African American)
grew up and still has family in New Orleans, but she moved
away several years ago and did not return for the event this
year. She expresses temporary, conditional acceptance of
sponsorship, noting:
Sabrina: I think that given the state, it may be okay to let
it go. . . . But once New Orleans gets more back to normal,
I don’t know how I would feel about the sponsoring. It’s
supposed to be more the people. . . . Why do you need to
have some kind of corporate logo behind it as well?
People with less direct local ties are more open to spon-
sorships but still note the importance of excluding outside
funds from local celebrations in the future. The difference
of opinion between locals like Nadine and more distant
former residents like Sabrina may be due to their different
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
89
social roles at Mardi Gras, reflecting different relations to
New Orleans’ social structure. Sabrina, whose upward career
mobility led her to move away, is more open to sponsorships,
perhaps because she is not as deeply entwined in the social
relations constituting the local moral economy. By contrast,
Nadine is an important stakeholder in preserving the city’s
traditional social structure. Allowing corporate sponsors to
contribute to providing the event for locals might diminish
the importance of the giving role of Nadine and other krewe
members. While all informants express hesitation about cor-
porate sponsorships, krewe members elaborate on their op-
position the most.
What locals apparently realize but do not express overtly
is that allowing sponsorships erodes the status, cultural cap-
ital, and cultural authority elites garner through their gifting.
When a corporate sponsor injects itself into a ritual that
redefines the “we,” it is criticized in part for asserting its
inclusion in the community’s social structure. This insertion
is viewed suspiciously since the core meaning of the event
for locals, particularly at this time, is an enactment of tra-
dition and an attempt at restabilization. As Nadine expresses
when she says with uncertainty, “I don’t know what it’s
going to be like,” sponsorships are not always warmly wel-
comed, despite their financial appeal. Injection of corporate
sponsorship into a long-standing intracommunity gifting
event is feared as having unwanted structural consequences.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis differentiates intracommunity gifts from other
gift forms and demonstrates their continued structural im-
portance in postmodernity. Intracommunity gifting occurs
between two status groups in a geographic community with
diffuse but still important feelings and acts of communality
and connectedness. Rather than fine-tuning the nuanced con-
nections of intimate relationships, intracommunity gifts pro-
vide tensile strength to the network of connections between
people in different social positions within the same com-
munity. Intracommunity gifting also cultivates social capital
in connections among those in the same social position,
particularly among givers. In a nation dominated by market
economies, intracommunity gift practices foreground the
moral economy and make visible generalized social ties and
obligations. Instead of matched reciprocity between indi-
viduals, intracommunity gifting creates a heightened sense
of moral order and social solidarity through expressions of
generosity and gratitude, while concurrently granting status
and cultural authority to givers through a rough process of
structuration.
This study makes theoretical contributions beyond the
context of post-Katrina New Orleans. It sheds light on some
ritual tools and practices employed by contemporary geo-
graphic communities in addressing important structural
tasks. These tasks are more salient during unsettled times:
economic, social, cultural, or natural crises leave physical
damage, but the social damage in an unraveled or frag-
mented community presents a less clear path to recovery.
In repairing this social damage, geographic communities
90
face the challenge of deciding how to repave the intersection
between the market and moral economies that are founda-
tional for contemporary society. While supportive outsiders
often focus on reinforcing markets and shoring up civic
agencies, the activities analyzed here are a reminder that
moral economies also require repair. Tradition, particularly
ritualized intracommunity giving, both provides a link to
cultural roots, invented or not (Hobsbawm and Ranger
1983), and helps members feel connected to one another, a
central component of life satisfaction and health (House,
Landis, and Umberson 1988; Patrick and Wickizer 1995;
Putnam 2000). Shared consumption practices unite and
structure a community, even if incompletely. New Orleans’
historically traditional practices of intracommunity gifting
were readily available to help repave the intersection be-
tween moral and market economies.
This study also provides an opening for deeper theorizing
about why corporate sponsorship is sometimes embraced
and sometimes criticized or rejected (Dean 2002; Hoeffler,
Bloom, and Keller 2010). When a primary structural con-
sequence will be to repair or maintain the social fabric of
a geographic community, local caretakers may be privileged
over corporate sponsors. They have localized cultural knowl-
edge and longtime community membership and also are
considered more trustworthy by being more firmly rooted
in the logic of the moral rather than the market economy.
When corporate sponsorships will displace the traditional
social position of community members, their funds may be
more likely to be criticized or rejected. More empirical re-
search across contexts is needed to understand this ambiv-
alence.
Further research is needed to delineate the characteristics
and structural outcomes of masked giving of other types:
anonymous charitable donations and gifts from parents to
children that are masked by coming from mythical figures
such as Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Are
these a special form of intracommunity gifting in which a
mythical figure provides gifts on behalf of a worldly com-
munity, such as the family? Are they a different category
of gifting with different characteristics and structural out-
comes? Rather than masking the role of the parents, is the
fictional figure used to support beliefs in a spiritual or mag-
ical world beyond the embodied geographic community?
While there is some research on these types of gifts, the
questions of locus and reciprocity warrant further compar-
ative empirical research.
In conclusion, intracommunity gifts have been shown to
create a sense of we-ness while also creating tensile strength
in the network of connections between community members
in different social positions. The cultural work of this giving
process may explain cases of ambivalence to corporate spon-
sorships of local community events in which outside gifts
threaten to usurp the local social structure and relationships.
REFERENCES
Arnould, Eric J., and Linda L. Price (1993), “River Magic: Ex-
traordinary Experience and the Extended Service Encounter,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 24–45.
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Arnould, Eric J., Linda L. Price, and Risto Moisio (2006), “Making
Contexts Matter: Selecting Research Contexts for Theoretical
Insights,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in
Marketing, ed. Russell W. Belk, Cheltenham: Elgar, 106–28.
Bajde, Domen (2009), “Rethinking the Social and Cultural Di-
mensions of Charitable Giving,” Consumption Markets and
Culture, 12 (1), 65–84.
Barnett, H. G. (1938), “The Nature of the Potlatch,” American
Anthropologist, 40 (3), 349–58.
Belk, Russell W. (1976), “It’s the Thought That Counts: A Signed
Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 3 (December), 155–62.
——— (1996), “The Perfect Gift,” in Gift Giving: A Research
Anthology, ed. Cele C. Otnes and Richard F. Beltramini, New
York: Popular, 59–84.
——— (2009), “Sharing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36
(February), 715–34.
Belk, Russell W., and Gregory S. Coon (1993), “Gift Giving as
Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based
on Dating Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(December), 393–417.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry Jr.
(1989), “The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior:
Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer Research,
16 (June), 1–38.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bradford, Tonya Williams (2009), “Intergenerationally Gifted As-
set Dispositions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (June),
93–111.
Bronowski, Jacob, and Bruce Mazlish (1960), The Western Intel-
lectual Tradition, from Leonardo to Hegel, New York: Harper.
Camerer, Colin (1988), “Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Sym-
bols,” American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Suppl.), 180–214.
Caplow, Theodore (1982), “Christmas Gifts and Kin Networks,”
American Sociological Review, 47 (June), 383–92.
Cheal, David (1988), The Gift Economy, London: Routledge.
City of New Orleans (1995), Code of the City of New Orleans,
Louisiana, New Orleans: Municipal Code Corporation.
Clark, Cindy D. (1998), Flights of Fancy, Leaps of Faith: Chil-
dren’s Myths in Contemporary America, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Collins, Patricia Hill (2010), “The New Politics of Community:
2009 Presidential Address,” American Sociological Review,
75 (February), 7–30.
Collins, Randall (2004), “Rituals of Solidarity and Security in the
Wake of Terrorist Attack,” Sociological Theory, 22 (1), 53–
87.
Dade, Corey (2005), “New Orleans Seeks Corporate Sponsors for
Mardi Gras,” Wall Street Journal, December 7, B1.
Daniels, Ing (2009), “The Social Death of Unused Gifts,” Journal
of Material Culture, 14 (3), 385–408.
Dean, Dwane Hal (2002), “Associating the Corporation with a
Charitable Event through Sponsorship: Measuring the Effect
on Corporate Community Relations,” Journal of Advertising,
31 (Winter), 37–47.
Deighton, John (1992), “The Consumption of Performance,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 362–72.
Donley, Jon (2006), “Mardi Gras . . . ,” in Mardi Gras FAQ, Vol.
2006, New Orleans: NOLA.com.
Douglas, Mary (1990), “Forward: No Free Gifts,” in The Gift,
New York: Norton, vii–xviii.
INTRACOMMUNITY GIFTING
Durkheim, Emile (1893/1997), The Division of Labor in Society,
New York: Free Press.
——— (1912/2001), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw (1995),
Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Etzioni, Amitai (2000), “Toward a Theory of Public Ritual,” So-
ciological Theory, 18 (March), 44–59.
——— (2004), “Holidays and Rituals: Neglected Seedbeds of
Virtue,” in We Are What We Celebrate: Understanding Hol-
idays and Rituals, ed. Amitai Etzioni and Jared Bloom, New
York: New York University Press, 1–40.
Firat, A. Fuat, and Alladi Venkatesh (1995), “Liberatory Post-
modernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 239–67.
Fischer, Eileen, and Stephen J. Arnold (1990), “More than a Labor
of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Gift Shopping,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 333–45.
Form, William H., Charles P. Loomis, Roy A. Clifford, Harry E.
Moore, Sigmund Nosow, Gregory P. Stone, and Charles M.
Westie (1956), “The Persistence and Emergence of Social and
Cultural Systems in Disasters,” American Sociological Re-
view, 21 (2), 180–85.
Frey, William H., and Audrey Singer (2006), “Katrina and Rita
Impacts on Gulf Coast Populations: First Census Findings,”
Washington, DC: Brookings.
Geertz, Clifford (1998), “Deep Hanging Out,” New York Review
of Books, October 22.
Giddens, Anthony (1997), Sociology, London: Polity.
Giesler, Markus (2006), “Consumer Gift Systems,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 33 (September), 283–90.
Gill, James (1997), Lords of Misrule: Mardi Gras and the Politics
of Race in New Orleans, Jackson: University Press of Mis-
sissippi.
Gittell, Ross, and Avis Vidal (1998), Community Organizing:
Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Godbout, Jacques T., and Alain Caillé (1998), The World of the
Gift, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Godelier, Maurice (1999), The Enigma of the Gift, Cambridge:
Polity.
Goffman, Erving (1956), “Deference and Demeanor,” American
Anthropologist, 58 (3), 473–502.
Gotham, Kevin F. (2002), “Marketing Mardi Gras: Commodifi-
cation, Spectacle and the Political Economy of Tourism in
New Orleans,” Urban Studies, 39 (10), 1735–56.
Gramsci, Antonio (1992), Selections from the Prison Notebooks,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Gusfield, Joseph R. (1975), Community: A Critical Response, New
York: Harper & Row.
Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger (1983), The Invention of
Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoeffler, Steve, Paul N. Bloom, and Kevin Lane Keller (2010),
“Understanding Stakeholder Responses to Corporate Citizen-
ship Initiatives: Managerial Guidelines and Research Direc-
tions,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29 (Spring),
78–88.
House, James S., Karl R. Landis, and Debra Umberson (1988),
“Social Relationships and Health,” Science, 241 (4865),
540–45.
Hyde, Lewis (1979), The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of
Property, New York: Random House.
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
91
Jacob, Kaus (2005), “Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?”
Washington Post, September 6, 25.
Johnson, Alan, and Ross Sackett (1998), “Direct Systematic Ob-
servation of Behavior,” in Handbook of Methods in Cultural
Anthropology, ed. H. Russell Bernard, Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira, 301–31.
Joy, Annamma (2001), “Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Con-
tinuum of Social Ties,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28
(September), 239–56.
Joy, Annamma, and John F. Sherry (2003), “Speaking of Art as
Embodied Imagination: A Multisensory Approach to Under-
standing Aesthetic Experience,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 30 (September), 259–82.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1972), Commitment and Community:
Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective, Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kinser, Samuel (1990), Carnival, American Style: Mardi Gras at
New Orleans and Mobile, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Klein, Naomi (2000), No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies,
New York: Picador.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2001), “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the
Meanings of Star Trek’s Culture of Consumption,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 67–88.
——— (2002), “Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipa-
tory Illuminations from Burning Man,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 29 (June), 20–38.
Kozinets, Robert V., and Jay M. Handelman (2004), “Adversaries
of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ide-
ology,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 691–
704.
Kusky, Timothy (2005), “Time to Move to Higher Ground,” Boston
Globe, September 25, 12.
Lasn, Kalle (1999), Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America, New
York: Eagle Brook.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922/1992), Argonauts of the Western
Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in
the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, London: Rout-
ledge.
Marcoux, Jean-Sébastien (2009), “Escaping the Gift Economy,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (December), 671–85.
Mauldin, Barbara (2004), Carnaval! Seattle: University of Wash-
ington Press.
Mauss, Marcel (1923/1990), The Gift: The Form and Reason for
Exchange in Archaic Societies, New York: Norton.
——— (1923/2000), The Gift: The Form and Reason for Ex-
change in Archaic Societies, New York: Norton.
MediaBuys (2005), “City of New Orleans Mardi Gras 2006 Ad-
vertising Support and Sponsorship Program,” press release,
MediaBuys, Los Angeles.
Mitchell, Reid (2007), “Carnival and Katrina,” Journal of Amer-
ican History, 94 (December), 789–94.
Muñiz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand
Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March),
412–32.
Muñiz, Albert M., Jr., and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), “Religiosity
in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 737–47.
Murphy, Verity (2005), “Fixing New Orleans’ Thin Grey Line,”
BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4307972.stm.
Otnes, Cele C., Tina M. Lowrey, and Young Chan Kim (1993),
“Gift Selection for Easy and Difficult Recipients: A Social
92
Roles Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(September), 229–44.
Owen, William F. (1985), “Metaphor Analysis of Cohesiveness in
Small Discussion Groups,” Small Group Behavior, 16 (3),
415–24.
Patrick, Donald L., and Thomas M. Wickizer (1995), “Community
and Health,” in Society and Health, ed. Benjamin C. Amick,
Sol Levin, Alvin R. Tarlov, and Diana Chapman Walsh, New
York: Oxford University Press, 46–92.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Re-
vival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Redmon, David, director (2005), Mardi Gras: Made in China,
movie, ed. Ashley Sabin, Carnivalesque Films.
Ruth, Julie A., Cele C. Otnes, and Frederic F. Brunel (1999), “Gift
Receipt and the Reformulation of Interpersonal Relation-
ships,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (March), 385–402.
Sahlins, Marshall (1963), “Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief,”
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5 (3), 283–300.
——— (1972), Stone Age Economics, New York: Aldine-Ather-
ton.
Sampson, Robert J., and W. Byron Groves (1989), “Community
Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory,”
American Journal of Sociology, 94 (January), 774–802.
Sexton, Rocky (1999), “Cajun Mardi Gras: Cultural Objectification
and Symbolic Appropriation in a French Tradition,” Ethnol-
ogy, 38 (Fall), 297–313.
Sherry, John F., Jr. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Per-
spective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September),
157–68.
Sherry, John F., Jr., and Tonya Williams Bradford (2011), “A Cul-
tural Analysis of Tailgating on a Midwestern American Col-
legiate Campus,” paper presented at the Consumer Culture
Theory Conference, Evanston, IL.
Sherry, John F., Jr., Mary Ann McGrath, and Sidney J. Levy
(1993), “The Dark Side of the Gift,” Journal of Business
Research, 23 (3), 225–44.
Shrum, Wesley, and John Kilburn (1996), “Ritual Disrobement at
Mardi Gras: Ceremonial Exchange and Moral Order,” Social
Forces, 75 (December), 423–58.
Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative
Data in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research,
21 (December), 491–503.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Re-
search: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded
Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
This content downloaded from
158.38.22.46 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:24:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Sunderland, Patricia L., and Rita M. Denny (2007), Doing An-
thropology in Consumer Research, Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast.
Swidler, Ann (1986), “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,”
American Sociological Review, 51 (April), 273–86.
——— (2001), Talk of Love: How Culture Matters, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tallant, Robert (1976), Mardi Gras, New York: Pelican.
Terian, Sara Karkkainen (2004), “Crisis Rituals,” in The Encyclo-
pedia of Religious Rites, Rituals, and Festivals, ed. Frank A.
Salamone, New York: Routledge.
Tönnies, Ferdinand (1897/2002), Community and Society, Mine-
ola, NY: Dover.
Tourism Marketing Corporation (2006), “Mardi Gras 2006 Wrap
Up,” press release, Tourism Marketing Corporation, New Or-
leans.
Turner, Edith (2004), “Communitas, Rites Of,” in The Encyclo-
pedia of Religious Rites, Rituals, and Festivals, ed. Frank A.
Salamone, New York: Routledge, 97–101.
Turner, Victor (1969), The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-
structure, New York: Aldine.
Wallendorf, Melanie, and Eric J. Arnould (1991), “‘We Gather
Together’: Consumption Rituals of Thanksgiving Day,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 13–31.
Warner, Coleman, and Robert Travis (2005), “Where They Died,”
Times-Picayune, October 23, N1.
Watt, Annette (2006), “Mardi Gras: We’re Saving What We Can,”
Times-Picayune, http://blog.nola.com/bourbon/2006/02/mardi
_gras_were_saving_what_we.html.
Weiner, Annette Barbara (1976), Women of Value, Men of Renown:
New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange, Austin: University
of Texas Press.
White, Josh, and Peter Whoriskey (2005), “Planning, Response
Are Faulted,” Washington Post, September 2, A1.
Wooten, David B. (2000), “Qualitative Steps toward an Expanded
Model of Anxiety in Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 27 (June), 84–95.
Wooten, David B., and Stacy L. Wood (2004), “In the Spotlight:
The Drama of Gift Reception,” in Contemporary Consump-
tion Rituals: A Research Anthology, ed. Cele C. Otnes and
Tina M. Lowrey, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 213–36.
Zelizer, Viviana A. (1994), The Social Meaning of Money, New
York: Basic.