In “Payments and Social Ties”, Zelizer tackles the relationship between money and social relationships. They claim that there are three types of monetary payments: gift, entitlement, and compensation. Much of their argument is devoted to debunking the idea that money is a neutral currency. Instead, they offer the view of money as intrinsically tied to social relations and a specific meaning, and that people “constantly innovate and differentiate currencies” (484) in order to “make sense of their complex and often chaotic social ties” (484). Zelizer also presents two different forms of compensation in two examples, one being that of the sex industry, the other “large bureaucratized organizations” (487). It’s clear that Zelizer’s main point was that money should not be thought of as separate from social relations, as it helps us establish connections and traverse through the uncertain waters of our social ties.
Zelizer redefines the three types, saying that gifts are “one person’s voluntary bestowal on another” (482), entitlement is the feeling of having the right to a share (482), and finally compensation meaning a “direct exchange (482). One of the things that struck me most, in fact, was the idea that some people proposed money was a neutral currency. I’d never thought about it in such a manner, perhaps because I was often given money as a gift, and that usually had meaning behind it. Mostly “I don’t know what to buy you, so you go buy it yourself”. The fact that I’m able to come to a conclusion about the motivation behind a certain gift is already telling. Beyond that, I found her research regarding bureaucratized organizations and the sex industry interesting. People often view the sex industry as immoral and corrupt, and bureaucratized organizations can be that as well, but people aren’t repulsed by the idea of an office or school. Of course, these two facets of society are very different from each other, but they also have a lot in common, such as discretionary payments (bonuses, prizes, and tips). I think this article had a lot to say about the relationship between social ties and money, which in turn, has a lot to do with what we’re learning in class. Writing is inherently an emotional feat, so in turn, money gained from writing takes on a different meaning than, for example, money earned on a salary. If you are able to gain money from writing, it usually means that whatever it is you’re writing has struck a chord with someone. It’s far more personal than getting a salary at the end of each month. Furthermore, many writers will push the boundaries of what money means within their writing, which can sometimes change the way we view it in general. Even Zelizer’s article can change a person’s perspective on money, giving the concept more depth and meaning than it had before.
I’m mostly rambling at this point. I hope this made some sense at least.
Writing and Money 