Reciprocity in neighbourliness

I'm trying to write a paper about neighbourliness and have been thinking about the reciprocity of acts of neighbouring. Viewing acts of instrumental support in terms of direct reciprocity between two neighbours (rather than as part of a generalised model of exchange with less recognisable returns), research has found that unbalanced (or non-reciprocal) exchange does not necessarily lead to discontinuation of the exchange.* In other words, sometimes one neighbour helps out another without getting much in return, and keeps doing so.

(Before I go on, I ought to just admit that in the interests of a little rebalancing, yesterday I baked a wholemeal loaf and took it into my next door neighbour: from previous experience I know that her husband is very fond of it, and I wanted to check out how he's doing).

However, the researchers only included instrumental support (or ‘favours’) in their study, and it seems to me that other, intangible forms of interpersonal behaviour which are in some way supportive – for instance a sympathetic chat on the doorstep to provide comfort in the face of bad news, or the sharing of information about local services – are likely to be viewed by neighbours as valid contributions to the same exchange relationship. (So don't we need a piece of work that maps and describes the subtle variety of acts of neighbourliness?)

Many years ago I recall rushing out of my house shouting when I saw from my window a neighbour’s toddler stepping into the road, as the mother was getting the shopping from her car. For this simple act I was rewarded almost immediately with a bottle of wine from the shopping bag. It was clear that I had to accept it, not least because there was probably a confused swelling wave of guilt as well as gratitude in her expression of thanks. But it was also, of course, a recognition of the non-obligatory, but potentially vital, role of neighbour.

*F Thomése et al, Continuation of exchange with neighbors in later life, Personal relationships, 10 (2003), 535-550.

Comments

[Will Davies]

This is quite a familiar issue in economic sociology, or more commonly, economic anthropology. One (paradoxical) way of conceiving of it is as the exchange of non-reciprocated gifts - acts which invite some form of reciprocation by virtue of the fact that they do not explicitly ask for it. This is the meaning of a 'gift economy'. If you focus too much on things which explicitly demand to be reciprocated (money, work, consumption etc) then you miss those areas of the economy where exchange is going on, but in a less rule-bound way. Economists tend to speak of these other forms of exchange in terms of externalities, but they are (as you point out) often far more important to achieving social cohesion than those limited, specifiable entities which exist within the economy of formal exchanges.

[Katie]

It's not like that isn't true in business/politics as well, otherwise why are the bars at Davos and party conferences where it all gets done? The rounds system probably generates the kind of trust that breeds unflagging cooperation through the life of a deal than any mealy mouthed formally negotiated contract. When in fact, the ritual of rounds is a very detailed set of mutually understood rules.