In “Payments and Social Ties,” economic sociologist Viviana Zelizer discusses different types of monetary transfers and their connection to social relationships. Zelizer argues that there are three primary types of payment: compensation, entitlement and gift. Compensation is a direct payment exchange (and perhaps the most business-like and impersonal). Entitlement is a payment that is granted as a right, which Zelizer claims gives the recipient of the entitlement more power and control over the transaction. Lastly, gifts are payments given voluntarily which Zelizer says “impl[y] subordination and arbitrariness” (482). The article opens with an imaginary portrayal of what monetary transfers would like like in domestic households and in the workplace in the year 2029. It’s a surprising scenario because it flips the script for how we imagine payments to categorized in these contexts; it imagines household money exchange as compensation, and turns business payments into gifts or entitlements. By turning our assumptions around, Zelizer uses this scenario to present an important point: although there are distinct categorizations for types of payments, they do get mixed up and taken out of their usual contexts for specific occasions. These categories may be more fluid than we think. Zelizer goes on to illustrate how the contexts in which money gets used both shape, and is shaped by, social interactions. She shows how humans have a tendency to categorize money for distinct purposes, which can lead to disagreements. She uses the example of domestic households, and how spouses have conflicts about the proper allocation of money that can create a power imbalance in the relationship. Zelizer also compares and contrasts payments in the sexual economy with payments in the economies of large, bureaucratized organizations, and finds that although payments are given in different ways, there are more similarities between the two economies than we might think. Ultimately, Zelizer seems to conclude that contrary to popular belief, money doesn’t create impersonality because it is inextricably tied up in social relationships.
I don’t doubt Zelizer’s assertion that money has social ties, but she never fully fleshes out how the nature of relationships is impacted by their monetary transactions. I wonder whether it is necessarily a good thing that money is personal. Maybe it is impossible to separate money from social connections since we live in a capitalistic society (which I think is the point Zelizer is trying to make), but it would be interesting to see a comparison of how social connections differed from ours in past societies that didn’t use currency at all (assuming that they existed).
I also wonder how long Zelizer sees this trend happening of the continued categorization of payment exchanges based on their social connections. Does she think this will continue for years down the road, even if electronic forms of currency become the primary payment methods? Is it possible for money exchange in relationships to eventually become desensitized to the point where it no longer holds the same meaning and value?
Nina's Writing Blog ENGL 245 
Great summary of a somewhat complicated text, and some really interesting questions at the end. The historical dimension is an interesting point because Zelizer did write this is ’96, thus almost a historical text, and she is researching currency at the turn of the 20th century–at the end of the text she gestures toward a possible move to electronic currency (before a time of Venmo and PayPal). I think she would say that money has always been social, but it’s interesting that you might see some positive aspects to keeping money an impersonal neutral system. Certainly people who entered into mortgages before the housing crisis would have hoped for their money to have a stable, neutral value over time–the instability and sociality of money could lead to unfortunate consequences for some, which is certainly a point worth considering.
LikeLike