Money and Intimacy Blog Post

Through “Money and Intimacy,” Zelizer takes up the notion of the three different lenses in which we can view social relationships: “hostile worlds”, “nothing but”, or “differentiated ties.” Zelizer notes that all of these are answers that have been given in social science but contends that the most appropriate way to view the relationship between social relationships and money is “differentiated ties.” As illustrated in “Money and Intimacy,” social relationships are not always hostile when combined with money, and these relationships are also more substantive than just economic transactions. With both of these then, it is harder to actually see them as ways that we should view relationships and money. 

I think an important take-away from the reading to help us understand how capitalism can affect social relationships was Zelizer’s citation of Clifford Geertz, who prescribed to the idea that money being involved in social relationships can actually make them more impactful or valuable. Within the scope of American late-capitalism, I think that using this viewpoint is important. Within late capitalism, we have seen and discussed the way that individuals are impacted by the economy and the fragile relationship they often have with the economy and their own bank account. Students now are choosing to take a leap of faith in a romantic relationship by investing what (usually) little money they have, and this undoubtedly is a testament to Geertz’s commentary.