I think 2 is a form of generalized reciprocity as Putnam construes it. Not so sure about 1, 3 and 4. In 1, there is no way anyone can identify you as the source of the goods/services given away. In 4, the reciprocity is closer to specific than generalized (we build you guys free housing if you come and participate in the Olympics [bringing all the money and cachet that surrounds that event]).
In 3 -- and this is something I started having questions about as soon as I started posting on this diary -- there are two possibilities: You gave that birthday gift to your friend out of pure love, with no expectation of getting something back. In which case, this would not be a case of reciprocity (generalized or specific), because -- as I have come to realize -- even generalized reciprocity involves of receiving "pay back" at some time somehow from some person, though these, by definition, remain undefined and undetermined. However, if you gave that gift with the hope or expectation of getting back something, then it is a case of reciprocity. And it is a hybrid specific-generalized reciprocity, because on the one hand presumably your friend would be the most likely person you would hope/expect to get something in return from, but on the other hand, you may not know or care if that were at your own next birthday (i.e. a specific date) or just general kindness/kind acts in the aftermath of your gift; also, it is possible that others besides your friend would "pay you back", because they were touched by your thoughtfulness or wanted to do something for you so that you would give them a birthday gift when theirs came around. So complicated example.
In 2, you are identifiable/identified as the source of goods and services, but those accepting them are anonymous, but that is not as relevant, I think. In both specific examples I've found from Putnam himself -- picking up a hitchhiker, and members of a town pitching in for an education fund for other people's kids -- the identity of the receivers is not that important or useful. What is important is that the act occurs within a community context, in particular, where members of the community are mutually identifiable, even though the specific givers and receivers in particular transactions are not.
This last point -- the requirement of a community context -- is one I realized after reading further on Ostrom and Putnam's work. And it is a key point that distinguishes generalized reciprocity from "universal love".
There is another point of difference, which forces me go back on the "no strings attached": in fact, there are conditions involved, but they are weaker than those in specified reciprocity, albeit in significant ways (so it still is a distinction with a difference). The condition is that the giver does expect "pay back", but not from a particular person or by a particular time or in any other specific set of circumstances.
These two points -- the need for a community context, and the expectation of "undetermined" pay back" -- distinguish generalized reciprocity from "universal love" (e.g. the Buddhist/Christian sort). The indefiniteness of the pay back distinguishes generalized reciprocity from specific reciprocity. The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
I'm glad you replied with that reference. It helped me clarify the Putnam "distinction". It is not the comparative or returned value of the object exchanged; it's always the identity per se of the actors to each other.
Specific reciprocity means "You do x for me, I do y for you." You do x for me = I do y for you a - x + y = b + x - y a ≠ b , x = y In other words, who you are to me is of greater value than what we exchange.
Generalized reciprocity means "I'll do x for you with faith that someone, sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do.
I'll do [x] for you with faith [y] = someone sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do [x/y]
Let y = "someone sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do" = the unknown value, innumerable quantity = faith = ∞
a - xy = b + x/y
This value proposition reminds me of Hamilton's Rule to explain eusocial (or perfectly social) behavior observed among insects. That is C < R x B, such that C= cost to the actor, R= genetic relation of actor and recipient, B= benefit to the recipient. wiki relates the solution to inequality implied by exclusive genetic representation as cooperation:
Social behaviours can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor [a] and recipient [b]. A behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor is mutually beneficial if the recipient also benefits, and selfish if the recipient suffers a loss. A behaviour that reduces the fitness of the actor is altruistic if the recipient benefits, and spiteful if the recipient suffers a loss.
Sarah Hrdy relates altruistic kinship test to alloparenting or distributed caregiving:
Hamilton's rule provided sociobiologists with a universal truth: it applied to all social organisms, all other things being equal. But when are all other things ever equal? Especially in a formula that has built into it functions like "cost to an organism" and "benefit." It's impossible to consider these without reference to the environment in which organisms develop, the age and condition of the individual, and constraints imposed by others in that environment.... However we define them, alloparents play critical roles in all cooperative-breeding species and in many primate societies where such assistance allows mothers to breed at a much faster rate than would otherwise be possible.... Those who can, breed; kin who can't, help out.[1999: 69-92]
However we define them, alloparents play critical roles in all cooperative-breeding species and in many primate societies where such assistance allows mothers to breed at a much faster rate than would otherwise be possible.... Those who can, breed; kin who can't, help out.[1999: 69-92]
"universal love," agape, these words express one concept, I think. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
