Cash or Card: Consumer Perceptions of Payment Modes - Scholarly ...

Essentially, the notion of money as a commodity instils a sense that the value is inherent in
the token and/or the token represents tangible sources of wealth rather than representing more
abstract sources of wealth.
Economic and Social View of Money: the Sociological Perspective
Social scientists did not study the social production of money per se but focused on
understanding the social effects or social meanings of money, i.e., the value of money as a
social tool- particularly as it relates to status and power (Eatwell, Milgate and Newman,
1989). They agreed that ‘money’ and the meanings accorded the concept are socially
constructed (Ingham, 2004; Zelizer, 1994). This essentially means that the measure of value
depends on human judgement, which is a result of social interaction and agreement. Initial
sociological theories of money were dominated by three scholars, Weber, Parsons and
Simmel. Weber dealt with many sociological issues and with issues relating to money – he
did not however devote much space to monetary theory and his theories are primarily
economic and drawn from Knapp’s 1905 The State Theory of Money. Weber incorporated
both the economic view of money and its social components within one context. Viewing the
significance of money to a society lies in the interplay of supply and demand to indicate price
of a commodity and money’s role in a society is to provide individuality of person, personal
freedom and intellectualism. He took the view that the most important element in the notion
of money is not the existence of commodity money as a medium of exchange, but the
problem of assigning values to all product and services in social setting.
Talcott Parson’s view of money dominated sociological thought for many years. Parson took
a functional approach to money, viewing it as a mechanism for controlling resource processes
and emphasizing its link to power. He argued that money is simultaneously both a measure
of value and a medium of exchange and it can function as both a facility and a reward. Power
is a step above money in the hierarchy of control mechanisms because power can control a
monetary system. Ingham (2004) points out that the Parsonian sociology of money failed to
take into account not only that domination derives from the position of money but also it
derives from the control of actual process of money production by states and banks.
Habermas, Luhmann and Giddens all followed the concept of money as a symbolic token of
interchange (Ingham, 2004). Simmel proposed that value of money is the representation of
abstract value that is not derived from cost of its production, supply and demand or labour
time value- rather it is “the value of things without the things themselves’ (Simmel, 1907,
p.21). According to Turner (1999) Simmel viewed money as a medium that generates
individuality, personal freedom and intellectualism with the ability to create social class
hierarchies within a society (Turner, 1999).
175