Does Money Make People Think Differently

In the classical accounts of Marx, Simmel, and Polanyi, money is seen as rendering everything quantifiable according to a 'universal yardstick' of value, permitting comparisons among objects, people, and activities that previously were mentally incomparable (Maurer 2006). The implications of such a way of thinking are perhaps best summed up in the Simmelian concept of 'money as acid'. This refers firstly to how money's commensurating capacity has led to the tendency to view the economy as relatively autonomous, resulting in the supposed 'disembedding' of the economy from other social institutions (Polanyi 1944), evident in Bohannan's account of the Tiv (Bohannan 1959). However, the 'acidic' quality of money can also be seen as freeing, in the sense that it has a 'democratizing' effect, allowing people to manipulate and transcend social hierarchies in a way that was previously impossible. The latter arguments would indeed seem to condone the idea that money 'makes people think differently'. However, in recent years scholars have begun to doubt the extent of money's homogenising, noting that there are multiple cases in which the monetary economy is intertwined with other social institutions (Maurer 2006). Moreover, the way in which money is used to supposedly 'prove' cultural stereotypes (Geschiere 2007) and maintain traditional hierarchies further suggests that at times money may simply be a new medium in which to think about old ideas, so to speak. Essentially, whilst money can cause people to think of the economy as autonomous from other social institutions or of objects as comparable that previously were incomparable, at the same time it can also simply be a new way in which to think about essentially timeless human quandaries; namely, the transcending and maintaining of hierarchy and the stereotyping of the 'other'. Money has the ability to bring everything under a common rubric, allowing for uniscalar valuation and universal commodification (Maurer 2006). The consequences of such qualities on how people think about economic transactions and the objects engaged in such transactions are striking. Everything is seen as sellable, and everything is comparable. The monetary economy is seen as a relatively autonomous domain (Marx 1867), resulting in its disembedding from other social institutions (Polanyi 1944). Money as a universal commodifier can clearly be seen in Strathern's study of the effect of money in Papua New Guinea, where in a discussion one of the local residents - Manga - noted how in the past if one saw grass that they needed, they would just take it, but now a person will look at grass growing in his garden and see it as something they can sell to someone else (Strathern 1999). In other words, it has become commoditized - people now think of grass as something that they can sell. The effect of uniscalar valuation and the correlated disembedding of the economy, however, are best illustrated with Bohannan's study of the Tiv (Bohannan 1959). Prior to the introduction of money, the Tiv economy operated on the basis of three spheres of exchange, each of which varied in prominence with the least prestigious sphere being that of common goods such as food and cooking appliances, the second of brass rods, and the most esteemed being that of women for marriage. These spheres were essentially viewed as incomparable, and when exchange between spheres - 'conversions' - occurred they were seen as unequal and came with a moral judgement. For example, if an individual were to exchange objects from a higher sphere with that of a lower, they would brad about their generosity and success in life, whereas he who exchanged high for lower rationalised his action in terms of culturally-valued motivations such as the needs of his family. The sphere of women, however, rarely underwent conversions, as it was seen as deeply shameful to 'sell' daughters and 'buy' wives. However, the arrival of an 'all-purpose' money provided the notion of a 'common denominator', breaking down the distinctions between the spheres and creating a unicentric economy. Women were now thought of as being comparable with the lowest of commodities, a change in thought that deeply unsettled the Tiv and their concept of marriage institutions. Money can indeed be seen as causing people to think differently, viewing everything as sellable and comparable, and subsequently thinking of the economy as separate and autonomous from other social institutions. The concept of money disembedding the economy from the rest of society has also been thought of as 'freeing' by Simmel and his notion of 'money as acid', where money allows for the transcending of hierarchies by those who were previously rendered immobile by cultural traditions (Simmel 1990). Strathern presents this concept of money in her study of the democratizing effect of money in Hagen, Papua New Guinea (Strathern 1999). Such an effect came to be due to how money allowed for the concept of divisible wealth, by which Strathern meant the ability of money to be divided into small amounts and still remain valuable in a way the traditional exchange medium of shell valuables could not. Since money could be in small amounts as well as large amounts, it seemed acceptable for women to have access to these small amounts in a way they had never had access to wealth in the form of shells before. As a consequence, women not only emerged with resources of their own, but were also seen as independent supporters when men came to them for extra money. The qualities of money that allow for the mental commodification and comparison of essentially everything can therefore not only result in the viewing of the economy as autonomous, but also of money as a means by which one can gain independence and navigate traditional hierarchies in ways previously unattainable. However, in recent years scholars have become less certain of money's homogenizing effects, no longer believing that money universally caused people to think of economy as autonomous from other social institutions and as alienable and neutral in general. This is clearly not always the case; money is often used for special purposes, such as gifts, and if money truly were alienable then there would not be the concept of 'dirty' money. Holbraad, for example, refutes Polanyi's concept of the 'disembedding mechanism', noting that money often features in the social institutions of religion, morals, and politics (Holbraad 2005). He illustrates this with his own study of the use of monetary transactions in the ritual practices of Ifá, Cuba, where it is evident that the way money is used and thought about is intricately intertwined with the religious domain. Money itself is a crucial part of the babalawos' divinatory routines, appearing throughout the ritual in various different formats and is evident even in their mythology. Another example would be that of Goodman's study of fair trade (Goodman 2004), an ethnographic account which would appear to verify the idea that money does not always allow for the flattening of social relations and the disembedding of the economy from rest of society. Goodman notes that fair trade makes money by highlighting the moral economy of consumption, where products are linked with their producers, re-embedding the monetary economy in virtual social relationships. Here the exchange of money is thought of in the same way as the exchange of gifts - as producing social relations where the products exchanged are inalienable from their producers, as in the case of the producer their product is forever associated with them through either images or words in advertising and packaging, and the consumer is linked to their money through its ethical connotations. It can thus be seen that the basic tenets of the previously discussed classical thoughts on money - that the resulting commoditization and commensuration of money result in the alienation of producers from products and disembedding of economy from society - are not universal. Instead, it can be seen that money may provide at times a new medium through which to maintain 'traditional' ways of thinking about economic transactions rather than a completely different way of thinking. The concept that money may at times be a new medium allowing for the maintenance of 'traditional' thought processes can be furthered by looking at the role money plays in reinforcing cultural stereotypes and traditional hierarchies. An example would be Geschiere's study of money's consolidation of ethnic stereotypes in Cameroon, where the supposed differences between ethnicities are represented through how each one is associated with money. For example, the Beti are thought of as being incapable of saving money due to the huge pressure placed on them by their relatives to redistribute whatever money they attain. The Beti are therefore presented as venal and being obsessed with money. This is contrasted with other ethnic stereotypes, such as that of Bamileke thrift, where the Bamileke ethnic group are seen as being highly capable of accumulation due to their much more hierarchal socio-political order providing protection against the 'draining influence of kinship' (Geschiere 2007). Money can at times also be seen as maintaining the very hierarchies that Simmel argued it was dissolving. For example, Strathern noted that whilst women were allowed to own money in ways they were never allowed to own shell-valuables, the way in which they spent that money was construed as spending it on themselves, whereas men would ideally spend their money on collective prestigious purchases or transactions. In this case, therefore, money is used to reaffirm men's place in the cultural and subsequently more prestigious domain, whereas women's use of money ensures they remain in the far less esteemed domain of domesticity. It can therefore be seen that whilst money can indeed change traditional ideas and ways of thinking of things, it can at the same time simply provide a new medium through which traditional ideals and thought processes are maintained, such as the stereotyping of the Other and the reinforcement of hierarchy. It can thus be concluded that whilst money can indeed 'make people think differently', one must not ignore how it can also simply provide a new medium for thinking of essentially the same social conundrums that were prevalent before the introduction of a monetary economy. Money can of course make people think very differently in terms of being able to commoditise all objects and view them as universally comparable, which in turn can result in thinking of the economy as a separate, autonomous institution. However, money can also provide a new way in which people can maintain traditional notions and hierarchies, such as how a certain ethnic group is innately different from another ethnic group (Geschiere 2007) or how the way in which women spend their money is evidence for why they are politically inferior (Strathern 1999). Whilst the thoughts of classic writers on economy such as Marx and Simmel remain crucial to an anthropological understanding of the effect and influence of money on the way people think, one cannot be swayed purely in the direction of a formalist mode of thought. Indeed, if one is to truly appreciate the hugely varying effect of money throughout the world, it could be argued that both a substantivist and formalist understanding of the economy is needed, where money is seen as both making people think differently as well as at times providing a new medium through which people can think in the same way as they did before the introduction of money.