2.d Considerations on wrapping

I have indicated for each case the type of wrapping that the donor (s) used. It is important to note that there is a range of wrapping, not always conforming to the standard norms described in Chapter One. Wrapping depends on what the giver wants to convey on each occasion. In Yama’s case, his ‘nice wrapping’ is part of his strategy to increase the commercial value of his gifts and thus try to exercise his power over those who receive the gift. However, Yama’s neighbour did not emphasise wrapping but the fact the value was ‘high’ and that his manners, though polite was ‘coercitive’ or unclear. In cases of kimochi, on the other hand, what is given is an item for wrapping other things such as handkerchief or tissue paper, or something that does not require layers of wrapping.

It is possible to argue for the cases of kimochi, that the meaning of wrapping is related to the value (both commercial and social) of the thing given. The value of the wrapping should not increase the ‘small’ value of the thing given, thus gifts of items for wrapping are prefered. The use of profuse layers of paper is avoided. The value of things and the value of giving is increased by ‘adding’ food and other prestations, rather than by wrapping. It is hard to argue in this case that social distance led to more wrapping (layering) and social closeness to less.

Mie (see p. 89) gave me things to wrap other things, as she ‘wrapped’ me into her life and those of the company. To her, I was socially ‘naked’. She personalised giving me, by objectifiying the metaphor of wrapping into a reified aesthetic object (a bag). However, she did not either wrap the bag, or the food she gave me. The wrapping object itself symbolised the action of ‘wrapping’ me in. She used simple dialect forms, with none of the politeness relevant in Yama’s case. Wrapping in Mie’ s case is not used here to convey social hierarchy, but to convey inclusiveness. Moreover, she did not objectify our relation in terms of hierarchy or equality, but in terms of where we were both placed in relation to the company which we belonged. She and I were the two most marginal individuals.[39] Her action of giving identified our relative position; we were not ‘socially close’ but we were at the same ‘end’. She was close to the margins, I was not merely ‘naked’ but placed outside their group. We were associated with the firm on a temporary basis. We had in common the proximity to this boundary of inclusion and exclusion.

By contrast, in Moto’s case where inclusion was also an issue, there was no wrapping at all. The giver gave ‘just sake’ in order to attach Moto to the community and ‘include him in’. Here it is important to mention that there may be a gender difference underlying the absence of wrapping for Moto and the use of reified symbolic wrapping for me. Moto was offered a ‘man’s drink’ by another man. Although hierarchy and prestige were very important issues here, and indeed the donor had effective means to include Moto into the community, wrapping did not reflect them. The absence of wrapping was not only a matter of the social closeness the giver wanted to reproduce for the recipient, but a way of mystifying ‘social closeness’. As Moto argued, giving sake was a manipulative act to make him ‘fit in’. Moto did not see the absence of wrapping as relevant in the matter of giving. It was the fact that he was forced to ‘drink’ that counted for him. The lack of wrapping was a way of disguising the well-intentioned manipulation of his neighbours conveyed in the gift. The action of wrapping someone into a group did not always preclude the giving of wrapping or the existence of wrapping objects, nor did the layering of wrapping increase to reflect the power diferential between giver and donor. Most of the action of ‘social wrapping’ came through the actions of ‘consumption’ in which individuals eat or drink, that is they partake of gifts. On these occasions wrapping and its absence can equally serve the purpose of convincing the recipient to accept the gift.

The equation between distance and closeness do not work either for the case of the orei box of cakes (p.90). The wrapping was not decided in relation to the differences in rank between giver and recipient, but in relation to the pragmatic intention to re-use the wrapping, thus diminishing the market value of the gift. In manipulating wrapping, and re-using it, the donor conveyed the impression that it was just ‘orei’ and ‘for the kids’. He did not pretend anything else (which I verified) in their relation with my hosts. On the other hand, Oue, in giving sewa gifts to her neighbours, applied wrapping consistently. It was neither an expensive commercial brand nor elaborate layered wrapping. The relation she has with her neighbours is ‘close’, as they mutually engage in returning ‘sewa’ gifts over time. Wrapping in this context was a way to show ‘orei’, that she cared. It slightly increased the value of the gift. This ‘increase’ is a frequent theme among neighbours. They always ‘fight’ to give a bit more. Wrapping adds value, care, but also disguises the escalation of return gifts that follow.

The Watanabe’s case is the most personalised one, as they decided on a personalised item, hand-made sake pots and hand-made wrapping. Their decision to personalise the gift was taken to compensate the fact that these gifts are obligatory. In this way they removed the ‘convention’ by removing ‘conventional wrapping’. They also removed the convention by giving a personalised item, the product of their trade, rather than the usual towel or soap other neighbours gave. They personalised the gift with personalised wrapping, but the obligation was by no means lessened. The opposite happened in the case of the miyage food where wrapping was pragmatic with no personalisation. The miyage prestation illustrates the idea of ‘belonging’:[40] these prestations are given after the recipient has been in the house. It does not define ‘inclusion’ but the closeness to the symbolic centre that the house represents. The profusion of wrapping is limited here, and plastic bags are mostly used.

Finally, Oue’s case illustrates most things about traditional wrapping. His father had chosen a profusely wrapped gift (from the late 1930s), with 5 layers of wrapping materials, to give as omiyage as well as to convey to the recipient the ‘officialness’ of the gift received in Tokyo. The omiyage had been kept for nearly 60 years. However, in giving it as ‘ageru’ and renouncing property rights over it, there was no further wrapping involved. It was not only that we had a ‘close’ relationship, in which social forms did not require politeness, but also that the value of a gift did not always depend on the wrapping. In fact, the miyage was increased not by being rewrapped but by having consumables added to it.

The final conclusion to this section is that the aspect of consumption of these types of gifts precludes the necessary extinction of wrapping. The presence and absence of wrapping are alike important in conveying the necessary persuasion to make people accept gifts. The value of gifts can be increased by adding wrapping, but also by not using wrapping. However, it is more important to increase the value of gifts by giving small redundant prestations. The value of these gifts also depends not so much on wrapping but on the prestige attached to the prestation, in particular those prestations which ‘bring people together’, sake and food. The layering of wrapping (which I examine in Chapters Six and Seven) appears important in cases where the giver and recipient share a proximity to centres of power (the town office, business, the household), while layering of wrapping is less important among those people who exchange gifts at the periphery of these centres.

[39] By marginal I refer to the fact that she worked for the company on a temporary bases, and although she worked very hard in a job which traditionally was ‘a man’s job’, and tried to have the job more regularly she was only called when there was work to do, like other male and female workers. She was between jobs - at the restaurant and the factory- when she met me. To her I was also temporally associated to the factory -although I did not do any job or received salary-. We were not close but were in a category of ‘sameness’. However, since I was alone and it was lunchtime, she took ‘care of me’ as if I had been to visit her at her household.
[40] Belonging here is not a category of ‘equal ‘; people belong to groups at very different levels of the proximity to centres of power or at the periphery of it. They do not become ‘equally’ into a group, but temporally, as they switch between inclusion and exclusion the margins, or closeness and distance from the centres.