Gift-giving, gift-receiving, and stuff

The last post discussing Debt is Slavery dealt with the effect “stuff” has on our finance and on our lives.  Part of the accumulation of our stuff is gifts we've received.  And part of the stuff others have is likely gifts we've given them.

Michael Mihalik, author of Debt is Slavery, discusses the “giant marketing machine” that encourages us to spend our money for fear of forgetting [choose your favorite person here] on [choose appropriate holiday here].  With Christmas decorations hitting some stores before Halloween, it's no wonder it's hard to ignore.

The giving and receiving of gifts was around long before businesses commercialized it, though, and most everyone has memory of a special gift they've received that was just what they wanted or needed.  Also, many people probably remember a gift they've given someone that really meant a lot when it was received — or even long after it was received.

What Mihalik was going after was the generic, nearly thoughtless gifts that you feel you have to give someone on special occasions because they're a relative, friend, etc.  Further, if you receive these gifts from someone you don't expect, sometimes one responds with what humorist Dave Barry calls a “retalitory” gift that's also generic and nearly thoughtless.  More spending, more debt, more stuff.

But why do some people give these kinds of gifts?  I'm not saying that people who give a lot of generic, nearly thoughtless gifts are nearly thoughtless themselves.  Some people give gifts as a natural expression of love, much in the same way some people perform acts of service or give words of affirmation.  And, in kind, some people feel loved if they receive a gift more so than if someone says a kind word to them.

So to ask, or expect, people with this “love language” to not give gifts or receive them is to make it more difficult for them to express affection to those who care about them.  It's therefore easier said than done for some people to just stop giving, or receiving, gifts, regardless of the costs involved.

As for me, this is how I view giving and receiving gifts:

• When people ask me what I want for [whatever], I just say “I have everything I need.”  This doesn't really answer the question, but I've already come to realize that I have more stuff than I can deal with effectively, and suggesting that I don't need anything else may help me out in the long run.  Though I'm not adding any additional obligation on the person to get something in particular, I am making them think harder if they already feel led to give me something and they really just wanted me to tell them.  It's a tough call.
• I take luke-warm responses to gifts I've given as an indication that they really don't need a lot of them.  Because they probably have more stuff than they can deal with.  Or, I try to give gifts that can be consumed rather than gifts that need to be dusted or otherwise maintained.  One thing I'm not as good at is giving gifts that are experiential — things that don't cost much but involve doing something with the recipient of the gift.  Probably I should get better at it.
• Giving/receiving gifts is not my “love language” as it were.  Perhaps this is why I'm pretty indifferent to giving or receiving gifts.
• Despite this indifference, accepting gifts graciously is good advice.  You could be hurting someone a lot worse than you expect if you refuse a gift from someone and it was given as an expression of affection (i.e. giving gifts is their love language.)
• But for the sake of stuff overload, a re-gifting plan is a good idea.  This won't work out perfectly every time but even if you don't have a need/want for something, odds are that someone you know does, and it can be passed on to that person if it's still in good condition.  Mihalik calls this “putting things back into circulation” and he uses it not only for gifts but for all of our stuff.

If you're not a big gift person, how do you handle receiving gifts?  Or if you do a lot of gifts, how do you feel about this advice?