Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement." American Sociological Review 25: 161-178. THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * ALVIN W. GOULDNER Washington University at St. Louis The manner in which the concept of reciprocity is implicated in functional theory is explored, enabling a reanalysis of the concepts of "survival" and "exploitation." The need to distinguish between the concepts of complementarity and reciprocity is stressed. Distinctions are also drawn between (1) reciprocity as a pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications, (2) the existential or folk belief in reciprocity, and (3) the generalized moral norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity as a moral norm is analyzed; it is hypothesized that it is one of the universal "principal components" of moral codes. As Westermarck states, "To requite a benefit, or to be grateful to him who bestows it, is probably everywhere, at least under certain circumstances, regarded as a duty. This is a subject which in the present connection calls for special consideration." Ways in which the norm of reciprocity is implicated in the maintenance of stable social systems are examined. "There is no duty more indispensable than that of returning a kindness," says Cicero, adding that "all men distrust one forgetful of a benefit."--Men have been insisting on the importance of reciprocity for a long time. While many sociologists concur in this judgment, there are nonetheless few concepts in sociology which remain more obscure and ambiguous. Howard Becker, for example, has found this concept so important that he has titled one of his books Man in Reciprocity and has even spoken of man as Homo reciprocus, all without venturing to present a straightforward definition of reciprocity. Instead Becker states, "I don't propose to furnish any definition of reciprocity; if you produce some, they will be your own achievements." (1) Becker is not alone in failing to stipulate formally the meaning of reciprocity, while at the same time affirming its prime importance. Indeed, he is in very good company, agreeing with L. T. Hobhouse, who held that "reciprocity . . . is the vital principle of society," (2) and is a key intervening variable through which shared social rules are enabled to yield social stability. Yet Hobhouse presents no systematic definition of reciprocity. While hardly any clearer than Hobhouse, Richard Thurnwald is equally certain of the central importance of the "principle of reciprocity": this principle is almost a primordial imperative which "pervades every relation of primitive life" (3) and is the basis on which the entire social and ethical life of primitive civilizations presumably rests. (4) Georg Simmel's comments go a step further, emphasizing the importance of reciprocity not only for primitive but for all societies. Simmel remarks that social equilibrium and cohesion could not exist without "the reciprocity of service and return service," and that 'all contacts among men rest on the schema of giving and returning the equivalence." (5) Were we confronted with only an obscure concept, which we had no reason to assume to be important, we might justifiably consign it to the Valhalla of intellectual history, there to consort