Imagine a pre-modern community the members of which trade goods and services between themselves using stamped gold coins as currency. They do not have a concept of money independent of the value of the amount of gold that constitutes each coin.
Scenario One
An evil scientist from an advanced civilisation in another part of the world kidnaps one of the pre-moderns and implants a device in his brain that causes him to experience his gold coins as he would normally feel them, see them, taste them etc. This hallucination remains consistent as to his manipulation of the coins, their continuity and their number. Having implanted this device, the evil scientist removes all real gold coins from the pre-modern’s purse and returns him to his community. The pre-modern with the implant then gets himself into all kinds of trouble with his pre-modern colleagues as he tries to make them accept his imaginary gold coins in exchange for goods and services. They conclude that he is insane and bore wholes into his skull in order to release the evil spirits… at which point he dies.
Scenario Two
A team of evil scientists from the advanced civilisation in another part of the world places the whole pre-modern community in a deep sleep and implants devices in each of their brains that cause each of them to experience his or her gold coins as he or she would normally feel them, see them, taste them etc. This hallucination remains consistent as to their manipulation of the coins, continuity and number. Having implanted these devices, the evil scientists removes all real gold coins from the pre-moderns’ purses and wake them in the same positions and at the same time of day in which they were put to sleep. This time, with everybody hallucinating gold coins, nobody is suspected of being insane and trade goes on as it ever did (for a time, until they try to make a gold statue).
Is it any less of a hallucination in Scenario Two just because it is a mass hallucination?
Of course, there was a time when people traded in precious metals, or bank notes backed by deposits of precious metals. I want to suggest that the modern move to unbacked money should not be viewed as the creation of a socially constructed object, but as the promulgation of mass error similar to the mass hallucination Scenario Two. The error is the view that inherent value-bearers supervene over small pieces of paper or polymer. I say that the above thought experiment supports the view that it is ontologically irrelevant as to whether or not trade is yet facilitated by such an error – it could be an error nonetheless to consider money to be anything over and above ink and paper or polymer. Combined with a commitment to parsimony, the extent to which money is thought to be a socially constructed object is the extent to which the person regarding it as such is in error.
0 Responses to “Against Money as a Socially Constructed Object”