This article was downloaded by: [Cirad-Dist Bib Lavalette]On: 09 June 2013, At: 08:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of LifelongEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tled20

Education, gift and reciprocity: apreliminary discussionEric Sabourin aa CIRAD , FrancePublished online: 23 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Eric Sabourin (2013): Education, gift and reciprocity: a preliminary discussion,International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32:3, 301-317

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.737376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Education, gift and reciprocity: apreliminary discussion

ERIC SABOURIN*CIRAD, France

This paper analyzes the importance and role of the reciprocity relationship in education.It presents a review on the mobilization of the principle of reciprocity——in the anthropo-logical but also sociological and economic senses——in educational processes, especially inadult education. The study is divided into three parts. The first part analyzes the impor-tance of reciprocity in education according to Mauss and to the theory of reciprocity.The second part discusses recent contributions on the role of reciprocity relationships inadult education, expanding Piaget’s perspective on the relation between autonomy andcooperation in education and learning. The third part illustrates this approach with threecase studies in Brazil.

Introduction

This article analyzes the importance of cooperation and in particular the role ofthe reciprocity relationship in adult education. It presents a review on the prin-ciple of reciprocity——in its anthropological, but also sociological senses——ineducational processes, especially in adult education.

One of the purposes is to review in anthropological and sociological writingson gift and reciprocity (Simmel 1897, Mauss 1924, 1931/1968–69, 1968–69,Gouldner 1960, Titmuss 1970, Laval 2006) elements which corroborate andexpand Piaget’s perspective on autonomy. There is a strong relation betweenautonomy and education in adult education and learning. The reciprocityrelationship, especially symmetrical or balanced reciprocity, is typical of suchrelations of cooperation. These relations can be institutionalized in specificstructures as ‘face to face’ or ‘sharing’ which, according to the theory of reci-procity, not only produce material and instrumental values (knowledge, informa-tion, capabilities), but also symbolical and ethical values.

To educate is to give: to give knowledge, to transmit rules and values, to shareknow-hows. Education is by nature a typical act of gift: it is characterized as amaterially disinterested act, combining, according to Labelle (1996) and Postic

Eric Sabourin is a socio-anthropologist senior researcher at CIRAD (Centre de cooperation internatio-nale en recherche agronomique pour le developpement), Montpellier, France. He has an MS in Sociol-ogy from EHESS Paris, a PhD in Anthopology and Ethnology from Paris 7 University, and an HDR inAnthropology and Sociology from Paris 1 University Pantheon Sorbonne. He has worked in variouscountries of Latin America, Africa and Oceania, and currently works at the Centre for SustainableDevelopment of the University of Brasilia. He has published several books: Paysans du Serta~o (2001),Tensions entre lien social et interets materiels (2005), Paysans du Bresil entre echange marchand etreciprocite (2007), Organisations et Societes paysannes, une lecture par la reciprocite (2012). Correspondence:CIRAD, ES, TA C/113, 73 Rue J F Breton, Montpellier, 34398 France. Email: eric.sabourin@cirad.fr

INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, 2013

Vol. 32, No. 3, 301–317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.737376

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

(1994), a symbolical function and moral values to the instrumental function oflearning.

Educating passes through speech and language, essential human specificitiesassociated with the gift. Bourdieu (1986) wrote about ‘donner la parole’ (givevoice) and Godbout (1996) about the ‘langage du don’ (language of the gift).

Education also means ‘reciprocity’ as defined by Temple and Chabal (1995),that is to say ‘a reversible act between two subjects, motivated by an interest inthe other, by the production of social ties’, and not just ‘interaction’ as definedby Simmel (1897).

But education is not only a relationship of asymmetrical and unilateral giftfrom teacher to student or from parent to child. The learning and self-construc-tion process is created and strengthened by the interaction between the student,the teacher, the environment and other learners. The educational relationshipis therefore a relationship of ternary reciprocity as defined by Temple (1998). Itinvolves more than two subjects, but also the student–teacher bilateral relationraises a new knowledge or a new feeling figuring thus as a third party includedbetween the two subjects.

Educating makes or gives sense, gives life. Education refers to a centralelement of the total social fact of Mauss (1924). This aspect is often overlookedin our society. On one hand, in the North American tradition or among thericher classes in other countries, we can observe a commoditization of educa-tion, delegated to the market of private colleges and universities. On the otherhand, the less wealthy and communities are more likely to delegate education oftheir children to the state (public elementary school and high school). As statedby Naranjo (2002), this trend causes stress and identity crisis in educators andteachers in most countries. The many responsibilities placed upon them as theyare at the same time teachers, counselors, and surrogate parents represent ahuge pressure associated with a sense of misunderstanding their social role. Therole of teacher is particularly marked by its transformation into a mercantileand utilitarian function of transmitter of knowledge. All these transformationsoccur in a world of knowledge increasingly numerous, complex, sophisticatedand upset by the speed of new media. Teachers, educators, and students as well,need mutual interaction. They need mutual interdependence with other stu-dents, parents and the society in crisis. There is also a crisis, not only in themethods and content of the school, but also in people’s trust in these methods.

This article is divided into three parts. The first part analyzes the importanceof reciprocity in education according to Mauss and to the modern theory of rec-iprocity. The second part discusses recent contributions on the role of the reci-procity relationship in adult education in the constructivist perspective ofcooperation and autonomy. The third part applies the theory of reciprocity toadult education based on three case studies in Brazil.

Reciprocity and education

Ternary reciprocity and education in Mauss

According to Temple and Chabal (1995), Mauss pieced together the main partsof a theory of reciprocity without formulating this theory. These main elements

302 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

are: gift, obligation to receive and return (reciprocity obligation), prestige role,and presence of a ‘third’ in the gift relationship.

Specifically, the need to introduce a third party in the gift/countergift (or rec-iprocity) relationship is the element that Mauss describes in The Essay on the Gift(1924) as ‘the only darkness of the indigenous theory’. Mauss is convinced thatthe idea of gift cycle leads to the obligation of return. However, this requirementimplies a basic structure or symmetry between the gift or the use of a third party.

An important aspect in The Essay on the Gift is that for each element thatMauss discovered and which did not correspond to the interested occidentalexchange logic, he used an indigenous word. To describe the spiritual valueassociated with gift circulation, or to refer to the need of the third, he uses theMaori term mana (he tried to translate it as ‘the strength or the spirit of thegift’) or the phrase ‘the face of the mana.’

The expression ‘manifest mutual respect’ used by Mauss is directly translatedfrom the Tlingit Indian. To evoke the spiritual link, he quotes Kanaks: ‘our cele-brations and feasts (reciprocity of gifts) are like the movement of the needleused to bind the straw of our roofs, so that there is a single roof, a single word’.The third party is the link of souls of which reciprocity is the matrix, the princi-ple of its genesis.

Some years later, Mauss (1931, 1968–69) discovered the natural origin of thestructure of reciprocity under kinship conditions (exogamy and descent).

The separation by gender, generation, clans makes group A associate withgroup B, but these two groups, A and B, that is to say the lineages, areprecisely divided by gender and by generation: the oppositions cross thecohesions. (Mauss 1931)

For Laval (2006), Mauss’s reciprocity is not limited to gifts among peers; it governsthe principle of the relations between age groups and different statuses. Maussdistinguishes ‘direct reciprocity’ (material or symbolical mutual benefits betweentwo individuals or two groups) from ‘indirect reciprocity’ where the material orsymbolical goods received are not returned to those who gave them, but toanother group, who will return them to yet another group. The model for thisindirect reciprocity is also that of the circulation of goods between generations.

That’s what your father did for you and you can do it for your son. (Mauss1931: 19)

What is received in terms of education must also be returned (Laval, 2006).According to Temple (1998), this structure of ternary reciprocity also reproducesthe feeling and ethical value of responsibility between generations. Applied tonatural resources, it is this same value of responsibility that led previous genera-tions to be concerned with forests, rivers, lakes and seas that we inherited.

Toward the end of his life, Mauss sensed the universality of the principle ofreciprocity when discussing the educational theory of Piaget, and wrote:

He [Piaget] makes of the notion of reciprocity a privilege of the individualjust out of childhood or of civilized societies. But the Fijians, Australians ...from large Neolithic civilizations already had the concept of reciprocity;

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

however, reciprocity does not always mean equality. From generation 1 togeneration 2, as from generation 2 to 3, there is reciprocity but not equal-ity; in the same way as between men and women. (Mauss 1931: 301)

As acknowledged by Laval (2006: 109) ‘we can consider that cultural transmis-sion is structured on the principle of indirect reciprocity of which Mauss was thegreat discoverer.’ Actually, in the conclusion of The Essay on the Gift, Maussalready explains the difference between reciprocity and equality, between reci-procity and sincere gift and how he considers the morality of reciprocity as amatrix of humanity.

This means that for Mauss, the ethical and political goal is not only to pro-vide decent living conditions for all human beings or to guarantee individualand collective freedom, but also to ensure the expression of their singularity asa guarantee of their differentiated belonging to human communities.

Contributions to the modern theory of reciprocity

Gouldner, an American sociologist, was the first after Levi-Strauss to considerthe universal dimension of the norm of reciprocity, including in our moderncontemporary societies. In The Norm of Reciprocity (1960), he analyzes reciprocityas a moral social norm. This is for him a widespread and universal moral norm,essential to the maintenance of social structures and stable social systems.

Distinctions are also drawn between (1) reciprocity as a pattern of mutuallycontingent exchange of gratifications, (2) the existential or folk belief inreciprocity, and (3) the generalized moral norm of reciprocity. Reciprocityas a moral norm is analyzed; it is hypothesized that it is one of the univer-sal ‘principal components’ of moral codes. Ways in which the norm of reci-procity is implicated in the maintenance of stable social systems areexamined. (Gouldner 1960: 161)

Gouldner also exceeded Malinowski’s definition of dual reciprocity whichimplies symmetrical equivalencies. He was one of the first to identify forms ofasymmetrical reciprocity and the variation of the forms of reciprocity accordingto the status of individuals. But he failed to consider the basic structures consti-tuted by the practices of reciprocity (in terms of alliance, kinship or economicbenefits), their conditions and effects, a task he notes to be the duty of thesociologist.

Generically, the norm of reciprocity may be conceived of as a dimension tobe found in all value systems and in particular as one among a number of‘Principal Components’ universally present in moral codes. The task of thesociologist, in this regard, parallels that of the physicist who seeks to iden-tify the basic particles of matter, the conditions under which they vary, andtheir relations to one another. (Gouldner 1960: 162)

So, Gouldner could not check where and how the human or moral values thathe identified and associated to reciprocity were generated by these relationshipsor structures of reciprocity.

304 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

In 1971, Richard Titmuss in The Gift Relationship raised two important issueson gift and reciprocity applications in our modern societies: one is the opera-tional effects of the symbolical gift dimension; the other is the contribution ofreciprocity and gift categories to public policy analysis. He compared the blooddonation and transfusion system in relation to social policies in Great Britainand the United States.

Expanding the seminal works on reciprocity (Mauss 1924, 1950, Levi-Strauss1949, 1967, Polanyi 1957, Gouldner 1960, Temple 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003,Temple and Chabal 1995) proposed a ‘modern’ theory of reciprocity, based on aternary (triple-value) logic, as opposed to the sole binary logic of the principle ofexchange.

The principle of reciprocity is not limited to a gift/countergift relationshipbetween peers or symmetrical groups. The reductionism of this definition that haslong prevailed in anthropology creates confusion between reciprocity and symmet-rical exchange. This impasse persists as reciprocity is interpreted with the binarylogic that is suitable for exchange. Temple and Chabal (1995) proposed to usethe ternary logic of Lupasco (1951), which allows (1) to show a third included inthe reciprocity relationship; (2) to interpret it as the essence of that relationship;and (3) to report it as the original structure of intersubjectivity, irreducible to theexchange of goods or services that frees people from the social bond or debt.

This renewed theory calls for consideration the coexistence, often dialectic,between two major economic and social principles, the principle of exchangeand the principle of reciprocity. It proposes to not restrict human relations tothe sole postulate of interested exchanges as advocated by the political economy.

The principle of exchange is mainly motivated by material and instrumentalinterests and regulated by competition for the appropriation and accumulationof goods. The principle of reciprocity, although it also applies to economic andmaterial benefits, is mainly motivated by the creation and maintenance of socialties. It is therefore regulated by the recognition of others, especially through theconcern of satisfying their needs for existence.

This logic of reciprocity can be associated with interdependence (Simmel1897), brotherhood and responsibility (Ricoeur 1990, 1994) or solidarity (Laville2000). The reciprocity principle consists in taking into account the needs of theother, but not excessively, according to the logic of balance (the mediete of Aris-totle). We can simplify the feature in a theoretical point of view: the exchangemay tend to be reduced to a simple permutation of objects, releasing each partof any debt and any links, when reciprocity is a reversible relationship betweensubjects (Temple and Chabal 1995).

Temple proposes to analyze the relationships of reciprocity in term of struc-tures, in the anthropological sense, and distinguishes some elementary struc-tures of reciprocity (Temple 1998, 2003). These are the structured relations ofreciprocity in their symmetrical shape that generate ethical values such as Aris-totle (350 BC) had identified in Nicomachean Ethics: the relationship of reciprocityin a bilateral symmetrical structure creates a sense of friendship; the structure ofsymmetrical distribution of goods within a group creates a feeling of justice.

Thus, other types of relationships in other structures may produce otherspecific values. This element is probably the most complex part of the theory ofreciprocity proposed by Temple and Chabal (1995) and one that is moredifficult to validate, since it not only concerns the production of material goods,

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

but also feelings and human values. It is also the most original and interestingelement of this theory; one that offers the possibility of analysis and alternativeproposals regarding human economy.

The theory of reciprocity is not limited to physical or instrumental relationsin term of reality; it analyzes the relationship between different levels of reci-procity and different patterns of alienation that are specific to them: the reallevel (material facts), the symbolical level (language) and the imaginary level(representations).

To summarize, there are several elementary structures of reciprocity that cre-ate different feelings and thus different values; there are several forms of reci-procity that offer to these values different imaginaires. The feeling of the originalbeing can be captured in the imaginaire of prestige or that of vengeance, result-ing in forms of positive, negative and symmetrical reciprocity. Structures, levels,forms fit together to build reciprocity systems.

At the origin of humanity, according to Levi-Strauss (1949, 1967) who showedthat kinship structures are regulated by reciprocity, educating children was oneof the first structures of unilateral ternary reciprocity between generations(Temple 1998). As stated by Levi-Strauss (1949, 1967) exchange is sometimescalled reciprocal, because it satisfies the interests of each partner. In this case,how does it differ from reciprocity? Reciprocity implies a concern for the othersand creates a relationship which produces affective or ethical values, likefriendship, trust and mutual understanding.

What is the difference between reciprocity and mutual exchange? Theexchange certainly uses essential human values (fairness, equity, trust, responsi-bility) in order to prevent violence. The exchange is a relation of interests, butit requires a minimum of reciprocity. Reason advises to establish the competi-tion of interests in trust, peace and mutual understanding; but these values arenot innate or given. According to the modern theory of reciprocity they arebuilt by recurrent relations of reciprocity (Temple and Chabal 1995). This isone other point of correspondence with the constructivist theory of Piaget.

Thus, it is easy to confuse the exchange with a balanced form of reciprocity.The exchange reverses the movement of reciprocity, because instead of concernabout the fate of others, in exchange relationships, people seek first to satisfytheir own interests.

Transmission of knowledge and adult training are examples of pedagogical sit-uations in which binary or ternary relationships of reciprocity can be built. Thefirst empirical studies I directed in Brazil identified the structures of binary sym-metrical and asymmetrical reciprocity created by the relationship between train-ers and learners. Based on interviews with involved actors, they also showed therelated productions of feelings and values: on one hand, recognition, identifica-tion and friendship were generated in symmetrical relations; on the other hand,submission, respect and dependence were produced in asymmetrical structures.

We need to analyze the relationships and situations that produce emotionaland ethical values, enriching the social and human capital and its impact interms of cooperation, construction of collective projects, defense of values andshared identities. Symmetrical relationships of reciprocity may produce respect,recognition, trust, responsibility, autonomy, justice; otherwise, asymmetrical reci-procity may generate obedience, submission and dependence for the learner onone hand, prestige and power for the teacher on the other hand.

306 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Reciprocity and adult education

Importance of reciprocity in learning according to Piaget

For Piaget (1967), the contents are not intended as ends in themselves but asinstruments that are used for natural evolutionary development. He defends amethod that leads to the discovery by the student, rather than for the student toreceive passively from the teacher. The interaction in Piaget, as in Simmel(1897), leads to reciprocity between subjects. Cognitive conflicts are importantfor the development of learning. Social interaction promotes learning. Learningexperiences need to be structured so as to focus on collaboration, cooperationand exchange of views in the joint search for knowledge.

For Piaget (1962), reciprocity is not a tit-for-tat exchange, but a mutualenrichment of partners by sharing attitudes. It is through reciprocity that theemotional displacement will take place, leading, through intermediaries, to nor-mative feelings and moral life. Reciprocity can be defined as a mutual coordina-tion of attitudes and perspectives, emotional as well as cognitive (Piaget 1962:71). Thus, one might think that reciprocity is more than a limited mutualenrichment. It assumes the use of more or less accentuated feelings and values.Then, any act of reciprocity causes a feeling of obligation or debt and the needto return. According to Temple (1998), this is not, or not only, a materialexchange, but an exchange of attitudes, quite broader and deeper. Such an obli-gation can be called recognition or gratitude; it must be taken here in the senseof a spontaneous movement.

Reciprocity of different points of view (perspectives) which makes the moralrelationship disinterested is involved by personal relationships of respect,whereas the transpersonal recognition/gratitude is sufficient to preserve valuesfrom a general standpoint (Piaget: 1965: 200).1

The principle of reciprocity between the student, the environment and theteacher——or between students——is essential to the construction of autonomy.For Piaget (1932), autonomy has nothing to do with isolation and the ability tolearn alone and at one’s own pace (as indicated by the behaviorist school).Piaget considers that the development of autonomous thinking and operationallogic is parallel to the emergence of the ability to establish cooperative relations.When operational groupings appear with intuition articulations, the childbecomes increasingly able to act cooperatively.

Being autonomous means being able to build, in a cooperative manner, thesystem of moral rules and procedures necessary to maintain relations character-ized by mutual respect. Piaget characterizes autonomy ‘as the ability to coordi-nate different social perspectives according to the principle of reciprocalrespect’ (in Kesselring 1993, 173–181). For Piaget (1967), the construction ofthe principle of autonomy is developed in conjunction with the development ofself-consciousness. Intellectual autonomy is not possible without moral auton-omy, because both are built on mutual respect, which depends on respect foroneself and on the recognition of the other as another self (Ricoeur 1990).

The lack of self-awareness and the consciousness centered on the authority ofthe other hinder cooperation in relation to the common good, because it doesnot exist anymore. Consciousness centered on the other cancels the action ofthe individual as a subject. The individual submits to the rules and puts them in

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

practice based on the other. According to Piaget, this stage may represent thetransition to the phase of cooperation, when, in the relationship, the individualis confronted with the conditions and possibilities to identify the other asanother self, not as himself/oneself (Piaget 1932).2

To the extent that individuals decide on condition of equality——objectivelyor subjectively, it doesn’t matter——the pressures on each other becomecollateral. Autonomy acquired by morality depends precisely on this grad-ual cooperation. In fact, our studies showed that rational norms, and inparticular the so important norm of reciprocity, can develop only in andthrough cooperation. Reason needs cooperation because to be rationalconsists in placing oneself so as to submit the individual to the universal.Mutual respect appears thus as a necessary condition for autonomy, in itsdouble intellectual and moral aspect. From the intellectual point of view, itreleases the child from imposed views for the benefit of internal consis-tency and reciprocal control. From the moral point of view it substitutesnorms of authority by the norm inherent to the action itself and toconsciousness, that reciprocity constitutes in sympathy. (Piaget 1932: 94;translated by author)

Educational reciprocity

In the continuity of Mauss and Piaget, Labelle (1996) proposes to use theprinciple of reciprocity in the context of adult education. He uses the conceptof educational reciprocity.

Labelle proposes to (re)give priority to the symbolical function of educationin relation to the instrumental function using Postic (1994) categories. Thehuman person is recognized as the central value of the education process. Postic(1998) separates the act of teaching or training into two functions: the instru-mental and the symbolical functions that refer to specific values, especially thoseof society, even that of the teacher or of the student.

Labelle, however, invites us to keep a fair balance in the tension betweenthese two trend functions. Eneau adds: ‘between strict training and illusoryemancipation, the model of educational reciprocity develops self-training in anin-between and the search for autonomy and empowerment as a developmentaland identity process’. Such a process also contributes to build the autonomy ofthe relationship ‘because of their interdependence in a double movement, andof otherness and alternativeness.’ Labelle (2005: 318) writes:

The major issues of adult education can be summarized in three insepara-ble words highlighted by my theory of educational reciprocity. Educating,like eating, requires others’ action because I cannot rely only on myself togrow, behave and blossom. The paradox of mutuality lies in that I have toassume my personal uniqueness in wanting you to be yourself by yourself,and vice versa. (translated by author)

In fact, as Eneau (2006) reminds us, in a work situation we are used to hear-ing the paradoxical injunction ‘be autonomous !’, i.e. a product of managementdiscourse’ calling for more freedom of action from employees. But this attitude

308 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

also implies, via self-study, a greater burden of responsibility for everyone. Suchdiscourse is paradoxical because it requires empowerment and individualresponsibility. But, generally, the company or organization gives him very fewopportunities to control fully his own work and learning activities. In this con-text, self-training is not only the development of autonomous actors, but it canalso promote the individualistic logic of competition, playing for profit-seekinginterests of the companies.

As a counterpoint to this approach, Eneau examines the studies and workson reciprocity to analyze the construction of autonomy ‘by and with the others’.This empowerment built in interdependence then responds to a logic of self-training, both individual and collective. This logic of reciprocity promotesmutual interaction and cooperation, instead of over-valuation of individualism,but without denying the initiative and the share of personal responsibility.

The mobilization of reciprocity proposed by Eneau presents an original wayto renew adult self-study. Seeking autonomy for all, it allows the integration withthe goal of organizational learning. It also reinforces conditions for new trainingand education setups, as professional co-development, communities of practice(Wenger 1998, Geslin 2002) or action research (Liu 1997, Whyte 1991).

While referring to the constructivism of Piaget and Candy, Eneau mobilizesthe theory of gift and reciprocity, especially in Mauss (1924), Caille (2001) andTemple (1997), to propose a framework of autonomy and a model of empower-ment. Empowerment through self-study would be built ‘with the other and bythe other in a process of interdependence of otherness’ (Eneau 2005: 7).

Empowerment is seen through a goal of emancipation and transformationthat involves acquiring knowledge in the sense of awareness by the learner, andreferential frames that structure and limit his actions. If this emancipation islinked to an identity-building process, is it also associated with a socio-politicaldimension which questions the power structure and purpose of self-training:employee self-development or profit development of companies?

Eneau’s synthesis then mobilizes the different polarities of the structures andrelations of reciprocity proposed by Temple (1997, 1998), and the social, ethical,cultural or symbolical values generated by these relations. Mauss’s triple obliga-tion (give, receive and return) is declined in various elementary matrices of reci-procity, according to binary or ternary structures, which, when they aresymmetrical, produce specific values such as friendship, trust, responsibility orjustice. The dual function——instrumental and symbolical——of teaching gener-ates tensions and even contradictions that can be processed and analyzed usingthe theory of reciprocity proposed by Mauss and Temple.

I conducted three studies in Brazil that mobilized reciprocal structures todeal with symbolical emotional or ethical values, but also with manifestations ofasymmetry and power, produced by and through adult education relationshipsand learning dynamics (Sabourin 2007).

Three case studies in Brazil

These examples in three different contexts (non-formal lifelong rural education,action research on technical experimentation process, urban cooperative incuba-tor training) validate the reciprocity structure analysis and partially validate theeducational reciprocity approach. It is a positive validation of the approach,

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

because the stakeholders could testify in each case, with their own words (butoften with the same words) the correlation between affective and ethical valuesand effectiveness of reciprocity relationships. In this sense, it validates the maininnovation of the renewed theory of reciprocity. It is partial, because in eachcase a limited number of situations of recurrent and structured reciprocityrelationships were observed.

The three study cases correspond to university theses: two master’s theses insociology (Kirsh 2007) and anthropology (Lenne 2006), one master’s thesis(Coudel 2005) and one PhD dissertation in economics learning (Coudel 2009).The methodology was almost the same in each of the cases. It consisted of iden-tifying the different types of relationships between students and teachers, andwithin each category, based on the participatory observation of meetings andtraining sessions. Thus, the specific relationships of reciprocity were identifiedand classified between symmetrical and non-symmetrical relations. Then, a quali-tative detailed individual interview of each category of stakeholders (e.g. stu-dents, teachers, project managers, monitors) was carried out in order to identifythe production of (1) material concrete values (e.g. field work, experimental ortrial services); (2) instrumental values (knowledge, information, technical refer-ences); and (3) human symbolical and affective values (feelings, from friendshipto submission or dependence, or ethical values such as trust, justice, prestige,respect). Cross-cutting interviews helped at least to validate the confirmation ofthe production of affective and ethical feelings among structured recurrentrelationships of symmetrical reciprocity.

Cariri Peasant University. This approach to adult education experience by thestructures of reciprocity was first applied to the analysis of social and institu-tional learning between peasant students and teachers of the Peasant University(UNICAMPO) in the region of Cariri in the State of Paraıba, Brazil (Coudeland Sabourin 2005, Sabourin 2007).

The Peasant University principle ensured onsite local development trainingto a group of 30 leaders of grassroots organizations (from peasant communitiesand agrarian reform projects). Farmers were designated by their organizations.Classes were held on weekends to enable students to carry on their professionalresponsibilities during the week.

Evaluations of the results of the first cycle of UNICAMPO in terms of skillacquisition and social or collective learning clearly expressed the existence ofthe production of symbolical, ethical values (e.g. respect, trust, dignity) andaffective values (friendship, solidarity) associated with the production of materialor instrumental values (e.g. technical knowledge, skills) (Coudel et al. 2009).

Students first explained the effectiveness of learning by the importance ofrespect for the other (student or teacher) and for themselves. Being both poorand peasants they used to be despised or disrespected by the other social classesand urban society. As young people and/or landless workers, they were also mar-ginalized in their own rural communities. In the Peasant Academy, they werehonored as peasants and specially considered as young leaders of their commu-nity. To receive such attention and recognition promoted higher self-esteem inadult students. Thus, the capacity to be listened to, by teachers, universityscholars included, also generated trust within the group. Here was a simple rela-tionship of bilateral reciprocity, but the production of self-esteem and respect,

310 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

and a stronger sense of identity was obvious and unanimous. In a way, this is avery common situation. Its interest lies in being an educative situation where thesymmetrical structure of reciprocity is pedagogically constructed.

The second type of socially-built reciprocal relationships consisted in interac-tions with other professionals, local technicians or stakeholders (e.g. farmers,artisans, poets, artists). It was particularly the case of the collective practice ofmanual work and handcraft in art class, including teachers participating in thesame learning role as that of peasant students, which, from a pedagogical stand-point, created and strengthened the horizontal relationship between studentsand teachers, and that among peers.

The most striking aspect of learning is associated, by the peasants, withrelationships that also produce human values and feelings such as:

• Trust and confidence in oneself and in the others.• Mutual respect and recognition of others.• Feeling of responsibility for the partners of the course and for their

community or organization of origin.• Feeling of justice; students mentioned the question of the ‘voice’. The

right and the duty to take or to give voice were completely new to them. Itcorresponded to a core concept of reciprocity in terms of identity, self-esteem, capacity for dialogue, capacity to communicate on real terms. Butit also represented an important value at the symbolical level.

According to the theory of reciprocity, these ethical values are produced bystructured relations of symmetrical reciprocity:

• Respect, self-esteem, gratitude and friendship are produced by the face-to-face structure of binary symmetrical reciprocity.

• Trust is produced by the collective structure of sharing among the group.It is the case of knowledge sharing, mutual and cross learning, but also,shared responsibility and solidarity.

• The sense of justice in learning and awareness is produced by the equidis-tance between the need for knowledge (its applications, for oneself andothers) and the source of knowledge (personified by the trainer). It corre-sponds to a relationship of bilateral ternary reciprocity.

The production of trust was possible and was developed because the trainingmethodology had established an open human relationship of knowledge sharingbetween trainers and trainees, with a lot of respect and humility. It was not somuch to produce or impart knowledge but to create conditions of learning,which meant to restore dignity and give voice to peasants in training. Theyexpressed this specific result very clearly: ‘In UNICAMPO we shared knowledge,opinions, mutual awareness, but also practices: pedagogical exercises, study visits,arts and crafts’ (Sabourin 2007).

Coproduction of knowledge for innovation in land reform settlementsPatrıcia Lenne (2006) accompanied the modalities of confrontation and sharingof knowledge between researchers and farmers through participatory innovationmethods. The object of innovation was no-tillage farming systems for corn

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

production in land reform projects of the municipality of Unai (Minas Gerais).She worked on two issues: (1) the different forms of knowledge produced orshared between peasants and scholars on farming practices and concrete objects(on-farm trial, machine experiments); (2) the identification of ethical valuesand emotional or social dynamics associated with knowledge production.

Farmers for the most part, but also researchers are unable to separate theproduction, acquisition and transmission of knowledge or skills from humanand social relationships (including institutional relations of power) in which aredeveloped the process of technical experimentation and dialogue (Lenne et al.2007). All the actors involved confirmed the importance of the production ormaintenance of human values like friendship, trust, dignity, together with theproduction of instrumental values such as technical references and knowledge.

For farmers, the attachment of emotional and social values to knowledge andlearning is a key factor that dominates many decisions and changes in technical orsocial practices. Their trust in the expertise of researchers is much more related topersonal behavior and human qualities than to scientific competences or techni-cal efficiency. With regard to technical knowledge and professional status, peas-ants consider themselves in a subaltern position compared to that of researchers,so that they do not question their competences or capacity to help them.

They also try to move the institutional and professional relation to a personaland social one. As they know that they have an opportunity of retribution at thesocial level (hospitality towards the many researchers and visiting scholars) theytry to re-equilibrate the unbalanced relationship, moving to a more symmetricalrelationship of reciprocity. Then it could be a first step to discuss farming ethicsand innovation in a more balanced context, as among peers. But the peasantstold us also that it could be a first step to reproduce the social cycle of reciproc-ity: for example, to ask researchers non-professional favors or services (e.g. trans-port to the city, an internship placement for their son).

For researchers, the dominant values focused on the action and collectiveorganization of farmers, their accountability and empowerment. They consid-ered that their technical work on direct seeding could be used as a support forpeasant collective action. The action research approach requires careful atten-tion to ethical and epistemological values of respect of the partners, theirrhythms and language, as well as an explanation of the method and a real desireto reduce asymmetries (Liu 1997, Whyte, 1991).

So the research team used participatory methods supposed to contribute tohighlight these values. But scholars never questioned the non-scientists (farmersand extensionists) on their adhesion to these methods. Thus, collective actioncan be seen as a model made and even imposed by the state, institutions andresearchers, whereas farmers tend to operate from an individual and familymodel of production and, consequently, they see nothing amiss with paternalis-tic relationships. We should therefore be wary not to over romanticize the ‘allparticipatory’ methods.

The systematic observation of the confrontation between different forms ofknowledge helped bring this process to light and identify the importance of notstrictly cognitive factors. The distinction between the level of the objects and thelevel of actors’ dynamics establishes the importance of value systems and repre-sentations of objects, as well as each one’s role in the process of appropriationof another’s knowledge.

312 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Concluding with the theory of reciprocity explanation, farmers andresearchers both tried to break the asymmetry and to move to a more balancedrelationship of reciprocity, each one using his specific logic. Farmers favoredindividual personalized social relationships, whereas researchers expected todevelop new relationships between their institution and farmers’ organizationsat a collective level. But the two logics did not meet. Maybe because sharing onfarming practices used to be an interpersonal dialogue as shown by Darre(1996) and not an institutional or collective relationship.

Reciprocal education and incubator of cooperativesKirsch’s study on the dynamics of reciprocity in the training of members of asolidarity economy cooperative examines the different polarities and conse-quences of the relationship between educators and learners (Kirsch 2007, Kirschand Sabourin 2007).

According to her analysis of educational reciprocity (Labelle 1996), Kirschexplains tensions between workers of the solidarity economy cooperative, butalso between university professors of the technology sector, educators and devel-opment agents of solidarity economy cooperative incubators (called ‘incubadoras’in Brazil).

In the various cases studied, the process, largely instrumental, of training andeducating administrated by the university, trainers are limited to technologytransfer, without allowing the acquisition of rules, principles and values (Kirschand Sabourin, 2007). Most professors are concerned about goals rather thanmethods and processes. They adopt strongly instrumental methods and teachingstrategies, which condition the entire educational structure of the incubatorexperience. According to this logic, the symbolical function of training, here theprinciples of solidarity economy (the specific rules and projects of popular coop-erative unions), seems abandoned, forgotten or relegated to the background.

The relationships between cooperatives and public institutions or civil societyorganizations often remain governed by dependency relationships, contrary to theobjectives of autonomy and capacity building of these groups of workers. But eveninitiatives mobilizing symmetrical relations, such as meetings and dialogue withcooperatives for the implementation of the training program, can also causedependence, because of asymmetries, sometimes intractable; for example, the dif-ference of status between academic and precarious worker cooperatives. Actually,when favoring a model of cooperative modeled on the capitalist enterprise andmainly based on the instrumental function of training (the model of consultancyfor management), the ‘technological incubator’ process tends to reinforce theasymmetry and delays the process of autonomy building for the cooperative group.This asymmetry, inherent to the difference of social and professional status, is asource of tension or conflict, but it is also a source of interaction. The notion ofsocio-cognitive conflict is a basis for constructivist theory (Piaget 1932, 1965).

The question was then how to guide this interaction so that it may produceexperience, knowledge, resources, but also ethical and emotional values.

The incubator process has privileged interaction, encouraging the sharing ofknowledge and experience. The promotion of workers’ local knowledge will con-tribute more rapidly to the emergence of a dialogue, voice and awareness. Forexample, integrating academic knowledge, practical knowledge, know-hows,motivations, and dreams that led workers to form pre-cooperative groups, can

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

cover both an instrumental and a material or a symbolical expression of theeducation process. The challenge for incubators is to develop the cooperativeorganization with the practice of reciprocity promoting sharing and symmetricalrelations, such as interpersonal binary relations (student/teacher) or intergroup(learners/teachers) or sharing knowledge and resources (by practical situations,student internships, university action research projects with incubators).

Here, more than the difficulty to create, pedagogically, symmetrical relation-ships between trainers and learners, the content of training (technology and eco-nomics) and the fact it was provided by high-status academic professors created agap difficult to overcome between the teachers’ offer and students’ expectations.

Final considerations

Throughout these three cases, the bilateral symmetrical relationship of reciproc-ity, producing meaning and ethical value, was pedagogically and symbolicallyconstructed by a human relationship between trainer/trainee both renewed andrebalanced. At the Peasant University, teachers learn together with students inart class to build this kind of symmetrical structure of reciprocity.

The three cases also show the risks and excesses (handling, instrumentation,lack of empowerment) generated by asymmetrical relations between teachersand students. But the Unai example also highlights the difficulty of understand-ing the social logic of the other and to develop symmetrical reciprocity: individ-ual or collective, social or professional?

The constant updating of knowledge and information, as well as the demandsof workers and social organizations mobilize socio-professional stakeholdersaround self-learning as an instrument of empowerment and capacity-building,including for subaltern groups. There is little research about the renewal of thesocial aspects of self-training and continuing education. An emerging originaltrend is the role of the other in self-learning and of relationships between heter-ogeneous actors, such as setting up networks of reciprocal exchange of knowl-edge (Hebert-Suffrin 1998).

Labelle (1996) is the author of a pioneering perspective. He suggests puttingreciprocity between subjects as the basis of respective learning and potential formutual development: interpersonal reciprocity is truly educative. The relation-ship with the other becomes central to the process of self-learning, since, in thisperspective, otherness is constitutive of the identity of subjects.

For Labelle and Eneau, this theory questions the ethics and values of the educa-tional approach, the positioning of educators or their methods to produce and assistthrough reciprocity the development of autonomy, empowerment and identity.

In an organizational context, beyond the obvious practice of collective learn-ing (Hatchuel 2000) mutual interdependence is mobilized to analyze and sup-port professional ‘co-development’ groups (Darre 1996) or group interaction inthe case of ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger 1998). The theory of reciprocityis also increasingly used in the management of common property resources(Ostrom 1998, Sabourin 2009) or to study the evolution of rural mutual aid(Sabourin 2005, 2007).

The works of Labelle and Eneau built a reference framework of reciprocity toanalyze and propose conditions to facilitate self-learning or to recognize the roleof others in learning in an organizational context.

314 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

The nature and principles of reciprocity constitute the first dimension of thisframework. To recognize that reciprocity is constitutive of the social bond ques-tions the nature of social ties and the collective construction within organiza-tions. In terms of education and training, it is essential to work on the collectivedimension of learning in groups, networks, communities or ad hoc arrange-ments, which are considered places of sociality. But it is also important for inno-vation design, experimentation and action research processes.

To recognize the individual autonomy of actors within these groups supposestaking into account the prior degree of autonomy of learners, but also propos-ing ways of learning to promote empowerment.

Finally, to recognize that recurrent or structured relationships of reciprocityoriented toward others generate the production of human values implies forthese groups a number of conditions and attitudes. According to the face-to-faceelementary structure of bilateral reciprocity it means listening, dialogue, andmutual recognition. According to the sharing structure of reciprocity, it meanssharing common rules that allow the cycle of reciprocity reproduction and repro-duction of affective (friendship) and ethical values (e.g. trust, responsibility).

A second dimension relates to possible procedures. We have to identify theasymmetries through the roles, status and positions of each one and verify ifthey are reversible, in order to allow balanced reciprocity. In the case of adulttraining, for example, it could be the potential and conditions of alternationlearning (school/workplace).

Mauss’s (1924) triple obligation to give, receive, and return assumes anindividual initiative: taking the risk to give first, include the other, initiate analliance, before expecting any return. It also supposes a social formalization ofthese three terms——which under the reciprocity perspective are opposed innature——to a marketing exchange relationship or to seeking strictly individualmaterial interests.

Finally, the triple obligation promotes cooperation arrangements for long-term collective interests, sometimes at the expense of short-term individual inter-ests and strategies of competition for the private accumulation of all forms ofcapital (material, financial, human, social).

A third dimension concerns the expected effects of reciprocity. If it has a reg-ulating effect on local social ties and if the sharing or redistribution actuallyworks, it may contribute to social stability by enabling everyone to experiencethe role and status of others and to measure the benefits of the cooperation.The logic of reciprocity mobilized in self-training frameworks helps to combineand to build both autonomy and individual empowerment in social cohesion.This is possible since the process is lived through the experience of interdepen-dence, alternation and otherness imposed by the dynamics of reciprocity.

Notes

1. La reciprocite des points de vue qui rend le rapport moral desinteresse est impliquee par lesrapports de respect personnels, tandis que la reconnaissance trans-personnelle suffit a laconservation des valeurs du point de vue d’une echelle generale (Piaget 1955: 200).

2. ‘Dans la mesure ou les individus decident en condition d’egalite - objectivement ou subjective-ment, peu importe- les pressions qu’exercent les uns sur les autres deviennent collaterales.L’autonomie acquise par la morale depend, precisement, de cette cooperation progressive. De

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

fait, nos etudes ont montre que les normes rationnelles et, en particulier cette norme siimportante qu’est la reciprocite, ne peuvent se developper que dans et par la cooperation. La rai-son a besoin de la cooperation parce qu’etre rationnel consiste a ‘se’ situer pour soumettrel’individuel a l’universel. Le respect mutuel apparaıt ainsi, comme une condition necessaire del’autonomie, sous on double aspect intellectuel et moral. Du point de vue intellectuel, elle liberel’enfant des opinions imposees, au benefice de la coherence interne et du controle reciproque.Du point de vue moral, elle substitue les normes de l’autorite par la norme immanente a l’actionelle-meme et a la conscience, que constitue la reciprocite dans la sympathie.’ (Piaget 2000: 94).

References

ARISTOTLE (350 bc/1994) Ethique a Nicomaque (Paris: Vrin).BOURDIEU, P. (1986) Choses Dites (Paris: Minuit).CAILLE, A. (2001) Anthropologie du don. Le tiers paradigme (Paris: Editions Desclee de Brouwer).COUDEL, E. (2009) Formation et apprentissages pour le developpement territorial: regards croises

entre economie de la connaissance et sciences de gestion: Reflexion a partir d’une experienced’Universite Paysanne au Bresil. PhD thesis, University of Montpellier 1 and Supagro.

COUDEL, E. and SABOURIN, E. (2005) Apprentissage et action collective au Nordeste du Bresil: l’UniversitePaysanne (Montpellier: Cirad – Inra, actes du, projet Accolade).

COUDEL, E., SABOURIN, E., TONNEAU, J.P. and CANIELLO, M. (2009) Dynamiques et apprentissages d’unepremiere experience de construction d’une Universite Paysanne au Bresil. In E. dE TURCKHEIM,B. HUBERT and A. MESSEAN (eds.) Concevoir et construire la decision: Demarches en agriculture, agroal-imentaire et espace rural (Versaille: Editions Quae), pp. 313–332.

DARRE, J.P. (1996) L’invention des pratiques dans l’agriculture. Vulgarisation et production locale de connais-sance (Paris: Karthala/CNRS).

ENEAU, J. (2005) La part d’autrui dans la formation de soi – Autonomie, autoformation et reciprocite en contex-te organisationnel (Paris: L’Harmattan).

ENEAU J. (2006) Autonomie, reciprocite et developpement organisationnel, Actes du 16eme Colloque del’AGRH, Association de Gestion de Ressources Humaines, Paris, 15–16 September.

GESLIN, P. (2002) Les formes sociales d’appropriations des objets techniques ou le paradigme anthropotechnologi-que. Available online at: Ethnographiques.org (accessed 23 February 2006).

GODBOUT, J.T. (1996) Le langage du don (Montreal: Editions Fides).GOULDNER, A. (1960) The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.HATCHUEL, A. (2000) Quel horizon pour les sciences de gestion? Vers une theorie de l’action collec-

tive. In A. DAVID, A. HATCHUEL and R. LAUFER (eds.) Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion(Paris: Vuibert FNEGE), pp. 7–43.

HEBERT-SUFFRIN, C. (1998) Les savoirs, la reciprocite et le citoyen (Paris: Desclee de Brower).KESSELRING, T. (1993) JEAN PIAGET (PETROPOLIS, BRAZIL: VOZES).KIRSCH R. (2007) Incubacao de empreendimentos da economia solidaria e as implicacoes das relacoes

de reciprocidade, Brasılia. Masters thesis, University of Brasilia. UnB, diss. mestrado de sociolo-gia.

KIRSCH R. and SABOURIN, E. (2007) Implicacoes das relacoes de reciprocidade na incubacao de empre-endimentos da economia solidaria. In Atas do XIII Congresso Brasileiro de Sociologia, Recife,Brazil, 29 May–1 June.

LABELLE, J.J. (2005) L’education, une mutuelle transhumance. Revue des sciences religieuses, 79(3), 318–327.

LABELLE, J.M. (1996) La reciprocite educative (Paris: PUF).LABELLE, J.M. (1998) Reciprocite educatrice et conduite epistemique developpementale de la person-

ne. In C. DANIS and C. SOLAR (eds.) Apprentissage et developpement des adultes (Montreal: EditionsLogiques).

LAVAL, C. (2006) Les deux crises de l’education. la Revue du Mauss semestrielle, 28, 96–115.LAVILLE, J.L. (2000) L’economie Solidaire: Une Perspective Internationale (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer).LENNE, P. (2006) Confrontation des connaissances entre agriculteurs et chercheurs dans un dispositif

de co-construction de l’innovation: le cas du semis direct a Unaı (MG-Bresil). MSc thesis,University of Paris 1.

LENNE, P., TRIOMPHE, B., SABOURIN, E., SCOPEL, X.J.H.V., MACENA, F. and OLIVEIRA, M. (2007) Co-con-struction des connaissances entre chercheurs et agriculteurs dans les processus d’innovation:enseignements tires d’un projet en agriculture familiale dans les Cerrados Bresiliens. Paperpresented at the third Living Knowledge Conference ‘Communities Building Knowledge, Inno-vation through Citizens & University Engagement’ (Paris, 29–31 August).

LEVI-STRAUSS, C. (1950/1977) Introduction a l’œuvre de Marcel Mauss. In M. MAUSS (ed.) Sociologie etAnthropologie (7th edn) (Paris: PUF), p. 482.

316 ERIC SABOURIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013

LEVI-STRAUSS, C. (1949/1967) Les cycles de la reciprocite. In Les Structures Elementaires de la Parente (LaHaye: Mouton), pp.

LIU, M. (1997) Fondements et pratiques de la Recherche-Action (Paris: L’Harmattan).LUPASCO, S. (1951) Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’energie (Paris: Herman).MAUSS, M. (1924/1997) Essai sur le don in Sociologie et Anthropologie (Paris: Le Seuil).MAUSS, M. (1968–69) Essais de Sociologie (Paris: Ed. de Minuit).MAUSS, M. (1931/1968–69) Œuvres (vol 3) (Paris: Ed. de Minuit).NARANJO, C. (2002) Cambiar la educacion para cambiar el mundo (Vitoria: Ediciones La Llave).OSTROM, E. (1998) A behavioural approach to the rational-choice theory of collective action. American

Political Science Review, 92, 1–22.PIAGET, J. (1932/2000) Le jugement moral chez l’enfant (9th edn) (Paris: PUF).PIAGET, J. (1962) Les relations entre l’affectivite et l’intelligence dans le developpement mental de l’enfant (Paris:

Centre de Documentation Universitaire de la Sorbonne).PIAGET, J. 1955. The Construction of Reality in the Child, trans. Margaret Cook (London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul).PIAGET, J. (1965) Etudes sociologiques (Paris: Droz).PIAGET, J. (1967/1971) Biology and Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Published in

translation as Biologie et connaissance. essai sur les relations entre les regulations organiques et lesprocessus cognitifs (Paris: Gallimard. La Pleiade, 1967).

PIAGET, J. (1974) Recherche sur la contradiction (Paris: PUF).POLANYI, K. (1957) The economy as instituted process. In K. POLANYI, C. ARENSBERG and H.W. PEARSON

(eds.) Trade and Markets in The Early Empires Economies in History and Theory (Clenco, NY: TheFree Press), pp. 29–51.

POSTIC, M. (1994) La relation educative (Paris: PUF).RICŒUR, P. (1990) Soi meme comme un autre (Paris: Seuil).RICŒUR, P. (1994) Ethique et responsabilite (Paris: La Baconniere).SABOURIN, E. (2005) Les tensions entre lien social et interets materiels dans les processus d’action col-

lective. In E. SABOURIN and M. ANTONA (eds.) Les tensions entre lien social et interets materiels dansl’action collective (Paris: CIRAD/MAUSS), pp. 13–39.

SABOURIN, E. (2007) Paysans du Bresil, entre echange marchand et reciprocite (Paris: Editions Quae).SABOURIN, E. (2009) Organisations et societes paysannes: une lecture par la reciprocite. Dossier scientifique.

HDR Anthropologie et Sociologie (Paris: Universite Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne-IEDES).SIMMEL, G. (1897) Comment les formes sociales se maintiennent. l’Annee Sociologique, 1, 71–109.TEMPLE, D. (1997) L’economie humaine. La revue du MAUSS, 10(1), 103–109.TEMPLE, D. (1998) Les structures elementaires de la reciprocite. Revue du MAUSS, 12(2), 234–242.TEMPLE, D. (2001) Les origines anthropologiques de la reciprocite. Education Permanente, 144, 35–49.TEMPLE, D. (2003) Teorıa de la reciprocidad (3 vols) (La Paz: PADEP-GTZ).TEMPLE, D. and CHABAL, M. (1995) La reciprocite et la naissance des valeurs humaines (Paris: L’Harmat-

tan).TITMUSS, R.M. (1970) The Gift Relationship: From human blood to social policy (London: George Allen and

Unwin).WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of Practice——Learning, meaning and identity (New York: Cambridge

University Press).WHYTE, W.F. (ed.) (1991) Participatory Action Research (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

EDUCATION, GIFT AND RECIPROCITY 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cir

ad-D

ist B

ib L

aval

ette

] at

08:

11 0

9 Ju

ne 2

013