This article challenges the prevailing belief that money is a neutral, homogeneous medium of exchange. Drawing on the work of Viviana Zelizer, the text analyzes how people and institutions actively "earmark" money, imbuing it with specific social meanings. These practices, evident in households, gift-giving, and social welfare, express a struggle for recognition and justice. Understanding "moral currencies" is crucial in the era of artificial intelligence and digital currencies, which can either strengthen or undermine these bottom-up processes of meaning-making.
The Myth of Neutrality and the Mechanism of Earmarking
Classical economics (Simmel, Marx) views money as an impersonal instrument where "a dollar is always a dollar." Zelizer debunks this myth of homogeneity by introducing the concept of earmarking. This is a process in which users differentiate currency into distinct categories using cubbyholes and rituals: from sorting cash into jars to engraving coins. Earmarking creates a barrier that protects the life-world from market logic, giving funds a sacred or sentimental character.
Zelizer’s analysis challenges five dogmas of neoclassical economics: the myth of homogeneity (household budgeting practices), the dogma of impersonality (money as a carrier of affect), the assumption that money inevitably corrupts social bonds, the illusion that currencies become unified as
Frequently Asked Questions
What is money marking according to Viviana Zelizer?
This is a process (earmarking) in which people divide a single currency into categories with different purposes and meanings, such as rent savings or a gift fund.
Why is the thesis “a dollar is a dollar” considered a myth?
Because in social practice, money is not fully fungible; its value and how it is spent depend on its origin, purpose and relational context.
How does money affect inequality within a household?
Through categories such as "alms" (dole) or "pin money", which structurally subordinate women's earnings and their decision-making position in the family.
Does money always destroy social bonds?
No, according to Zelizer, values and bonds can transform money into a carrier of meaning and feelings, instead of succumbing to its purely market-based, impersonal logic.
What is the difference between pocket money and home alms?
Pocket money is educational money based on the child's entitlements, while alms (dole) is money given to the wife arbitrarily, building her dependency.
Related Questions
What is the ideology of homogeneous money in the classical sense?
What is the process of earmarking according to Zelizer?
What are the main forms of physical and symbolic differentiation of money?
How does earmarking money protect the world of life from the logic of the market?
Which five assumptions of traditional economics are challenged by Zelizer's analysis?
What power structures does the analysis of household money reveal?
What are the differences between the categories of pin money, dole, and allowance?
Why is the line between gift and corruption fluid in economics?
How does the conflict over the rationality of the poor manifest itself in social assistance?
What is burial money and why is it a sacred category?
Tags:sociology of moneyViviana Zelizercurrency markingearmarkingsocial facthousehold moneypin moneypocket moneysocial relationsthe myth of homogeneitysentimental currencythe logic of the giftreificationsocial practicesalienation
