A conference at Wash
U, March 26-27, 2010. More
information here.
Conference abstract:
Human life is structured by a variety of relationships,
interactions, exchanges, and organizations — some are complicated, some are
simple; some are longstanding, while others are brief; and some are
memorialized through formal legal agreement or state-conferred status, while
others remain the product of convenience, habit, or social convention. Yet one overriding characteristic by
which the state, social communities, and individuals categorize human
relationships and interactions is by distinguishing between those arising out
of emotion—including love, passion, or altruism and those arising from economic
expediency or profit-seeking. In
other words, was the act, relationship, or exchange in question made for love
(broadly construed) or for money?
Researchers know that this “love or money” dichotomy is in
many ways artificial. In the real world, people interact for a variety of
complex, intermingled, and often contradictory reasons. Many people are passionate about their
work and love their jobs, yet nearly all enter the labor force and remain
employed out of financial necessity.
Conversely, while marriage is associated in American culture with love,
many marry or remain married for reasons of social and economic advantage. Individuals blur the lines between love
and money in a host of other ways:
we purchase intimacy, companionship, and personal services associated
with love, embark on business and commercial ventures with friends and family
members, and engage in exchange relationships regarding the most intimate
aspects of ourselves – our fertility, our children, our bodies, our blood – for
motivations that appear a combination of altruism and profit-seeking.
Yet once the “love” or “money” labels have attached to a
relationship or interaction, a variety of personal, social, and legal
consequences flow from that label.
Cognitive dissonance may result for an individual forced to consider in
“money” terms a relationship once considered in the loving category. Social stigma may attach to those who
transgress societal conventions regarding which interactions should be
motivated by love and which by money.
Legal disadvantage may attach to those disempowered by the law’s efforts
to maintain the divide between love and money. In some circumstances the law encumbers or bans outright
incursions by money into the realm of love.
Why has the “love or money” distinction been such an
important and enduring one? To
what extent does this distinction reflect reality? To the extent that it does not, why do we maintain the
dichotomy? To further some state
interest? The goals of some
societal subgroup? Are these
interests and goals valid ones? Or
do they have negative consequences?
Co-organizers:
Marion Crain and Kimberly D. Krawiec
Authors include: Mary
Anne Case, Marion Crain, Yuval Feldman, Julie Nelson, Larry Ribstein, Laura
Rosenbury, Kate Silbaugh, and Peggie Smith.
Commentary from: Susan
Appleton, Scott Baker, William Bratton, Adrienne Davis, Robert Ellickson, Kieran
Healy, Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff, Kimberly Krawiec, Ethan Leib, and Robert
Pollak.
Papers and commentary will be published in volume 35 of the Washington University Journal of Law and
Policy.
Participant bios and conference abstracts are here.
Above Image: The Love of Money, By: Rein Nomm
The system of commodity money eventually evolved into a system of representative money.[citation needed] This occurred because gold and silver merchants or banks would issue receipts to their depositors – redeemable for the commodity money deposited. Eventually, these receipts became generally accepted as a means of payment and were used as money. Paper money or banknotes were first used in China during the Song Dynasty. These banknotes, known as "jiaozi" evolved from promissory notes that had been used since the 7th century. However, they did not displace commodity money, and were used alongside coins.