In Maurer's chapters or Zelizer's article, how are personal relations (whether it is kinship relations, romantic relations, social relations) imbricated with money? How does money structure such relations?
Zelizer engages a personal relationship with money by scrutinizing different civil legal cases involving custody and victims’ compensation. The author explains that in 2005, a case that gains a national audience between family and spouse of women for the custody of a brain damage women. In effect, the case was not just about the life but the care due to a million-dollar medical malpractice compensation. The husband of the woman won the case but the family members of the wife claimed equal right to care and compensation. In essence, it demonstrates a legal and political struggle over the right to life, care, and compensation. In fact, many commentators argue that the case showcases a struggle over money thus implying money purchasing intimacy. Similarly, the victims of the 9/11 had the same legal wrangling over compensation. No doubt, this raises the question of what constitute intimacy and personal relationship whether an identified spouse or a relative in order to receive a compensation.
Zelizer also highlighted money structure implications in relationships among individuals. For example, whether partners live together and are sharing mortgage bills in order to be eligible to receive compensation. Conversely, this structure raises questions of legal right issues, especially for kinship claims. Additionally, the author underscores that money structure in relations to intimacy extends to the corporate world, where money “poisons relationship”. For example, a case in Boeing when a board member fired an executive simply because he was having an affair with the executive’s ex- partner. Although, the outcome to this unethical behavior was satisfactory at Boeing because the board member was fired, great lessons would be learned from it. Unfortunately, this reveals that money affects “production, distribution, transfer of asset” all because of an intimate relationship. Undeniably, it is common that mixing of intimate personal ties with money in itself could jeopardize intimacy. Nonetheless, money structure could also symbolize a healthy relationship such as engagement rings, a gift of money, friend lending each other and immigrants sending money back home.
I have to start this post by pointing out the phrase "All that we are, as social beings, is "just relationships.""
In his discussion of the "evolution" of money, Maurer points out that money has not fully replaced trade, and that one interpretation may point to money as something much more symbolic in nature, possibly denoting some degree of trust, since it serves as a way of distributing wealth in large state-operated social systems. I think on a larger scale, money can reinforce social class (I'm thinking here of the example with the homeless man from Chapter 3.), and on a smaller/local scale, it can reinforce a sense of community (like the Ithaca HOUR and other complementary currencies). These secondary monies (at least I think) make financial interactions a little more personal, because they are only possible if both parties are in the geographical place specific to the currency. I also found the discussion of modifying/personalizing money to be very interesting, as it serves in another way that people can not only make money meaningful, but potentially create meaning with others, through interactions centered around said "modified money".
If we apply Maurer and Zelizer's idea of money and its use in the personal relationship, a triangular shape appears. Suppose, the two hands of the triangle are two persons in a society. These two persons are connected to each other with the third hand - money. Either, the relationship is formed by money, or, the relationship is being nurtured by the money. This triangle relationship is based on the underlying foundation of trust, value and infrastructure that maintain the bonding. Another important insight from Maurer is, historically people are interdependent on each other and money in different forms (shells, golds, gift card) are being used to mobilize the dependence. Money in the interpersonal relationship is used very inseparably as we see gifted money carries some expectation or added value (gift money should not be spent for mundane purposes or gift cards are less liquid form of money by definition) till the trust exists. Once, the trust fluctuates, we see the negative reflection on the relationship as illustrated in the writing of Zeilzer.
Maurer has stated provided multiple examples showing how money can form personal relationships. While he talks about money taking many forms and constantly evolving, he talks on how its more than an exchange but there are extra values introduced to the market. A few examples he provided was that people politicize the money by writing with messages of protest. As they put the money back into circulation they hope many eyes get to read it and level with the man/woman who wrote the message. Money is also used religiously where people find value in participating in religious offerings it also may serve as a social value since often people may see how much money you offer at a given time. My favorite example that Maurer touched on was that people toss coins into public and private fountains because I never understood that but I always remember as a child that people would make a wish and throw coins in fountains. Money structures these relationships because money has a wide variety of audience. It allows a smaller voice to be heard, it constitutes business negotiations and that in itself can create personal relationships.
The relationship of marriage is a contractual agreement between two consenting parties to become legally ‘tied’ to the other. When this happens, the two people become symbolically one, sharing the burdens and joys of each others’ lives. One burden (and sometimes joy) that they now ‘take on’ the task of dealing with together is finances. Finances can literally help and hurt romantic relationships; it has caused marriages to start and marriages to end. According to Zelizer’s article, many marriages choose to do their finances differently; some opt to share banking accounts, money and the burden of financial decisions, while others claim their separation of bank accounts, money and finances is what keeps their marriage strong. Prenuptial agreements even exist in order to help marriages ‘remain happy’ from the start without the threat of divorce causing one party to loose tremendous assets or amounts of money. Zelizer’s article even points out that some put a price tag on their spouses/partners, especially after death. When two parties enter into a lifetime agreement to live and love together, they are taking on the lifetime agreement to support each other physically, emotionally and financially. When one of those parties passes away prematurely, the other is left to figure out how to pay for the home or finance their ‘stuff’ that they were able to afford with two annual incomes, not one (which it would now become). In the case of 9/11/2001 victims, as in Zelizer’s article, a pricetag was set on the lives of those lost – it was calculated by the number of years they had the potential to live and work, then multipled by the income they made when alive. Although some choose to not apply for this funding, considering it immoral, many others took advantage of it because of my previous point – a lifetime commitment to someone is expecting them to be alive to help share the costs of life, monetarily and physically.
Money and economics can be a defining factor within most human relationships you encounter in some degree. What particularly I like from Zelizer’s article was the idea that economy can very much be a factor that sets the boundaries for human relationships. Much of which lies in exchange etiquette and allocation of financial burdens. A good example is in the United States; traditionally in familial structures a large defining of parenthood is to take the financial burden of their children. In most cases it is not the other way around until they reach late adulthood, when the parents potentially cannot take care of themselves. Finances can create this kind of role reversal that changes the entrenched dynamics of their familial structure. But, if the parents make the children take the financial burden at a young age by being primary contributors to finances it can easily be seen as a social taboo. Their “roles” or relationships have a set boundary because of the socially reinforced economic familial standards within this given culture. Deeper within that familial level is the economic and financial situation between two adults in an intimate relationship. Generally within the United States it is expected that two committed partners take on a certain economic expectations with one another. For example the payment of bills and expenses. If a partner is not pulling their economic weight within paying rent or groceries it can be seen as unfair and undesirable. A balanced or well established economic exchange between partners is vital in maintaining a relationship as Zelizer outlines in their article.
Money and intimate relationships are often seen as seperate spheres of influence in somebody's life. Zelizer would argue that in many cases this is a very blurred border. While in the office and other workplaces it is often frowned upon or even repremendable to engage in intimate relations with a coworker. This is also true in cases where favoritism would be called into play. It is important to remember that marriages and non-work relationships fall under a very different category. In these situations money and possesions are meant to be shared. Instead, many of the times these relationships resemble unspoken contracts and both parties expect a return on their investment. These relationship issues often turn into legal battles over who has the right to care and care benefits as well as inheritance. It is important to realize also that in many marital relationships money or goods given to the other is thought of as a gift and therefor cannot be returned in the court of law.
I found Zelizer's arguments to be very intriguing in regards to what forms of payment are acceptable in certain relationships. I was especially struck by the question of why it is okay to pay a babysitter for childcare and not a sister. Perhaps this is because I am an aunt, an I have never considered accepting money for watching my nephew. I also remember when I was younger that my older siblings would be paid by my parents for babysitting me while they were away. What makes one transaction valid while the other is non existent? Money can definitely be a source of tension in relationships, especially among family members. There is a lot of pride involved in ones financial security and this reflects and determines the way in which they share money in relationships. Zelizer goes on to give the example of families refusing financial aid from the 9/11 Compensation Fund led by Kenneth Feinberg because they felt payment in the form of money devealued the lives of lost loved ones. I can see where they would feel objectified for receiving this money, especially while grieving, but the point was to help financially fund a family after loss, not to replace the value of a human life.
Zelizer engages a personal relationship with money by scrutinizing different civil legal cases involving custody and victims’ compensation. The author explains that in 2005, a case that gains a national audience between family and spouse of women for the custody of a brain damage women. In effect, the case was not just about the life but the care due to a million-dollar medical malpractice compensation. The husband of the woman won the case but the family members of the wife claimed equal right to care and compensation. In essence, it demonstrates a legal and political struggle over the right to life, care, and compensation. In fact, many commentators argue that the case showcases a struggle over money thus implying money purchasing intimacy. Similarly, the victims of the 9/11 had the same legal wrangling over compensation. No doubt, this raises the question of what constitute intimacy and personal relationship whether an identified spouse or a relative in order to receive a compensation.
ReplyDeleteZelizer also highlighted money structure implications in relationships among individuals. For example, whether partners live together and are sharing mortgage bills in order to be eligible to receive compensation. Conversely, this structure raises questions of legal right issues, especially for kinship claims. Additionally, the author underscores that money structure in relations to intimacy extends to the corporate world, where money “poisons relationship”. For example, a case in Boeing when a board member fired an executive simply because he was having an affair with the executive’s ex- partner. Although, the outcome to this unethical behavior was satisfactory at Boeing because the board member was fired, great lessons would be learned from it. Unfortunately, this reveals that money affects “production, distribution, transfer of asset” all because of an intimate relationship. Undeniably, it is common that mixing of intimate personal ties with money in itself could jeopardize intimacy. Nonetheless, money structure could also symbolize a healthy relationship such as engagement rings, a gift of money, friend lending each other and immigrants sending money back home.
I have to start this post by pointing out the phrase "All that we are, as social beings, is "just relationships.""
ReplyDeleteIn his discussion of the "evolution" of money, Maurer points out that money has not fully replaced trade, and that one interpretation may point to money as something much more symbolic in nature, possibly denoting some degree of trust, since it serves as a way of distributing wealth in large state-operated social systems. I think on a larger scale, money can reinforce social class (I'm thinking here of the example with the homeless man from Chapter 3.), and on a smaller/local scale, it can reinforce a sense of community (like the Ithaca HOUR and other complementary currencies). These secondary monies (at least I think) make financial interactions a little more personal, because they are only possible if both parties are in the geographical place specific to the currency. I also found the discussion of modifying/personalizing money to be very interesting, as it serves in another way that people can not only make money meaningful, but potentially create meaning with others, through interactions centered around said "modified money".
If we apply Maurer and Zelizer's idea of money and its use in the personal relationship, a triangular shape appears. Suppose, the two hands of the triangle are two persons in a society. These two persons are connected to each other with the third hand - money. Either, the relationship is formed by money, or, the relationship is being nurtured by the money. This triangle relationship is based on the underlying foundation of trust, value and infrastructure that maintain the bonding. Another important insight from Maurer is, historically people are interdependent on each other and money in different forms (shells, golds, gift card) are being used to mobilize the dependence. Money in the interpersonal relationship is used very inseparably as we see gifted money carries some expectation or added value (gift money should not be spent for mundane purposes or gift cards are less liquid form of money by definition) till the trust exists. Once, the trust fluctuates, we see the negative reflection on the relationship as illustrated in the writing of Zeilzer.
ReplyDeleteMaurer has stated provided multiple examples showing how money can form personal relationships. While he talks about money taking many forms and constantly evolving, he talks on how its more than an exchange but there are extra values introduced to the market. A few examples he provided was that people politicize the money by writing with messages of protest. As they put the money back into circulation they hope many eyes get to read it and level with the man/woman who wrote the message. Money is also used religiously where people find value in participating in religious offerings it also may serve as a social value since often people may see how much money you offer at a given time. My favorite example that Maurer touched on was that people toss coins into public and private fountains because I never understood that but I always remember as a child that people would make a wish and throw coins in fountains.
ReplyDeleteMoney structures these relationships because money has a wide variety of audience. It allows a smaller voice to be heard, it constitutes business negotiations and that in itself can create personal relationships.
The relationship of marriage is a contractual agreement between two consenting parties to become legally ‘tied’ to the other. When this happens, the two people become symbolically one, sharing the burdens and joys of each others’ lives. One burden (and sometimes joy) that they now ‘take on’ the task of dealing with together is finances. Finances can literally help and hurt romantic relationships; it has caused marriages to start and marriages to end. According to Zelizer’s article, many marriages choose to do their finances differently; some opt to share banking accounts, money and the burden of financial decisions, while others claim their separation of bank accounts, money and finances is what keeps their marriage strong. Prenuptial agreements even exist in order to help marriages ‘remain happy’ from the start without the threat of divorce causing one party to loose tremendous assets or amounts of money. Zelizer’s article even points out that some put a price tag on their spouses/partners, especially after death. When two parties enter into a lifetime agreement to live and love together, they are taking on the lifetime agreement to support each other physically, emotionally and financially. When one of those parties passes away prematurely, the other is left to figure out how to pay for the home or finance their ‘stuff’ that they were able to afford with two annual incomes, not one (which it would now become). In the case of 9/11/2001 victims, as in Zelizer’s article, a pricetag was set on the lives of those lost – it was calculated by the number of years they had the potential to live and work, then multipled by the income they made when alive. Although some choose to not apply for this funding, considering it immoral, many others took advantage of it because of my previous point – a lifetime commitment to someone is expecting them to be alive to help share the costs of life, monetarily and physically.
ReplyDeleteMoney and economics can be a defining factor within most human relationships you encounter in some degree. What particularly I like from Zelizer’s article was the idea that economy can very much be a factor that sets the boundaries for human relationships. Much of which lies in exchange etiquette and allocation of financial burdens. A good example is in the United States; traditionally in familial structures a large defining of parenthood is to take the financial burden of their children. In most cases it is not the other way around until they reach late adulthood, when the parents potentially cannot take care of themselves. Finances can create this kind of role reversal that changes the entrenched dynamics of their familial structure. But, if the parents make the children take the financial burden at a young age by being primary contributors to finances it can easily be seen as a social taboo. Their “roles” or relationships have a set boundary because of the socially reinforced economic familial standards within this given culture. Deeper within that familial level is the economic and financial situation between two adults in an intimate relationship. Generally within the United States it is expected that two committed partners take on a certain economic expectations with one another. For example the payment of bills and expenses. If a partner is not pulling their economic weight within paying rent or groceries it can be seen as unfair and undesirable. A balanced or well established economic exchange between partners is vital in maintaining a relationship as Zelizer outlines in their article.
ReplyDeleteMoney and intimate relationships are often seen as seperate spheres of influence in somebody's life. Zelizer would argue that in many cases this is a very blurred border. While in the office and other workplaces it is often frowned upon or even repremendable to engage in intimate relations with a coworker. This is also true in cases where favoritism would be called into play. It is important to remember that marriages and non-work relationships fall under a very different category. In these situations money and possesions are meant to be shared. Instead, many of the times these relationships resemble unspoken contracts and both parties expect a return on their investment. These relationship issues often turn into legal battles over who has the right to care and care benefits as well as inheritance. It is important to realize also that in many marital relationships money or goods given to the other is thought of as a gift and therefor cannot be returned in the court of law.
ReplyDeleteI found Zelizer's arguments to be very intriguing in regards to what forms of payment are acceptable in certain relationships. I was especially struck by the question of why it is okay to pay a babysitter for childcare and not a sister. Perhaps this is because I am an aunt, an I have never considered accepting money for watching my nephew. I also remember when I was younger that my older siblings would be paid by my parents for babysitting me while they were away. What makes one transaction valid while the other is non existent? Money can definitely be a source of tension in relationships, especially among family members. There is a lot of pride involved in ones financial security and this reflects and determines the way in which they share money in relationships. Zelizer goes on to give the example of families refusing financial aid from the 9/11 Compensation Fund led by Kenneth Feinberg because they felt payment in the form of money devealued the lives of lost loved ones. I can see where they would feel objectified for receiving this money, especially while grieving, but the point was to help financially fund a family after loss, not to replace the value of a human life.
ReplyDelete