Money, paradigms, models, and practices
We can readily transfer this three-level pyramid to a three-level analysis of money and its meaning.
Paradigm: The fundamental assignment of value to money, coming from the religious pronouncements of John Calvin regarding predestination and the assignment of salvation signs to those with and without money while alive. However, if Richard Ruhr is correct, then economics drove Calvin’s assignment of value to money. While Ruhr might be accurate, there is an equally compelling case to be made for the cultural determinant of all entities we encounter in our daily life.
We can’t help but be influenced (even guided) by the way entities in our lives are perceived, interpreted, and constructed in interaction with other members of our society. We live in a socially constructed reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1967) that is embedded in a culture of latently maintained values and practices that guide our attainment of specific goals, while adapting to a changing environment and finding integration of our institutions (Parsons, 1970).
Thus, whether founded in economics, culture, or religion, we see the world of money through a set of social-constructing lenses that are paradigmatic in depth and influence. The resulting social constructions, like all paradigms, are simple and small in number. They frame the basic way in which we interpret and predict what is occurring in our world. These are the firm convictions that are circling around us and preventing us from being surprised by what we see in the world.
Models: Whatever the source of money’s values, it must be represented in some tangible manner in any society. As Halliburton and I have mentioned, tangible models often come from a different societal domain than the domain in which the model is now being used. Technological terms are used to “identify” educational units (“modules”) in an educational system, while terms from sports are used to “explain” how groups best operate (“teamwork”) in contemporary organizations.
Similarly, it was with the claiming (ceasing) of exotic gold-inlayed treasures from the African and the American continents that Gold would suddenly become of great value. Not only was Gold beautiful and substantial (heavy), it was also scarce and not readily found in a European’s backyard. Given these conditions, it was quite understandable that Gold became the tangible “model” regarding what it meant to have something of “wealth.”
Gold acquisition would easily join with the theology, economy, and culture of Europe. The conquest of non-European societies could easily be justified: the confiscation of God as a rightful exchange for bringing the “saving” Christian God to the ”heathens.” Gold could, in turn, stabilize the exchange process in Europe. It was hard in a premodern society to stabilize the prominent barter process. It was hard to determine the exact value of a sack of grain, a beautifully crafted table, or dutiful assistance in the birthing of a baby. On the other hand, the value of a single entity (gold) was much easier to collectively determine and use (directly and indirectly) as the primary vehicle for the newly emerging monetary form in which products and services could be exchanged.
