Problems with existing approaches to money in sociology are reviewed and an alternative approach suggested. Money is founcl to originate in well socialized objects enjoying particular concentrations of magical spirit. It thus enables control and grasp of physical and social events. Money's super-objective impact on the individual and a model of its dual nature - as essence possessed of intrinsic value an(l as symbol of that value - is advanced. The two sides of its nature are ir tension but linked through number. It is suggested that money overleaps the problems of so( ial interaction to integrate the individual with the economic infrastructure. This substantiates Marx's lack of concern with the symbolic realm but the monetary structure differs from both infrastructure and superstructure. It assures the predominance of the former whilst introducing its own character- notably a bias towards consumption. The different possible relations to money are exalnined in ternls of the model proposed. Money is a central part of modern day life yet its nature has been very little considered either by economists' or sociologists. Economists tenct to take its nature (but not its effects) as a given which can be described simply by listing the functions it fills. In sociology, the appearance of Simmel's Philosophy of Money in English translation2 has thrown into relief the absence of serious discussion. Apart from Simmel's work, there are two main methods of disposing of money as a sociological proble-m: first, to treat it as a symbol or sign, thus as having the same basic character as other elements of what might be called the social superstructure; second, by use of the Marxist perspective which sees money as the product and reflection of the economic infrastructure. In this paper I shall argue that an understanding of money's place in society can be gained through neither approach and that the kind of
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon Smelt (1980) studied this question.