Communicative function of money in culture

This article is devoted to examining the communicative function of money in culture. Theanalysis of the meaning of money in the context of establishing of effective communication deals with the socio-cultural approach insocial sciences and in arts (P. Sorokin) and philosophical understanding of money exchange (G. Simmel). Discussing this problem, wefind out some new factors with the help of which money promotes to form the so-called cultures "opened" for communication. To thesefactors the authors refer rationalization, universalization, value equilibration and free market. Rationalization comes from the abstractrules and common principles of calculation and currency forming by money. Universalization is reflected in money transformation intoa universal equivalent, which substitutes quality characteristics and according to this process the deletion of specific features, whichdistinguish one culture from another takes place. Value equilibration is made by force of functional balance of money circulation. Thefreedom of money circulation and consequently free market promotes to form a civil society where the "opened" way of communicationpredominates. Special attention is paid to the theory of money multiplicity, made by V. Zelizer. According to her theory, money doesnot possess universal meaning and does not form universal communicative space. Zelizer, in her works, offers a differentiating model ofmoney, which shows the way of its constant forming and re-forming by means of the multitude nets of social relations and differentsystems of senses. This model rejects the idea that money is a universal code, which establishes communication with different spheres ofsocial life in our modern society. According to this theory, we distinguish at least four social spheres of money function: "housemoney", "money as a gift", "institutional money" and "moral money". In opposition to this assertion and, at the same time, as additionto this theory, the authors of the article confirm that money is a kind of adequate communicative means. It is shown that V. Zelizer doesnot really distinguish types of currency, but she pays attention to the process of people's creating temporary and local multiplicity on thebase of united unified money, giving them different sense in the way of its social usage. So, in other words, it is expediently not to speakabout different forms of money but to discuss the process of money transformation into the markers of different socio-cultural roles. Inthe conclusion, it is obvious that according to its universality and absence of its own value and meaning, money can be adapted to anysocial relations and become a way of effective communication establishment in its context.

Keywords

Authors

References