The birth of the „sociology of money‟ is widely attributed to German-born inter- disciplinary academic, Georg Simmel. His major work on money, „The Philosophy of Money‟, was first published in 1900 and constitutes the primary reference point for most work within the sociology of money so far. This is not because Simmel was the
43 first or only classical sociologist to write about money; for example, Marx before him, and Durkheim and Weber during Simmel‟s time also wrote about the place of money in a changing society (Deflem 2003). Rather, it is because of the way Simmel wrote about money. Marx, Durkheim and Weber all treated money as one element of an all-encompassing explanation for modern social change (e.g. the capitalist mode of production, shifts in social morality, or rationalisation respectively). Alternatively, Simmel studied the money economy without subsuming its importance within grand theories of social change (Deflem 2003: 89).
Instead, Simmel viewed the money economy independently of specific forces like the division of labour or capitalism, and money itself as central to social changes
associated with modernity (Deflem 2003: 86). Implicated in Simmel‟s refusal to specialise in the manner of Marx, Weber and Durkheim, was his wider social theory of „relationism‟. Simmel argued that no one aspect of society can be understood outside of its relation to the whole. Thus money gives insight to the social
mechanisms of society in toto, and conversely the social structure of society gives the context and framework in which the nature of money can be explored as a
phenomenon (Turner 1986: 95).
Further to „relationism‟, Turner identifies two more central themes in Simmel‟s formal sociology: „sociation‟ and „social forms‟. „Sociation‟ refers to Simmel‟s understanding of society as neither just individuals nor reified structures; rather, the „social‟ begins with social interactions and social institutions that come to exist from the totality of social relations. „Social forms‟ (such as families, groups, or
associations) are formed through ongoing sociation. Social forms become cultural forms with reified structures because they take on a logic of their own, for example when forms like money become congealed and assume autonomy over the individuals who created them (Turner 1986: 95-6). From this basis, Simmel studied numerous social phenomena: fashion, law, women, poverty, the city, art and money among others. Simmel claimed that regardless of the focus, these seemingly disparate issues are related through the premise that one topic is sociologically related to all other phenomena of social life. Or, as Deflem describes Simmel‟s sociology, that „any sociology of particularities is at once a „total‟ sociology‟ (Deflem 2003: 70).
44 It is within this formal sociology that Simmel outlined two important themes about money. The first is the nature of money as a symbol of economic value. Infinitely divisible, interchangeable and quantifiable, money replaces every specific economic value (e.g. object) and is thus value-neutral (Simmel 1978: 120-8) and „colourless‟ (Simmel 1991: 19). Money also represents „pure means‟ (the most independent value) and as such it is the most extreme example of a means that becomes an end or
purpose:
The inner polarity of the essence of money lies in its being the absolute means and thereby becoming psychologically the absolute purpose for most people, which makes it, in a strange way, a symbol in which the major regulators of practical life are frozen. (Simmel 1978: 232)
Simmel argued that as an ultimate expression of all values, money is abstracted above all objects of value and becomes the focal point through which all things opposed or contradictory find a common purpose or connection. That is, the quality of money lies in its quantity (Simmel 1978: 237 and 259).
The second major theme highlights how the nature of money – abstracted and absolute - affects social relationships. Indifferent and objective, money
impersonalises relations between people. For example, money sits between person and association or property and owner, distancing one from the other, impersonalising and providing freedom and independence (Simmel 1991). Simmel also marked the correlation between the modern phenomenon of the money economy and
individuation. For example, modern individuals are independent from any one particular producer or supplier. It is the anonymity and indifference of others to a person – and the need to rely on oneself - that creates individualism (Simmel 1991: 21):
Money, as the most mobile of all goods, represents the pinnacle in this tendency. Money is really that form of property that most effectively liberates the individual from the unifying bonds that extend from other objects of possession. (Simmel 1978: 354)
45 On one hand, Simmel‟s utilitarian account is a cultural critique. He argues social life will become increasingly „soulless‟ through the formation of impersonal associations: „The complete heartlessness of money is reflected in our social culture, which is itself determined by money‟ (Simmel 1991: 346). On the other hand, Simmel was
cautiously optimistic about money as a pure symbol signifying freedom for
individuals, or the expansion of individual and subjective possibilities. What is very clear is that for Simmel, the flux and flow of modern society and culture is largely dependent upon the effects and determination of the money economy. In chapter eleven of this thesis, I argue that Simmel‟s understandings of the consequences of the money economy in social and cultural terms continue to have validity, albeit from a different theoretical basis. However, through the following chapters, I will also argue that Simmel‟s account remains sociologically limited as there is little
acknowledgement of the ways in which meanings are also shaped by social, relational, and moral dimensions of lived experience.