Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Marketing specialists Eric Arnould and Craig Thompson have synthesized consumer culture theory (CCT) across twenty years of research. In their overview, money is missing. They note that “‘consumer culture’ … conceptualizes an interconnected system of commercially produced images, texts, and objects that groups use—through the construction of overlapping and even conflicting practices, identities, and meanings” (2005, 869), but they do not identify money as an object in the system of meaning making.

Money is much more than legal tender. It depends on social interactions, shared understandings, and trust to function and to be recognized as having the qualities of money. Money does three things: (1) it facilitates the transfer of the rights to goods and services (transfer facilitation); (2) it may be used in a variety of social locations, across various interaction partners, and for diverse sets of rights (generalized use); and (3) it enables the storage of economic value (storage capacity) (Zelizer 2001).

Money in History

Money has taken a number of different forms throughout history, and these forms have been matched to particular categories of practice. For example, in Monomotapa at the Gulf of Guinea, slave traders used the local currency (cotton cloth) to pay for slaves and valued the price of a slave as a large piece of cloth called “a piece of India,” denoting its size. In time, the expression became synonymous with a male slave between the age of fifteen and forty (Braudel 1981, 442). In other words, the language of money constituted the language of everyday life. Other premodern currencies included copper bracelets (manillas), seashells (zimbos and cowries), coral, dried fish, furs, and nails, to name but a few.

In the West, money itself reflected the social differentiations of class and status in society. Writing about money in the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, historian Fernand Braudel demonstrated how different categories of people were matched to different categories of money:

Every metal played its part: gold, reserved for princes, large merchants (even the Church); silver for ordinary transactions; copper naturally for the smallest. Copper was the “black” money of people of small means and the poor. Mixed with a little silver it blackened quickly and deserved its name. (1981, 458)

This use of money as a means of communicating social identity was not new. In a study of how money was used in Roman society between 200 BCE and CE 200, Michael Crawford recalls how a person's relationship with money affected his dignity and reputation. As a result, Tiberius intervened in the dispute between the moneylenders and members of the upper classes to preserve their social status and to maintain the social order. Crawford writes:

In Rome, on the only known occasion on which money was supplied at public demand, it was supplied not for economic reasons, but, as we might expect, in order to preserve social status. In A.D. 33 the moneylenders of Rome, accused of irregularities, tried to turn the tables on their accusers and attempted to call in all their debts. The debtors were threatened with the necessity of selling off their land on a rapidly falling market to the evident profit of the usurers. But Tiberius intervened with an interest-free loan of 100,000,000 sesterces to those whose dignitas and fama were threatened.… On occasions of what appear to have been general currency shortages in 63, 49 and 44 B.C. no comparable intervention took place. (1970,

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading