Nigel Dodd

The sociology of money : economics, reason & contemporary society

Preface. Introduction: On the Nature of Money. Part I:. 1. The Political Economy of Money. 2. Money and the State. 3. Cultural Aspects of the Mature Money Economy. 4. Money and the Social System. Part II:. 5. The Politics of International Monetary Integration. 6. Money in Postmodern Economics. 7. High Modernity, Rationality and Trust. 8. Monetary Analysis in Social Theory. Bibliography. Index.

Reinventing monies in Europe

Abstract This paper offers much-needed analytical refinement to the sociology of money. I argue that we need to develop a conceptual vocabulary that enables us to take account of two apparently conflicting trends in the worlds money flows. While state-issued ‘currency’ is undergoing a process of homogenization, ‘money’ in a generic sense is diversifying through the rapid growth of new monetary forms. I move on to suggest that all forms of money (some currencies, others not) should be regarded as dual: as monies of account and as monetary media. This dualism sheds new light on a monetary form that sociologists have either ignored or misunderstood, namely the euro. It enables us to conceive of the euro as a highly unorthodox, or hybrid, currency. Moreover, it suggests that, by virtue of this unorthodoxy, the euro zone represents a special case of currency homogenization that may actually stimulate monetary diversification.

Laundering “money”: on the need for conceptual clarity within the sociology of money

Recent work by sociologists, geographers and anthropologists has drawn attention to the “de-territorialization” of money, and to the emergence of “alternative” monetary forms such as e-money and complementary currencies. The increasingly diverse nature of these forms raises doubts as to whether “money” is a sufficiently coherent entity to be covered by a single definition. In this paper, these doubts are explored through a critical evaluation of the work of four prominent scholars of money: Cohen, Ingham, Zelizer and Hart. I argue that, despite their empirical richness, these approaches are undermined by a number of conceptual confusions: for example, by a tendency to refer to “money” and “currency” as if they were synonymous. The paper concludes by suggesting that Simmel’s “pure concept” of money provides the most promising basis on which to develop an analytically rigorous treatment of money which can embrace the variety of forms which circulate today.

Simmel’s Perfect Money: Fiction, Socialism and Utopia in The Philosophy of Money

This article explores the notion of ‘perfect’ money that Simmel introduces in The Philosophy of Money. Its aim is twofold: first, to connect this idea to his more general arguments about the nature of society and the ambivalence of modernity, and, second, to assess its relevance for contemporary debates about the future of money, especially following the global financial crisis. I argue that Simmel’s concept of perfect money can be understood as utopian in two senses, conceptual and ethical, that correspond to the two interpretations he develops, in Soziologie, of the idea of a perfect society. This sheds light on an aspect of Simmel’s writings that has attracted relatively little attention, namely his views on the relationship between money and socialism. Characterizing this relationship as a ‘formal affinity’, his remarks resonate with a long tradition of thought on monetary utopias that aim not for the abolition of money but its radical transformation as a means of improving society. This tradition is coming to the fore once again today, as the financial crisis has given new impetus to constructing forms of money – for example, LETS, Time Dollars, mutual credit, peer-to-peer lending and digital currencies such as Bitcoin – that provide viable alternatives to big banks. Understood in conjunction with his account of the ‘tragedy’ of individualism in modernity, such resonances demonstrate the enduring relevance of Simmel’s work to the empirical and theoretical investigation of money.

On Simmel's Pure Concept of Money: A Response to Ingham

In “Laundering ‘Money’: On the Need for Conceptual Clarity within the Sociology of Money”, I explored the conceptual ramifications of recent developments in the sociology of money. These developments corresponded to what appear to be two countervailing trends in the world of money: homogenisation and diversification. The second trend, particularly, raises important conceptual questions about how money should be defined, and I sought to address these through an analysis of the work of prominent monetary scholars such as Cohen, Hart, Ingham and Zelizer. My central aim was to bring greater clarity to a field – the sociology of money – lacking a commonly agreed definition of its core object of study, namely money. The article was motivated by an underlying sense that these scholars were talking past each other. One significant reason seemed to be that two terms that should be central to a meaningful engagement among leading sociologists of money – money and currency – were being used in different and incompatible ways. This was the “conceptual confusion” I referred to: not a confusion specific to any individual monetary scholar, but rather a confusion bound to arise from any comparison of their work. I aimed to propose a conceptual framework wherein their different analyses could be more usefully compared (2). Of these scholars, both Hart (3) and Zelizer have constructively responded to my proposals without, of course, agreeing with them all.

WHAT IS 'SOCIOLOGICAL' ABOUT THE EURO?

There are no clear precedents for European monetary integration. It would therefore be unwise to rely too closely on evidence drawn from other monetary systems for an indication of where, when and how problems might arise under the new monetary regime. This article comprises four sections. The first deals with issues of economic convergence and the problems associated with viewing the euro zone countries as an optimum currency area. The second moves on to political questions about the accountability of the European Central Bank (ECB) and its credibility in operating a single monetary policy which targets price stability. In the third section, I consider arguments concerning the implications of the relationship between labour mobility and material interest for the workings of a single monetary policy across the euro zone. In the fourth section, I raise broader questions about cultural divergence in economic behaviour within the euro zone.

Geopolitics and the Regulation of Economic Life

The nation-state should be a central unit of analysis for research into international and transnational regulation. Considering the research implications of this, we focus on the emergence stage of the regulatory process. We discuss how knowledge is contested in discussions between states over regulatory problems. We argue that a range of factors, not just a narrowly conceived national interest, influence their incentive to cooperate. Research is needed into whether regulatory problems at this level pose new or additional issues for states. Other stages of the regulatory process need to be similarly examined, likewise the interaction between the stages themselves.

The Social Life of Bitcoin

This paper challenges the notion that Bitcoin is ‘trust-free’ money by highlighting the social practices, organizational structures and utopian ambitions that sustain it. At the papers heart is the paradox that if Bitcoin succeeds in its own terms as an ideology, it will fail in practical terms as a form of money. The main reason for this is that the new currency is premised on the idea of money as a ‘thing’ that must be abstracted from social life in order for it to be protected from manipulation by bank intermediaries and political authorities. The image is of a fully mechanized currency that operates over and above social life. In practice, however, the currency has generated a thriving community around its political ideals, relies on a high degree of social organization in order to be produced, has a discernible social structure, and is characterized by asymmetries of wealth and power that are not dissimilar from the mainstream financial system. Unwittingly, then, Bitcoin serves as a powerful demonstration of the relational character of money.

Nietzsche's money

Although Nietzsche rarely features in discussions of money, he offered important insights into such matters as the relationship between the money economy and the permanent decadence of modernity, money’s impact on social hierarchy and individualism and the moral economy of debt. His remarks on these themes are closely connected to two of his best known, but controversial, ideas: the eternal return and the Übermensch. In this paper, I explore how Nietzsche’s arguments, and these two concepts in particular, have been taken up by three thinkers who have made distinctive and original contributions to the sociological and philosophical understanding of money, credit and debt: Georg Simmel in The Philosophy of Money (1907), Walter Benjamin in ‘Capitalism as Religion’ (1921), and Norman Brown in Life Against Death (1959). Nietzsche’s ideas fulfil a pivotal role in each of these treatments of money: in particular, he informs Simmel’s exploration of the relationship between money, individualism and socialism; Benjamin’s examination of the ‘guilt history’ of modern capitalism and its moral economy of debt; and, finally, Brown’s explorations of the roots and consequences of our neurotic money complex. Each of these thinkers puts a different complexion on Nietzsche’s own thoughts regarding money, as well as his broader philosophy. Nevertheless, he provides all three thinkers with a sharply critical perspective on the idea that money’s expansion in the modern world reflects the individual’s liberation from traditional social ties and ancient moral bonds.

Redeeming Simmel's money

Response to Hau Book Symposium on Dodd, Nigel. 2014. The social life of money. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.