Process Of Giving In Yoruba Language

Derrida’s work, “? The process of giving in the Yoruba language is interruptive or disruptive to the process of exchange. The process of exchange signifies what it includes and excludes. The donor excludes the donee and the donee excludes the gift and the donor in a counter (gift) exchange. In an example I gave above, I wrote that the gift of greeting––which is perceived as respect or common courtesy–– to an elder in the community is usually reciprocated with a counter-gift of genealogical information. The next few lines explains what I mean by that. In Yoruba culture, when a child prostrate/ kneels to greet an older person, he/she is paying homage to orí (the creator). In this process, the boy in this case excludes the older man, and focuses

The fluidity of the gift, the process of giving, and the interpretative and representational perception of the gift, contribute to the identity of the gift as a gift. And an attempt to answer Derrida’s question will mean a turn to what ultimately makes the gift a gift: ––time. My argument is that the gift is still a gift if it is mediated by time. A donor’s gift (for example a material gift in whatever shape or size) to a donee in the Yoruba culture is requited mostly through service to the donor, especially when the latter is in need. In this context, the assumption is that the donor is someone with a big farm or business, the donee pays in kind by helping out on his farm. This reduces cost for the donor and helps the donee pays his debt. A debt, which does not appear as a debt thus become a gift of gratitude. The donee therefore returns the gift but not as gift, making the gift a gift because it is unrecognizable as a gift, rather it is recognized as a community service. While the notion of the gift as service is traceable to Mauss (The Gift 6), this process of giving cannot be identified with the gift because it is resistant to identification or a moment of

Similar to lailai, time in Aristotelian sense is a sphere which does not start neither ends––a limited infinitive. For Aristotle, time is not a revolution (McKeon, 290). He has an esoteric philosophy of time–––time as numbers. Time remains the same even though the referent it varies. For example, 2 remains 2 but its variants are not the same, because time as number doesn’t change but its attribute can. Whatever the attribute of time is, the now remains. Igba is constant irrespective of its variant–Igba aaro, osàn or alé. The now is not punctual. Thus, while it is possible to remain at a point-the now, it is impossible to return to a constant now. The implication of this for the gift as I argue is that no restitution is necessary or even possible because it has been mediated by time. Time is differance. It is in contrast and defiance of a constituted time that will make a countergift possible or necessary. The lailai time becomes its own extremity and in stretching itself, it can be linear. However, it is circular but never returns to its beginning because it is infinitive. According to Derrida, where time is circular, the gift is impossible, but with Aristotle, time is not circular even though it can be periodic (igba), and this makes the gift a possibility. However, that time is circular in Yoruba tradition is a myth. Time is not recurrent, but in motion. This