>
>certainly according to the marxian theory of money and value, everything
>changes financially if there is no gold for the paper tokens to stand for,
>indeed there is no money at all. money is not merely a sign since money as
>gold is itself a commodity and its exhange relations with all other
>commodities is determined by the law of value (ie by the relative
>quantities of socially necessary labour time embodied in them). nor is
>value a signifier. i think the link between money and language can be
>pushed too far (eg baudrillard).
>best wishes
>P
I think that language-as-currency actually goes a long way in revealing how
money signifies transactions more than value-in-itself;money is a
commodity, certainly, but money also operates to commodify in the
transactional
uses - money is only actualized in its uses. The key perhaps is in
the accommodating ideological frame. Volosinov (1986, 23) writes something
interesting here:
"Existence reflected in sign is not merely reflected but _refracted_. How
is this refraction of existence in the ideological sign determined? By an
intersecting of differently oriented social interests within one and the
same sign community,
i.e., _by the class struggle_.
Class does not coincide with the sign community...various different classes
will use one and the same language...Sign becomes the arena of class
struggle."
Ultimately, it is about economic conditions, modes of
production...globally, aiy-yi, it is about slavery, still.
Jay's thoughts on affect suggest a question about "greed" in-relation to
ownership and the practices of amassing money-as-property; greed as the
desire which is both about wanting and lacking (lacking more therefore
wanting more) but
lacking what?
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8