ESTADO DEL ARTE

Historical research has already been conducted on the use of currencies as nation- building

tools, delineators of communities and symbols of national identity.15Many of these studies stress that the collective understanding of boundaries between social communities is mediated and sustained by a repertoire of symbols. As Anthony P. Cohen has pointed out, the boundary that marks the beginning and the end of any community are rather symbolic than physical.16Along these lines Zdzislav Mach argues that symbols comprise vehicles of meaning and cultural values, which are without material form and can only be conceived and communicated through the use of symbols.17Because symbols potentially demarcate boundaries of community they have frequently been politicised as nation-building instruments. State and national

15 _{To mention but a fraction: O’Malley, ‘Species’ (1994); Pointon, ‘Money and Nationalism’ (1998); Gilbert, ‘Ornamenting’ (1998);}

Gilbert, ‘Forging’ (1999); Helleiner, ‘National Currencies’ (1998); Helleiner, Making (2003); Rowlinson, ‘The Scotch’ (1999); Hymans, ‘Color’ (2004); Colella, ‘Monetary Patriotism’ (2003); Lauer, ‘Money’ (2008).

16 _{Cohen, Construction (1985), 13.} 17 _{Mach, Symbols (1993), 37.}

elites continuously attempt to monopolise the use of powerful symbols in an effort to control how they are used.18

The importance of cultural and symbolic components of communities has been accented by Anthony D. Smith’s ethno-symbolic approach to nationalism. According to Smith, ethnic myths and symbols of community are important elements in the construction of nations. These symbols, which include flags, hymns, anthems – and most notably coins 19– can be invested with meaning and significance and serve as powerful motifs of nationalism that sustain a national community. Inspired by Smith’s approach I perceive monetary institutions as symbols that can serve to demarcate community boundaries and contribute to the configuration of a collective identity.20Such symbols are not merely to be understood as unnoticeable, hibernating components of national communities. Symbols may be monopolized by ideological movements who draw sustenance from a repertoire of existing myths, traditions and symbols to promote an agenda of nationalism. However, Smith argues, powerful symbols and traditions cannot readily be ‘invented’ as Hobsbawm has proposed.21 Even though socio-economic elites may try to alter or seriously

distort existing myths and symbols in an attempt to engage in ‘top-down’ myth construction – these myths cannot be invented impromptu. Instead, political elites promoting a nation must carefully select and wield a range of symbols that have a degree of resonance in the population they seek to influence.22

Gertude Stein once banteringly asked people to make up their minds; whether money is money or money isn’t money?23Following the symbolic focus of the aforementioned studies I propose that money is both. Sometimes money is actually ‘just’ money in the traditional quantifiable economic sense – something we earn and spend every day – a means of exchange, a unit of account or a technology

18 _{Hobsbawm/Ranger, Invention (1983); Mach, Symbols (1993), 105.} 19 _{Smith, ‘Ethno-symbolism’ (2005), 28.}

20 _{Smith, ‘Ethno-symbolism’ (2005), 23.} 21 _{Hobsbawm/Ranger, Invention (1983).} 22 _{Smith, Ethno-Symbolism (2009), 21.} 23 _{Stein, ‘Money’ (1996), 236.}

for storing wealth. At other times, money is a symbolic sign that stands for something else, something unrelated to economic value. It is a signifier, to use the vocabulary of Saussure,24which denotes an arbitrary relationship between the real world and the sign. Thus, a central bank – like the Danish Nationalbanken – may be invested with meaning that has little to do with the monetary duties it performs. It may be the physical headquarter of a bank offering a range of financial services. But it may also be construed as a symbol of something intangible – e.g., as an embodiment of a certain political ideology. Symbols convey metaphysic abstractions through physical, tangible objects25and as such, both currencies and headquarters of

central banks can be understood as symbols with the ability to bolster the identity of regional or national communities because they embody ideas and are invested with meaning.

Self interest versus romanticist ideology

To be sure, the above focus on symbols does not imply that the monetary and financial disputes between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein can be completely severed from the underlying economic interests that motivated different socioeconomic groups. Ethno-national mobilisation indeed often results from the conscious efforts of economic elites to consolidate control over certain political or economic resources.26I recognise that national symbols alone might not explain collective action. As economic historian Carsten Hefeker has shown by analysing a series of nineteenth-century monetary unions, the economic policies leading to monetary unification depend on the influence of the potential ‘gainers’ and ‘losers’.27 The restructuring of monetary organisations tends to favour some societal groups while others risk losing money, power and influence. As Schultz Hansen has recently

24 _{de Saussure, Course (1983), 66.} 25 _{Adriansen, Symboler (2003), 30.}

26 _{See for example Hroch, Preconditions (1985) or the Marxist-inspired analysis by Hobsbawm}

and Ranger, Invention (1983).

argued, identification with national movements in Schleswig was largely defined by class, profession and economic influence. People simply tend to sympathise with the nationalist ideas that seem most economically rewarding. This accounts for a correlation between rational economic expectations and expressions of national identity.28

Consequently, even though my analysis is most adequately described as a qualitative semiotic approach, in which I focus on the meanings attributed to the monetary institutions of Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, a certain amount of background information is necessary. Because the nationalist discourse cannot be analysed independently of the economic and political structures within which it was articulated, I shall clarify Schleswig-Holstein’s economic interests. Moreover, although I provide examples of how the general population responded to these

attempts in an effort to hint at their impact, my main analytical focus is the rhetoric of the elites.