It was the phrase "giving thanks" that got me thinking. There are two giftings implied in every thankful exchange: first, the original gift, and second, the gift of thanks in return.
One possible interpretation of the double-gifting is that giving and thanksgiving are transactional. You know the feeling: someone gives you something, and you feel like you have to say "thanks" for it. If someone gives you a "gift," you "pay" for it by giving thanks. Unfortunately, if this compulsion is at the root of the phrase "thanksgiving," this would mean that neither the original gift nor the thanks were in fact given. They were both purchased, reducing the giving of thanks to obligatory remuneration. If this is how we understand thanksgiving--a required payment for every gift--the whole possibility of giving as a un-self-conscious sacrifice disappears.
One possible interpretation of the double-gifting is that giving and thanksgiving are transactional. You know the feeling: someone gives you something, and you feel like you have to say "thanks" for it. If someone gives you a "gift," you "pay" for it by giving thanks. Unfortunately, if this compulsion is at the root of the phrase "thanksgiving," this would mean that neither the original gift nor the thanks were in fact given. They were both purchased, reducing the giving of thanks to obligatory remuneration. If this is how we understand thanksgiving--a required payment for every gift--the whole possibility of giving as a un-self-conscious sacrifice disappears.
But thanksgiving--both the holiday and the act--isn't seen as primarily transactional. It's not something obligatory, any more than kissing your beloved is obligatory. It's something you ought to do, without it becoming compulsory.
This realm of actions we really must do without being compelled to do them is where things get fuzzy. Just think about it for a minute: we ought to do it, and in some ways we feel like we have no choice. But it's not compulsory. We are not forced to give thanks.
So back to the double gifting. If it's not an exchange of things--gift in return for thanks--what is it? What is the relationship between these two given things, if not transactional?
St. Anselm has a lot to say about gift-giving in his treatise On the Fall of the Devil. The gift in question here is perseverance in righteousness. It's a scholastic treatise, so it winds around a bit in miry bogs of philosophy, but the point is contained in this splendid sentence: "It's possible for non-giving not to be the cause of not-receiving, even if giving were always the cause of receiving." To interpret, St. Anselm is saying that the words "gift" and "give" are chock-full of double actions. A gift is not fully given until it is received. Something cannot be given, even with the most generous of intentions, if it will not be taken.
It seems to me that thanksgiving plays the role of marking the moment the gift is fully given (by being received). It doesn't symbolize an exchange, something given in return for a gift, but the act of receiving the gift fully. Think about the Eucharist, which is actually the etymological source for our word "thanksgiving." It's a reception of a gift, called thanksgiving.
So go and receive your gifts! Let them be given fully by receiving them fully in thanksgiving!
Happy thanksgiving.
This realm of actions we really must do without being compelled to do them is where things get fuzzy. Just think about it for a minute: we ought to do it, and in some ways we feel like we have no choice. But it's not compulsory. We are not forced to give thanks.
So back to the double gifting. If it's not an exchange of things--gift in return for thanks--what is it? What is the relationship between these two given things, if not transactional?
St. Anselm has a lot to say about gift-giving in his treatise On the Fall of the Devil. The gift in question here is perseverance in righteousness. It's a scholastic treatise, so it winds around a bit in miry bogs of philosophy, but the point is contained in this splendid sentence: "It's possible for non-giving not to be the cause of not-receiving, even if giving were always the cause of receiving." To interpret, St. Anselm is saying that the words "gift" and "give" are chock-full of double actions. A gift is not fully given until it is received. Something cannot be given, even with the most generous of intentions, if it will not be taken.
It seems to me that thanksgiving plays the role of marking the moment the gift is fully given (by being received). It doesn't symbolize an exchange, something given in return for a gift, but the act of receiving the gift fully. Think about the Eucharist, which is actually the etymological source for our word "thanksgiving." It's a reception of a gift, called thanksgiving.
So go and receive your gifts! Let them be given fully by receiving them fully in thanksgiving!
Happy thanksgiving.
No comments:
Post a Comment