Collective Social Term Paper (Semester- 1, 2016)

VALUE, MONEY AND POWER

Submitted by,

Harshavardhan
 Introduction

Every relationship amongst humans is ultimately a form of exchange. It is some sort of

interaction between two individuals. In every relationship, if we observe closely enough there is
an exchange of certain material or non- material things. Mostly in human relationship it is the
non- material things that we exchange the most. “Every interaction has to be regarded as an
exchange: every conversation, every affection (even if it is rejected), every game, and every
glance at another person. The difference that seems to exist, that in interaction a person offers
what he does not possess whereas in exchange he offers only what he does possess, cannot be
sustained.” (Simmel, 79) The exchange of material things is a visible exchange. You see yourself
getting rid of one object and acquiring other object or acquiring money instead of the objet that
you possessed. The essential nature of both these types of exchanges is similar; we know what
we desire and we know who has it. Even in terms of non- material things we know that a certain
being has a particular type of personality and you need that person to be around you and you try
being in that person’s company. Obviously, this is not an intentional process it happens
unintentionally, unknowingly many times. But as soon as you start any interaction there comes
exchange. There is an exchange of ideas, an exchange of information and ultimately lifestyle. So
every interaction within two individuals is either an exchange or it is about an exchange.
“Exchange is the purest and most developed kind of interaction, which shapes human life when it
seeks to acquire substance and content.” (Simmel, 79)

In this paper I will be dealing only with the process of exchange of material objects.
Moreover, I will be analyzing the concept of money. Money is the mode of interaction while
exchanging material objects. Just like language is the mode for exchanging ideas, money is the
mode for exchanging material objects. We will look into this concept in detail in the next
segment. This might seem like the most rational meaning of money, but it is not completely how
and what we would expect it to turn out to be. Over the years money has been overpowering
humans. When humans start attaching values to money, money does not simply remain a means
to acquire certain things but it becomes an entity in itself and possesses its own qualities. Money
in itself does not have any qualities. To put it in philosophical terminology money is never a
substance; it is always regarded as a quality of a substance. When we value any object, money (a
piece of paper) comes to life and has its own meaning. That meaning is provided to it by the
societal and cultural structure. Eg. As soon as the 500 and 1000 rs. Notes were put out of use in
India (2016), the piece of paper that had 500 rs note printed on it, was useless, and it is just like
any other paper. But humans kept adding more and more values to that paper. It is not out of
ignorance that we added meaning to it; money concerns the entire realm of exchange, and as we
have seen before, any exchange within two individuals is essentially an exchange. Money is the
language for the transaction of the material objects.

In this paper I will also give an example of an anthropological study held in

Ambakandavilla, Sri Lanka, where anthropologist R. L. Stirrat studied 100 fishing households.
Based on this study I will try and analyze the power dynamics related to money. And by the end
of the paper I will be looking into Simmel’s thoughts about the unlimited possibilities for the
utilization of money.

Philosophy of Money – The Analytical Meaning of Money

Money is the perfect example of the impermanent nature of reality. To achieve a certain
security we need to exchange within human beings. We live in a structured society and exchange
things on the basis of generally their quality and utility. This transaction needs a certain form of
communication, or an interaction. This form of give and take of material and culture has
developed in most dynamic ways throughout the time. This interchange of various goods all over
the world is a characteristic of human race. This communication somewhere always implied a
concept of money; wherever there is transaction there implies a give and take of certain goods
having some values and qualities. These values and qualities are of an object that can be
exchanged for something else as an object. The distribution of objects is dependent upon these
qualities and values. Every object is placed in reality and has a value. ‘We must be able to say of
an object that it exists or does not exist, and each object must have a definite place for us on the
scale of values, from the highest to indifferent to negative values.’ (Simmels, Philosophy of
Money) these values are obviously decided by human beings but they are not always as rational
as it would seem. Therefore similarly, concept of value also has a subjective character to it. But
everyone understands value as a concept and as a universal fact. But the valuation of an object is
determined and dependent upon various socio political, natural or evolutional progressions of the
earth. We survive on natural resources. They are both perishable and imperishable; therefore
their value keeps changing according to our needs. Therefore the concept of value has always
been attached to any object. Everyone comes under a category of objects, even us, humans. We
are all objects placed somewhere in reality and hold various qualities and material or non-
material values. So values are equivalent to being. The existence of an object implies its value.
Simmels draws a parallel between value and being. ‘It’s precisely its whole already determined
being that is raised to the sphere of values.’(Simmels, Philosophy of money) we understand
objects only in terms of their values and qualities.

Now that we have stated the importance of essential nature of qualities, we should
look at its current complexities and dynamics mixed with the cultural changes woven in it. As we
have always attempted to achieve pure objectivity as humans, we have achieved certain
objectivity in terms of give and take of these objects. There is an attempt to neutralize the
interaction of any give and take. These interactions take place within individuals, within
communities and within nations. So we can see that no human is out of this interaction and
exchange of objects. While exchanging the objects there has to be certain neutrality in terms of
valuation. This neutrality is achieved by objectifying the value of certain fundamental natural
things. This attempt to achieve this sort of complex neutrality has given birth to money. A piece
of paper being the language of the entire realm of exchange. We attach certain value to that piece
of paper and use it as a means of communication or means of interaction while we are in the
process of exchange. We are trying to achieve a mutual understanding of values of various
objects. And we are trying to achieve that understanding of values as the universal understanding
of value certain things. I am using the word ‘attempting’ or ‘trying’ precisely because we are still
not able to achieve complete concept of universal valuation. Because our rationality as humans is
still weak and it is easily manipulated by emotions. Therefore our valuation of objects is always
dependent upon our personal desires and wants. The cost is determined by our predications of
that object. The more we want an object the more we are ready to give away for it. Money has
become the means to achieve some object that we desire to have. Therefore we would give away
any amount of money for the things that we truly desire. It is not necessary that those things
should be only material objects, it can be any object that we can conceive in our thought or it
actually exists in reality. This expense of money is generally categorised into two types of
behaviours. ‘Instinctual behaviour or purposive behaviour’ (Simmels, Philosophy of Money)

The feeling that we call ‘instinct’ appears to be tied to a

physiological process in which stored up energies strive for release. The
instinctual drive terminates when these energies find expression in action.
If it is simply an instinct then it is ‘satisfied’ as soon as it has dissolved into
action. In contrast with this direct causal process, which is reflected in
consciousness as a primitive instinctual feeling, are those actions that arise,
so far as our consciousness is concerned, from a representation of the ends
that they will achieve. (Simmels, philosophy of money)

This general bifurcation of the determining factors of our nature of spending is assuring.

If, for instance, an aimless inner unrest drives us to furious activity, then
this belongs to the category of instinctual behaviour; if we undertake the
same activity in order to attain some precise kind of well-being, then it
belongs to the category of purposive behaviour. (Simmels, philosophy of money)

Money is a tool to achieve the things that we desire. Our behaviour determines the
things that we desire. Money is the tool to achieve the ends that we wish to achieve. But
the conflict arises when we use this means to express power over objects. That is simply
this means becomes the end for us. In order to achieve the things that we desire, we crave
for money. This neutral, fluid means becomes a substance holding its own qualities in
terms of its quantity. And today humans are constant under pressure to grab that fluid
means. People spend entire lives holding on to something that is itself is impermanent in
nature. Our desires or ends have become so object- centric that we need strong savings of
means. To achieve that strong saving sometimes we have to crush someone else’s ends.
And this gives birth to the whole debate of conduct and morality attached to money. This
is why this means is still not the absolute mode of communication. Or maybe we haven’t
discovered the full scope of using this means to achieve all the objects that we desire. We
are being swayed away from our ends by the influence of a means.
 We determine value of an object in terms of money. The object that we are able to and
we wish to possess reflects our behavioural tendencies. Once we truly desire to possess an object
we are ready to give whatever we can for the possession of that object. Thus accordingly we
wish to earn money to fulfil our desires. The accumulation of money gives us a sense of security
and safety. But in cultures and societies today, we find that the accumulation of money becomes
a topic of pride and self-esteem. The sentiment of pride and honour is attached to the objects we
possess. Because those objects reflect our social status and that ultimately reflects how much
money one has. Our attitude towards life is or has become extremely object centric. And to
possess those objects we need money. Thus in the urge to possess those objects money becomes
as important as the object. We don't realize this means being converted into an object and we
waste our lives in search for enough money to fulfil our desires. We don't realize that it can never
be enough; it is essentially impermanent in nature. Unfortunately in today's cultures and societies
we find unnecessary value attached to money. We all are born with and develop over the years
certain set of skills and acquire some knowledge. These experiences and skill sets become our
value as an actor in the society. Every object is placed in the reality on the scale of values. The
qualities of an object determine the value of that object. If we assume that every human being
has achieved certain value as an actor in terms of his experiences and skill sets human beings
become objects themselves for the market. Every human being and his utility in the market
determines his value. This market value of a human being has become so essential today that, we
waste all our lives achieving and adding qualities to our beings that would be valuable for the
market. Value of a human being decided upon his set of skills. But those set of skills also have to
be of a certain standard that they provide value to the market as a whole as compared to other
markets. Engineers in India are more valuable in the market than farmers. Although they both
produce objects, the value of those produced objects is different in the global market. Thus there
is more value attached in terms of money to being an engineer than a farmer. So obviously a
large population of youth in India is obtaining engineering rather than farming. Not only in case
of market economy even in the realm of non-commodity exchange, money determines the value
or worse, worth of an individual. The dowry practices in India are the perfect example of this.
The groom’s family chooses the bride who can give the most dowries to them.

This demand determines our goals in life. It determines what we desire in life. If you
want to possess objects that have more value in terms of money, than you have to become an
engineer in India. Doctors and lawyers are more valued than farmers and factory workers. There
is no one particular explanation as to why these values are ascribed as they are. But there is a
certain hierarchy created in terms of how much one earns i. e. how much one is valued in a
market economy. A government employed, sweeper and garbage man is paid less and regarded
as someone possessing lesser qualities or set of skills; he becomes less important to society. That
human being is considered unworthy and ignored by the market economy. So what salaries they
can command in the market economy determine their worth in the society. This is not merely a
judgment on their intellectuality but also it makes a moral judgement on whether that perused the
right life style or not. Our worth in the society, social status is judged on the basis of how much
money we have and how much money we can demand to the market. This brings us to the divide
between intellectual labour and physical labour. This is a social construct; we automatically
value more the people who are learned and educated as compared to a construction worker.
Human beings are also valued in terms of their education and experience. An astronaut is paid
way more as compared to an engineer. This education is again valued and given worth in terms
of money. In market economy concept of education is always in terms of degree certificates
rather than in terms of knowledge and experience one has. So if you have a particular kind of
education you are valued more in a society. The amount of salary one earns determines his status
in the society. Ultimately money determines the worth of a person in the market. We can clearly
see a drastic transition in money being just a means, to money determining the worth of a person
in a society. Money gives worth to a being as it gives to an object. Money is a valuation of being.
The skill set you want to develop is determined by how much money you want to earn i. e.
essentially what you desire to possess in life. Experiences carry a set of knowledge that is useful
for the market economy. These experiences are also valued as education. But the experiences of
a certain kind are valued more than the experiences of other kinds. Experiences of a soldier are
more valued rather than experiences of a farmer, although both contain similar risk and similar
uncertainty in life. But both these professions have drastically different type of value in terms of
money and in terms of social status.

The nature of money is such that it has a wide range of utility. We can do a lot of things
with money. And no matter what the social consequences are of including a neutralized mode of
interaction; it is the most rational and logical way of transaction. It is merely a piece of paper that
we attach meaning and values to. We should not be complicating the value of money. It is easier
said than done, because money has become the root of any exchange and it is becoming
complicated day after day. When things such as pride, self- esteem, and social status are attached
to money then inequality, violence, discrimination will take place. Therefor it seems very
necessary to comprehend the full scope of utilization of money. The nature of money is such that
if utilized properly and honestly it can turn out to be the ultimate mode of communication for
transaction. You can have the most equal and, no profit no loss transaction with money if you try
and look at it in a rational manner. If we look at money as purely a means for transaction of
objects then it has the potential to be the ultimate mode of communication for transaction. But
despite this there are power struggles and discrimination based on money. We will now look into
an anthropological study of the fishermen households based in Ambakandawila, Sri Lanka and
see how the power dynamics within spouses of Ambakandawila changed as soon as money and
technology started flowing in.

Money – Society, Cultures and Gender.

Money, as we have seen determines the value of a person. It determines our social status and
ultimately our place in social reality. The salary we can command depends upon our education
and experience. Our education and experience has to be such that it benefits the market. Thus
money somehow controls our desires and dominates what sort of life we wish to live. Everyone
wishes to fulfil their material desires and earns accordingly. But in most of the cases no matter
what we desire, we cannot get it because we don’t have enough money for it. This is where
money, the most rational, abstract medium of transactions is corrupted. No matter how equal,
neutral the idea of money is, when it comes to humans using it, it is bound get corrupted and
become uncertain. When it comes to our desires, we all are desperate to fulfil them at any cost. If
we see someone else fulfilling their desires we are even more charged to fulfil our own. This
urge to fulfil these desires leads one to commit unethical transactions and immoral power plays
in terms of money. Every culture has a different meaning attached to money and monetary
exchanges. Most of the countries now have become capitalist countries. And profit making is
essential for capitalist economies. In short the more profit you earn the more value you earn in
society. In this thirst for more and more profit humans forget the ethical standards and start
corrupting the whole notion of transaction. This profit implies someone’s loss. Also if you want
earn profit you have to mass produce. This mass production has become a characteristic of a
capitalist economy. Therefore the one who owns the means of production is the dominant class
in society as we already know. “Unlike Simmel, who sees money itself as the principle catalyst
for the transformation of social life, Marx’s treatment links it to the more fundamental
phenomena of production of exchange- this being what ultimately creates the need for an abstract
money medium. For both writers however money is associated with and promotes the growth of
individualism and the destruction of solidarity communities” (Parry, Money and morality of
Exchange P. 4) What do they mean by growth of individualism? It is can be clearly seen that the
one who has money is more powerful in a society than the one who does not. The one who does
not have money or the means of production is somehow dependent on the one who has both.
This dependence leads to individuality and destruction of solidarity communities. The one who is
independently surviving in the society is not answerable to anyone, the exact opposite is the case
with the one who is dependent on others for money. “Simmel For example saw in it an
instrument of freedom and a condition for the extension of the individual personality and the
expansion of the circle of trust; but at the same time as a threat to the moral order. But what all
these different strands in our cultural tradition appear to agree about is that whether for good or
evil money acts as an incredibly powerful agent of profound social and cultural transformation.”
(Parry, Money and Morality of Exchange P. 3)

If we accept that money has the power to revolutionise or transform societies and
cultures; we have to accept that money is also capable of changing the individual relations
amongst people. Let’s look at this anthropological study by R. L. Stirrat in a Sri Lankan village
on 100 fishermen households. The fishing community of Ambakandawila is huge. Generally
fishing is done by men and the women of Ambakandawila never wished to go out on the sea and
spend 12 hours of the day on the sea, men considered that women did not have the physical
strength to fish. Therefor the only contribution to fishing for women was into making and
mending the cotton nets. After 1970, the nylon fishing nets came into the market. The nylon nets
were much more convenient for the fisherman to catch, collect and store fish and also it reduced
the effort of making the cotton nets. Now the process of fishing required no participation of the
women. Then the wives and the sisters of the fishermen took up the responsibility of taking the
fish out of the nets to the fish markets in the towns nearby. “The way in which the fish was sold
had important effects both on the role of women and on relations between households in
Ambakandawila. On the one hand it gave women rather than men control over cash, and on the
other, through the women, the highly competitive ideology of the market place was conveyed
into the village where it generated in a particularly acute form competitive relations between
households.” (Parry, Money and Morality of Exchange, 96) This transition gave birth to a highly
competitive, chaotic fish market in the nearby village called Chillaw all governed by women.
This market was similar to the open, free and fluctuating market of commodity exchange. Men
were not involved in the sale of the fish due to lack of trading skills. “The result of this division
of labour was economic interdependence between male and female, husband and wife.
Households without a fishing male or a fish-selling female were in trouble and, in general, each
household formed an autonomous economic unit based upon its ownership of the means of
production and the division of labor between male and female members of the household.”
(Parry, Money and Morality of Exchange, 97) Now after this changes the women of the
household had control over the cash that was collected from the market. Men had no access to
the cash. Everything related to fishing was bought form the markets; in short these fishing
households were completely dependent on market economy and money is essential to market
economy. “Given that women alone possessed the skills of buying and selling, given that they
had first access to cash, and given that they alone knew the whole picture concerning the income
of the household, women exercised a very real power which men lacked.” (Parry, Money and
Morality of Exchange, 97) This change in the roles of women gave them immense power and
freedom. Sri Lanka is a patriarchal society. The power that Ambakandawila’s women had was
unusual to be seen in Sri Lanka, they were the managers, the providers of the family. So we can
see how possession of money can affect the power dynamics within the society and shatter the
believes of the culture. This anthropological study shows that the women of Ambakandawila
acquired a lot of qualities that we generally see in men, precisely because of this control over
cash. The women of that village did not pay much attention to etiquettes and were not conscious
of it. The habitual cigar and pipe smoking, along with drinking openly in the village was very
common amongst the Ambakandiwila women. This attitude and this approach to life were given
to them by the control over money in the household. They even dominated the men in the
village. We can clearly see the power dynamics of a community completely transforming
because of money. This is a very amusing anthropological study on this topic, there are serious
repercussions of this mobility of power.

The power and value we have attached to money has led us and will keep leading us
towards traumatic cultural problems. Let us consider the case of male and female relationship in
Indian society. Indian society is predominantly a patriotic society. The invention of money has
added up to the problem of gender in India. Indian women were always deprived of education
and social experiences outside the household. Thus they were always kept away from the work
outside the house. Indian women were introduced to the job culture much later as compared to
Indian men. Almost after 200 years of British rule the concept of working women started
growing in Indian culture. Till then women were kept at home and away from work. Being away
from work obviously keeps them away from the cash income in the household. This affected the
most to the husband and wife relationship in a marriage system. The husband is always the one
works outside and earns money. Therefore he inevitably has a control over the expenditure. He is
the one who always decides how much is to be spent and on what. This gives the husband
immense and unnecessary power. Women are the one who are dependent on men for money.
This dependency weakens them and reduces their power. It reduces the importance of their
opinions in the house. Although the picture has changed over the years in India due to the
struggle of feminist movements and progressive thinkers. But we still find traces of the old
orthodox practices in India. In slums, there are a lot of maids who earn and run the house while
their husbands are out drinking and playing cards. We find many serious cases of domestic
violence because of women refusing to give money to their husbands. This tells us that the
dynamics of the power relations have changed a little bit but they are still in favour of men. But
money still remains at the centre of the problem- at least the problem of domestic violence.

We can see how cultural practises are growing around money. Also how money is adding
up to the problem of gender in India. Money has become the integral part of our lives and we
cannot do without it. Thus we have to think of the ways of changing this power value attached to
it. We have to change the equation that says money= power. It is a herculean task and needs
immense brain storming. But ultimately it comes down to rationality and our understanding of
rationality. If we are using a rational medium as our modes of exchange we have to be rational
while using it. We have to rethink and rebuild our relations with the mutual understanding
regarding money. If we begin at the individual level we can build to the national and
international levels also.

Money and unlimited possibilities of its Utility

“Only money - because it is the representation of the value of other objects and because there is
almost no limit to its divisibility and accretion -provides the technical possibility for the exact
equivalence of exchange values.” (Simmels, 295) Money has become a tool to achieve what we
truly desire to possess. Any tool can perform multiple functions apart from its known assigned
function. To take a very basic example would be, the knife that is used to cut vegetables can also
be used to kill someone. Any tool can be assigned multiple functions than the ordinary usage of
that tool. Same applies to money, money is a tool. This tool can also be used for many other
functions. Money in itself has no one single assigned specific purpose. “The value of a given
quantity of money exceeds the value of the particular object for which it is exchanged, because it
makes possible the choice of any other object in an unlimited area. Of course, the money can be
used ultimately only for one of the objects, but the choice that it offers is a bonus which
increases its value. Since money is not related at all to a specific purpose, it acquires a relation to
the totality of purposes.” (Simmel, 212) Money gives you multiple choices. Money can be used
for possessing not one or two but infinite number of objects. These choices begin from the most
fundamental needs to the most discreet desires. The one who has money is the dominant figure in
the society. The owner of money is more important than the owner of commodities. This is the
benefit of freedom of choice. “The superiority of the owner of money over the owner of
commodities results from this unique quality of money as being unrelated to all particular
characteristics of things or moments of time, dissociated from any purpose, and a purely abstract
means.” (Simmel, 214)

Money is just a medium, the most rational medium discovered till now for as the mode of
exchange. If we be more rational regarding its usage, we would be benefitting, individually and
collectively. Money in the universal sense can be manipulated; ultimately it is a concept that we
have invented for our convenience. We can use money without attaching any additional values to
it. Pride and self- esteem are the things that concern our character not, it is not determined by the
quantity of money we possess or how many objects we possess. We cannot let both the types of
exchanges (material and non- material/ exchange and interaction) confuse us. The human
interaction of ideas and information should be kept away from the realm of exchange of objects.
That is why things like knowledge or art should be free. Because neither are they concerned
about any materiality nor do they benefit anyone, but it is still one of the most powerful desires
one has. The entire edifice built on the single function of money is misleading, if there are
several ways of its utility than there has to be a different possibilities of its actualization in the
market. Complete equality and freedom can be achieved if money is used meaningfully.

Biblography-:
Parry, Jonathan, and Maurice Bloch. Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
Simmel, Georg, and David Frisby. The philosophy of money. Psychology Press, 2004.

Word count- 5216

Harshavardhan Sumant.