Cliggett - Bao

Sorry for the late response - I was unable to access the readings until today.

I thought the article made a good point about expanding the base of knowledge : "Building on our base of knowledge with more detailed understandings of the variety of ways in which migrants maintain links...will faciliate our ability to make policy recommendations..." (Cliggett, 37). This directly connects with our discussions last week regarding the demographic data and our guest speaker's work on PEPFAR policy. In order to make policy changes that can bring about positive change, we need to understand first the population with which we are working with. If this means that we need to change the lens through which we see them, then we should work harder to encourage interdisciplinary research and collaboration. I think the article does a good job of articulating the limitation of viewing the Zambian remittance system from just an economic perspective. We discussed this in the Anthropology of Money course last semester - the idea that while the economic motivations are an important aspect of daily life, it is not necessarily the only aspect that is worth considering. I think that the readings are encouraging us to try and change our standard approach to how we view families and households, so that we might learn more about them. In essence, opening our minds by changing our perception of how things work.

I had several questions while reading the Cliggett article that were in direct response to some of the statements she made. The first was regarding the physical boundaries of separation - how far is considered "far"? Is it beyond the collection of homes, beyond the territory, or simply the difference between rural and urban? What about those who live in a completely different country? I am trying to understand if there is a clear line between those who are considered "inside" the family versus those "outside", and if there can be a physical line associated with it. I also had a question regarding the frequency of remittances and gifts; if a gift only has be to small, then why is it that some people choose not to give gifts more often? Or why is it that some people choose not to give gifts at all, and then return? Who dictates the inclusion or exclusion of these separated members? I find this very interesting to consider, because I am used to associating gifts with people important to me. The more important I feel they are, the "better" gift I may give them. I recently read in an article that there was a trend in the United States of younger family members neglecting to give their siblings or parents gifts during the holidays because they assumed they would understand that the feelings or connection would be there. However, the recipients (or rather, lack thereof) felt more hurt by this lack of consideration and felt that the bonds had weakened. In essence, they would have preferred a gift, no matter the price, as a sign of their connection. I guess this is similar to Cliggett's idea of the symbolism in the remittances, rather than the actual economic value. Are there other similarities in our society to the Zambian remittance practices?