Expressing the Different Meanings of Money to the Various Groups Who Use it Adam Dumaresque Anthropology 112 November

5th 2013

In a world where money has traditionally been understood as a purely objective, convenient form of exchange that follows set rules within the society to which it belongs, some alternative insights explaining the context of money do exist. Opposing the traditional definition, anthropological research is interested in exploring the social context of money, and how it differs from place to place, reflecting the ideas and values of the people who use it. In this paper, I will argue that the context of money in society cannot be so narrowly defined as only an objective economic form of exchange, but that it has countless social and cultural influences that vary with the people who use it, providing implications about status and prestige, friendships, and social norms. This is not to say that the traditional definition has no merit, but my point is that, that definition is too restrictive to apply to the vast differences present around the world. Before going further into these two opposing views of money, a definition of money must be given, as it will be discussed in this paper. For the purpose of my argument, I will be using the concept of general-purpose money. General-purpose money is defined as legal, portable, anonymous, a standard of value, and a medium of exchange. This means that it has the same value to everyone, can be used as a measurement in stating values, and is used as an intermediary in trade. An example of general-purpose money would be the Canadian dollar. Another definition of money, which isnt the main focus of my argument, but will still be mentioned, is special-purpose money. Specialpurpose money only contains some of the characteristics of general-purpose money, and can only be exchanged in highly limited circumstances. (Vincent, 2013) In supporting my argument, I will refer to the concepts of market exchange, the formalist-substantivist debate, and two articles: Friends and money: Balancing affection and reciprocity among

young men in urban Ethiopia, written by Daniel Mains, and The impact of money on a subsistence economy, written by Paul Bohannan. In order to communicate my points of view, I will be presenting evidence provided by the ethnographic context in the two articles listed above. From Friends and money: Balancing affection and reciprocity among young men in urban Ethiopia, the subjects who were observed were young Ethiopian men in Jimma, Ethiopia. This article provides an insight into friendships among the people there, and how crucial a part material exchange and money play in the process. The other article, The impact of money on a subsistence economy, presents information about the Tiv; a society that lives in the Benue Valley in Central Nigeria. These people had a unique, multi-centric economy and used mostly special-purpose money to trade within the certain spheres of their economy. Once general-purpose money was introduced to them by British colonialism, the effect was to collapse trading between the various spheres of the economy and, as people tried to get high prestige goods, there was great inflation in that sphere, while the trade in low prestige subsistence goods (to get money to trade up to more prestigious goods) led to local food shortages. (Bohannan, 1959) One of the social insights that can be gained through a societies way of using money is the structure of friendships. This is demonstrated in Mains article, in which he makes it clear that social relationships, emotion, and economic exchange are inseparable within that group of people. (Mains, 2013) Through their form of exchange, balanced reciprocity, friends who are prosperous share their wealth among their friends. This exchange doesnt have to be reciprocal; it is just expected that friends will share with others in their time of need. (Mains, 2013) If one fails to share their wealth, then the end

of the relationship is inevitable, and that person will be gossiped about, compromising their reputation as well. This clearly refutes the idea that money is following objective rules of supply and demand all the time, but instead reflects ideas and values that are held by these people. Bohannans article on the introduction of money into a subsistence economy also refutes the definition of money as being a purely objective, convenient form of exchange, which follows objective rules of supply and demand. It does this through the association of prestige and quality with each of the different spheres of the economy, with money being at the bottom, and women and children being at the top. (Bohannan, 1959) When accepting money for bride wealth, the Tiv feel as though they are downgrading, which adds an element of subjectivity to the definition of money, and takes it away from being governed by the rules of supply and demand, but instead by the norms within that society. This also has to do with moral values; when a man exchanges a lower quality sphere for a higher quality sphere, like the exchange of money for a woman, they attribute it not to their good market luck, but to their strong heart. (Bohannan, 1959) Unlike Mains article, the Tiv operate through market exchange instead of a form of reciprocity, which may have led to the assumption that the first argument would be supported, but as you can see, money has a much deeper meaning within the society of the Tiv than the traditional definition explains. The formalist-substantivist debate, in the context of this particular question, puts the formalist view that something like general-purpose money is a way for individuals to satisfy their infinite desires, and would be seen as having value universally, against the substantivist view that money is a cultural concept, pertinent to the society that produced

it and potentially completely without value in societies with different ideas of how to satisfy their needs. (Vincent, 2013) At first glance, it appears to me that the formalist side of the debate would represent the traditional definition of money; that it is purely objective, and the substantivist view would support the latter; that money also has cultural contexts and differences varying with the different people who use it. After analysis of the two articles that I made use of in supporting this paper, it becomes apparent that the explanation is not so black and white, but societies can show traits of both sides of this debate, even when they, in general, go against the traditional definition of money. With the purpose of keeping relevance to the point of this paper, the examples of formalism I present can be seen as evidence of the articles support of the traditional definition of money, while the substantivist evidence shows support for the latter. As you will see, the evidence goes both ways. I believe that Mains article supports the substantivist side of the debate in some ways, but also has some elements of the formalist side as well. One way that this article supports the substantivist side is through its recognition of collective goals within the Ethiopian men, showing a alternative way to pursue their livelihoods than is suggested by formalists; the maximization of individual wants. This formalist suggestion is also refuted through the structure of their general reciprocity; exchanges are not kept track of. If one friend has more money than another, they will contribute more to the relationship without any concern. (Mains, 2013) Substantivism is also evident through the connection of money to social values, by demonstrating that without the exchange of material goods from person to person, there is no friendship. This article demonstrates some qualities of formalism as well, also to do with the structure of reciprocity among the subjects. One

section is proposing that the sharing among the Ethiopians is self interested, based on maximizing and preserving material wealth rather than building affection between friends. (Mains, 2013) This could be true in the case of giving to others as well, as it could be seen as a type of insurance policy, providing others incentive to help you when the roles are reversed. This aligns with the formalist view that humans try and maximize their wealth in the face of scarce resources. Bohannans article, in my opinion, shows more support towards the formalist side of the debate than the substantivist side. One way that it shows this is through the tendency of the Tiv to work towards the goal of maximization of wealth through market exchange. They are always trying to convert their wealth into the highest quality of the spheres, as doing so proves their value as a man. (Bohannan, 1959) The focus in this economy is completely on individual wealth, as opposed to collective goals, which is another way in which this example supports formalism. They also use general-purpose money as a way to satisfy their infinite desires of obtaining high quality objects, as formalism suggests, through trading money, a low moral quality item, or higher quality things such as women and children. (Bohannan, 1959) But despite this, when receiving money, they feel as if they are downgrading, so this lessened value of money doesnt exactly depict formalism. In terms of substantivism, a few examples of this are also evident in the article. One of these examples is the Tivs recognition of general-purpose money and special-purpose money. (Bohannan, 1959) General-purpose money in the Tiv economy is the currency introduced by the British, while general-purpose money include the individual other spheres, which can only be traded within their individual spheres, unless selling downward in quality. One other way in which the article shows traits of

substantivism is through their recognition of the cultural value of their exchanges, in determining moral qualities, and the strength of ones heart determined by the transactions they make. (Bohannan, 1959) As the two articles referenced in this paper have demonstrated, there is no simple definition of money that can be used universally. To say that it is a purely objective form of exchange that follows set rules is definitely an inaccurate statement when analyzing societies different than our own. We have seen that money, in certain examples, comes with many social and cultural implications, varying with the different people who use it. In general, the formalist-substantivist debate can also be used as an indicator of a societies use of money, but as the examples demonstrated, even this isnt black and white, with both examples showing traits to support both sides of the argument, and many uses of money. This is also the same with different forms of exchange, as the two different articles used different types of exchange, but produced many of the same conclusions. I think that the lesson to be learned from this, is that there is no certain criteria that can answer the question of this essay; which definition of money to accept, because there is so much variation within examples. All that can be done is to take the evidence thats available, and decide for yourself. Although, I believe that a strong point has been made towards my point, the latter definition, as opposed to only recognizing the overly strict original definition.

LIST OF REFERENCES CITED Bohannan, Paul 1959 The Impact of Money on a Subsistence Economy. Journal of Economic History. 19(4): 491-503

Mains, Daniel 2013 Friends and Money: Balancing Affection and Reciprocity Among Young Men in Urban Ethiopia. American Ethnologist. 40(2): 335-346

Vincent, Susan St. Francis Xavier University Overview of Political and Economic Anthropology http://moodle.stfx.ca/pluginfile.php/97511/mod_resource/content/1/Political%20and%20 economic%20anthropology%20notes.pdf