Arnould and Rose raise some interesting issues regarding my sharing paper (Belk 2010). We agree on some points, but I find that most of their contentions are misguided and are based on misunderstandings of the original paper, social science, the extended self, and the theory of the gift. Their alternative offering of mutuality is also perplexingly self-contradictory, romanticized, and illogical. In this reply I point out issues on which we agree as well as reasons for disagreement.
BatailleG. (1985) Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939 (Allan Stoekl, trans.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BelkR. (1984) ‘Cultural and Historical Differences in Concepts of Self and Their Effects on Attitudes Toward Having and Giving’, Advances in Consumer Research11: 753–60.
5.
BelkR. (1996) ‘The Perfect Gift’, in OtnesC.BeltraminiR. F. (eds) Gift Giving: A Research Anthology, pp. 59–84. Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press.
6.
BelkR. (2010) ‘Sharing’, Journal of Consumer Research36(5): 715–34.
7.
BelkR. (2013) ‘Extended self in a digital world’, Journal of Consumer Research40: 477–500
8.
BelkR. (2014a) ‘Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0’, The Anthropologist18(1): 7–23.
9.
BelkR. (2014b) ‘You are What You can Access: Sharing and Collaborative Consumption Online’, Journal of Business Research67(8): 1595–1600.
10.
BelkR. (forthcoming) ‘Sharing, Materialism, and Design for Sustainability’, in ChapmanJ. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Product Design. London: Routledge.
11.
CôtéR.PickertG.WellmanB. (2008) ‘Does the Golden Rule rule’, in HsungR-M.LinN.BreigerR. (eds) Contexts of Social Capital: Social Networks in Markets, Communities, and Families, pp. 49–71. London: Routledge.
12.
IngoldT. (1986) The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
13.
IngoldT. (2011) Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Abingdon: Routledge.
14.
JohnN. (2012) ‘Sharing and Web 2.0: The Emergence of a Keyword’, New Media and Society15(2): 167–82.
15.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
MacInnisD. (2011) ‘A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing75: 134–56.
17.
MaussM. (1967 [1925]) The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (Cunnison, transIan.). New York: Norton.
18.
ScarabotoD. (2015) ‘Selling, Sharing, and Everything in Between: The Hybrid Economies of Collaborative Networks’, Journal of Consumer Research42(1): 152–76.
19.
StackC.B. (1974) All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper & Row.
20.
VaughanG. (1997) For-Giving: A Feminist Critique of Exchange. Austin: Plain View Press.
21.
VisserM. (2008) The Gift of Thanks: The Roots, Persistence, and Paradoxical Meanings of a Social Ritual. Toronto: HarperCollins.
22.
WangX.BendleN.MaiF.. (2015) ‘The Journal of Consumer Research at forty: A Historical Analysis’, Journal of Consumer Research42(1): 5–18.
23.
YadavM. (2010) ‘The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development’, Journal of Marketing74: 1–19.
