Search This Blog

Saturday, February 4, 2023

Generalized exchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generalized exchange is a type of social exchange in which a desired outcome that is sought by an individual is not dependent on the resources provided by that individual. It is assumed to be a fundamental social mechanism that stabilizes relations in society by unilateral resource giving in which one's giving is not necessarily reciprocated by the recipient, but by a third party. Thus, in contrast to direct or restricted exchange or reciprocity, in which parties exchange resources with each other, generalized exchange naturally involves more than two parties. Examples of generalized exchange include; matrilateral cross-cousin marriage and helping a stranded driver on a desolate road.

Reciprocity Norm

All forms of social exchange occur within structures of mutual dependence, that is, structures in which actors are mutually, or reciprocally dependent on one another for valued outcomes. A structure of mutual or reciprocal dependence is defining characteristic of all social relations based on exchange.

The mutual or reciprocal dependence can be either direct (restricted) or indirect (generalized). Both of them rest on a norm of reciprocity which provides guidance to both parties: takers are obliged to be givers. In direct dyadic exchange, the norm of reciprocity insists that takers give gifts to those who gave to them. Generalized exchange, also, insists that takers give, but to somebody else. The recipient is not defined and creates opportunities of exploitation if actors explicitly reject the guiding norm of reciprocity. The purest form of indirect, generalized exchange, is the chain-generalized form, first documented by the classical anthropologists: Lévi-Strauss (1969) and Malinowski (1922). In chain-generalized exchange, benefits flow in one direction in a circle of giving that eventually returns benefit to the giver. In direct exchange, actors instead engage in individual actions that benefit another. Reciprocal exchanges evolve gradually, as beneficial acts prompt reciprocal benefits, in a series of sequentially contingent, individual acts.

Indirect reciprocity

In indirect structures of reciprocity, each actor is depended not on a single other, as in direct forms of exchange, but on all actors who contribute to maintaining the collective system. Generalized exchange according to this logic, is a common feature of business organizations, neighborhoods, and the vast and growing network of online communities. In indirect exchanges, we observe reduced emotional tension between the partners, a credit mentality, collective orientation and high levels of solidarity and trust. Indirect reciprocity occurs when an actor who provides benefits to another is subsequently helped by a third party. Indirect reciprocity is deeply rooted in reputation processes. The indirect reciprocity requires information about the broader network (e.g., what has an actor A done for the others?). When collective organizations are large, this greater informational complexity of indirect reciprocity processes may moderate its effects. Experimental evidence shows that people respond strategically to the presence of others, cooperating at much higher levels when reputational benefits and possibilities or indirect reciprocity exist. Individuals have a tendency to reward givers and penalize non-givers - which is often explained from the perspectives of prosocial behavior and norm enforcement. But another explanation may lie in reputational concerns. In other words, because so much of human behavior is based on the reputational advantages and opportunities, evolutionary theorists posit that the foundations of human morality are rooted in indirect reciprocity and reputational processes.

In generalized exchange, one actor gives benefits to another, and receives from another, but not from the same actor. We have a context of a chain-generalized system of exchange where A, B, and C are the connected parties. They may also be a part of a larger, more diffused network, with no defined structure. According to Takahashi (2000), this is called "pure generalized" exchange. In this form, there is no fixed structure of giving. A might give to B on one occasion and to C on a different occasion. The structure of indirect reciprocity affects the solidarity in comparison with forms of exchange with direct reciprocity.

Direct (Restricted) reciprocity

In forms of exchange with direct reciprocity, two actors exchange resources with one another. This means, A provides value to B, and B to A. B's reciprocation of A's giving is direct and each actor's outcomes depend solely on the behavior of another actor or actors. Direct structures of reciprocity produce exchanges which have different consequences for trust and solidarity. Direct exchanges are characterized by high emotional tension and lack of trust – quid pro quo – self-interested actors who often engage in conflicts over fairness of exchanges and low levels of trust.

An American sociologist Richard Marc Emerson (1981) further distinguished between two forms of transactions in direct exchange relations: negotiated and reciprocal. There exists a clear distinction between negotiated and reciprocal forms of direct exchange. Along these lines, Yamagishi and Cook(1993) and Takahashi(2000) note that emphasis on collective aspects of generalized exchange neglects elements such as: the high risk of the structure, the potential for those who fail to give to disrupt the entire system, and the difficulty of establishing a structure of stable giving without initial levels of high trust or established norms.

Variations in Direct Reciprocity

Direct Negotiated Exchange

American sociologists: Karen S. Cook, Richard M. Emerson, Toshio Yamagishi, Mary R. Gillmore, Samuel B. Bacharach, and Edward J. Lawler all study negotiated transactions.

In such exchange, actors together arrange and negotiate the terms of an agreement that benefits both parties, either equally or unequally. This is a joint decision process, an explicit bargaining. Both sides of the exchange are agreed upon at the same time, and the benefits for both exchange partners are easily identified as paired contributions that form a discrete transaction. There agreements are strictly binding and produce the benefits agreed upon. Most economic exchanges (excluding fixed-price trades) as well as many other social exchanges fall under this category.

Direct Reciprocal Exchange

In such exchange, actors engage in actions that benefit one another. Actors' contributions to the exchange are not ex-ante negotiated. Actors initiate exchanges without knowing whether their actions will be reciprocated ex-post. Such contributions are performed separately and are not known to the counterparties. Behaviors can be advice-giving, assistance, help, and are not subject to negotiation. Moreover, there is no knowledge whether or when or to what extent the other will reciprocate. Reciprocal transactions are distinct from pure economic exchanges and are typical in many interpersonal relationships where norms curtail the extent of explicit bargaining.

Structural Relations

Negotiated and reciprocal exchanges create different structural relations between actors' behaviors and between their outcomes. Both forms of transactions alter the risk inherent in relations of mutual dependence, but in different ways.

  • Reciprocal exchange - decisions are made individually by actors; flow of benefits is unilateral.
  • Negotiated exchange - decisions are made jointly and are strictly binding, they cannot be violated; flow of benefits is bilateral.
  • Generalized exchange - flow of benefits is unilateral

In theory, all three forms of exchange – indirect, direct negotiated, and direct reciprocal – differ from one another on a set of dimensions that potentially affect the development of social solidarity. These dimensions comprise the structure of reciprocity in social exchange.  Theory argues that while all forms of exchange are characterized by some type of reciprocity, the structure of reciprocity varies on two key dimensions that affect the social solidarity or integrative bonds that develop between actors:

  1. Whether benefits are reciprocated directly or indirectly, two additional structural differences emerge:
    • Corresponds to the basic distinction between direct (restricted) and indirect (generalized) forms of exchange discussed above. Direct vs indirect reciprocity also implies two related structural differences: whether exchange is dyadic (2-party) or collective (3+), and whether or not actors are depended on the actions of a single other actor or multiple actors for valued resources.
  2. Whether benefits can flow unilaterally or only bilaterally.
    • Unilateral – each actor’s outcomes are contingent solely on another’s individual actions, and actors can initiate exchanges that are not reciprocated (and vice versa). Timing of reciprocity can be delayed in both reciprocal and generalized exchange.
    • When exchanges are negotiated, we have joint action effects, meaning, flow of benefits are always bilateral and each transaction produces an agreement that provides benefits (equal or unequal) for both actors.

Incentives and motivations

Structure of reciprocity can affect exchange in a more fundamental way, through its implications on actors’ incentives. Generalized reciprocity is a way of "organizing" an ongoing process of "interlocked behaviors" where one person’s behavior depends on another’s, whose is also depended on another’s, the process forming a chain reaction. For generalized exchange to emerge, individuals must overcome the temptation to receive without contributing and instead in engage in sharing (cooperative) behavior. Once the sharing begins, the overall collective good can increase as more individuals contribute more goods (with high jointness of supply). As group size grows in an organization, individual information preferences are more likely to be met through diversity.

Social Psychological Incentives

Individuals should be encouraged to make altruistic contribution to a collective good for generalized exchange to emerge. Empirical studies show that altruistic behavior is a natural aspect of social interaction. Individuals donate blood and organs at some personal cost with no direct benefits. When contributions are also rewarded, then contributing and cooperation becomes more attractive regardless of decisions of others. There are incentives to motivate sharing knowledge and helping others in organizations such as, formal participation quotas, making helping and giving an enforceable requirement with guaranteed rewards. Such incentives, do not specify who helps who – that is more discretionary. Individuals are free to choose who to help, and these choices can vary from helping only those that have helped an individual in the past (direct reciprocity), or to help those that have helped others and not helping those that have not helped. Incentives have been successful as an economic solution to free-riding, because they offer additional motivations that make cooperation rational.

Social Approval

Individuals may gain some intrinsic satisfaction from the popularity of their own contribution in the form of psychological efficacy, causing an individual to want to share more in the future. Additionally, individuals may participate in giving social approval by rating the popularity of other's contributions. This makes giving and receiving social approval to have an influence on behavior. Individuals may cooperate (or share) because they care about receiving social approval and/or because they want to give social approval to others' contributions. Social approval is a combination of these two processes.

Rewarding Reputation

Reputation is regarded as an incentive in generalized reciprocity. Evolutionary theorists Nowak and Sigmund (1998) regard reputation a person’s image. This, in organizations, is named as "professional image", namely, others’ perceptions of individuals within organizations – but with a focus on helpfulness. The same authors also show in their simulation study that strategy of rewarding reputation produces an evolutionary stable system of generalized reciprocity. Same idea is echoed by economic experiments where the rewarding of reputation is shown to yield generalized reciprocity. Individuals with reputations for helpfulness are more likely to get helped in contrast to those individuals without such reputation. Real-life examples show that in situations where reputations for helpfulness are rewarded, individuals are prone to engaging in helping others so that they will in return be rewarded and helped in the future. Incentive here is to be helped in the future – which is why individuals engage in building reputation. Experimental research on rewarding reputation also shows that reputations in organizations too are built with such incentives, and through consistent demonstration of "distinctive and salient behaviors on repeated occasions, or over time". Consequences for such actions are the following: good reputation results in more autonomy, power, and career success.

Rewarding reputation is more time contingent. It is taxing for individuals to keep track of what everyone else does and monitor whose rate of helping is higher. This makes rewarding reputation tied to the recency of helpfulness. Individuals are found to make decisions based on recent reputation of others rather than their long-term reputation. The reward system of reciprocity is based on "what have you don’t for us lately?!" and the less recent one’s deeds are, the less likely it is for these individuals to receive help in return.

To encourage reciprocity and incentivize individuals to engage in such prosocial behavior, organizations are shown to enforce norms of asking for help, giving help, and reciprocating help by organizing meetings and informal practices. Supervisors are also encouraged to use symbolic or financial rewards to incentivize helping. Google for example, uses a peer-to-peer bonus system that empowers employees to express gratitude and reward helpful behavior with token payments. Additionally, they use paying it forward incentive – meaning, those individuals that receive such bonuses, are given additional funds that may only be paid forward to recognize a third employee. To encourage knowledge exchange, large organizations employ knowledge-sharing communities in which they post and respond to requests for help around work-related problems.

Reputational concerns were found to be the driving force behind the effect of observability. Moreover, this effect was substantially stronger in settings where individuals were more likely to have future interactions with those who observed them and when participation was framed as a public good.

Observational Cooperation

Individuals will conditionally cooperate based on what they believe others are doing in a public goods situation. From a game-theoretical perspective, there is no strategic advantage to matching one's cooperation level to the rest of the group when others are already cooperating at a relatively high level.

Future-oriented behavior

Future-oriented behavior deals with the tendency for individuals to modify their behavior based on what they believe will happen in the future. Such behavior shares a similar logic to the game-theoretical approach to conditional cooperation. Individuals plan strategically their actions in terms of looking forward to future interactions.

Reactive Behavior

In reactive behavior, individuals tend to orient themselves towards the average behavior of other group members. Such behavior is closely tied to the principle of reciprocity. When individuals can see the overall cooperation level of the participants, they can stimulate a normative response to reciprocate by cooperating as well. In addition, when contributions are observable, individuals can also signal their commitment by making small contributions without taking too much risk at once. Observing cooperative behavior also imposes obligation on an individual to also cooperate. Decisions to cooperate become more impersonal. Individuals can experience at least a minimal amount of satisfaction from being a cooperator because they feel like they are part of a larger group and organization.

Social mechanism

Exchange, generalized or otherwise, is an inherently social construct. Social dynamics set the stage for an exchange to occur, between whom the exchange occurs, and what will happen after the exchange occurs. For example, exchange has been shown to have effects on an individual's reputation and standing.

Some have conceived of indirect reciprocity as being a result of direct reciprocity that is observed, as direct exchanges that are not observed by others cannot possibly increase the standing of an individual to an entire group except through piecemeal methods such as gossip. Through observation, it becomes clearer to a group who gives or reciprocates and who does not; in this way good actions can be rewarded or encouraged, and bad actions can be sanctioned through refusal to give.

Exchange is also a human process in the sense that it is not always carried out or perceived correctly. Individuals in groups can hold faulty perceptions of other actors which will lead them to take sanctioning action; this can also in turn lead to a lowering of the standing of that individual, if the group perceives the receiving actor undeserving of sanction. In a similar way, sometimes individuals may intend on taking a certain action and failing to do so either through human error (e.g. forgetfulness) or due to circumstances that prevent them from doing so. For these reasons, there will always be a certain degree of error in the way that exchange systems work.

Social solidarity

One hypothesized outcome of exchange processes is social solidarity. Through continued exchange between many different members of a group, and the continuous attempt to sanction and eliminate self-serving behavior, a group can become tightly-connected to the point that an individual identifies with the group. This identification could then lead an individual to protect or aid the group even at one's own cost or without any promise of benefit in return.

The idea of why society needs exchanges in the first place could date back both anthropologically and sociologically.

Sociological Perspective

Sociologists use the term of solidarity to explain exchanges. Emile Durkheim differentiates solidarity into mechanical and organic solidarity according to the type of the society.

Mechanical solidarity is associated with pre-modern society, where individuals are homogeneous and the cohesion arises mainly from shared values, lifestyles and work. Kinship connects individuals inside the society hence the exchange exists solely for survival purpose because of the low level of role specialization. This makes the solidarity mechanical as the exchange appears only when someone needs others, which may fall into exchange theory, with reciprocity in the form of status or reputation, as well as generalized exchange theory, where, out of expectation from the homogeneous group, reciprocity starts from the recipient helping a third and ends as the cycle is closed. That is to say, exchange theory argues that in a primitive society, reciprocity may be accompanied by an enhanced status or reputation while the sole intentionality for such exchange is survival. Generalized exchange theory believes that there is a social consensus out of commonly shared value or lifestyle that exchange does not require an immediate reciprocity but promise another activity, which, after several iterations, closes the cycle. Another important presumption in mechanical solidarity is the low level of role specialization where an individual may ask a random one, not necessary an expert, for help and this random one is capable of providing expected service.

Organic solidarity in modern society differs from the above-mentioned mechanical one. Modern society steps out of small and kinship-based town and integrates heterogeneous individuals that vary in their education, social class, religions, nations and races. Individuals stay distant from others psychologically and sociologically but meanwhile depend upon each other for their own well-being. The generalized exchange is hence more complicated as a result of longer chain in the cycle and perhaps temporal expansion. Different from a primitive society with a low level of role specialization, modern society is endowed with high specialization that emphasizes the searching process of the correct one when an exchange relation starts. When this searching fails finding a legitimate counterpart, this emerged exchange relation may die before birth. Therefore, the mechanism of organic solidarity is more complicated as the emergence, transmission, driving mechanism and the end point need careful reviews.

Anthropological Perspective

Anthropologists, quite different from sociologists, study the solidarity from the structural functionalism. While sociologists view individuals engaged in exchange due to the social factors, anthropologists, such as Levi-Strauss, believe the exchange is more of the solidarity in maintaining a well-functioned society than that for socially constrained individuals’ own needs. The society is believed to be an organism and all parts function together for the stability of the organism. Individuals work for the society and, reciprocally, they receive, say, philanthropic, materialistic, and social return from the society. It is similar to the modern society described by sociologists above, but the point here is that the solidarity is the cause of individual activities, which means individuals’ activities are dominated by the idea of solidarity, while sociologists’ modern society reaches solidarity as a result of individual’s self-oriented activities, where the solidarity is observed after selfish individuals focus on their own interests.

However, Malinowski studies the kula ring exchange on some island and concludes that individuals participate in the ritual or ceremony out of their own needs, where they feel satisfied as a part of the society. This could also be interpreted religiously as individuals hold the society above their social roles hence they actively become involved in the ceremony and reciprocally benefit psychologically and socially from being a part of the holiness, which, in a way, agrees with the idea of solidarity as the cause.

Social dilemmas

The unilateral character of generalized exchange that lacks one-to-one correspondence between what two parties directly give to and take from one another, distinguishes it from direct or restricted exchange. Ekeh (1974), a pioneer scholar in exchange theory, argues that generalized exchange is more powerful than restricted forms of exchange in generating morality, promoting mutual trust and solidarity among the participants. This view, however, was found to be too optimistic or problematic by later scholars, given that it ignores the social dilemmas created by the exchange structure. Because generalized exchange paves the way for exploitation by rational self-interested members, thus a free rider problem. This social dilemma needs to be resolved for generalized exchange systems to emerge and survive.

Free rider problem

Despite the risk of free riding, early exchange theorists proposed several explanations to why such exchange systems exist. Among others, altruistic motivation of members, existence of collective norms and incentives that regulates the behaviour of returning resources to any member, are most discussed ideas. However, these approaches do not guarantee the maintenance of exchange system, since compliance is facilitated by monitoring which does not exist in most cases. Subsequent social theorists proposed more feasible solutions that prevent free rider problem in generalized exchange systems. These solutions are described below by using the terminology adapted from Takahashi (2000).

Downward Tit-for-tat strategy

Tit-for-Tat strategy was originally introduced in game theory in order to provide solution to Prisoner’s dilemma by promoting mutual cooperation between two actors. This strategy has been adapted to bilateral and network relations, and in both cases the strategy works only in restricted – rather than generalized – exchange, because it involves bilateral resource giving in either situation. In an effort to propose a strategy to solve the social dilemma aspect of generalized exchange, Yamagishi and Cook (1993) analyzed the effect of network structures on group members’ decisions. Relying on Ekeh’s (1974) approach, they distinguish two forms of generalized exchange as "group-generalized" and "network-generalized". In the first type, group members pool their resources and then receive benefits that are generated by pooling. In the second, each member provides resources to another member in the network who does not return benefits directly to the provider, but the provider receives benefits from some other member in the network. They basically claim that group-generalized exchange involves free rider problem as it is rational for any member to receive resources from pool without contributing. On the other hand, network-generalized exchange limits the occurrence of this problem as it is easier to detect free riding member and punish him/her by withholding resources until s/he starts to give. The laboratory experiments supported these predictions and they showed that network-generalized exchange promotes a higher level of participation (or cooperation) that group-generalized exchange structure. They also show that trust is an important factor for the survival of both systems and has a stronger effect on cooperation in the network-generalized structure than in the group-generalized structure.

Generalized Exchange Structures in Yamagishi and Cook (1993)

In another study, biologists Boyd and Richerson (1989) presented a model of evolution of indirect reciprocity and supported the idea that downward tit-for-tat strategy helps sustaining network-generalized exchange structures. They also claim that as the group size increases, positive effect of this strategy on the possibility of cooperation reduces. In summary, these studies show that for a generalized exchange system to emerge and survive, a fixed form of network that consists of unidirectional paths is required. When this is available, adapting downward tit-for-tat strategy is profitable for all members and free riding is not possible. However, according to Takahashi (2000), the requirement of a fixed network structure is a major limitation since many of real world generalized exchange systems do not represent a simple closed chain of resource giving.

Downward Tit-for-Tat in Network Generalized Exchange (Takahashi, 2000)

Pure-generalized exchange

Takahashi and Yamagishi proposed pure-generalized exchange as a situation where there is no fixed structure. It is regarded as more general, flexible and less restricted compared to previous models. In essence, pure-generalized exchange is network-generalized exchange with a choice of recipients, where each actor gives resources to recipient(s) that s/he chooses unilaterally. However, this model also comes with a limitation; the necessity of a criterium that represents a collective sense of fairness among the members. By easing the limitations caused by the models described above, Takahashi (2000) proposed a more general solution to the free rider problem. This new model is summarized below.

Selective giving in pure generalized exchange

Fairness-based selective giving in pure-generalized exchange

The new model proposed by Takahashi (2000), solved the free rider problem in generalized exchange by imposing particular social structures as little as possible. He adapted pure-generalized exchange situation with a novel strategy; fairness-based selective giving. In this strategy, actors select recipients whose behaviors satisfy their own criteria of fairness which would make pure-generalized exchange possible. He showed that this argument can hold in two evolutionary experiments, in particular, pure-generalized exchange can emerge even in a society in which members have different standards of fairness. Thus, altruism and a collective sense of fairness are no longer required in such a setting. Why self-interested actors give resources unilaterally has been interpreted with the possibility that this action increases profits by participation in exchange.

Contexts

Exchange processes have been studied in a variety of empirical contexts. Much of the beginning of generalized exchange work revolved around tribal settings. For example, Malinowski’s Trobriand Island research serves as a foundational work for the study of exchange. The classic example of the Kula ring showed a system of exchange formed cyclically, where a giver would receive after a product given had gone through a full circle of receivers. Similar tribal research includes the inhabitants of Groote Eylandt, and matrilineal cross-cousin marriages.

These early studies have provoked the study of reciprocity and exchange in modern settings as well. For example, with technology comes exchange through information sharing in large, anonymous online communities of software developers. Even within academia, exchange has been studied through prosocial behaviors in a group of MBA students. Takahashi (2000) provided several places where generalized exchange can be observed in real life. Aiding a stranded driver alongside a road speaks to a societal-level feeling of duty to help others based on past experience or future expectation of needing help. Such a duty may also serve as the motivation for donating blood to unknown or indiscriminate receivers. Academically, the reviewers of journal articles also do so without payment in order to contribute to the system of publication and the knowledge that others will do so, or have already done so, for their papers. In addition to qualitative and ethnographic research, scholars have also studied generalized exchange through targeted lab experiments as well as programmed simulations. Generalized exchange has further studied through real life experiences, such as participation in public good conservation programs when one is recognized for doing so as opposed to when one’s name remains anonymous.

Generalized exchange structures can be statistically represented by blockmodels, which is an effective method for characterizing the pattern of multiple type and asymmetric social interactions in complex networks.

Reciprocity (cultural anthropology)

In cultural anthropology, reciprocity refers to the non-market exchange of goods or labour ranging from direct barter (immediate exchange) to forms of gift exchange where a return is eventually expected (delayed exchange) as in the exchange of birthday gifts. It is thus distinct from the true gift, where no return is expected.

When the exchange is immediate, as in barter, it does not create a social relationship. When the exchange is delayed, it creates both a relationship as well as an obligation for a return (i.e. debt). Hence, some forms of reciprocity can establish hierarchy if the debt is not repaid. The failure to make a return may end a relationship between equals. Reciprocal exchanges can also have a political effect through the creation of multiple obligations and the establishment of leadership, as in the gift exchanges (Moka) between Big Men in Melanesia. Some forms of reciprocity are thus closely related to redistribution, where goods and services are collected by a central figure for eventual distribution to followers.

Marshall Sahlins, an American cultural anthropologist, identified three main types of reciprocity (generalized, balanced and negative) in the book Stone Age Economics (1972). Reciprocity was also the general principal used by Claude Lévi-Strauss to explain the Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), in one of the most influential works on kinship theory in the post-war period.

The history of the "norm of reciprocity" in European economic thought

Annette Weiner argued that the "norm of reciprocity" is deeply implicated in the development of Western economic theory. Both John Locke and Adam Smith used the idea of reciprocity to justify a free market without state intervention. Reciprocity was used, on the one hand, to legitimize the idea of a self-regulating market; and to argue how individual vice was transformed into social good on the other. Western economic theorists starting with the eighteenth century Scots economists Sir James Stuart and Smith differentiated pre-modern natural (or self-subsistent) economies from civilized economies marked by a division of labour that necessitated exchange. Like early sociologist Émile Durkheim, they viewed natural economies as characterized by mechanical solidarity (like so many peas in a pod) whereas the civilized division of labour made producers mutually dependent upon one another resulting in organic solidarity. These oppositions solidified by the late nineteenth century in the evolutionary idea of primitive communism marked by mechanical solidarity as the antithesis and alter ego of Western "Homo economicus". It is this armchair anthropology opposition that originally informed modern anthropological debate when Malinowski sought to overturn the opposition and argue that archaic societies are equally regulated by the norm of reciprocity and maximizing behaviour.

The concept was key to the debate between early anthropologists Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss on the meaning of "Kula exchange" in the Trobriand Islands off Papua New Guinea during the First World War. Malinowski used Kula exchange to demonstrate the apparently random gift-giving was in fact a key political process by which non-state political leadership spanning a vast archipelago was established. Gift-giving, he argued, was not altruistic (as it supposedly is in our society) but politically motivated for individual gain. Marcel Mauss theorized the impetus for a return as "the spirit of the gift," an idea that has provoked a long debate in economic anthropology on what motivated the reciprocal exchange. Claude Lévi-Strauss, drawing on Mauss, argued there were three spheres of exchange governed by reciprocity: language (exchange of words), kinship (exchange of women), and economics (exchange of things). He thus claimed all human relationships are based on the norm of reciprocity. This claim has been disputed by anthropologists Jonathan Parry, Annette Weiner, and David Graeber amongst others.

Basic types

The domestic mode of production

Marshall Sahlins has emphasized that non-market exchange is constrained by social relationships. That is, exchange in non-market societies is less about acquiring the means of production (whether land or tools) and more about the redistribution of finished goods throughout a community. These social relationships are largely kinship based. His discussion of types of reciprocity is located within what he calls the "domestic mode of production." His typology of reciprocity thus refers to "cultures lacking a political state, and it applies only insofar as economy and social relations have not been modified by the historic penetration of states." Paul Sillitoe has extended the analysis of reciprocity in these conditions, arguing that the type of reciprocity found will depend upon which sphere of production is being examined. The production of subsistence goods is under the control of domestic units and hence marked by generalized reciprocity (or generalized exchange). Wealth objects – by their nature from outside – are competitively exchanged to acquire status, but no one is able to control their production and hence centralize power.

Sahlins' typology

In these circumstances, reciprocal exchange can be divided in two types: dyadic back-and-forth exchange (reciprocity), and pooling (redistribution). Pooling is a system of reciprocities. It is a within group relationship, whereas reciprocity is a between relationship. Pooling establishes a centre, whereas reciprocity inevitably establishes two distinct parties with their own interests. While the most basic form of pooling is that of food within the family, it is also the basis for sustained community efforts under a political leader.

Reciprocity, in contrast, is a dyadic exchange covering a range of possibilities, depending on individual interests. These interests will vary according to the social distance of the parties. A range of kinds of reciprocity can thus be sketched out, according to Sahlins:

  • Generalized reciprocity (see also generalized exchange) refers to putatively altruistic transactions, the "true gift" marked by "weak reciprocity" due to the vagueness of the obligation to reciprocate. The material side of the transaction (the exchange of equally valuable goods) is repressed by the social side and the reckoning of debts is avoided. The time for the return gift is indefinite and not qualified in quantity or quality. A failure to reciprocate does not result in the giver ceasing to give.
  • Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity refers to direct exchange of customary equivalents without any delay, and hence includes some forms of 'gift-exchange,' as well as purchases with 'primitive money.' The exchange is less social, and is dominated by the material exchange and individual interests.
  • Negative reciprocity is the attempt to get "something for nothing with impunity." It may be described as 'haggling,' 'barter,' or 'theft.' It is the most impersonal form of exchange, with interested parties seeking to maximize their gains.

Reciprocity and kinship distance

This typology of reciprocal exchange was developed by Sahlins in relation to the domestic mode of production (i.e. 'stone age economics') and hence should be contrasted with the 19th century armchair conceptions of 'primitive communism.' Within this same domestic mode of production, the degree of social distance – kinship in particular – affects the kind of reciprocity. Since kinship is the major way in which these societies are organized, nonkin (strangers) are viewed negatively. A general model of reciprocity must recognize that the closeness of the kin tie will vary according to the type of kinship system. In so far as kinship also determines residence, kinship closeness may also translate into spatial closeness. Hence one finds generalized reciprocity within the household-kinship group, balanced reciprocity within a spatial community, and negative reciprocity with outsiders (i.e. outside the community). The kind of reciprocity reflects the moral nature of the social relationship, hence morality is not universal, but dependent on social distance. Sahlins' model thus views reciprocity as socially, morally and economically structured and "the structure is that of kinship-tribal groups" not a universalizing moral ethic.

Reciprocity and kinship rank

With rank come privileges. However, in traditional societies "social inequality is more the organization of economic equality. Often, in fact, high rank is only secured or sustained by o'ercrowing generosity." Rank is usually generational, with elders having seniority, but still held by the bounds of close kinship. Generalized reciprocity by such elders may be a "starting mechanism" for more general hierarchy, by placing many in the giver's debt. This leads to the question, "when does reciprocity give way to redistribution." Sahlins argues that chiefly redistribution is not different in principle and nothing but a highly organized form of kinship-rank reciprocity.

Reciprocity in market-based societies

David Graeber argues, in contrast, that balanced gift exchange and market exchange have more in common than normally assumed. Since both are balanced, the social relationship created through the sense of debt and obligation is constantly in danger of being ended by the return gift/exchange. He thinks it better to contrast "open" and "closed" reciprocity. Open reciprocity "keeps no accounts because it implies a relation of permanent mutual commitment." This open reciprocity is closed off precisely when it is balanced. Thought of in this way, we can see the relationship as a matter of degree, more or less open or closed. Closed reciprocity of gifts is most like market exchange. It is competitive, individualistic and may border on barter.

Reciprocity and marital alliance

The alliance theory (or general theory of exchanges) is the name given to the structural method of studying kinship relations. It finds its origins in Claude Lévi-Strauss's Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949). According to Levi-Strauss, the universal prohibition of incest pushes human groups towards exogamy where certain categories of kin are forbidden to marry. The incest taboo is thus a negative prescription; without it, nothing would push men to go searching for women outside of their inner kinship circle, or vice versa. In a process akin to the division of labour which makes exchange necessary, one's daughter or sister is offered to someone outside a family circle, and starts a circle of exchange of women: in return, the giver is entitled to a woman from the other's intimate kinship group. Thus the negative prescriptions of the prohibition have positive counterparts. The idea of the alliance theory is thus of a reciprocal or a generalized exchange which founds affinity, just as economic exchange due to the division of labour resulted in organic solidarity. This global phenomena takes the form of a "circulation of women" which links together the various social groups in one whole: society. Lévi-Strauss emphasizes this a system of generalized exchange based on indirect reciprocity. A generalized system does not involve a direct or balanced dyadic exchange and hence presupposes an expansion of trust.

Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam is a system of interpreting the sacred texts of that religion, the Quran and Sunnah. Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of sacred texts, and Islamic feminism has a long history upon which to draw. Muslim feminists reinterpret gendered Islamic texts and challenge interpretive traditions (e.g. exegesis, jurisprudence, Hadith compilations) to promote the ideas of gender equality.

The hermeneutics of feminism in Islam posits gender equality and justice as the foundation of Islamic morality, critically deconstructing historical Islamic perceptions of women. It employs various tools and methods of argument. These include focusing on women (opposing conventional male centrist gender bias), giving primacy to equality and gender justice, reinterpreting relevant religious texts, and investigating, contesting and exposing the historical contexts of religious texts and conservative interpretations which cause perpetuate injustice and inequality.

History and context

Social, cultural and political behavior of Muslim individuals, groups, institutions and states are deeply influenced today by Islamic advice literature, including religious interpretive traditions.

According to several scholars, including Shemeem Burney Abbas, many hadiths were corrupted or even fabricated after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Abbas posits the creation of hadiths was possibly a recreational activity, sharing stories for public entertainment; for others, it was an opportunity to exploit a skewed interpretation for vested interests in a culture of fiercely competitive power dynamics.  According to Abbas, patriarchal interpretations are not only used to sideline women from political competition, keeping men in power by relegating women to subordinate roles, but also exploiting their immense resources. According to Margheriata Picchi, the marginalization of women in Quranic interpretation resulted in hierarchical gender roles and the false claim of the superiority of men over women.

According to Picchi, in context of emerging of feminist views by end of 19th century and early 20th century tafsirs i.e. interpretations from Muslim women started coming. As per Picchi in context of Muslim women when first wave of feminism came, secular as well as religiously more inclined, both groups of women began using religious arguments to propagate their claims, but access to modernist religious education of first generation of muslim feminist women was limited and they had to largely rely on arguments forwarded by scholarly modernist men. For that reason, except few exception systematic rereading of Islamic texts was still missing in efforts of first batch of equality seeking Muslim women. Effective gender egalitarian feminist Hermeneutics of Quranic literature started coming on literary horizons by last quarter of 20th century and started becoming noticeable by 1990s across global Muslim corners. This process of Muslim feminist literary emancipation has been happening in considerable competition of revivalist Islamic tendencies, even some of women exegesis distancing themselves from feminist demands of equality sided with conservative views of accepting male dominance and patriarchal interpretations.

Since patriarchal culture inherent in classical interpretation produces a gender-biased interpretation, When the idea of gender equality and justice is brought into the Quranic interpretation, for feminists, by the end of the 20th century, gender equality and justice became quite a lively issue. Islamic feminist intellectuals began questioning gender biases in the interpretation of the Quran. They study the Quran and interpret Quranic verses from a feminist perspective. Criticism of gender bias in the view of classical interpretations gave birth to the Feminist Hermeneutic method for the interpretation of the Quran.

Prominent Islamic feminists

Picchi informs that, Bauer 2015 and Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures includes several entries on women in conservative and feminist tafsir. For a basic orientation of first time readers of gender relations in the sacred texts of Islam Awde 2000 is better primar. . Cooke 2001 encapsulates one of the early accounts of emerging Islamic feminism. Badran 2009 covers further matured levels of the field of Islamic feminism. Journal Hawwa published by Brill since 2003 has covered many a Muslim feminist articles. Kynsilehto 2008 includes effective capture of the debates surrounding the term and concepts of “Islamic feminism”.Hidayatullah 2014 provides an excellent overview of Islamic feminist authorship in the west.

Islamic feminist figures who introduce feminist-based hermeneutics of the Qur'an can be categorized into two generations. The first generation is Riffat Hassan, Azizah Al-Hibri and Amina Wadud. The second generation is, Asma Barlas, Sa'diyya Shaikh and Kecia Ali. The first generation has contributed to the rise of feminist-based Qur'anic interpretations. This generation works as "Trailblazers", because in producing their work they are under tremendous pressure, experiencing male domination. Their work is nuanced against the patriarchal system with a hard and many personal experiences that show that they are oppressed. This generation is focused on their respective works, there is no quotation quoting and discussing the themes they discuss and there is no mutual support for the views expressed.

The second generation emerged in 1990, triggered by an increase in the movement of women in the fight for women's human rights internationally, such as the World Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995 which gave birth to a commitment to build people through gender equality and the CEDAW (Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women) which gave birth to a commitment to eliminate discrimination against second generation thought is more moderate against the patriarchal system and they are mutually supportive and interrelated.

Hermeneutics of Islamic feminism

Hermeneutics is more than interpretive principles or methods we resort to when immediate comprehension fails. Rather, hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood. The way this method works, uses methodological steps and principles of modern hermeneutics theory. Hermeneutics of Feminism is relatively newer. The use of hermeneutics for the interpretation of the Quran is still debated. Some refused and others supported. Contemporary Islamic scholars, encouraged by the awareness of the present reality and to meet scientific standards support the use of hermeneutics as a method of interpreting the Quran.

Islamic feminist figures who developed their thoughts on the Quranic interpretation methodology, including Aminah Wadud, Musdah Mulia, Aysha A. Hidayatullah and Kecia Ali. Amina Wadud, through her Qur'an and Women, Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective, developed her thoughts on the methodology of Quranic interpretation. Wadud referred to contemporary Islamic thought, Fazlur Rahman, to dismantle the gender biases that colored the Quranic interpretation tradition so far. He dissected certain verses and keywords in the Quran that limited the role of women both individually and socially. When finding several aspects of gender equality and justice in the Quran, Wadud reinterpreted gender verses in the Quran from a women's perspective without the stereotype created by the male interpretation framework. Wadud initiated feminist-based hermeneutics, a method of interpreting the Quran that refers to the idea of gender equality and justice and rejects the patriarchal system. Wadud criticized the classical interpretation, both the method, perspective and contents. Then it offers a holistic interpretation of the Quran that considers all methods of interpretation of various social, political, cultural, moral and religious, life issues and women and solves problems comprehensively. Wadud shows the theoretical and methodological links between the interpretation of the Quran and the things that gave rise to it (who and how). Some of the focus of concentration, namely what the Quran says, how the Quran says it, what is said against the Quran and who says. Coupled with the current understanding, namely what has not been said. With feminist-based hermeneutics, Wadud reinterprets gender verses in the Quran and produces gender-just interpretations. Gender justice interpretation is not only in the text, but is practiced in social life. Amina Wadud's famous breakthrough was when Wadud became a priest and preacher on Friday prayers on March 18, 2005 at an Anglican church, at Synod House, Manhattan, New York. This Friday prayer was attended by approximately one hundred male and female worshipers. In Wadud's view, leadership in worship has been used as a support for political leadership, so that support must be broken down.

Aysha A. Hidayatullah Islamic feminist figure who developed his thoughts on the methodology of interpretation through his work Feminist Edges of the Qur'an (2014). This Assistant Professor of the University of San Francisco presents a comprehensive analysis of contemporary feminist interpretations of the Quran. She combines feminist-based interpretation of the Quran from feminist figures and provides an important introduction to the field of feminist-based interpretation of the Quran. Aysha conducted an in-depth investigation and radical criticism of feminist-based Quranic interpretation methods and approaches.

Aysha put forward three feminist-based Quranic interpretation methods namely: the method of historical contextualization, intratextuality and the paradigm of monotheism. The historical contextualization method is to interpret the Quran by paying attention to the context of time and the background of the verse or revelation (asbab al-nuzul). With this method distinguished particular and universal verses. The particular verses are applied to define the situation and condition of 7th Century Arab society and universal verses for all humans. Historical contextual methods place the role of history in giving birth to gender biases and biological essentialism in classical interpretations.

The intratextual reading method treats the Quran holistically, which is to track how linguistic forms are used throughout the Quranic text and compare one verse with another on the same theme. How to read the Quran with the intratextual method, which is not reading the verses one by one, but reading the verses in the same theme as a whole by referring to the Quranic principle of justice for all humans. Monotheism paradigm is related to the main concept of Islam, namely monotheism. Monotheism paradigm means the oneness of Allah and Allah cannot be divided and compared. In the monotheism paradigm that distinguishes gender (sexism) can be considered idolatrous, because all humans are caliphs on earth. If a woman is said to have an imperfect capacity, then this is clearly a mistake in understanding God's intention about humans as caliphs on earth. If women are seen as imperfect, women cannot fulfill their role as guardians of God. Thus the monotheism paradigm is the basis of gender equality and justice.

The Islamic feminist figure from Indonesia who developed his thoughts on the interpretation methodology is Musdah Mulia through his work Indahnya Islam Menyuarakan kesetaraan dan Kedilan gender (2014). The Professor UIN Syarif Hidayatulah Jakarta is known as a persistent and consistent champion of gender equality and justice. In Indonesia, with regard to gender in religious life, the challenges are severe and the sensitivity is high. Musdah sued gender bias in interpretation of the Quran and brought in the idea of gender equality and justice in interpretation. Musdah has long been aware that women are confined in theological prisons, due to gender biases in the interpretation of the Quran. Departing from the belief that human males and females are both khalifah fil ardh, Musdah interpreted the feminist-based Quran and produced feminist interpretations, including interpreting polygamy verses and reinterpreting the concept of nushuz in the Quranic verses. According to Musdah, polygamy denies women's humanity. The interpretation of the concept of nushuz is that the Quran commands only obey Allah and respect for husbands.

Kecia Ali, Professor of the Department of Religion at Boston University has written various books on gender in Islam that focus on Islamic law about women. Through his work Sexsual Ethics & Islam: Reflections on the Feminist Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence (2012), Kecia Ali discusses sexual violence against women and shows a collision between morals and law. He is of the view that the verses of the Quran are interpreted by demeaning women, so it needs feminist reflection on the Quran and Hadith. Kecia Ali conducted a feminist reflection on the Quran and hadith and Islamic law, especially regarding marriage and sex and the problem of slavery in Islam. In the matter of marriage, Kecia Ali discussed dowry, divorce and misogyny toward women. According to Kecia Ali, a progressive approach to the Quranic text cannot be limited to the selective presentation of egalitarian verses in isolation from the context of the vast holy book. Such an approach would be futile, because the argument for gender equality is built by interpreting verses that are selective. He offers a method of jurisprudence, because legal experts will relate to the source of the text in a social context. The established law has the objective of interpretive action. According to Kecia Ali, understanding of the Quranic text must change every time according to social change.

Hermeneutical Islamic feminist works

  • Amina Wadud, her work Qur'an and Women, Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective and Inside The Gender Jihad, Woman's Reform in Islam. This Islamic feminist figure and gender fighter from the United States developed her thoughts on the methodology of Quranic interpretation, she referred to contemporary Islamic thought, such as Fazlur Rahman. Wadud dismantled the gender bias that colors the Quranic interpretation tradition so far. She dissected certain verses and keywords in the Quran that limited the role of women both individually and socially. When finding several aspects of gender equality and justice in the Quran, Wadud reinterpreted gender verses in the Quran from a women's perspective without the stereotype created by the male interpretive framework. Wadud initiated feminist-based hermeneutics, a method of interpreting the Quran that refers to the idea of gender equality and justice and rejects the patriarchal system. Wadud criticizes classical interpretations, both methods, perspective and contents. She offers a holistic interpretation of the Quran that considers all methods of interpretation of the various problems of social, political, cultural, moral and religious life and women and solve problems comprehensively. Wadud shows the theoretical and methodological links between the interpretation of the Quran and the things that gave rise to it. With feminist-based hermeneutics, Wadud reinterprets gender verses in the Quran and produces gender-just interpretations. Gender justice interpretation is not only in the text but practiced in social life. Amina Wadud's very famous breakthrough was when Wadud became a priest and preacher on Friday prayers on March 18, 2005 at an Anglican church, at Synod House, Manhattan, New York. This Friday prayer was attended by approximately one hundred male and female worshipers. In Wadud's view, leadership in worship has been used as a support for political leadership, so that support must be broken down.
  • Aysha A. Hidayatullah, her work Feminist Edges of the Qur'an (2014). This Assistant Professor of the University of San Francisco presents a comprehensive analysis of contemporary feminist interpretations of the Quran. She combines feminist-based interpretation of the Quran from feminist figures and provides an important introduction to the field of feminist-based interpretation of the Quran. Aysha conducted an in-depth investigation and radical criticism of feminist-based Quranic interpretation methods and approaches. Aysha suggested three feminist-based Quranic interpretation methods, namely: the method of historical contextualization, intratextuality and the monotheistic paradigm. The historical contextualization method is to interpret the Quran by paying attention to the context of time and the background of the verse or revelation (asbab al-nuzul). With this method distinguished particular and universal verses. The particular verses are applied to define the situation and condition of 7th Century Arab society and universal verses for all humans. Historical contextual methods place the role of history in giving birth to gender biases and biological essentialism in classical interpretations. The intratextual reading method treats the Quran holistically, which is to track how linguistic forms are used throughout the Quranic text and compare one verse with another on the same theme. How to read the Quran with the intratextual method, which is not reading the verses one by one, but reading the verses in the same theme as a whole by referring to the Quranic principle of justice for all humans. Monotheism paradigm is related to the main concept of Islam, namely monotheism. Monotheism paradigm means the oneness of Allah and Allah cannot be divided and compared. In the monotheism paradigm that distinguishes gender (sexism) can be considered idolatrous, because all humans are caliphs on earth. If a woman is said to have an imperfect capacity, then this is clearly a mistake in understanding God's intention about humans as caliphs on earth. If women are seen as imperfect, women cannot fulfill their role as guardians of God. Thus the monotheism paradigm is the basis of gender equality and justice.
  • Siti Musdah Mulia, her work Kemuliaan Perempuan dalam Islam (2014). The Professor UIN Syarif Hidayatulah Jakarta is known as a persistent and consistent champion of gender equality and justice. He moves from ideas to action. In Indonesia, with regard to gender in religious life, the challenges are severe and the sensitivity is high. Musdah sued gender bias in interpretation of the Quran and brought in the idea of gender equality and justice in interpretation. Musdah has long been aware that women are confined in theological prisons, due to gender biases in the interpretation of the Quran. Departing from the belief that human beings, men and women are the same khalifah fil ardh, Musdah interpreted the Quran based on feminists and produced feminist interpretations, including interpreting polygamy verses and reinterpreting the concept of nushuz in the Quranic verse. According to Musdah, polygamy denies women's humanity. The interpretation of the concept of nushuz is that the Quran commands only obey Allah and respect for husbands.
  • Asma Barlas, her work Believing woman in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretation of the Quran (2002. Barlas came from Pakistan and became the first woman in Pakistan during Ziaul Haq who worked for foreign service (1976). In looking at how Islam talks about women, Barlas uses two important arguments: historical arguments and hermeneutic arguments. What is meant by historical argument is the expression of the textual and sexual political character that develops among Islamic societies, especially the process that has produced interpretations in Islam that have a patriarchal tendency. While the hermeneutic argument is intended to find what he calls the epistemology of egalitarianism and antipatriarchal in the Quran. Barlas explains the character of the policemic text of the Quran and opens up various possibilities of meaning, as a criticism of a reductionist interpretation pattern in a patriarchal framework. Asma Barlas gave rise to a new epistemology by applying the principles of feminist-based hermeneutics in the interpretation of Quranic verses.
  • Kecia Ali, her work Sexual Ethics & Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence (2012). The Professor of the Department of Religion at Boston University has written various books on gender in Islam focusing on Islamic law about women. Kecia Ali discusses sexual violence against women and shows a collision between morals and law. He is of the view that the verses of the Quran are interpreted by demeaning women, so it needs feminist reflection on the Quran and Hadith. Kecia Ali conducted a feminist reflection on the Quran and hadith and Islamic law, especially regarding marriage and sex and the problem of slavery in Islam. In the matter of marriage, Kecia Ali discussed dowry, divorce and misogyny toward women. According to Kecia Ali, a progressive approach to the Quranic text cannot be limited to the selective presentation of egalitarian verses in isolation from the context of the vast holy book. Such an approach would be futile, because the argument for gender equality is built by interpreting verses that are selective. This is where the jurisprudence method can be offered. Because legal experts will relate to the source of the text in a social context. The established law has the objective of interpretive action. According to Kecia Ali, understanding of the Quranic text must change every time according to social change.
  • Mardety, her dissertation research, Hermeneutika Feminisme Menuju Tafsir Alquran Berkeadilan Gender (Refleksi Filosofis Terhadap Pemikiran Amina Wadud), Universitas Indonesia (2016). Hermeneutics of Feminism offered by Mardety is Quranic hermeneutics. Contemporary Islamic figures, such as Hasan Hanafi, Fazlur Rahman, Muhammad Arkoun, first introduced the Quranic hermeneutics, and offered various hermeneutics that favor social justice, but there is no hermeneutic method that favors gender justice. Then, feminist-based hermeneutics of the Quran emerged and sided with gender justice. Hermeneutics Feminism is compiled by formulating the thoughts of Islamic feminist figures who conduct studies on feminist-based hermeneutics of the Quran. Departing from gender bias in the classical interpretation of the Quran which makes women theological prisoners, then to free women need to reinterpret verses of the Quran. Gender bias is caused by methodological problems, for this reason Hermeneutics of Feminism is offered to the Quran. her book entitled Hermeneutika Feminisme Reformasi Gender dalam Islam was presented in May 2019 at the Anniversary of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Indonesia at Cemara 6, Central Jakarta. Published in Mitra Budaya Magazine No. 26 years XX / June 2019.

The hermeneutics model of feminism

Gender bias in the interpretation of the Quran is caused by methodological problems. The classical interpretation method contains inequality of meaning and describes unfair gender relations. This is where Hermeneutics Feminism as an alternative method of interpretation of the Quran can be offered.

Hermeneutics Feminism is composed by formulating the thoughts of Islamic feminist figures regarding the methodology of Quranic interpretation. The formulation of the Hermeneutic model of Feminism can be explained in 5 schemes viz:

First, based on the perspectives of women. The experience of women in the interpretation of the Quran is one important thing. If the Quran is interpreted based on men's experience, then men's perceptions influence the position of interpretation of women.

Second, framed the theory of feminism. The theories of feminism which are centered on the idea of equality and gender justice become a framework for building hermeneutics of feminism. If critical hermeneutics is framed by critical theory, then Hermeneutics of Feminism is framed by feminism theory.

Third uses the historical contextualization method. Historical contextualization method, namely paying attention to the context of time and the background of the verse or revelation (asbab al-nuzul). This method aims to differentiate particular verses, namely verses to define the situation and condition of 7th Century Arab society and universal verses, namely verses for all humans.

Fourth, the intratextuality method. The application of the intratextuality method, is intended to develop a framework based on systematic thinking to correlate several verses that discuss the same theme so that it appears to be related in accordance with the verses of the Quran, rather than applying a single meaning to one verse.

Fifth, the monotheistic paradigm. To get a fair interpretation of women, we must return to the core teachings of the Quran, monotheism as a paradigm of interpretation of the Quran. The concept of monotheism recognizes the unity of God, His uniqueness and indivisibility. Tauhid is a key method in hermeneutic of feminism for the interpretation of the Quran and is a doctrine of God's incomparable unity. With the monotheism paradigm will be seen clearly, the difference in the Quran with its interpretation

Understanding and addressing criticism

Aysha Hidaytullah through her hermeneutics in Feminist Edges of the Qur'an not only addresses criticism coming from conservative circles but also attempts honest peer review of Islamic Feminists.

Sadaf Jaffer in her research article points out 'Pakistani Atheist and Agnostic women' are very clear in their (online) autobiographies that, they appeal to alternative sources of ethical values based on humanism and constraining in 'Islamic' is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions and projection of identities.

Virtual volunteering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virtual volunteering refers to volunteer activities completed, in whole or in part, using the Internet and a home, school buildings, telecenter, or work computer or other Internet-connected device, such as a smartphone or a tablet. Virtual volunteering is also known as online volunteering, remote volunteering or e-volunteering. Contributing to free and open source software projects or editing Wikipedia are examples of virtual volunteering.

In practice

In one study, over 70 percent of online volunteers chose assignments requiring one to five hours a week and nearly half chose assignments lasting 12 weeks or less. Some organizations offer online volunteering opportunities which last from ten minutes to an hour. A unique feature of online volunteering is that it can be done from a distance. People with restricted mobility or other special needs participate in ways that might not be possible in traditional face-to-face volunteering. Likewise, online volunteering may allow people to overcome social inhibitions and social anxiety, particularly if they would normally experience disability-related labeling or stereotyping. This empowers people who might not otherwise volunteer. It can build self-confidence and self-esteem while enhancing skills and extending networks and social ties. Online volunteering also allows participants to adapt their program of volunteer work to their unique skills and passions.

People engaged in virtual volunteering undertake a variety of activities from locations remote to the organization or people they are assisting, via a computer or other Internet-connected device, such as:

In the developing world, innovative synergies between volunteerism and technology typically focus on mobile communication technologies rather than the Internet. Around 26 per cent of people worldwide had Internet access in 2009. However, Internet penetration in low-income countries was only 18 per cent, compared to over 64 per cent in developed countries. While the costs of fixed broadband Internet are falling, access still remains unaffordable to many. Despite this, online volunteering is developing rapidly. Online volunteers are "people who commit their time and skills over the Internet, freely and without financial considerations, for the benefit of society." Online volunteering has eliminated the need for volunteerism to be tied to specific times and locations. Thus, it greatly increases the freedom and flexibility of volunteer engagement and complements the outreach and impact of volunteers serving in situ. Most online volunteers engage in operational and managerial activities such as fundraising, technological support, communications, marketing and consulting. Increasingly, they also engage in activities such as research and writing and leading e-mail discussion groups.

Online micro-volunteering is also an example of virtual volunteering and crowdsourcing, where volunteers undertake assignments via their PDAs or smartphones. These volunteers either aren't required to undergo any screening or training by the nonprofit for such tasks, and do not have to make any other commitment when a micro-task is completed, or, have already undergone screening or training by the nonprofit, and are therefore approved to take on micro-tasks as their availability and interests allow. Online micro-volunteering was originally called "byte-sized volunteering" by the Virtual Volunteering Project, and has always been a part of the more than 30-year-old practice of online volunteering. An early example of both micro-volunteering and crowdsourcing is ClickWorkers, a small NASA project begun in 2001 that engaged online volunteers in scientific-related tasks that required just a person's perception and common sense, but not scientific training, such as identifying craters on Mars in photos the project posted online; volunteers were not trained or screened before participating. The phrase "micro-volunteering" is usually credited to a San Francisco-based nonprofit called The Extraordinaries.

Early history

The practice of virtual volunteering to benefit nonprofit initiatives dates back to at least the early 1970s, when Project Gutenberg began involving online volunteers to provide electronic versions of works in the public domain.

In 1995, a new nonprofit organization called Impact Online (now called VolunteerMatch), based in Palo Alto, California, began promoting the idea of "virtual volunteers". In 1996, Impact Online received a grant from the James Irvine Foundation to launch an initiative to research the practice of virtual volunteering and to promote the practice to nonprofit organizations in the US. This new initiative was dubbed the Virtual Volunteering Project, and the web site was launched in early 1997. After one year of operations, the Virtual Volunteering Project moved to the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin. In 2002, the Virtual Volunteering Project moved within the university to the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. The first two years of the Virtual Volunteer Project were spent reviewing and adapting remote work manuals and existing volunteer management guidelines with regards to virtual volunteering, as well as identifying organizations that were involving online volunteers. By April 1999, almost 100 organizations had been identified by the Virtual Volunteering Project as involving online volunteers and were listed on the web site. Due to the growing numbers of nonprofit organizations, schools, government programs and other not-for-profit entities involving online volunteers, the Virtual Volunteering Project stopped listing every such organization involving online volunteers on its web site in 2000, and focused its efforts on promoting the practice, profiling organizations with large or unique online volunteering programs, and creating guidelines for the involvement of online volunteers. Until January 2001, the Virtual Volunteering Project listed all telementoring and teletutoring programs in the USA (programs where online volunteers mentor or tutor others, through a nonprofit organization or school). At that time, 40 were identified.

In August 1999, the NetAid.org initiative was launched. The initiative included an online volunteering component, today known as the UN Online Volunteering service. It went live in 2000 and has been managed by United Nations Volunteers since its inception. It quickly attracted a high number of people ready to support organizations working for development. In 2003, several thousand people already contributed to the UN's Online Volunteering service – volunteers with very diverse backgrounds, including university graduates, private sector employees, and retirees. While the UN's Online Volunteering service became independent, NetAid continued as a joint project of UNDP and Cisco Systems. It aimed "to utilize the unique networking capabilities of the Internet to promote development and alleviate extreme poverty across the world".

Current state

Online volunteering has been adopted by thousands of nonprofit organizations and other initiatives. There is no organization currently tracking best practices in online volunteering in the USA or worldwide, how many people are engaged in online volunteering, or how many organizations utilize online volunteers, and studies regarding volunteering, such as reports on volunteering trends in the USA, rarely include information about online volunteering (for example, a search of the term virtual volunteering on the Corporation for National Service's "Volunteering in America" yields no results. On IVCO's Forum Discussion Paper 2015 it is recommended that a collective measurement tool developed as part of a global measurement framework should also capture online volunteering.

The UN's Online Volunteering service connects organizations working in or for the developing world with online volunteers. It does have statistics available regarding numbers of online volunteers and involving organizations (i.e. NGOs, other civil society organizations, a government or other public institutions, United Nations agencies or other intergovernmental institutions) that collaborate online via their platform. In 2013, all 17,370 online volunteering assignments offered by development organizations through the Online Volunteering service attracted applications from numerous qualified volunteers. About 58 percent of the 11,037 online volunteers were women, and 60 percent came from developing countries; on average, they were 30 years of age. More than 94 percent of organizations and online volunteers rated their collaboration as good or excellent in 2013. For civil society organizations with limited resources in particular, the impact of online volunteer engagement is significant: 41% involve UN Online Volunteers for technical expertise that is not available internally. According to the same impact evaluation carried out in 2014, in many instances, organizations without access to online volunteers would have difficulties achieving their own peace and development outcomes.

In July 2016, UNV unveiled a redesigned website and launched two additional services: The 1-click query to allow organizations to reach out to half a million people to provide real-time data for their projects, and its new employee online volunteering solution for global companies. Inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships emerged as a necessity to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the first private sector partner of the Online Volunteering service is based in Brazil (Samsung Electronics Latin American Office).

Several other matching services, such as VolunteerMatch and Idealist, also offer virtual volunteering positions with nonprofit organizations in addition to traditional, on-site volunteering opportunities. VolunteerMatch currently reports that about 5 percent of its active volunteer listings are virtual in nature. As of June 2010, its directory included more than 2,770 such listings including roles in interactive marketing, fundraising, accounting, social media, and business mentoring. The percentage of virtual listings has dropped since 2006, when it peaked at close to 8 percent of overall volunteer opportunities in the VolunteerMatch system.

Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation endeavors are examples of online volunteering, in the form of crowdsourcing or micro-volunteering; the majority of Wikipedia contributing volunteers aren't required to undergo any screening or training by the nonprofit for their role as editors, and do not have to make a specific time commitment to the organization in order to contribute service.

Many organizations involved in virtual volunteering might never mention the term, or the words "online volunteer," on their web sites or in organizational literature. For example, the nonprofit organization Business Council for Peace (Bpeace) recruits business professionals to donate their time mentoring entrepreneurs in conflict-affected countries, including Afghanistan and Rwanda, but the majority of these volunteers interact with Bpeace staff and entrepreneurs online rather than face-to-face; yet, the term virtual volunteering is not mentioned on the web site. Bpeace also engages in online micro-volunteering, asking for information leads from its supporters, such as where to find online communities of particular professionals in the USA, but the organization never mentions the term micro-volunteering on its web site. Another example is the Electronic Emissary, one of the first K-12 online mentoring programs, launched in 1992; the web site does not use the phrase virtual volunteering and prefers to call online volunteers online subject-matter experts.

Rumie, an edtech non-profit organization also uses subject-matter experts, as well as corporate partners and leading non-profit organizations to create microlearning Bytes(TM) - interactive learning modules centered on life skills and career development. Rumie is an example of how virtual volunteering can offer an experience that is impactful on various levels. Rumie-Build, Rumie's microlearning authoring platform allows volunteers to work individually or in teams to create these Bytes. Filled with built-in guidance and prompts to support authors in creating quality content, real-time collaboration capabilities, and multimedia integration, Rumie-Build is the tool that facilitates a digital skills-based volunteer opportunity that feels effortless and fun, often helping volunteers develop their own knowledge in the process. The created Bytes are used by learners around the world to increase their skills, empowering them to achieve their full potential.

Evolving forms of volunteerism will enhance opportunities for people to volunteer. The spread of technology connects ever more rural and isolated areas. NGOs and governments are beginning to realise the value of South-to-South international volunteerism, as well as diaspora volunteering, and are dedicating resources to these schemes. Corporations are responding to the "social marketplace" by supporting CSR initiatives that include volunteerism. New opportunities for engaging in volunteerism are opening up with the result that more people are becoming involved and those already participating can expand their commitment. A phenomenon that is still quite new, but growing rapidly, is the formal integration of online employee volunteering programmes into the infrastructure and business plan of companies.

Green development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w...