Mika Workshop : A Gift Economy Experiment in Vietnam

For us, living with the practice of a Gift Economy is a long journey. We consider this instance not even a full experiment, but merely a semi-experiment.

Why do we want to experiment with a Gift Economy?

It is difficult to answer this question in just a few lines. We spent many sessions asking this over and over again. Here are a few excerpted answers:

“When I was little, my family had a plum tree that never bore fruit. Then, one year, it was fully loaded. My family packed so many bags to give to the neighbors. Later on, I became friends with the shopkeepers I bought from. Some bags of goods came with extra special items, not as a promotion, but out of a sense of: ‘I’m so happy there’s extra, why hesitate to give it away!’“

“A great sense of happiness in my life comes from moments of giving and receiving from the heart. I wish that my needs and those of my family could be cared for mostly from the heart. The foundation of such healthy relationships brings me far more peace of mind than accumulating wealth.”

“I want to see myself as wealthy—possessing the power to give. I want to see, alongside others, the interdependence between human beings, and the beauty of wholehearted dedication to something that lies outside the framework of how this world operates.”

“I look at a chaotic world, and I also see people living in beautiful ways. I want to step by step walk in that direction, to bet on human connection, to make our trust in one another tangible. The darker the night, the brighter the stars.“

Each Stage Brings Its Own Challenges

We want to acknowledge the difficulties in this experiment, whether spoken aloud or remaining as wordless ghosts:

• As the initiators, we carried many anxieties. Would we be judged as unrealistic? Would we exhaust everyone when everyone was already weary of daily life? It was also difficult for us to explain the intention and implementation clearly enough to the Orga, as we were finding our own way too.
• We launched this experiment AFTER the Orga members had been invited with a different vision of how money would flow. The whole team was confused about what this experiment was actually about and how it would be carried out. Consequently, it was difficult for everyone to make a choice about whether to continue, stop, or participate in the experiment to what extent—even when invited to choose a level of participation that matched their readiness.
• In the early stages, each Orga member was invited to share their needs during the two months of running the project. Financially, this meant the amount of money they needed for these two months, categorized into three levels: Basic Needs (survival needs), No-worry(being able to care for oneself and others), and Thriving (additionally caring for desires like learning, giving, savings, etc.). This alone stirred up many difficult emotions. Some rarely tracked their spending due to deep-seated habits and attitudes within their families. Some were not ready to share their monthly income and expenses with the Orga and the public. Some felt ashamed or uneasy looking at the numbers their colleagues hoped to receive. Others worried that the figures listed by someone else did not accurately reflect their actual needs.
• When the course Registration Form was first released, some prospective participants felt uncomfortable because no specific tuition fee was announced upfront. They felt that the invitation to contribute carried implicit moral judgments about the money they were “expected” to pay based on labels defining their economic status. Some felt overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and the emotional burden of thinking about money and their own needs, or those of others.
• We believe that several participants also had to process many difficult emotions during the registration and participation process. All factors that contributed to satisfaction or dissatisfaction—such as rooms, food, content, class organization, etc.—might have overlapped with considerations about money.
• When wrapping up the program with the Orga, we hoped to separate the Appreciation part from the Resource Allocation part. If placed too close together, it could increase the probability of reinforcing the habit of giving money based on the level of contribution rather than based on need. Due to a lack of capacity, this did not happen as intended. And even just appreciating each other, whether in a shared space or private space, was another challenge for everyone.
• As we prepared and opened up for the Resource Allocation Circle, we walked through many anxieties. Will I be judged for wanting to receive or give this much money? Will others feel they are not acknowledged enough when money is tied so closely to self-worth? What are the criteria for a person or a project to participate in the circle to receive money?

The Gifts We Received

• This experiment began with the boundless generosity of Mika. She and her friends gifted their entire effort and travel expenses, wishing to contribute to NVC projects in Vietnam. A friend of hers, upon passing, left a will wishing for her to receive money to do meaningful things, and she used that money to pay for her own domestic flights.
• To us, Mika was low-maintenance. She lived and ate alongside the Orga with no special needs. This project also focused on caring for the Vietnamese community. We did not face any pressure to discuss thorny issues, such as whether it is fair to pay salaries in foreign currency or to care for the minimum standard of living of another country.
• Each member of the Orga went on a certain journey to work with their own core beliefsand triggers regarding the story of money. Everyone also dedicated immense patience and trust in each other and the process, spending time to process their own difficult emotions and those of others.
• The Orga and friends contributed venues, food, human labor, etc. Ms. Yen sent cakes all the way from Da Nang. Little Fish Kindergarten and Doxa Cafe also supported us. The NVC practice community in Vietnam and our extended circle of friends, who have cared for one another over many years, formed the soil on which we were fortunate enough to plant this experiment.
• The participants gave so much. Some contributed amounts that we believe required careful consideration and budgeting to send. Some shared a desire to contribute resources other than money: handwriting, voice, music, etc. Some sent anonymous monthly contributions, hoping NVC would reach whoever needs it most. Some took care of their fellow classmates. Some shared sorrows never told to anyone before. Some gave laughter. Some cried their hearts out. And so much more…
• We also sensed, through rare coincidences in stories and through the resonance during and after the course, that perhaps our grandparents, parents, and ancestors were also watching over and blessing us.

Support from Nonviolent Global Liberation (NGL)

An email requesting support from me received 2 replies from 2 different people,connecting us to a third person—Alper—who would accompany and coach us throughout the organizing process. This helped me see that NGL operates through multi-party coordination, where no single, lonely individual bears sole responsibility for decisions.

• Initially, the focus might have been on “money” as the most important and only resource.Upon reading the detailed documents that Miki Kashtan and NGL posted online without financial barriers, we realized that the “resource flow” is what truly matters. Besides the foundation of trust and healthy working relationships, what other elements help resource allocation be based on need? Who holds the power to move resources, and how can this power be distributed?
• NGL documents thoroughly record the criteria NGL uses to make decisions, the experiments they have done (e.g., the Emergency Fund), etc. This helped us think more long-term about building the foundation of relationships, rather than just closing everything down when the course ended.
• Alper offered very specific suggestions, such as assessing needs using “1 to 10” scale questions instead of just writing down a single number, or how to open a circle to acknowledge the fears and shame in the room.
• We were inspired by NGL’s 8 years of practicing a Gift Economy, especially Alper’s story of how he cared for his family of 4 young children through trust in human beings. His authenticity—that even now, anxieties and struggles remain when practicing—brought me peace of mind.
• Alper facilitated the coaching calls with both openness and precision.
  
  • Openness: because he always gave us a sense of abundance, taking time for human-to-human connection. He always said, “message me whenever you need.” His generosity helped us realize that this was not a typical transactional service where money running out means time runs out. Thanks to this, we felt safe knowing there was a place to return to, to sit and cry, and to receive guidance to keep moving forward when facing problems.
  • Precision: because he did not miss a single question or issue I raised. Depending on our capacity, sometimes he opened up space to work with emotions, sometimes he offered perspectives, sometimes suggestions, etc.
• We were fortunate to have 3 people participate in the coaching process. Alper helped hold the group’s difficult emotions, which the group itself found hard to hear from one another.
• Discussing these matters helped the spirit of this practice become far more alive in the body compared to just reading documents. Receiving support from NGL turned a process that initially felt overwhelming into something possible.

A Few Reflections

On the initiating group

This was the first time I spoke about these aspirations and inspirations with others. We realized that in a space with fewer people, the depth and sparkle of these aspirations are clearer, whereas in a crowded space, they fade—partly because I wasn’t sure how far everyone was with me. Yet, throughout this process, I got to see myself more clearly and radiantly, and we got to witness one another.

I released my own expectations upon realizing that inviting is my business, responding is theirs. Each individual or small collective has the space to decide how far they will experiment, and we can orbit the same path even at different distances, without needing to be violently cast out of the solar system. I can live with this, whether by myself or with many others.

On the process with the Orga and participants

We conducted this experiment against a backdrop of chronic anxiety about money. In meetings, the phrase “not starving to death” was repeated by at least two members. We are children of a nation that has constantly lived on the edge of danger. In the past, the most basic survival needs could be threatened. Many of us inherited the belief that we are the sole bearer of responsibility for our own survival or that of our loved ones, unable to rely on anyone.

Near the end of the process with the Orga, we sensed that somehow this anxiety had shifted slightly toward a feeling that someone will catch us if we fall, that we are a village, and in the middle of the village is a granary where anyone who is hungry can come and take grain home.

• We recognized the necessity of having a shared vision and a shared mental picture from the start, with space to share about what a gift economy means to individuals and the whole group.
• In NGL’s case, each member possesses certain core capacities, a purpose of personal liberation, a liberation support group… It is not just a collective practice but goes hand in hand with the chosen process of personal liberation.
• There is a need to respect each individual’s healing process regarding their money story, integrating the personal process within the collective process.
• We wonder how we can invite more spaciousness and tenderness within each person and within the group. What are alternative ways to gently ease people into this experiment instead of fixing or demanding a number right away?
• We do not yet know of any strategy more impactful than money to help people feel their self-worth. How can we care for the need for recognition? How can we invite empathy when money carries so much judgment? How can we respect fears while nurturing more trust and creating more space for transparency?

Key Timelines

• Jan 27: May & Khang discuss the spirit of gifting & criteria such as information transparency, co-managing, and sharing resources based on need.
• Feb 10: The Orga of 10 people holds a kick-off meeting. Each member is invited to share what they can give and what they hope to receive.
• Feb 24: Khang proposes requesting coaching support from NGL, primarily to help Khang face internal difficulties, thereby defining realistic expectations for learning through this Gift Economy experiment.
• Mar 2: First call with Alper from NGL, revolving around clarifying personal motivations and how to implement it to ensure safety and autonomy for everyone.
• Mar 6: An impromptu evening meeting to revise the Registration Form (1st time) and address applicants’ concerns.
• Mar 10: Real names of Orga members are changed to animal names to reduce the sense of vulnerability when sharing each person’s life needs.
• Mar 20: Establish a sustainability level to ensure everyone’s minimum requirements are met before considering other criteria.
• Mar 25: Second call with Alper, focusing on creating an experimental space gentle enough for everyone, while inviting more willingness to try something new.
• Apr 7–17: Mika Maniwa organizes 2 courses in Saigon and 2 courses in Hanoi. At the end of each course, we open a circle with the participants to share gifts received and given.
• Apr 13–14: Saigon course debrief, transferring experience & energy to the Hanoi Orga.
• Apr 17: Third meeting with Alper, discussing the resource allocation circle.
• May 8: Resource allocation circle with the entire Orga.

Harvested by Khang & May, from the collective reflection of Organizer Team – including Mika, Khuyên, Khang, May, Thắm, Âng, Hà, Hoàng, Trang Iris, Nhung and others.