The Social Meaning of Money

The Social Meaning of Money: "Special Monies"
Author(s): Viviana A. Zelizer

Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Sep., 1989), pp. 342-377
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780903
Accessed: 24/10/2010 03:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
The Social Meaning of Money:
"Special Monies"'
Viviana A. Zelizer
PrincetonUniversity
Classic interpretations of the developmentof the modernworld

portraymoneyas a key instrument in the rationalizationof social
life. Money is reductivelydefined as the ultimate objectifier,
homogenizingall qualitativedistinctions intoan abstractquantity.
This paper shows the limitsof such a purelyutilitarianconception
of "marketmoney." A model of "special monies" is proposedto
examine the extraeconomic,social basis of modernmoney. The
article argues that, while money does indeed transformitems,
values, and sentimentsintonumericalcash equivalents,moneyit-
selfis shaped in the process.Cultureand social structure markthe
quality of money by institutionalizing controls,restrictions,and
distinctionsin the sources,uses, modes of allocation,and even the
quantityof money.The changingsocial meaningand structureof
domesticmoney,specifically marriedwomen'smoneyin theUnited
States, 1870-1930, are examinedas an empiricalcase studyof a
special money.
In Rossel Island, a small traditionalcommunityin the southwestern

Pacific,the genderof moneywas tangiblyidentified-separatelower-
value coinswerereservedexclusivelyforwomen.And in Yap, one ofthe
CarolineIslands in thewestPacific,musselshellsstrungon stringsserved
as women's money,while men monopolizedthe more desirable large
stones(Baric 1964, pp. 422-23; Sumner[1906] 1940,p. 140). In contrast
to the moneyin these primitivesocieties,modernmoneyseems starkly
1 BernardBarber'stheoretical guidancewas indispensablein writingthispaper.I am

also grateful
to JeffreyC. Alexander,MichaelB. Katz, EviatarZerubavel,and two
AJS referees fortheirhelpfulsuggestions. My researchwas initiallysupportedby a
NationalEndowment fortheHumanitiesgrant,and thepaperwas completed whileI
was a visitingscholarat theRussellSage Foundationas partofitsprogram in behav-
ioraleconomics.At RussellSage, RobertK. Merton,CharlesTilly,and EricWanner
offeredvaluablecomments on an earlierversionofthisarticle.RosannRoventopro-
videdefficient researchassistance.A modified versionofthisarticlewillappearas a
chapterin mybook The Social MeaningofMoney:"SpecialMonies"(Basic Books,
forthcoming).Requestsforreprints shouldbe sentto VivianaA. Zelizer,Department
of Sociology,Princeton University, Princeton,New Jersey 08544.
? 1989byThe University
ofChicago.All rightsreserved.
.50
0002-9602/90/9502-0003$01
342 AJS Volume 95 Number2 (September1989): 342-77

Money
homogeneousand surelygenderless.Yet, camouflagedby the physical

anonymityof our dollar bills, modernmoneyis also routinelydiffer-
entiated,not just by varyingquantitiesbut also by its special diverse
qualities. We assign differentmeaningsand designateseparateuses for
particularkindsof monies.For instance,a housewife'spin moneyor her
allowance is treateddifferently froma wage or a salary,and each surely
differsfroma child's allowance. Or a lotterywinningis markedas a
different kind of moneyfroman ordinarypaycheck.The moneywe ob-
tainas compensationforan accidentis notquitethesame as theroyalties
froma book. Not all dollarsare equal.
But while thereis an extensiveliteraturedealingwithprimitivecur-
rency, the sociological bibliographyon money remains remarkably
sparse. Money is ignored,Randall Collins (1979, p. 190) has suggested,
"as if it were not sociologicalenough."2Significantly, the International
EncyclopediaoftheSocial Sciences devotesover 30 pages to moneybut
not one to its social characteristics.There are essays on the economic
effectof money,on quantitytheory,on velocityof circulation,and on
monetaryreformbut nothingon money as a "realite sociale," using
Simiand'sapt term(1934). As a result,moneyremainsconfinedprimarily
to the economists'intellectualdomain;its noneconomicaspectshave not
been systematically explored.
The dominantutilitarianunderstanding of moneyis hardlysurprising.
It is a by-product ofwhat BernardBarber(1977) has calledthe"absoluti-
zationof the market":the illusoryyetpervasiveassumptionthatmarket
exchangeis freefromculturalor social constraints.3 And money,as the
most materialrepresentation of marketexchange,seems eminentlyex-
empt fromextraeconomicinfluences.To be sure, Veblen ([1899] 1953)
alertedus to the social meaningof what moneybuys, and othershave
significantlyfurthered the social, cultural,and historicalanalysisof con-
sumerism(see, e.g., Parsonsand Smelser1956; Rainwater1974; Sahlins
1976; Douglas and Isherwood1979; Horowitz1985; Schudson1984;Ap-
2 For someexceptions, see Turner(1986),Smelt(1980),and Cheal(1988).To be sure,

sociologists
have recognizedthe symbolicand social meaningsof moneyin various
empiricalsettingsbutonlyin an ad hoc,nonsystematic way.Goffman (1961)remarked
on theabsenceof any framework forunderstanding differences and similaritiesbe-
tweencoercive,economic,and socialpayments.
3 Granovetter (1985) chidessociologists
forimplicitly acceptingthe economists' as-
sumptions thatmarketprocessesare invulnerable to social influences
and therefore
unsuitableobjectsofsociologicalstudy.On recenttheoretical and empiricaladvances
ofthe"neweconomicsociology," see Swedberg(1987).WhileGranovetter focuseson
structural
constraints ofmarkets,Sahlins(1976)presentsa powerful culturalcritique
ofmarketdeterminism. For a provocative,historically
groundedalternative to "mar-
ket culture"and utilitarianconceptions of money,see Reddy(1984, 1987). Brown
(1959)offersa psychoanalyticalcritiqueoftherationalmodelofmoney.
343
AmericanJournalof Sociology
padurai 1986; Miller 1987). But the "freedom"of moneyitselfis not

directlychallenged.
My articlewill argue thatthe utilitarianapproachto moneyis a theo-
reticaland empiricalstraitjacket.Moneybelongsto the market,but not
exclusivelyso. And whilemoneyis indeedan objectivemeansofrational
calculation,it is notonlythat.I turnfirstto thetraditionalinterpretation
of money,thatis, as "marketmoney,"and thenproposean alternative
model of "special monies" that incorporatesthe social and symbolic
significance ofmoney.In thethirdpartofthearticle,I presenta historical
case studyof domesticmoneyas one exampleof a special money.I will
argue that domesticmoney-which includes wife's money,husband's
money,and children'smoney-is a special categoryof moneyin the
modernworld. Its meanings,uses, allocation, and even quantityare
partlydeterminedby considerations ofeconomicefficiency, but domestic
moneyis equally shaped by changingculturalconceptionsof moneyand
of familylife as well as by power relationships,age, and gender.And
while in certainrespectsdomesticmoneytranscendssocial class differ-
ences,I will show how class profoundly marksnot onlyits quantitybut
its quality.
More specifically, mydiscussionwill focuson thechangingmeaningof
marriedwomen'smoneybetweenthe 1870sand 1930s,showinghow this
money,whethergiven by the husband or earnedin the householdor in
the labor market,was markedas a different formof currencyfroman
ordinarydollar. It was obtained in special ways, used for designated
purposes,and even had a specialvocabulary:allowance,pin money,"egg
money,""buttermoney,"spendingmoney,pocketmoney,gift,or "dole,"
but seldomwage, salary,paycheck,or profit.
MARKET MONEY: A UTILITARIAN APPROACHTO MONEY

To be sure,moneyoccupiesa centralplace in classicinterpretations ofthe
developmentof the modernworld. But what kindof place? For Simmel
and Weber, moneywas a keyinstrument in the rationalizationof social
life. On purelytechnicalgrounds,the possibilityof moneyaccounting
was essentialforthedevelopmentof rationaleconomicmarkets.As "the
most abstractand 'impersonal'elementthat existsin human life," as
Weber([1946] 1971,p. 331; [1922] 1978,p. 86) definedit,moneybecame
"the most 'perfect'means of economiccalculation."It transformed the
world,observedSimmel([1908] 1950, p. 412), intoan "arithmetic prob-
lem."
Presumably,thefundamentaland revolutionary powerofmoneycame
fromits completeindifference to values. Money was perceivedas the
prototypeof an instrumental, calculatingapproach; in Simmel's([1900]
344
Money
1978,p. 211) words,moneywas "thepurestreification ofmeans."It was

also the symbolof what, in his Philosophyof Money, Simmel (1978,
p. 280) identifiedas a major tendencyof modernlife-the reductionof
quality to quantity:"which achieves its highestand uniquely perfect
representation in money."Unlikeanyotherknownsubstanceor product,
moneywas the absolute negationof quality. Only money,argued Sim-
mel, "is freefromany qualityand exclusivelydeterminedby quantity."
And therefore, onlywithmoney,"we do notask what and how, but how
much"(1978, pp. 279, 259).
That "uncompromising objectivity"allowed moneyto functionas the
"technicallyperfect"mediumof moderneconomicexchange.Free from
subjectiverestrictions,indifferent origins,or rela-
to "particularinterests,
tions,"money'sliquidityand divisibility makingit "abso-
were infinite,
lutelyinterchangeable"(1978, pp. 373, 128, 441). The veryessence of
money,claimed Simmel,was its "unconditionalinterchangeability, the
internaluniformity that makes each piece exchangeablefor another."
Moneythusservedas thefitting neutralintermediary ofa rational,imper-
sonal market, "expressing the economic relations between objects . . . in
abstractquantitativeterms,withoutitselfenteringintothoserelations"
(1978, pp. 427, 125).
Noneconomicrestrictions in theuse of moneywereunequivocallydis-
missedby Simmelas residualatavisms:"The inhibitingnotionthatcer-
tain amountsof moneymay be 'stainedwithblood' or be undera curse
are sentimentalitiesthatlose theirsignificance withthegrow-
completely
ing indifferenceof money"(1978, p. 441). As moneybecame nothingbut
"meremoney,"its freedomwas apparentlyunassailableand its uses un-
limited.Thus, forSimmel,money's"purelynegativequality"guaranteed
its unboundedflexibility and indiscriminateintrusiveness.Withmoney,
all qualitativedistinctionsbetweenobjectswereequally convertibleinto
an arithmetically calculable "systemof numbers"(1978, p. 444).
This quantificationof qualitywas perceivedto be a morallydangerous
alchemy.In his earlyessay"The Power ofMoneyin BourgeoisSociety,"
Marx ([1844] 1964, p. 169) had warnedthatthetransformational powers
ofmoneysubvertedreality:"confounding and compounding. .. all natu-
ral and human qualities . . . [money] serves to exchange every property
foreveryother,even contradictory, propertyand object:itis thefraterni-
zationofimpossibilities."As the"god amongcommodities" (Marx [1858-
59] 1973,p. 221), moneyemergedas theultimateobjectifier, obliterating
all subjectiveconnectionbetweenobjects and individualsand debasing
personalrelationsinto calculativeinstrumental ties.
Indeed, moneyfetishism, arguedMarx in theGrundrisse(1973,p. 222)
and in Capital ([1867] 1984, p. 96), was the most"glaring"formof com-
modityfetishism.The "perverted"(Marx [1858] 1972, p. 49) processby
345
whichsocial relationsbetweenindividualsweretransmuted intomaterial

relationsbetween thingspeaked with money. For other commodities
mightretaintheirmore"natural"value or "use value" and therefore some
distinctivequality. But as pure exchangevalue, moneynecessarilyas-
sumedan "unmeaning"(Marx 1984,p. 103)form,whichin turnneutral-
ized all possible qualitativedistinctionsbetweencommodities.In their
moneyform,noted Marx (1984, p. 111), "all commoditieslook alike."
And moreincongruously still,moneyturnedeven intangibleobjectsde-
void ofutility-such as conscienceor honor-into ordinarycommodities.
Thus the pricelessitselfsurrenderedto price. "Not even the bones of
saints . . . are extra commerciumhominumable to withstandthe al-
chemy"(Marx 1984, pp. 132, 105).
For Marx (1984, p. 132), moneywas thus an irresistible and "radical
leveler,"invadingall areas of social life.By homogenizing all qualitative
distinctions intoan abstractquantity,moneyallowedthe"equationofthe
incompatible"(Marx 1973, p. 163). Echoing Marx's vocabularyhalf a
centurylater,Simmel(1950, p. 414) dubbed moneya "frightful leveler,"
perverting the uniquenessof personaland social values: "Withits color-
lessnessand indifference . . . [money]hollowsout the core of things...
theirspecificvalue, and theirincomparability." And in his essay "Reli-
giousRejectionsofthe World,"Weber(1971, p. 331) noteda fundamen-
tal antagonismbetweena rationalmoneyeconomyand a "religiousethic
of brotherliness."
In an essay publishedin 1913 in the AmericanJournalof Sociology,
Cooley submitteda dissentingargumentin defenseof the dollar. While
acknowledgingtheextensionofthecash nexusin modernsociety,Cooley
refusedto see money as a necessaryantagonistof nonpecuniaryval-
ues. Instead, soundingmuch like the 18th-century advocates of what
Hirschman(1986) calls the "doux commerce"thesisof the marketas a
moralizingagent, Cooley (1913, p. 202) argued that "the principlethat
everythinghas a price should be enlargedratherthan restricted. . .
pecuniaryvalues are membersof the same generalsystemas the moral
and aestheticvalues, and it is theirfunctionto put the latterupon the
market."Progress,concludedCooley(1913, p. 203), lay notin depreciat-
ing monetaryvaluation but in assuringthe moral regulationof money:
"The dollar is to be reformedratherthan suppressed."But Cooley's
outlookwas exceptional.For most contemporary observers,the dollar
was an invulnerabletransformer, not a morallyreformable currency.
The prevailingclassicinterpretation ofmoneythusabsolutizeda model
of marketmoney,shaped by the followingfiveunderlying assumptions:
1. The functionsand characteristics of moneyare definedstrictlyin
economicterms.Money,maintainedSimmel(1978, p. 101),was the"in-
carnationand purestexpressionof the conceptof economicvalue." As a
346
Money
qualityless,absolutelyhomogeneous,infinitely divisible,liquid object,

moneyis a matchlesstool formarketexchange.
2. All monies are the same in modernsociety.What Simmelcalled
money's"qualitativelycommunisticcharacter"(1978, p. 440) abortsany
distinctionsbetweentypesofmoney.Differences can existin thequantity
ofmoneybut notin itsmeaning.Thus, thereis onlyone kindofmoney-
marketmoney.
3. A sharpdichotomyis establishedbetweenmoneyand nonpecuniary
values. Money in modernsocietyis definedas essentiallyprofaneand
utilitarianin contrastto noninstrumental values. Moneyis qualitatively
neutral;personal, social, and sacred values are qualitativelydistinct,
unexchangeable,and indivisible.
4. Monetaryconcernsare seen as constantlyenlarging,quantifying,
and oftencorrupting all areas oflife.As an abstractmediumofexchange,
moneyhas notonlythefreedombut also thepowerto draw an increasing
numberof goods and servicesintotheweb of themarket.Moneyis thus
the vehicleforan inevitablecommodification of society.As Simmelput
it, money"intervenesin the totalityof existentialinterestsand imposes
itselfupon them. .. [it]has thepowerto lay down formsand directions
forcontentsto which[it is] indifferent. . ." (1978, p. 442).
5. The power of moneyto transform nonpecuniaryvalues is unques-
tioned,whilethereciprocaltransformation of moneyby values is seldom
conceptualizedor else is explicitlyrejected.Unfettered by "objectiveor
ethical considerations,"money,insistedSimmel,was exemptfromex-
traeconomic"directives[or] obstacles"(1978, p. 441).4
In this context,to speak about the distinctive"quality" of modern
moneyseemsanachronistic.Afterall, how can moneyhave specialmean-
ingsifitsveryessenceis theabsolutehomogenization and objectivization
of qualitativedistinctions?
A link,an interdependence, is missingfromthetraditionalapproachto
money.Impressedby the fungible,impersonalcharacteristics of money,
traditionalsocial thinkersemphasized its instrumental rationalityand
apparentlyunlimitedcapacityto transform products,relationships, and
sometimeseven emotionsintoan abstractand objectivenumericalequiv-
alent.But moneyis neitherculturallyneutralnormorallyinvulnerable.It
maywell "corrupt"values intonumbers,butvalues and sentiment recip-
4 In fact,theonlyrecognized
limitsto the commodification
processis thepreserva-
tion-albeit precarious-ofselecteditemsoutsidethecash nexus.This "singulariza-
tion"ofcertaingoods,as IgorKopytoff(1986)describesit,doesnot,however,seemto
includemoney.Instead,culture"marks"certainitemsas specialand unexchangeable
precisely
by deprivingthemof a pricetag (see Radin 1987).Withinthisframework,
moneyacts as a "contaminator"of marketvalues,immuneto extraeconomic values
and thusincapableof beingitselfmarkedas singular,unique,or unexchangeable.
347
rocallycorruptmoneyby investingit with moral, social, and religious

meaning.We need to examine more carefullyhow culturaland social
structuralfactorsinfluencethe uses, meaning,and even quantityof
money.What is the relationshipof moneyas a mediumof exchangeand
measureof utilityto moneyas a symbolof social value?
SPECIAL MONIES: EXPLORING THE QUALITY

OF MODERN MONEY
Significantly, even when the symbolicdimensionof modernmoneyhas
been recognized,theanalysisstopsshortoffullytranscending theutilitar-
ian framework.Parsons(1971a, p. 241; 1971b, pp. 26-27), forinstance,
explicitlyand forcefully called fora "sociologyofmoney"thatwouldtreat
moneyas one of the various generalizedsymbolicmedia of social inter-
change,along with politicalpower,influence,and value commitments.
In contrastto Marx's (1973, p. 222) definition of moneyas the "material
representative of wealth,"in Parsons'smedia theorymoneywas a shared
symboliclanguage;nota commodity, devoidofuse value.
but a signifier,
Yet Parsons restrictsthe symbolismof moneyto the economicsphere.
Money,Parsons(1967, p. 358) contends,is the"symbolic'embodiment' of
economicvalue, of what economistsin a technicalsense call 'utility."'
Consequently,the symbolicmeaning of money outside the market,
money's cultural and social significancebeyond utility,remains un-
chartedin Parsons'smedia theory.
Anthropologists provide some intriguinginsightsinto the extraeco-
nomic, symbolicmeaningof moneybut only with regardto primitive
money.For instance,ethnographicstudiesshow that,in certainprimi-
tive communities,moneyattainsspecial qualitiesand distinctvalues in-
dependentof quantity.How much moneyis less importantthan which
money. Multiple currencies,or "special-purpose"money,to use Karl
Polanyi's(1957, pp. 264-66) term,have sometimescoexistedin one and
the same village, each currencyhaving a specified,restricteduse (for
purchaseof only certaingoods or services),special modes of allocation
and formsofexchange(see, e.g., Bohannan 1959),and, sometimes, desig-
nated users. Certaincurrencies,forinstance,may be limitedto specified
social classes or else assignedby gender(see Einzig 1966).
Special moniesare oftenmorallyor rituallyranked:certainkinds of
moneymay be good forobtainingfood but not forpurchasinga wife;
othermoniesare appropriateonlyforfuneralgiftsor marriagegiftsor as
blood money;stillothermoniesserveexclusivelyforpayingdamagesfor
adulteryor insults,forburialwiththe dead, or formagicalrites.In this
context,the"wrong"qualityor lesser-quality money,even in largequan-
tities,is useless or degraded. This qualitativecategorizationof monies
348
Money
was also notedbyThomas and Znaniecki([1918-20] 1958, pp. 164-65) in

theiranalysisof the traditionalPolish peasant culture:"A sum received
fromsellinga cow is qualitativelydifferent froma sum receivedas a
dowry,and both are different froma sum earned outside." Different
monieswere used differently and even keptseparately.Indeed, Thomas
and Znaniecki(1958, p. 166)remarkedthata peasantwho seta sumaside
fora designatedpurpose, and thenneeded some moneyfora different
expense,would preferto borrowit "even underverydifficult conditions,
ratherthan touchthatsum."
These special monies, which Mary Douglas (1967) has perceptively
identifiedas a sortof primitivecoupon system,controlexchangeby ra-
tioningand restricting the use and allocationofcurrency.In theprocess,
moneysometimesperforms economicfunctions byservingas a mediumof
exchange,but it also functionsas a social and sacred"marker,"used to
acquire or amend statusor to celebrateritualevents.The pointis that
primitivemoneyis transformable, fromfungibleto nonfungible,from
profaneto sacred.
But what about modernmoney?Has modernizationindeed stripped
moneyofitsculturalmeaning,establishing, as Simmel(1978,p. 276) saw
it, an "unconditionalidentityof moneywithsum"? Economicdevelop-
ment,suggestedThomas and Znaniecki(1958, p. 65), "tendsto abolish
all [the] distinctions and . . . make money more and more fluid." In-
fluencedby economicmodels,mostinterpretations thusestablisha sharp
dichotomybetween primitive,restricted"special purpose" moneyand
modern"all-purpose"money,which,as a singlecurrency unburdenedby
ritualor social controls,can functioneffectively
as a universalmediumof
exchange.Curiously,whenit comesto modernmoney,even anthropolo-
gistsseem to surrendertheirformidableanalyticaltools. For instance,
more than 20 years ago, Mary Douglas (1967), in an importantessay,
suggestedthatmodernmoneymaynotbe as unrestricted and "free"after
all. Her evidence,however,is puzzlinglylimited.Modernmoney,argues
Douglas (p. 139), is controlledand rationedin two situations:in interna-
tional exchange and at the purely individual personal levels, where
"manyofus tryto primitivize our money... byplacingrestrictions at the
source,by earmarkingmonetaryinstruments of certainkindsforcertain
purposes,by only allowingourselvesor our wives certainlimitedfree-
domsin thedisposalofmoney." "Moneyfromdifferent sources"observes
Douglas (p. 139), "is sometimespersonalizedand attractsdistinctive feel-
ingswhichdictatethe characterof its spending."
Surely,these restraints,which,as Douglas (1967, pp. 119-20) notes,
"resemble strangely . . . restraintson the use of some primitivemonies,"
are morethanpurelyindividual"quirks"or a "clumsyattemptto control
the all too liquid state of money,"as she suggests(pp. 138, 140). Yet
349
Douglas, who (Douglas and Isherwood 1979) significantly advances a

culturaltheoryof consumption,does not go farenoughwiththe cultural
analysisofmoney.Likewise,Thomas Crump(1981,pp. 125-30) refersto
theexistenceofwhathe calls "boundedsub-systems" in modernsocieties:
separatespheresof exchangewithspecial currencies.But his focusis on
economicdistinctions betweentypesofmonies,such as thesimultaneous
yetseparateuse of a nationaland a foreigncurrency(usuallythe dollar)
by a country,the selectiveuse of specie versus "scriptural"moneyfor
certaingoodsand services,or theseparateeconomyofcreditcardsversus
cash payments,and includeseven the chipsused by a pokerschoolas a
separateformof currency(see also Melitz 1970).
Economic psychologists have recentlychallengedthe purelyrational-
isticeconomicdefinition of modernmoney,particularly theidea offungi-
bility,by suggestingthe conceptof "mentalaccounting":the ways indi-
viduals distinguishbetweenkinds of money.For instance,theytreata
windfallincomemuch differently froma bonus or an inheritance,even
whenthe sumsinvolvedare identical(see, e.g., Thaler 1985; Kahneman
and Tversky1982;foran excellentreviewand analysisofthepsychologi-
cal literatureon money,see Lea, Tarpy,and Webley1987,pp. 319-42).
But mentalaccountingcannotbe fullyunderstoodwithouta modelof
"sociologicalaccounting."Modern moneyis markedby morethan indi-
vidual whim or the different materialformof currencies.As Fran?ois
Simiand,one of Durkheim'sstudents,argued(1934), theextraeconomic,
social basis ofmoneyremainsas powerfulin moderneconomicsystemsas
it was in primitiveand ancient societies.5Indeed, Simiand warned
againstan orthodoxrationalistapproachthatmistakenly ignorestheper-
sistentsymbolic,sacred,and evenmagicalsignificance ofmodernmoney.
My generaltheoreticalpurpose,then,is to applytheconceptof special
moneyto themodernworldand examinein whatways cultureand social
structuremarkmodernmoneyby introducing and
controls,restrictions,
distinctionsthat are as influentialas the rationingof primitivemoney.
Special money in the modern world may not be as easily or visibly
identifiableas the shells, coins, brass rods, or stonesof primitivecom-
munities,but its invisibleboundariesemergefromsets of formaland
5Sorokin (1943)madethesameargument in hisbrilliantanalysisofthepersistenceof

in modernconceptions
qualitativedistinctions oftimeand space. Taussig(1980),an
anthropologist,dealswiththesocialmeaningofmodernmoneybutwithintheparticu-
lar contextof a SouthAmericanpeasantculture'sbeingtransformed by capitalist
modesofproduction. The peasantsconstructmagicalritualsthatmarkmodernmoney
as "dirtymoney":an evil currency obtainedin illicitwaysand restricted
in itsuses.
Taussiginterpretsthesemorallystigmatizedmoniesas partofthepeasants'resistance
to thecommodification of theirworld.Fromthisperspective, however,realmodern
moneyin a fullycommoditized societywouldpresumably losesuchqualitativedistinc-
tionsand thusattainmoralindifference.
350
Money
informalrules that regulateits uses, allocation,sources,and quantity.

How else, forinstance,do we distinguisha bribe froma tributeor a
donation,a wage froman honorarium,or an allowance froma salary?
How do we identify ransom,bonuses,tips,damages,or premiums?True,
thereare quantitativedifferences among these various payments.But,
surely,thespecial vocabularyconveysmuchmorethandiverseamounts.
Detached fromits qualitativedifferences, the world of moneybecomes
undecipherable.
The model of special moniesthuschallengesthe traditionalutilitarian
model of marketmoneyby introducingdifferent fundamentalassump-
tionsin the understanding of money:
1. While moneydoes serve as a key rationaltool of the moderneco-
nomic market,it also exists outside the sphere of the marketand is
profoundly shaped by culturaland social structuralfactors.
2. Thereare a pluralityofdifferent kindsofmonies;each specialmoney
is shaped by a particularset of culturaland social factorsand is thus
qualitativelydistinct.Market moneydoes not escape extraeconomic in-
fluencesbut is in fact one typeof special money,subject to particular
social and culturalinfluences.
3. The classiceconomicinventory of money'sfunctions and attributes,
based on the assumptionof a singlegeneral-purpose typeof money,is
thus unsuitablynarrow.By focusingexclusivelyon moneyas a market
phenomenon,it failsto capturetheverycomplexrangeofcharacteristics
of moneyas a nonmarketmedium.A different, moreinclusivecodingis
necessary,forcertainmoniescan be indivisible(or divisiblebut not in
mathematically predictableportions),nonfungible, nonportable,deeply
subjective,and therefore qualitativelyheterogeneous.
4. The assumed dichotomybetween a utilitarianmoney and non-
pecuniaryvalues is false,formoneyundercertaincircumstances maybe
as singularand unexchangeableas the mostpersonalor unique object.
5. Given the assumptionsabove, the alleged freedomand unchecked
powerofmoneybecomeuntenableassumptions.Cultureand social struc-
tureset inevitablelimitsto the monetizationprocessby introducing pro-
foundcontrolsand restrictions on the flowand liquidityof money.Ex-
traeconomicfactorssystematically constrainand shape (a) the uses of
money,earmarking,forinstance,certainmoniesforspecifieduses; (b) the
users of money,designatingdifferent people to handle specifiedmonies;
(c) the allocation systemof each particularmoney;(d) the controlof
different monies;and (e) thesourcesofmoney,linkingdifferent sourcesto
specifieduses.
Even the quantityof moneyis regulatedby morethanrationalmarket
calculation.For instance,in The PhilosophyofMoney,Simmel(1978,pp.
273, 406) suggeststhat moneyin "extraordinarily greatquantities"can
351
circumventits "emptyquantitative"nature:it becomes "imbued with

that 'super-additum,'with fantasticpossibilitiesthat transcend the
definiteness ofnumbers."The apparentobjectivityofnumbers,however,
is escaped not only by large fortunes.Small sums of moneycan attain
similardistinction.For example,in civillaw countriesthatpermitmone-
tarycompensationfor the griefof losing a child in an accident,legal
scholarsadvocate the'francsymbolique"(Mazeaud, Mazeaud, and Tunc
1957). A tokensum ofmoneyis perceivedas theonlydignified equivalent
for such a purelyemotionalloss. Thus, determining a properamount
ofteninvolvesnot onlyan instrumental calculus but a culturalor social
accounting.(For an exampleof theconnection betweenquantityof money
and its social and symbolicmeaning,see Geertz [1973], pp. 425-42.)
Even identicalquantitiesofmoneydo not"add" up in thesame way. A
$1,000 paycheckis not the same moneyas $1,000 stolenfroma bank or
$1,000 borrowedfroma friend.And certainmoniesremainindivisible-
an inheritance,forinstance,or a weddinggiftof moneyintendedforthe
purchaseof a particularkind of object. The latteris a qualitativeunit
thatshould not be spentpartlyfora giftand partlyforgroceries.
Exploring the quality of special monies does not deny money's
quantifiableand instrumentalcharacteristics but moves beyondthem,
suggestingverydifferent theoreticaland empiricalquestionsfromthose
derived from a purely economic model of market money. Domestic
moneyraises some of those questions. What kind of moneycirculates
withinthe family?How is it allocated, and how is it used? How do
changingsocial and power relationshipsbetweenfamilymembersaffect
the meaningof the domesticdollar?
In termsof data, studyingmoneyin the familyis enteringlargely
unchartedterritory. Althoughmoneyis themajorsourceofhusband-wife
disagreements and oftena sorepointbetweenparentsand children,curi-
ously,we know less about moneymattersthan about familyviolenceor
even maritalsex.6Not onlyare familiesreluctantto disclosetheirprivate
financiallives to strangers;husbands,wives, and childrenoftenlie, de-
6 Thereis a bodyofliterature
thatdeals withtherelationship
betweengender,class,
moneyand the distribution of familypower (see, e.g., Blood and Wolfe 1965;
Komarovsky1961, 1967; Safilios-Rothschild 1970; Rubin 1976; Ostrander1984;
Blumsteinand Schwartz1985;Hertz 1986;Mirowsky1985).Interestingly, muchof
thisliterature
retainsan instrumental framework by usuallyfocusingon themarket
meaningofmoneyand itseffects on domesticpowerrelationships.Contemporaneous
and historical
studiesofEnglishhouseholds providea richsourceofdata on intrafam-
ilyaccountingsystems(see, e.g., Ross 1982;Oren 1973;Stearns1972;Wilson1987;
Pahl 1980; Whitehead1984; Ayersand Lambertz1986). (For France,see Sullerot
1966;forFrenchand Englishworking-class households,see Tillyand Scott 1978.)
Gullestad(1984) providessome wonderful data on working-classmothersin urban
Norway,and Luxton(1980)does thesameforCanada.
352
Money
ceive, or simplyconceal information fromeach otheras well. Perhaps

morefundamentally still,the modelof what Sen (1983) calls the "glued-
togetherfamily"has meantthat questionsabout how moneyis divided
betweenfamilymembersare seldomeven asked. Once moneyentersthe
family,it is assumedto be somehowequitablydistributed amongfamily
members,servingto maximizetheircollectivewelfare.How muchmoney
each persongets,how he or she obtainsit, fromwhomand forwhat,are
rarelyconsidered.And yet,as MichaelYoung (1952) suggestedmorethan
30 yearsago, thedistribution ofmoneyamongfamilymembersis oftenas
lopsided and arbitraryas the distributionof national income among
families.Therefore,arguesYoung (1952, p. 305), we shouldstopassum-
ingthat"some membersofa familycannotbe richwhileothersare poor"
(see also Hartmann1981; Wong 1984; Delphy and Leonard 1986).
The period between 1870 and 1930 providessome unusual glimpses
into this traditionallysecretworld of familymoney.As the consumer
societywas beingestablished,Americanswroteabout and studiedmoney
mattersin an unprecedentedmanner.Household-budgetstudiesrichly
documentedhow the workingclass and lower-middleclass spenttheir
money.And in anonymous,"confessional"articlespublishedin popular
magazines, middle-classAmericansdisclosed theirown domesticbud-
gets,transforming thespendingofmoneyintoa publicissue. In thatsame
as
period, Daniel Horowitz (1985) has shown, social criticsand social
scientistspresentedtheirversionsof the "moralityof spending,"discuss-
ingwithpassion and in detailtheusuallydreadednoneconomiccontours
ofa commoditizedAmericansociety.Thus, at theturnofthecentury, the
renegotiation of the domesticeconomybrokethroughthe usuallyclosed
doors of individualhouseholdsand enteredthe public discourse.
I now turnto an analysisofthechangingmeanings,allocationsystems,
and uses of marriedwomen'smoneybetween1870 and the 1930s,show-
inghow definitional disputesoverthiscategoryofdomesticmoney,while
partlya rationalresponseto a new economicenvironment, were also
deeplyshaped by extraeconomic,social, and culturalfactors.The battle
over the pursestringswas regulatedby notionsoffamilylifeand by the
genderand social class of its participants.7
7 This articleis based on a qualitativeanalysisofan extensiveand diversified setof

documentary sources.Amongthe primarysourcesconsultedwere (1) household-
budgetstudies;(2) women'smagazines,including featurearticles,letters
to theeditor,
fiction,advicecolumns,and occasionalsurveydata; (3) newspapers, includingnews
articles,editorials,
andlettersto theeditor(mostlyfromtheNew YorkTimes);(4) legal
records,includingcourtcases, law reviewarticles,laws and regulations, and legal
casebooks;(5) home-economics literature,
includingleadingtextbooks on homeman-
agement,popularhouseholdmanuals,and theJournalofHome Economics;(6) a
foreigner'smemoirs;(7) etiquettemanuals;(8) socialworkers'investigations ofwork-
ing-classcommunities and reportson theconditions ofworking women,suchas Rus-
353
The Domestic"Fiscal Problem":1870-1930

Duringthelate 19thcentury,thedomestic"fiscalproblem"wentpublic,
as an appealing news storyin magazinesand newspapers,in poignant
lettersto theeditorand advice columns,and as thetopicofconferences in
women's clubs. By 1928, one observerconcludedthat "More quarrels
betweenhusband and wifehave been startedby the mentionof money
thanby chorusgirls,blond waitresses,dancingmenwithsleekhair,[or]
travelingmen" (Kelland 1928, p. 12). Indeed, the battleover the purse
stringsoftenended in court. Between 1880 and 1920, moneyquarrels
increasingly became a groundsfordivorceamongaffluent as well as poor
couples (May 1980, p. 137; Lynd and Lynd 1956,p. 126). And domestic
moneyraisedlegal issues even in unbrokenmarriages.Did a wifehave a
rightto an allowance? If she saved moneyfromher housekeepingex-
penses,was thatmoneyhers?Was a wifea thiefifshe "stole"moneyfrom
herhusband'strousers?Could a wifepledgeherhusband'screditat any
store?There was also the matterof women's earnings.When was a
woman's dollar legally her own? Slowly, but steadily,court decisions
began to overturnthe commonlaw dictumthat a wife'searningsbe-
longedto her husband.
Whydid domesticmoneybecomesuch a controversial currencyat the
turnof the century?Certainlymoneyconflictsbetweenfamilymembers
had existedearlier.For instance,in herstudyofNew York working-class
women,Stansell(1986, p. 29) tellsof one-albeit extreme-1811 case in
whicha husbandbeat his commonlaw wifeto death aftershe tookfour
shillingsfromhis pockets. Yet these disputesremainedprivate,rarely
enteringthepublic discourseas a majorissue ofcollectiveconcern(Stan-
sell, personal communication).A consensusof sortsexistedabout the
properregulationof familyincome,and it varied by class. Amongmid-
dle-and upper-classhouseholds,moneymattersseemto have been estab-
sellSage'sWestSide Studies;and (9) selectedgovernment documents suchas theU.S.

Department ofLaborreports on theconditionsofworking womenandchildren. To be
sure,as withmanysuchqualitativehistorical data, thepreciserepresentativeness
of
thedocumentary materialscannotbe established.However,thereliability
ofthedata
is strengthened by corroborating the findingswithverydifferent and independent
typesofdocumentary evidence.For instance,a fewmagazines'surveysofreadersor
otheraudiencesare used,despitetheirbeingmethodologically weakbymodernstan-
dards,butonlyas an additional,albeitimperfect, illustration
oftrendsin thealloca-
tionand uses offamilymoney.Thus,thechangesin thedomesticeconomydescribed
hereare notbased simplyon one setofdata butare amplyconfirmed bythedifferent
primarysources.In addition,a richset of secondarysourceshas been consulted,
including recentstudieson theriseoftheconsumer culture,thehistory
ofleisure,and
the literatureon familyhistoryand women'shistorythat includesdiscussionsof
families'changingeconomicstrategies.
354
Money
lished largelyas the husband's business. In her (1841) landmarkTrea-

tise on DomesticEconomy,CatherineBeecher notedhow, particularly
amongbusimessmen, a family'sexpenseswere "so muchmoreunderthe
controlof the man than of the woman" (p. 176). Likewise, Mary P.
Ryan's (1984, p. 33) studyof familylife in early 19th-century Oneida
County,New York, found men in charge of moneymatters(see also
Norton1979,p. 145; Cowan 1983,pp. 81-82). Afterall, the 19th-century
"cultof domesticity" establishedhomelifeas an alternativeto thedomi-
nance of the market:its guardian,the "true"Victorianwoman, was a
specialistin affect,notfinances(Welter1966;Cott 1977).A womanmight
handle the housekeepingexpenses, but "serious money"was a man's
currency.Working-classhouseholds,on the otherhand, managedtheir
limitedand oftenuncertainincomes by appointingwives the family's
cashier. Husbands and childrenhanded their paychecksover to the
wives, who were expectedto administerthe collectiveincomeskillfully.
Most ofthesemonies,to be sure,werelimitedto housekeepingexpenses.
But at theturnof the century,a risein real incomeand theincreasing
monetizationof the Americaneconomyforceda reevaluationof family
finances.Making moremoneyand spendingit requirednotonlyskillful
bookkeeping;theyalso raiseda new setofconfusingand oftencontrover-
sial noneconomicquandaries. How should moneybe allocated in the
family?How muchmoneyshoulda wifereceiveand forwhichexpenses?
Was an allowance a "good" mechanismof allocationforwives? What
about children'sallowances;shouldtheybe givenone, or was ittheirduty
to earnit throughhouseholdchores?Shouldhusbandshand overall their
salariesto theirwives, or how much could theykeep forthemselves?
Properuses ofmoneyalso bafflednoviceconsumers:Whatdid it mean
to spend moneywell? How, forinstance,shoulda family'sextraincome
be used? How much should be saved, how muchgivento charity,how
muchforvacations,how muchforclothing?And, mostimportant,how
was it to be determinedhow much each memberof the familywas en-
titledto spend? As the amount of disposable incomeincreasedand as
theconsumereconomyand culturebecamemorefirmly established,fam-
ily moneywas increasinglydifferentiated into husband'smoney,wife's
money,and children'smoney.
This new "tightenedcompetitionfor the familyincome," as Robert
Lynd (1932, p. 90) describedit, was to a certainextenta "fixed"dispute,
forthevariouscompetitors startedwithculturallyassigned"handicaps."
Indeed, turn-of-the-century wives, even thosemarriedto wealthymen,
oftenfound themselveswithouta dollar of their own. As Lucy M.
Salmon, professorof historyat Vassar College,explainedin 1909, "Men
are stillforthe mostpartthosewhose wages are paid in hard cash, who
355
have a bank accountand carrya cash-book,and who therefore consider

thattheyhave the rightto decide in regardto the way the moneythey
earn shall be spent"(p. 889).
The relativepovertyof marriedwomen became increasinglyunten-
able. For the 20th-century versionof the 19th-century
moral guardian
was expectedto serve as the household'spurchasingagent and budget
expert.To be sure,thefrugality and financialwisdomofwives had been
a concernin the 18thcenturyas well (Beecher 1841,pp. 175-86; Jensen
1986, pp. 119-28). But the expansionof the consumereconomymade
proper spendingskills a dominantand visible parameterof domestic
expertise.The "good housekeeper"was responsible"forthe care of her
husband'smoney,and she mustexpendit wisely"(New YorkTimes,Dec.
23, 1900, p. 10). Afterall, as one exemplaryhousewifeexplainedin the
same article,"a man does notunderstandtheregulationofthehousehold
and its expenses."
But "Mrs. Consumer's"(Frederick1929) increasedfinancialrole and
responsibility came withouta salaryand mostoftenwithouteven a fixed
and dependableincome.Womenwerethuscaughtin thestrangepredica-
mentof beingcashless moneymanagersexpectedto spend properlybut
denied controlover money.The success of the home-economics move-
ment,which urged women to run theirhomes like a business,further
intensified the contradictionin women'seconomiclives.
Women's strategemsto extractsome cash fromtheirunforthcoming
husbands were the subject of jokes and a staple of late 19th-century
vaudevilleroutines.But thedomesticfiscalproblemturnedserious,forc-
ing a difficultand controversialreevaluationof women's household
moneyas well as of theirearnedincome.
A Dollar of Her Own: DefiningWomen'sHousehold Money

Americanwomen,even thosewhosehusbandscould affordit, neverhad
a legal claim to any portionof domesticmoney.As longas spouseslived
together,the authorof a 1935 Law Review articleexplained,"thewife's
rightto supportis not a rightto any definitethingor to any definite
amount.... Whetherthewifewill getmuchor littleis nota matterofher
legal rightbut is a matterforthe husband to decide" (Crozier 1935, p.
33).8 As a result,theallocationofdomesticmoneydependedon unofficial
8 The conceptofa family
wage-a salarythatwouldsupporta malewageearnerand
his dependentfamily-furtherincreasedmarriedwomen'sdependenceon theirhus-
band'swages. The doctrineofnecessaries,
however,providedwiveswithsomelegal
recourseby makinga husbanddirectly responsible
to a merchant forthepurchases
madebyhiswife.Yet eventhisentitlementtopledgea husband'screditwas restricted.
356
Money
rules and informalnegotiation.At the turn of the century,married

women-the majorityof whom dependedon theirhusbands'paychecks
or incomes-obtained theircash in a varietyof formsor special monies.
Upper- and middle-classwives received an irregulardole or, more
rarely,a regularallowance fromtheirhusbands for housekeepingex-
penses,includinghouseholdgoodsand clothing.Sometimeswomenrelied
almostentirelyon "invisible"dollars,creditingtheirexpensesand rarely
wives,on theotherhand, weregiven
handlingcash at all. Working-class
theirhusbands'paychecksand wereexpectedto administer and distribute
the familymoney.
These officialmonies,however,weresupervisedand even, in thecase
of working-classwomen, ultimatelyowned and controlledby the hus-
bands. Sometimes,husbandsopenlytookoverall monetarytransactions.
In a letterto theadvice columnof Woman'sHome Companionin 1905,a
30-yearold womancomplainedthatJohn,herhusband,although"liberal
in a way . .. keepsthepocketbookhimself,buystheprovisions,prefersto
purchasethedry-goods,the shoes,thegloves. . . and does notsee thatI
need any moneywhen he getswhateverI want" (Sangster1905, p. 32).
Even ifa woman managedto save somemoneyfromherhousekeeping
expenses,the law ultimatelyconsideredthat moneyas her husband's
property.For instance,in 1914, when Charles Montgomerysued his
wife,Emma, forthe$618.12 she had saved fromthehouseholdexpenses
duringtheir 25 years of marriage,JusticeBlackman of the Supreme
Court, Brooklyn,ruled forthe husband, arguing"thatno matterhow
carefuland prudenthas been thewife,ifthemoney. .. belongedto the
unlesstheevidenceshowsthatit was a gift
husbanditis stillhis property,
to his wife"(New YorkTimes,Dec. 16, p. 22). Thus, a wife'schannelsto
additionalcash werelimitedto a varietyofpersuasiontechniques:asking,
cajoling,downrightbegging,or even practicingsexual blackmail.
If thesetechniquesfailed,therewas also a repertoireof underground
financialstrategies,rangingfromhome pocketpickingto paddingbills.
In 1890,an articlein theForumdenouncedthe"amountofdeceit,fraud,
and double dealing which grow out of the administration of the family
Necessarieswereso ambiguously definedthatmerchants werereluctant to riskextend-

ingcreditto a wifeforgoodsthatmightnotbe considered necessaries.Moreover,a
husbandwas entitledto determine wherenecessaries shouldbe purchasedand could
terminate topledgehiscreditbydemonstrating
a wife'sauthority thathe had provided
allowanceto obtainthem(see Weitzman1981;Salmon
thenecessariesor a sufficient
1986;Clark1968).The law, infact,was explicitly concerned withprotecting husbands
fromthe"mad"expenditures ofextravagant wives(see,e.g., Ryanv. Wanamaker116
Misc. 91; 190N.Y.S. 250 (1921);Saks et al. v. Huddleston36 F. (2d) 537 (1929);and
W.A.S. 1922).
357
finances."Justto obtain"a fewdollarstheycan call theirown," women

routinelyengagedin systematicdomesticfraud:some"gettheirmilliners
to send in a bill forfortydollars,insteadofthirty,thereal price,in order
to taketheextratento themselves. .. [others]overtaxtheirtiredeyesand
exhaustedbodiesbytakingin sewingwithouttheirhusband'sknowledge;
and . . . farmers'wives . . . smuggleapples and eggs into town" (Ives
1890, pp. 106, 111).
Othermethodswereeven riskier.In 1905JosephSchultzwas takento
the police courtof Buffaloby Mrs. Schultz. It seems thatMr. Schultz,
determinedto stop his wife's nocturnaltheftsof the change leftin his
trousers,set a small rattrapin the trouserpocket. About 2:00 A.M. the
trap was sprung,and next morningthe husband was taken to court.
Bench and Bar, a New York legal journal, reportedwithsome satisfac-
tionthatthejudge turneddown thewife'scomplaintand upheldtheright
of husbandsto maintainrattrapsfortheprotectionoftheirsmall change
(3 Bench and Bar 6). In anothercase, Theresa Marabella, 40 yearsold,
was sentencedto fourmonthsin a countyjail forstealing$10 fromthe
trousersof Frank Marabella, a laborerand her husband. She had spent
the moneyon a tripto New York (New YorkTimes,July14, 1921).
But "stolen"dollars were not taken only by the wives of poor men.
Indeed, one observerwas persuaded that "the moneyskeletonsin the
closetsofsomenominallyrichwomenmaybe as gruesomeas are thosein
the closets of the nominallypoor" (Salmon 1909, p. 889). While poor
women rifledtheir husbands' trouserslooking for some change, the
affluent cashlesswifeused a varietyoffraudulent techniques.Mrs. Gray,
a grandmother marriedfor20 years but withoutany money"she could
call her own," "adopted a systematicpolicyof deceitand fraudtoward
her husband. . . . When she wants to give a littlemoneyto help buy a
stovefora poor family,or to assistsome sick or starvingcreatureto pay
his rent,she tells her husband thatthe flouris out, or thatthe sugaris
low, and so gets the needfulamount."Thus, paradoxically,this"strict
churchmember,"who nevertold a falsehood,"cheatsand deceives"the
man "she has solemnlyswornto love and obey" (Ives 1890, p. 110).
Therewereotherwaysto "circumvent theholderofthepurse"(Salmon
1909, p. 889). Womenbargainedwithdressmakers,milliners,and shop-
keepersto add extraitemsto theirbills so that,when the bill was paid,
"therichman'swifemaygeta rake-off and possessa fewdollars"(Peattie
1911, p. 466). In searchof cash, some womeneven turnedto theirser-
vants,sellingthemtheirold furniture (O'Hagan 1909).A Japanesevisitor
to the United States in the 1910s was shockedto hear from"men and
womenof all classes, fromnewspapers,novels,lecturers,and once even
fromthe pulpit . . . allusions to amusing storiesof women secreting
358
Money
moneyin odd places, coaxingit fromtheirhusbands, . . . or saving it

secretlyforsome privatepurpose"(Sugimoto[1926] 1936, p. 176).9
As the consumereconomymultipliedthe numberand attractiveness
of goods-many of them targetedat a femaleaudience-the demand
intensifiedfora moredefiniteand regularhousekeepingincomeforthe
wifeand increasingly forher"privatepurse,"a freesum of unaccounted
moneyto spendforthehome,forentertainment, or on clothes,cosmetics,
perfumes,or gifts.(On the sales strategiesof departmentstores,1890-
1940, aimed at an almostentirelyfemalemiddle-classclientele,see Ben-
son [1986]; on the commercialization
of the beautyindustryin the early
20thcentury,see Banner [1983],pp. 202-25.)
Dole versusAllowance: The Allowanceas a Solution

The traditionaldoling-outmethodofsupplyingwomenwithmoneycame
underattackbythelate 19thcenturyin a battlethatcontinuedduringthe
firstthreedecades ofthe20thcentury.Anonymouslettersto theeditorsof
women'smagazinesconveyedthe moneytroublesof housewives."What
Should MargaretDo?" asked one woman whose husband in 1909 gave
heronly$50 a month(fromhis $300 salary)to runthehouse,pay all bills,
and clotheherselfand a baby girl.When she asked formore,"John...
getsveryangryand accuses herofbeingdissatisfied . .. [and tellsher]she
is always wantingsomething"(Good Housekeeping1909, p. 50).
Condemninga systemthatforcedwomento play the "mendicantbe-
fore a husband," the well-knownand widely syndicatedcolumnist
DorothyDix (1914, pp. 408-9) remarkedon theironyofa man who "will
trust[a] wifewith his honor,his health,his name, his children,but he
willnottrustherwithmoney." The availabilityofcreditwas no solution,
since it was simplyanotherformof giftmoneysupervisedby the hus-
band. Indeed, observersnotedthe "anomalous"situationin whichmen
willinglypaid "largebills . . . [of]wives and daughters"yetwereunwill-
ing "to trustthemwith the smallestamountof readymoney"(Salmon
1909,p. 889). The richwife,remarkedthewidelyread writerand theolo-
gian Hugh Black (1921, p. 58), could order"anythingfromcountless
storeswheretheyhad a chargeaccount. . . ." But often,"she could not
give ten centsto a beggar."
A bettersystemwas neededto assurewomen,as one commentator put
it,"thedivineright... to thepay envelope"("FamilyPocketbook"1910,
9 In herbest-selling
autobiography,
Sugimoto(1936)recalledherpuzzlementat this
strangeAmericancustomthatdepartedso radicallyfromtheJapanesearrangement,
where,regardlessofclass,wivescontrolled
thepursestrings.
I thankSaraneBoocock
forthisreference.
359
p. 15). Even the courtsoccasionallyagreed, refusingto treatdomestic

stealingas real theft.In a 1908 case of a wifechargedwithrobbingher
husband of small change,JudgeFurlongof a Brooklyncourtsupported
the "thief,"declaringthat "a wifehas a perfectrightto go throughher
husband'spocketsat nightand take his moneyif he failsto providefor
her properly"(15 Bench and Bar 10).
But what was a propermoneyincomeforwives? For some, the best
solutionfor"pennilesswives" was a dowryforeverydaughter(Messinger
et al. 1890). Wives seemedto prefera regularweeklyor monthlyallow-
ance. A 1910 Good Housekeepingsurveyof 300 wives foundthat 120
supportedtheallowancesystem("FamilyPocketbook").By 1915,accord-
ing to Harper's Weekly,some youngbrides,"of the ultra-modern type,"
requiredthe promiseof an allowance "beforevowingto love, honorand
obey" ("Adventuresin Economic Independence,"p. 609).
Women'smagazinesincreasingly endorsedthe allowancein theirarti-
cles and even in theirfiction.In "Her Weightin Gold," forinstance,a
shortstorythat appeared in the SaturdayEvening Post in 1926, Mrs.
Jondough,the wealthyfemaleprotagonist,declared"thatall the gowns
and diamond pins in the world were not compensationforeven a tiny
personalallowance of her veryown" (Child 1926, p. 125). That same
year,theWomen'sFreedomLeague ofSt. Louis wentfurther, sponsoring
a bill that would make a dress allowance forwives legallycompulsory
(New YorkTimes,Oct. 11). Home-economicsexpertswerein agreement.
MaryW. Abel (1921, p. 69), an editoroftheJournalofHome Economics,
assailed the dole system,arguingthat"to achieve the best resultsin the
spendingofthefamilymoney,themothershouldhave suchcontrolofthe
incomeas will ensureherefficiency as managerand buyer."Even Emily
Post certifiedthe allowance with her stamp of approval (Post 1928, p.
110).
Still,convertingfemalecurrencyfromdole to allowancewas noteasily
achieved. A 1928 surveyof 200 upper-classmenand womenfoundthat,
while 73 used the allowance system,66 stillreliedon the "old-fashioned
systemofhusbandstakingchargeofall money,payingall billsand doling
out fundsto the wifeas she asks forthem"(Hamiltonand MacGowan
1928) (the remainderhad a more progressivejoint bank account or an
undefinedarrangement).10 Husbands, it seems, were less enthusiastic
thantheirwives about the allowance. As Dix (1914, p. 409) pointedout:
"One questionthatis foughtout in a battlethatlastsfromthealtarto the
grave,in mostfamilies,is the questionof an allowanceforthewife.She
10 As described
in Harper'sMonthlyMagazine,thissurveyoffinancial
arrangements
was partof a largerstudyof different
aspectsof marriedlifeconductedunderthe
auspicesoftheBureauofSocialHygiene.Usinga preparedsetofquestions,
thesurvey
takersinterviewed 200 respondents
individually
overa periodoftwoyears.
360
Money
yearnsforit. The man is determinedthatshe shall not have it .... " As

late as 1938, whentheLadies Home Journalconducteda major national
surveyon "What Do the Women of AmericaThink about Money?"and
asked, "Should a wife have a regularhousekeepingallowance?" they
foundthat88% offemalerespondentsansweredaffirmatively, regardless
of maritalstatusor geographicallocation.And 91% of youngerwomen
(under30) were forit. Yet only48% of the wives actuallyreceivedan
allowance (Pringle1938, p. 102).
Husbands resistedtheallowancebecause it officiallycarvedouta sepa-
rate portionof theirincome and made it "hers," therebyincreasinga
woman'sfinancialcontrol.But theallowancecreatedan additionalsortof
confusion.What kind of moneywas it? If the allowance was no longer
supposed to be a dole or gift,neithercould it become real moneyor a
wage. Indeed, supportersof the allowance were carefulto distinguishit
froma wage. "To the man who says, 'But I cannotpay mywifelike a
servant,'" recommendeda writerin the Forum, "the answer must be
'Certainlynot. She is a partnerand as such is entitledto a share in the
dividends'" (Ives 1890, p. 113).
If the allowance was difficultto define,it was also hard to regulate.
Since it was not a payment,the actual amountof moneyinvolvedcould
not depend on the performanceof wifelyduties. While usually it was
expectedto be "proportioned to theearningsofherhusband,"in practice,
as a New YorkTimeseditorialpointedout, it remaineda "delicateques-
tion,"oftencreatinga "sharpdifference of opinionabout [its]size" (New
YorkTimes,Jan. 30, 1923). The uses of the allowanceremainedunclear
as well. Was it exclusivelyforthehousehold?Who "owned"the surplus,
if therewas one? Did it cover women'spersonalneeds?
The Allowanceversusa JointAccount:The Allowance

as a "Bad" Money
In February1925, ReverendHoward Melish, rectorof the Holy Trinity
Churchof Brooklyn,addressingthe New York Women'sCity Club on
the importanceof a wife'seconomicindependence,relatedan anecdote
that backfired."Yesterday,"Melish told his audience, "I asked an old
lady . . . what her idea was of a happy marriage.Withoutan instant's
hesitationshe replied 'An allowance.'" The next day, in an editorial
entitled"TheyWantMore thanThat," theNew YorkTimesexpressedthe
new criticalview on allowances: "Admitting. .. the equalityof service
renderedby wifeand husbandin . . . thefamilyunit,whyshouldtheone
ratherthantheotherhave an 'allowance'and .. . whyshouldthe'allow-
ance' be determinedby the husbandand be grantedas a favor?"Allow-
ances, concluded the editorial,"are for inferiorsfromsuperiors"and
361
thereforean inappropriatecurrencyforthe modernwoman (New York

Times,March 2, March 3).
In the 1920s,even as popularsupportforallowancesintensified, there
was also a growingcriticismoftheallowancesystemfromthosewho saw
it as an inequitableand even degradingformof domesticmoney.Chris-
tineFrederick(1919, p. 269) proclaimedita "relicofsomepasttimewhen
womenweresupposedto be too inexperienced to handlemoney."Freder-
ick, a leader of thepopular household-efficiencymovement,rejectedthe
allowance as an "unbusinesslike"schemethat underminedthe modern
goal ofrunningthehomeas rationallyas a factoryor an office.The "anti-
allowance"advocates supporteda democratic"jointcontrolofthepurse"
(Kyrk1933, pp. 182-83). The new improveddomesticmoneywas to be
shared,thusminimizinggenderas well as age inequality.Familieswere
urgedto "hold a periodiccouncilarounda table, withfrankand courte-
ous discussionofitsways and means,and withdue consideration ofhow,
and how much, each membercan contributein work, in money,in
cooperation,toward... thiswholebusinessofthehome." The fatherand
motherwould act as a board of directors,allocatingmoneyaccordingto
the diverseneeds (Winter1925, p. 185; Friend 1930, p. 112). The new
financialsystemwould also includea specifiedsumforpersonalexpenses
foreach familymember,to be consideredas a budgetaryentitlement and
not as a gift.
But how manycouplesactuallyadoptedthenew domesticdollar?Har-
per's 1928 study"Marriageand Money"foundthat,of 200 respondents,
only54 had whatthemagazinedescribedas themore"feminist" financial
arrangement: a jointbank accountor commonpurse(Hamiltonand Mac-
Gowan 1928, p. 440). In 1929, in Middletown,theLynds(1956, p. 127,
n. 24) reportedthatmostcouplesdependedon "all mannerofprovisional,
more or less bickering"financialarrangements.And some two decades
later, CrestwoodHeights, studyingsuburbanlife, discoveredthat, de-
spitedemocraticnormsdictatingcooperativespendingof the husband's
income,"the wifedoes not know,even roughly,how muchherhusband
earns." Wives still had to "manipulatetheirhouseholdallowances" to
obtain"unreported"personalfunds(Seeley,Sim, and Loosley 1956, pp.
184-85). Yet, even thoughthe actual financesof housewivesdid not
significantlyimprove,it is clear that,by 1930,thesymbolicmeaningofa
wife'sallowancewas changingfroma signofindependenceand domestic
controlto a formof financialsubmissiveness.
A Husband's Allowance: DomesticMoney in the WorkingClass

Domestic moneywas not definedonlyby genderbut also by the social
class of the household. The working-classwife, suggestedone home-
362
Money
economicstextbook,could well be enviedbywealthierwomen.Whilethe

latterseldom have "ready moneyin hand," the wifeof a workingman
often"determines the . .. financialpolicyofthefamilyand has controlof
the necessaryfunds"(Abel 1921, p. 5). Indeed, in her 1917 study,Mary
K. Simkhovitch foundthatas a family'sincomeincreased"theproportion
controlledby the wifediminishestilloftenshe becomessimplya benefi-
ciary of the husband." Paradoxically,class-in most ethnicgroups-
seemedto reversethe genderpowerstructure of domesticmoney.In her
1910 studyof Homestead, MargaretF. Byington(1910, p. 108) discov-
ered that the men "are inclinedto trustall financialmattersto their
wives." On payday,workmenturnedovertheirwages to thewife,asking
"no questionsas to what it goes for.""
In working-class families,theallowancewas usuallyforhusbandsand
children,not wives. Louise B. More's (1907) analysisof wage earner's
budgetsfoundthatan allowance for"spending-money" was made in 108
of the 200 familiesshe investigated:94 men receivedall or part of the
amountgiven,and in 29 familiesone or two childrenhad an allowance.
In most cases, it seems to have been the wifewho "doles out spending
moneyaccordingto the needs and the earningsof each" (True 1914,
p. 48). Leslie Tentler's(1982, p. 177) studyofworking-class womenfrom
1900 to 1930 concludesthat thisfinancialarrangement of working-class
familiesgranteda greatdeal of economicpower to wives, makingthe
home their "fief."Indeed, to contemporarymiddle-classobservers,it
appeared that husbands "who accept a daily dole fromtheir purse-
keepingwives are usually subject beings" (New York Times, Jan. 30,
1923).
But thesestudiesand observationsmayhave idealizedand thusoveres-
timatedthe economiccloutof working-class wives. To be sure,adminis-
teringthe familyincomeinvolvedwomenactivelyin domesticfinances,
allowing them a degree of managerialcontrol.What remainsunclear,
however,is theiractual discretionary power.'2 In the firstplace, money
managementin familieswith limitedmoneyincomeswas an arduous
task. Althoughworking-class standardsoflivingimprovedat theturnof
11The availableevidencesuggeststhatdifferent ethnicgroupsoperatedwithsimilar

domestic financial
arrangements (see,e.g., True 1914;di Leonardo1984;Bodnar1987;
researchmaterialfromMorawska 1985, and personalcommunication). Lamphere
(1986),however,suggestspossibleethnicvariations.Furtherresearchshouldbetter
illuminatetheeffectofethnicity on domesticmoney.
12 Determining theeffectofa particularintrahousehold financialarrangement
on the
relativepoweroffamilymembersis a difficult task.Not onlycan powerbe measured
in a numberof ways,butall thedimensions ofmonetary powerwithinthefamily-
whether consuming, saving,investing,ormanaging-haveveryspecialmeanings that
are culturally
and sociallyconstructed.More researchis neededto defineand under-
standtherelativedegreeofpowerofthe"cashier"working-class wife.
363
the century,familybudget studiesshow the precariousnessand uncer-

taintyof theirfinanciallives. Husbands' and children'swages went al-
mostexclusivelyforfood,clothing,shelter,and insurance.And beingthe
cashierput a heavy burdenof responsibility on wives: householdmoney
troublescould be convenientlyblamed (by familymembersas well as
outsiders)on femalemismanagement ratherthanon a tightbudgetor an
irregularlabor market(Horowitz 1985, p. 60).
More important,as soon as therewas any surplusincome,a wife's
apparentgripon thepursestringsquicklyloosened.Whiletheideal good
husbandwas indeedexpectedto turnoverall hiswages intactto hiswife,
receivingone or two dollarsa week forhis personaluse, manydid not.
Studies of New York's West Side conductedin 1914 foundthat while
"thereis a currentbeliefthattheAmericanworkingmanturnshis wages
overto his wifeon Saturdaynightand allows herto apportionall expen-
ditures,"in facthow much the wifereceivedfromthe husband'swages
and what he kept back "depends on the personaladjustmentbetween
themand not on a recognizedrule" (Anthony1914, pp. 135-36). Evi-
dence on preciselyhow the moneywas allocatedis verylimited.But the
West Side studysuggeststhattheoutcomewas usuallyriggedin favorof
thehusband.As one Italian wifeexplained:"Of coursetheydon'tgiveall
theymake. They'remen and you neverknow theirways" (Odencrantz
1919, p. 176). A studyof unskilledChicago wage earnersin 1924 found
that,whenasked about theirhusbands'weeklyearnings,overtwo-thirds
of the wives gave lesseramountsthan the actual earningsfoundon the
payroll.The investigator concludedthattheman "maynotgivehis entire
earningsto his wife,but may simplygive her the amounthe thinksshe
should spend forthe family"(Houghteling1927, p. 37).
Thus, theidealizedview ofa solidaryfamilyeconomycoordinatedand
controlledby the wife concealed competinginternalclaims formoney.
The husband's pay envelope was not always intacton arrival. Neither
were the children's.Tantalized by the attractionsof a consumerculture,
childrenincreasingly withheldor manipulatedtheirearnings.David Na-
saw (1985, pp. 131-32) found that, in the early part of this century,
wage-earningchildren"who were obedientin every otherregard did
what theyhad to to preservesome partof theirearningsforthemselves.
They lied, theycheated, theyhid away theirnickelsand dimes, they
doctoredtheirpay envelopes"(see also Zelizer 1987,pp. 97-112). While
workinggirlswere morelikelythan theirbrothersto hand theirwages
over intact,not all of themdid. Italian workinggirlson the New York
WestSide toldinvestigators how easy itwas to "knockdown"a paycheck
when theymade overtime:"Whateveryou make is writtenoutsidein
pencil. . . . That's easy to fix-you have only to rub it out, put on
whateverit usuallyis, and pocketthe change"(True 1914,p. 49; on the
364
Money
increased individualizationof children'sincome, especially after the

1920s, see Smith 1985; Ewen 1985).
Even the portionof moneythatthe wifedid receiveand controlwas
limitedto housekeepingmoney.As withwealthierwomen,theworking-
class wifehad no rightand muchless access to a personalfund.Pocket
moneyforpersonalexpenseswas a male prerogativeor a workingchild's
right.The working-classhusband'sallowance was thusa verydifferent
kindofmoneyfromtheallowanceofmiddle-classwives. Althoughpartly
allocated forusefulexpenses,food or clothingor transportation, it was
also a legitimatefundforpersonalpleasures.Indeed, KathyPeiss's(1986)
studyofleisureamongworking-class womenin turn-of-the-century New
York clearlyshows thatwhile men could affordto pay fortheiramuse-
ments,drinkingin saloons, attendingmoviesand thetheater,or buying
tobacco, theirwives had no moneyleftforpersonalrecreation.Thus,
women'smoneyretaineda collectiveidentity,whilemen'sand children's
moneywas differentiated and individualized.'3
As home-economicsexpertsbegan to encouragejoint controlof the
domesticdollar, the working-classallowance systemlost its legitimacy.
Studies of English working-classfamiliessuggestthattherewas a shift
to the middle-classsystemof housekeepingallowances forwives (Oren
1973, p. 115; Sterns1972, p. 116; Pahl 1980, pp. 332-33). Limiteddata
make it difficultto determinewhetherthe same was trueforthe United
States. In the 1920s,when theLynds(1956, p. 127, n. 24) studiedMun-
cie, Indiana, theyreportedthatit was rarefora husbandto turnoverhis
paycheckand allow his wifecontroloverthehouseholdeconomy(see also
Friend 1930, p. 108). But class differencesseem to have persisted;by
1938, accordingto theLadies Home Journalnationalsurveyon money,
only38% of women in incomegroupsunder$1,500 receivedan allow-
ance, comparedwith62% of thosein groupsover $1,500 (Pringle1938,
p. 102).
Pin Money versusReal Money: DefiningWomen'sEarnings

Whathappenedwhenwomen'smoneydid notcomefromtheirhusbands'
paychecks?When women workedfornonrelatives,whetherat home or
13
If a working-class
wifeneededmoremoney,heroptionswerelimited.Withlittle
accessto creditaccounts,sheoftenturnedtopawnbrokersand moneylenders
(seeRoss
1982,p. 590;Tebbutt1983;Ayersand Lambertz1986,pp. 203-4). Sometimes women
reliedon theiryoungerchildrenforextracash. Duringa government
investigation
of
industrialhomeworkconductedin 1918("Industrial HomeWorkofChildren"1924,
p. 22),one motherexplainedthatherlittleboyhelpedherwirerosarybeads at home
becausesheneeded"somemoneyofherown."Another motherneededfalseteethand
"thought thechildrenmightjust as wellhelpto buythem."
365
forwages, the boundarybetweenthat incomeand real moneywas still

preserved,only in different ways. In the workingclass, forinstance,a
marriedwoman's income,usuallyearnedby caringforboarders,taking
in sewingor laundry,or, amongfarmfamilies,by sellingbutter,eggs,or
poultry,did nothave thesame visibilityas herhusband'spaycheck(Jen-
sen 1980; Ulrich 1983, pp. 45-47; Morawska 1985, pp. 134-35). As her
labor was partof a woman'straditionalrepertoire of domestictasks,the
moneyshe made was mergedintothe family'shousekeepingmoneyand
usuallyspenton homeand family,forclothingor food. Legally,in fact,
untilthe earlydecades of the 20thcentury,thosedomesticearningsbe-
longed to the husband. And the courtsstaunchlyopposed convertinga
wife'smoneyinto her tangibleproperty. 14 In a growingnumberof per-
sonal injurycases, wherethe law had to decide whetherthe husbandor

thewifewas entitledto recoverfora woman'sinabilityto work,as wellas
in claims broughtup by creditors,the courtsinsistedon distinguishing
betweenthe domesticdollar and an earned wage. If a wifeworkedat
home,even ifherlabor was performed forstrangers, caringfora boarder
or nursinga neighbor,that moneywas not a real earningand therefore
belongedto her husband. Ironicallybut significantly, in some statesa
wife'sdomesticearningscould becomeherpropertybut onlyas herhus-
band's gift(Thorton1900; Rodgers1902; Warren1925).
Thus, earned domesticmoney,much like the allowance, retaineda
separateidentityas a gift,not as real money.Money earnedby married
womenin the labor forcewas also special and different. It even had its
own name. The term"pin money,"whichin 17th-century England had
meanta separate,independentincomefora wife'spersonaluse-and was
includedas a formalclause in upper-classmarriagecontracts-lost its
elitistBritishoriginsin turn-of-the-century Americaand now meantthe
supplementary householdincomeearned by wives (Stone 1977, p. 244;
Gore 1834). Still it was treatedas a morefrivolous,less seriousearning
thanthehusband's.As a 1903articlein Harper's Bazaar aptlyremarked:
"No man worksforpin-money.The veryidea makesone smile"(Leonard
1903, p. 1060).
The boundarybetween women's earned income and the husband's
salarywas also markedby theirdifferential uses. JohnModell (1978, p.
225), for instance,suggeststhat among late 19th-century, native-born
Americanfamilies,"all dollarswere not equal" and women'sincome(as
inthemid-19th
14 Starting century,
MarriedWomen'sPropertyActsgranted wivesthe
rightto own and controltheirproperty
butfocusedprimarily
on inherited property.
Marriedwomen'srightstotheirearningswereexcludedbytheactsand wereincorpo-
ratedonlyslowlyand withmuchresistance by amendmentsor in laterstatutes(see
Edwards 1893; Rodgers1902; Warren1925; Crozier1935, pp. 37-41; Shammas,
Salmon,and Dahlin 1987,pp. 88-89, 96-97, 163).
366
Money
and less freelythan the hus-

well as children's)was spent differently
bands'. Among farmfamilies,women's egg moneyand buttermoney
were distinguished fromhusbands'wheatmoneyor cornmoney(Thorn-
ton 1900, p. 188; Atkeson1929).15 Jensen(1980) suggeststhatthereex-
isted a dual economy,with women and childrenprovidingfor living
expenseswhilehusbandspaid formortgagesand new machinery (see also
Whitehead 1984, p. 112). For middle-classwomen, discreetformsof
earningpin moneyat home (makingpreserves,pickles,or pound cake,
knittingshawls or sweaters,or raisingpoultryor Angoracats) were ap-
proved, but, again, only for certaintypesof expenses:charity,forex-
ample, or "a daughter'slessonsin musicor art" (Sangster1905, p. 32).
In the 1920s and 1930s, as more marriedwomen enteredthe labor
force,theirearnings,regardlessofthesumsinvolved,werestilldefinedas
pin money,categorizedas supplementary income,used forthe family's
extraexpenses,or earmarkedby moreaffluentcouples as discretionary
"fun"money.For instance,one womentoldan Outlookreporter thatshe
reservedher incomeexclusivelyforbuyingclothes.Anotherexplained:
"We blow mymoneyon extratripsabroad, antiques,anythingextrava-
gant." Othersused theirsalaryto pay themaid'swages and saved therest
(Smith1928, p. 500). A storyin the SaturdayEveningPost, fouryears
later, reportedon the persistent"wife-keeps-all-theory" of wives' earn-
ings. Couples in which the wife was employedwere asked what her
moneywas used for:"Keeps it all forherself. .. saves it,spendsit,just as
she likes," was a commonresponse."The importantthing[is] . . . she
mustn'thelp her husband out" (Ray 1932, p. 11).
CONCLUSION
Domestic moneyis thus a very special kind of currency.It would be
to understandits changingmeanings,allocation,and uses in the
difficult
UnitedStates betweenthe 1870s and the 1930swithoutan awarenessof
thenew cultural"code" and accompanyingsocial changes.In thecase of
marriedwomen,theirmoneywas routinely set apartfromreal moneyby
a complexmixtureofideas about familylife,bya changinggenderpower
15 The relativeimportanceof gendervs. the sourceof incomein distinguishing

be-
tweenthetwokindsofmoneyremainsunclear.For instance,Thomasand Znaniecki
(1958,p. 165)suggestedthatthequalitativedifference
betweenthemoneya peasant
gotfromsellinga cow and themoneyhiswifeobtainedfromsellingeggsand milkwas
notmarkedbygenderbutbythe"different sortofvalue"representedbyeachtypeof
money:thecow was property, whileeggsand milkwereincome.Each typeofmoney
was set aside fordifferenttypesof expenses.However,since,withinthe peasant
economy, propertybelongedto a "highereconomicclass"thanincome,itis clearthat
genderdid intervenein thesocialmarkingofthetwomonies;lower-value moneywas
assignedto women.
367
structure, and by social class. Normativeexpectationsof the familyas a

specialnoncommercial spheremade anyovertformofmarketintrusion in
domesticaffairsnot onlydistastefulbut a directthreatto familysolidar-
ity.Thus, regardlessof its sources,once moneyhad enteredthe house-
hold,itsallocation,calculation,and uses weresubjectto a setofdomestic
rulesdistinctfromthe rules of the market.Familymoneywas nonfun-
gible; social barrierspreventedits conversionintoordinarywages.
But familyculturedid not affectits membersequally. Thus, gender
introduceda further typeofnonmarketdistinction in thedomesticflowof
funds:a wife'smoneywas notthe same kindof moneyas herhusband's.
When a wifedid not earn wages, gendershaped manythings.
1. The allocationofhermoney.-In the hierarchically structuredfam-
ily, husbands gave wives part of theirincome. To obtain additional
money,wives were restricted to askingand cajolingor else stealing.
2. The timingof this allocation.-It eitherhad no prescribedtiming
(dole method),so thatto obtainmoneya wifehad to ask each time,or it
followeda weeklyor monthlypattern(allowance).
3. The uses ofhermoney.-Wives' moneymeanthousekeepingmoney,
a necessaryallotmentrestrictedto familyexpensesand excludingper-
sonal spendingmoney.Pocket moneywas a budgetaryexpectationfor
husbandsand children,but notforwives. Ironically,it appearsthateven
shoplifting by marriedwomenwas oftencollectivity oriented,as women
stolefromdepartment stores"ribbonsorlaces to adornthebabies' clothes
... or oftenlittlegiftsfor[theirhusbands]"("Husband Who Makes His
Wifea Thief" 1915).
4. The quantityofher money.-Wives usuallyreceivedsmall sumsof
money.The amountofan allowancewas notdetermined bytheefficiency
or even the quantityof a wife'sdomesticcontributions but by prevalent
beliefsofwhatwas a properamount.Therefore,a largerpaycheckforthe
husband need not translateinto a raise in the housekeepingallowance.
On the basis of gendereconomics,it mightin fact simplyincrease a
husband'spersonalmoney(Oren 1973, p. 110; Land 1977).
Changes in genderroles and familystructureinfluencedthe meaning
and methodsof allocation of marriedwomen'smoney.The traditional
dole or "asking"methodbecame, as women'sconsumerrole expanded,
notonlyinefficient but also inappropriate egalitarianmar-
in increasingly
riages. The allowance, praisedas a moreequitablemethodof allocation
in the early part of the century,was in turn condemnedby home-
efficiency expertsofthe 1920sand 1930sas an unsatisfactory paymentfor
modernwives. The joint accountemergedas thenew culturalideal. (For
some recentchanges in the allocation systemof domesticmoney,see
Blumsteinand Schwartz[1985]; Hertz [1986]; Treas [1989].)
What about the uses of marriedwomen's money?In contrastto the
368
Money
variabilityof allocationmethods,the earmarkingof a wife'shousekeep-

ing incomeforcollectiveconsumptionremainedremarkablypersistent.
Despite the increasingindividualizationof consumptionpatternsand the
encouragementby home-economicsexpertsto allot personalfundsfor
each familymemberin thedomesticbudget,personalspendingmoneyfor
wives was still obtained by subterfugeor spent with guilt. (For some
recentevidenceoftheenduringdivisionbetweenwives' collectivemoney
and husbands'personalspendingmoney,see Wilson[1987].)
Gendermarkedwomen'smoneyeven when theirincomewas earned.
Women'swages were stillearmarkedas separateand treateddifferently.
A wife'spin money,regardlessof its quantity,and even whenit brought
thefamilya needed income,remaineda less fundamental kindofmoney
than her husband's wages. It was eithercollectivizedor trivialized,
mergedintothehousekeepingfundand thusundifferentiated fromcollec-
tive incomeor else treatedas a supplementary earningdesignatedeither
forfamilyexpenses(a -child'seducationor a vacation) or forfrivolous
purposes(clothingor jewelry).(For contemporary evidenceon restricted
uses of wives' earnings,see Hood [1983, p. 62].) The trivializationof
women's earningsextendedbeyondthe privatedomesticeconomy.For
the opponentsof women'slabor, pin moneywas a sociallyirresponsible
currency,a luxuryincomethatthreatenedthewages ofthereal provider
(see Kessler-Harris1982, pp. 100-101). Thus, despitestrongstatistical
evidencethatpin moneywas oftenin facta "familycouplingpin,theonly
meansofholdingthefamilytogetherand ofmakingendsmeet,"women's
earningswere systematicallystigmatizedas "money for trinketsand
trifles"(Anderson1929, p. 921).
But thecirculationofdomesticmoneywas notshapedbygenderalone.
on the liquidityof
Social class added a furtherset of social restrictions
money. The middle-classmethod of allocatinghouseholdmoneywas
reversedin the workingclass, where wives handed out allowances in-
stead of receivingthem.The working-class wife'smanagerialpowerwas
thusgreaterthan thatof her middle-classcounterpart, althoughher dis-
cretionary power may not have differedsignificantly.
Domestic money thus shows the limits of a purely instrumental,
rationalizedmodel of marketmoney,whichconcealsqualitativedistinc-
tionsamongkindsof moneyin themodernworld.16 Domesticmoneyis a
16 Ironically,
Max Weber'sownfamilyoforiginprovidedevidenceagainsthisrational
conceptionof money.Accordingto MarianneWeber(1975,p. 141),Weber'sfather
"was typicalof the husbandsof the time[1860s]. . . who neededto determine
by
themselves howthefamilyincomewas to be usedand lefttheirwivesand childrenin
thedarkas to howhightheincomewas." Helene,Weber'smother, had no housekeep-
ingallowance,"nora specialfundforherpersonalneeds."I thankMartaGielforthis
reference.
369
special money,notjust a mediumof economicexchangebut a meaning-

ful,sociallyconstructedcurrency,shaped bythedomesticspherewhereit
circulatesand by the gender and social class of its domestic"money
handlers."Age also marksdomesticmoney.In fact,betweenthe 1870s
and 1930s,children'smoneywas the subjectofmuchcontroversy within
familiesand among educationalexperts.The allowance emergedas the
proper money income for children. But it had a different meaning,
methodof allocation,and uses fromtheallowancesofmiddle-classwives
or working-classmen. Closely supervisedby parents,it was defined
primarilyas educational money, teaching childrenproper social and
moralvalues, as well as consumerskills(see Zelizer 1987).
The culturaland social "life"of domesticmoneyalso challengesthe
allegedlyirrevocabledominanceofthe"cash nexus"in themodernworld.
To be sure, Marx and Engels ([1848] 1971, p. 11) were partlycorrect
whentheyaccused thebourgeoisieofreducingfamilyrelations"to a mere
moneyrelation."Money concernsdid increasingly permeatethe Ameri-
can household.In fact,in the 1920s,some observersironicallypredicted
that the national enthusiasmforrationalizedhousekeepingand budget
makingwould turn"Home, Sweet Home" into"Home, SolventHome,"
with"Ma and Pa a couple of cash registers,and the kiddieslittleadding
machines"(Phillips 1924, p. 15). Yet, such nightmarevisionsof a com-
mercializedworldfailedto capturethecomplexity and reciprocalaspects
of the phenomenonof monetization.Money came intoAmericanhomes
butitwas transformed in theprocess,as it becamepartofthestructure of
social relationsand the meaningsystemof the family.
The case ofdomesticmoneyis onlyone example,an empiricalindicator
of a complexsocial economythat remainshiddenin the dominanteco-
nomicparadigmofa single,qualityless,and rationalizing marketmoney.
This articleattemptsto lay some of the preliminary groundworkfora
richer,alternativesociologicalmodel of special monies,one thatargues
for a pluralityof qualitativelydistinctkinds of moneyin the modern
world, with each special moneyshaped by different networksof social
relationsand varyingsystemsof meanings.No money,includingmarket
money,escapes such extraeconomicinfluences.For instance,at theturn
of the century,not only the domesticdollar but otherkinds of monies
createddifferent yetequally significantculturaland social dilemmasfor
Americansociety."Charitablemoney"raisedquestionsabout theproper
uses and allocationof moneyas a giftamong strangersor betweenkin,
whetherin the formof charity,wills, "ritual"gifts(forweddings,birth-
days, bar mitzvahs, and Christmas),or even tipping,while "sacred
money"provokeddiscussionsabout the moral qualityof money:Under
what conditionsdid moneyacquire sacred religiousor moralvalue, and
when did it become dirtymoney,definedas collectivelyor individually
370
Money
demeaning? Or consider the definitionalproblems of "institutional

money."How should moneybe allocated,regulated,and definedin the
separatesocial worldof a prison,a mentalasylum,or an orphanage?
But an inventoryof monies,howeverrevealing,providesonlya de-
scriptivecatalog. To develop a social theoryof money,we must then
explainthe sourcesand patternsof variationamongspecial monies,ex-
ploringhow various structuresof social relationsand culturalvalues
shape and constrainthe qualitativelife of different moniesby (a) ear-
markingspecifieduses of money,(b) regulatingmodes of allocation,(c)
designatingproperusers, and (d) assigningspecial symbolicmeanings.
The conceptof multiplemoniesthusraisesfundamentalquestionsabout
thecharacteristics ofsocial and culturalboundaries,suchas: (1) Whatare
the originsof boundariesbetweenmonies?What, forinstance,are the
differences betweenspecial moniesimposedbya centralauthority (as in a
prison)and moniesdefinedthroughsocial interaction (as in the family)?
(2) How do thesocial statusesoftransactors affecttheformation ofspecial
monies? (3) What determinesthe relative rigidityor permeabilityof
boundariesbetweenspecial monies?(4) What are thepatternsof conver-
sions betweenspecial monies?(5) Is therea moralrankingbetweenspe-
cial monies,as has been suggestedforprimitivemonies(see Bohannan
1959)? (6) When and how do boundariesbetweenspecial moniesbreak
down?
Developinga sociologicalmodelofmultiplemoniesis partofa broader
challengeto neoclassical economictheory.It offersan alternativeap-
proachnotonlyto thestudyofmoneybutto all otheraspectsofeconomic
life,includingthe market(see Zelizer 1988). As I show in this article,
economicprocessesofexchangeand consumption are one specialcategory
of social relations,much as is kinshipor religion.Thus, economicphe-
nomenasuch as money,althoughpartlyautonomous,are interdependent
with historicallyvariable systemsof meaningsand structuresof social
relations.
REFERENCES
Abel, Mary W. 1921. SuccessfulFamilyLife on ModerateIncome. Philadelphia:
Lippincott.
"Adventuresin EconomicIndependence."1915.Harper'sWeekly61:610.
Anderson,Mary.1929.UnitedStatesDaily, September 23. Citedineditorial,
Journal
ofHomeEconomics21 (December):920-22.
Anthony,Katherine.1914.MothersWhoMustEarn. New York:Survey.
Appadurai,Arjun,ed. 1986.The Social LifeofThings.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
Press.
versity
Atkeson,MaryM. 1919."Womenin FarmLifeand RuralEconomy."Annalsofthe
AmericanAcademyofPoliticaland Social Science 143:188-94.
Ayers,Pat, and Jan Lambertz.1986. "MarriageRelations,Moneyand Domestic
371
Liverpool,1919-39." Pp. 195-219inLabourand Love,

Violencein Working-Class
editedbyJaneLewis. Oxford:Blackwell.
Banner,Lois W. 1983.AmericanBeauty.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Barber,Bernard.1977."The Absolutization oftheMarket:SomeNoteson How We
GotfromTheretoHere."Pp. 15-31inMarketsandMorals,editedbyG. Dworkin,
G. Bermant,and P. Brown.Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.
Baric, Lorraine.1964. "Some Aspectsof Credit,Savingand Investment in a Non-
MonetaryEconomy(RosselIsland)." Pp. 35-42 in Capital,Savingand Creditin
PeasantSocieties,editedby RaymondFirthand B. S. Yamey.Chicago:Aldine.
Beecher,CatharineE. 1841.A Treatiseon DomesticEconomy.Boston:Marsh,Ca-
pen,Lyon& Webb.
Benson, Susan Porter.1986. CounterCultures.Champaign:University of Illinois
Press.
Black, Hugh. 1921. "Moneyand Marriage."Delineator98:58.
Blood,RobertO., Jr.,and DonaldM. Wolfe.1965.Husbandsand Wives.New York:
Free Press.
Blumstein,Philip,and PepperSchwartz.1985.American Couples.New York:Pocket.
Bodnar,John.1987.The Transplanted. Bloomington:IndianaUniversity Press.
Bohannan,Paul. 1959."The ImpactofMoneyon an AfricanSubsistence Economy."
JournalofEconomicHistory19:491-503.
Brown,Norman0. 1959.LifeagainstDeath. Middletown, Conn.:WesleyanUniver-
sityPress.
Byington, MargaretF. 1910.Homestead.New York:CharitiesPublicationCommit-
tee.
Cheal, David. 1988.The GiftEconomy.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
Child,Maude Parker.1926."Her Weightin Gold." SaturdayEveningPost 198:125.
Clark,HomerH., Jr. 1968.TheLaw ofDomesticRelationin theUnitedStates.St.
Paul, Minn.: West.
Collins,Randall. 1979.ReviewofTheBankers,byMartinMayer.American Journal
ofSociology85:190-94.
Cooley,CharlesH. 1913."The SphereofPecuniaryValuation."American Journalof
Sociology19:188-203.
Cott,NancyF. 1977.TheBondsofWomanhood. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
Cowan, RuthS. 1983.More WorkforMother.New York:Basic.
Crozier,Blanche. 1935."MaritalSupport."BostonUniversity Law Review15:33.
Crump,Thomas. 1981. The PhenomenonofMoney. London:Routledge& Kegan
Paul.
Delphy,Christine, and Diana Leonard.1986."Class Analysis,GenderAnalysisand
theFamily."Pp. 57-73 in Genderand Stratification,editedbyRosemaryCromp-
tonand MichaelMann. Oxford:Polity.
Di Leonardo,Micaela. 1984. The Varietiesof Ethnic Experience.Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Dix, Dorothy.1914."Womanand Her Money."GoodHousekeeping 58:408-9.
Douglas, Mary. 1967. "PrimitiveRationing."Pp. 119-45 in Themesin Economic
Anthropology, editedby RaymondFirth.London:Tavistock.
Douglas,Mary,andBaronIsherwood.1979.TheWorldofGoods.New York:Norton.
Edwards,Percy.1893."Is theHusbandEntitledto His Wife'sEarnings?"Canadian
Law Times13:159-76.
Einzig,Paul. 1966.PrimitiveMoney.Oxford:Pergamon.
Ewen, Elizabeth. 1985. ImmigrantWomenin the Land of Dollars. New York:
MonthlyReview.
"FamilyPocketbook."1910. Good Housekeeping 51:9-15.
Frederick,Christine.1919. HouseholdEngineering.Chicago:AmericanSchool of
Home Economics.
372
Money
. 1929.SellingMrs. Consumer.New York:BusinessBourse.

Friend,Mata R. 1930.Earningand SpendingFamilyIncome.New York:Appleton.
Geertz,Clifford.1973."Deep Play:Noteson theBalineseCockfight." Pp. 412-53 in
The Interpretation ofCultures,editedby CliffordGeertz.New York: Basic.
Goffman, Erving.1961.Asylums.GardenCity,N.Y.: Anchor.
Gore,Catherine.1834.Pin-Money.Boston:Allen& Ticknor.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. "EconomicActionand Social Structure: The Problemof
Embeddedness." American JournalofSociology91:481-510.
Gullestad,Marianne.1984.Kitchen-Table Society.New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Hamilton,G. V., and KennethMacGowan. 1928."Marriageand Money."Harper's
Monthly157:434-44.
Hartmann,Heidi I. 1981. "The Familyas theLocus ofGender,Class, and Political
Struggle: The Exampleof Housework."Signs6:366-94.
Hertz,Rosanna.1986.MoreEqual thanOthers.Berkeley andLos Angeles:University
ofCaliforniaPress.
Hirschman,Albert0. 1986.Rival ViewsofMarketSociety.New York:Viking.
Hood, Jane. 1983.Becominga Two-JobFamily.New York:Praeger.
Horowitz,Daniel. 1985.TheMoralityofSpending.Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniver-
sityPress.
Houghteling, Leila. 1927. Incomeand StandardofLivingof UnskilledLaborersin
Chicago.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
"HusbandWho Makes His Wifea Thief."1915.Ladies HomeJournal32:16.
"IndustrialHome Workof Children."1924. U.S. Department of Labor, Children's
BureauPublicationno. 100,Washington, D.C.
Ives, Alice. 1890."The DomesticPurseStrings."Forum10:106-14.
Jensen,JoanM. 1980."Cloth,Butterand Boarders:Women'sHouseholdProduction
fortheMarket."ReviewofRadical PoliticalEconomics12:14-24.
. 1986.LooseningtheBonds. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kahneman,Daniel, and Amos Tversky.1982. "The Psychology of Preferences."
Scientific American246:160-73.
Kelland,ClarenceBudington.1928. "WivesAreEitherTightwadsor Spendthrifts."
AmericanMagazine106:12,104-10.
Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1982. Out to Work.New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Komarovsky, Mirra.1961."Class Differences in FamilyDecision-Making on Expen-
ditures."Pp. 255-65 in HouseholdDecision-Making. Vol. 4. ofConsumer Behav-
ior. EditedbyNelsonN. Foote. New York:New YorkUniversity Press.
1967.Blue-CollarMarriage.New York:Vintage.
Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. "The CulturalBiographyof Things:Commoditization as Pro-
cess." Pp. 64-91 in The Social LifeofThings,editedby ArjunAppadurai.Cam-
bridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Kyrk,Hazel. 1933.EconomicProblemsoftheFamily.New York:Harper.
Lamphere,Louise. 1986."FromWorking DaughterstoWorking Mothers:Production
and Reproduction in an IndustrialCommunity." AmericanEthnologist 13:118-30.
Land, Hilary.1977."Inequalitiesin LargeFamilies:MoreoftheSame or Different?"
Pp. 163-76inEqualitiesand Inequalitiesin FamilyLife,editedbyRobertChester
and JohnPeel. New York:Academic.
Lea, StephenE. G., RogerTarpy,and Paul Webley.1987. The Individualin the
Economy.New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Leonard,Priscilla.1903. "Pin MoneyversusMoral Obligations."Harper'sBazaar
37:1060.
Lettersto theEditor.Good Housekeeping 51 (February1910):245.
Leupp, FrancesE. 1909. "The CooperativeFamily."AtlanticMonthly104:762-67.
Luxton,Meg. 1980.More thana LabourofLove. Toronto:Women'sPress.
373
Lynd,RobertS. 1932. "FamilyMembersas Consumers."Annalsof theAmerican

AcademyofPoliticaland Social Science 160:86-93.
Lynd,RobertS., and HelenMerrellLynd. 1956.Middletown.New York:Harcourt
Brace.
Marx, Karl. (1844) 1964. "The PowerofMoneyin BourgeoisSociety."In TheEco-
nomicand PhilosophicManuscripts of1844. New York:International.
. (1858) 1972.A Contribution to theCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,editedby
MauriceDobb. New York: International.
. (1858-59) 1973. Grundrisse. New York:Vintage.
. (1867) 1984. Capital,vol. 1. Editedby FriedrichEngels.New York:Inter-
national.
Marx, Karl, and FriedrichEngels. (1848) 1971. The Communist Manifesto.New
York:International.
May, Elaine Tyler.1980.GreatExpectations.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Mazeaud,Henri,Leon Mazeaud, and AndreTunc. 1957.Traitetheorique etpratique
de la responsabilite 5th ed. Paris: Editions
civile delictuelleet contractuelle,
Montchrestien.
Melitz,Jacques. 1970. "The PolanyiSchoolof Anthropology on Money:An Econo-
mist'sView." AmericanAnthropologist 72:1020-40.
Messinger, C. S., et al. 1890."ShallOur DaughtersHave Dowries?"NorthAmerican
Review 151:746-69.
Miller,Daniel. 1987.MaterialCultureand Mass Consumption. Oxford:Blackwell.
Mirowsky, John.1985."Depressionand MaritalPower:An EquityModel." American
JournalofSociology91:557-92.
Modell,John.1978. "Patternsof Consumption, Acculturationand FamilyIncome:
Strategiesin Late Nineteenth-Century America."Pp. 206-40 in Family and
Populationin Nineteenth-Century America,editedby Tamara K. Harevenand
MarisA. Vinovskis.Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Morawska,Ewa. 1985. For Bread withButter.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
More,Louise Bolard. 1907. Wage-Earners' Budgets.New York: Holt.
Nasaw, David. 1985.ChildrenoftheCity.New York:Anchor.
Norton,Mary Beth. 1979. "Eighteenth-Century AmericanWomenin Peace and
War." Pp. 136-61 in A Heritageof Her Own, editedby Nancy F. Cott and
ElizabethH. Pleck.New York: Simon& Schuster.
Odencrantz,Louise C. 1919.Italian Womenin Industry.New York:RussellSage.
O'Hagan, Anne. 1909."The LittleFoxes." GoodHousekeeping 49:369-74.
Oren,Laura. 1973. "The Welfareof Womenin LaboringFamilies:England,1860-
1950."FeministStudies 1:107-23.
Ostrander, Susan A. 1984. WomenoftheUpperClass. Philadelphia: TempleUniver-
sityPress.
Pahl,Jan.1980."Patterns ofMoneyManagement withinMarriage."JournalofSocial
Policy9:313-35.
Parsons,Talcott. 1967. "On the Conceptof Influence."Pp. 355-82 in Sociological
Theoryand ModernSociety.New York: Free Press.
. 197la. "HigherEducationas a Theoretical Focus."In Institutions
andSocial
Exchange,editedby HermanTurk and RichardL. Simpson.New York: Bobbs-
Merrill.
. 1971b."Levelsof Organization and theMediationof SocialInteraction." In
Institutions and Social Exchange,editedby HermanTurkand RichardL. Simp-
son. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Parsons,Talcott,and Neil J. Smelser.1956.Economyand Society.New York:Free
Press.
374
Money
Peattie,Elia W. 1911."Your Wife'sPocketbook."Delineator77:466.

Peiss,Kathy.1986. CheapAmusements. Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.
Phillips,H. I. 1924."MyAdventures as a Bold,Bad Budgeteer."American Magazine
97:64.
Polanyi,Karl. 1957. "The Economyas an Instituted Process."Pp. 243-70 in Trade
and Marketin theEarlyEmpires,editedby Karl Polanyi,ConradM. Arensberg,
and HarryW. Pearson.Glencoe,Ill.: Free Press.
Post,Emily. 1928. "KellandDoesn'tKnow WhatHe Is TalkingAbout."American
Magazine106:110.
Pringle,HenryF. 1938. "What Do the Womenof AmericaThinkabout Money?"
Ladies HomeJournal55:102.
Radin, Margaret.1987. "MarketInalienability." HarvardLaw Review 100:1849-
1937.
Rainwater,Lee. 1974. WhatMoneyBuys. New York:Basic.
Ray,MaryBeynon.1932."It'sNotAlwaystheWomanWhoPays."SaturdayEvening
Post 205:15,48-49.
Reddy,William.1984. The Rise ofMarketCulture:The TextileTradeand French
Society,1750-1900.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
. 1987.Moneyand Libertyin ModernEurope.New York:CambridgeUniver-
sityPress.
Rodgers,Helen Z. M. 1902. "MarriedWomen'sEarnings."AlbanyLaw Journal
64:384.
Ross, Ellen. 1982. " 'FierceQuestionsand Taunts':MarriedLifein WorkingClass
London,1870-1914."FeministStudies8:576-602.
Rubin,LillianB. 1976. WorldsofPain. New York:Basic.
Ryan,MaryP. 1984. CradleoftheMiddle Class. New York:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Safilios-Rothschild,Constantina.1970."The StudyofFamilyPowerStructure." Jour-
nal ofMarriageand theFamily32:539-52.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. Cultureand Practical Reason. Chicago: Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Salmon,LucyM. 1909. "The Economicsof Spending."Outlook91:884-90.
Salmon,Marylynn. 1986.Womenand theLaw ofProperty. ChapelHill: Universityof
NorthCarolinaPress.
Sangster, MargaretE. 1905."ShallWivesEarn Money?"Woman'sHomeCompanion
32:32.
Schudson,Michael. 1984.Advertising, theUneasyPersuasion.New York:Basic.
Seeley,JohnR., R. AlexanderSim, and ElizabethW. Loosley. 1956. Crestwood
Heights.New York: Wiley.
Sen,Amartya.1983."Economicsand theFamily."AsianDevelopment Review1:14-
26.
Shammas,Carole, MarylynnSalmon, and Michel Dahlin. 1987. Inheritancein
America.New Brunswick:RutgersUniversity Press.
Simiand,Francois.1934."La monnaie,realitesociale."AnnalesSociologiques, ser.D,
pp. 1-86.
Simkhovitch, MaryK. 1917.The CityWorker's Worldin America.New York:Mac-
millan.
Simmel,Georg.(1900)1978.ThePhilosophyofMoney,translated byTom Bottomore
and David Frisby.London:Routledge& Kegan Paul.
. (1908) 1950.The SociologyofGeorgSimmel,editedby KurtH. Wolf.Glen-
coe, Ill.: Free Press.
Smelt,Simon.1980."Money'sPlace in Society."BritishJournalofSociology31:205-
23.
375
Smith,Helena Huntington.1928. "Husbands,Wives,and Pocketbooks."Outlook,

p. 500.
Smith,JudithE. 1985.FamilyConnections. Albany:StateUniversity ofNew York
Press.
Sorokin,Pitirim A. 1943.SocioculturalCausality,Space, Time.Durham,N.C.: Duke
University Press.
Stansell,Christine.1986. CityofWomen.New York: Knopf.
Stearns,PeterN. 1972."Working-Class Womenin Britain,1890-1914."Pp. 100-120
in Suffer and Be Still,editedbyMarthaVicinus.Bloomington: IndianaUniversity
Press.
Stone,Lawrence.1977.The Family,Sex and Marriage.New York:Harper& Row.
Sugimoto, Etsu Inagaki.(1926)1936.A DaughteroftheSamurai.GardenCity,N.Y.:
Doubleday.
Sullerot,Evelyne.1966."Les femmeset l'argent."Janus10:33-39.
Sumner,WilliamGraham.(1906) 1940.Folkways.New York:Mentor.
Swedberg,Richard.1987."EconomicSociology:Past and Present."Theoryand Soci-
ety16:169-213.
Taussig, Michael. 1980. The Devil and Commodity Fetishismin South America.
Chapel Hill: University ofNorthCarolinaPress.
Tebbutt,Melanie.1983.MakingEnds Meet:Pawnbroking and Working-Class
Credit.
New York: St. Martin's.
Tentler,LeslieW. 1982.Wage-earning Women.New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Tilly,Louise A., and JoanW. Scott.1978. Women,Work,and Family.New York:
Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Thaler,Richard.1985."MentalAccounting and ConsumerChoice."Marketing Sci-
ence,vol. 4 (Summer).
Thomas,W. I., and FlorianZnaniecki.(1918-20)1958.ThePolishPeasantinEurope
and America.New York: Dover.
Thornton,W. W. 1900. "PersonalServicesRenderedby Wifeto Husband under
Contract."CentralLaw Journal183.
Treas, Judith.1989. "Moneyin the Bank: TransactionCosts and PrivatizedMar-
riage."AmericanSociologicalReview,in press.
True,RuthS. 1914.The NeglectedGirl.New York: Survey.
Turner,Byran S. 1986. "Simmel,Rationalisationand the Sociologyof Money."
SociologicalReview34:93-114.
Ulrich,LaurelThatcher.1983. Good Wives.New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Veblen,Thorstein.(1899)1953.TheTheoryoftheLeisureClass. New York:Mentor.
Warren,Joseph.1925. "Husband'sRightto Wife'sServices."HarvardLaw Review
38:421.
W.A.S. 1922."ChargeIt to My Husband."Law Notes26:26-28.
Weber,Marianne.1975.Max Weber:A Biography.New York:Wiley.
Weber,Max. (1922)1978.Economyand Society,editedbyGuenther Rothand Claus
Wittich.Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
(. 1946) 1971. "ReligiousRejectionsof theWorldand TheirDirections."Pp.
323-59 in FromMax Weber:Essays in Sociology,editedby H. H. Gerthand C.
WrightMills. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Weitzman,LenoreJ. 1981.TheMarriageContract.New York: Free Press.
Welter,Barbara. 1966."The CultofTrueWomanhood:1820-1860."American Quar-
terly18:151-74.
Whitehead,Ann. 1984. "'I'm Hungry,Mum.' Pp. 93-116 in OfMariage and the
Market,editedbyKateYoung,CarolWolkowitz, and RoslynMcCullagh.London:
Routledge& KeganPaul.
Wilson,Gail. 1987.Moneyin theFamily.Brookfield, Vt.: Gower.
Winter,AliceAmes. 1925. "The FamilyPurse."Ladies HomeJournal42:185.
376
Money
Wong,Diana. 1984."The LimitsofUsingtheHouseholdas a UnitofAnalysis."Pp.

56-63 in Householdsand the World-Economy, editedby JoanSmith,Immanuel
Wallerstein,and Hans-DieterEvans. BeverlyHills, Calif.:Sage.
Young,Michael.1952."Distribution ofIncomewithintheFamily."BritishJournalof
Sociology3:305-21.
Zelizer,Viviana. 1987. PricingthePricelessChild: The ChangingSocial Value of
Children.New York: Basic.
. 1988. "BeyondthePolemicson theMarket:Establishing a Theoreticaland
EmpiricalAgenda."SociologicalForum3 (Fall): 614-34.
377

The Social Meaning of Money

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Social Meaning of Money

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Social Meaning of Money: "Special Monies"

Author(s): Viviana A. Zelizer

Classic interpretations of the developmentof the modernworld

In Rossel Island, a small traditionalcommunityin the southwestern

1 BernardBarber'stheoretical guidancewas indispensablein writingthispaper.I am

342 AJS Volume 95 Number2 (September1989): 342-77

homogeneousand surelygenderless.Yet, camouflagedby the physical

2 For someexceptions, see Turner(1986),Smelt(1980),and Cheal(1988).To be sure,

padurai 1986; Miller 1987). But the "freedom"of moneyitselfis not

MARKET MONEY: A UTILITARIAN APPROACHTO MONEY

1978,p. 211) words,moneywas "thepurestreification ofmeans."It was

whichsocial relationsbetweenindividualsweretransmuted intomaterial

qualityless,absolutelyhomogeneous,infinitely divisible,liquid object,

rocallycorruptmoneyby investingit with moral, social, and religious

SPECIAL MONIES: EXPLORING THE QUALITY

was also notedbyThomas and Znaniecki([1918-20] 1958, pp. 164-65) in

Douglas, who (Douglas and Isherwood 1979) significantly advances a

5Sorokin (1943)madethesameargument in hisbrilliantanalysisofthepersistenceof

informalrules that regulateits uses, allocation,sources,and quantity.

circumventits "emptyquantitative"nature:it becomes "imbued with

ceive, or simplyconceal information fromeach otheras well. Perhaps

7 This articleis based on a qualitativeanalysisofan extensiveand diversified setof

The Domestic"Fiscal Problem":1870-1930

sellSage'sWestSide Studies;and (9) selectedgovernment documents suchas theU.S.

lished largelyas the husband's business. In her (1841) landmarkTrea-

have a bank accountand carrya cash-book,and who therefore consider

A Dollar of Her Own: DefiningWomen'sHousehold Money

rules and informalnegotiation.At the turn of the century,married

Necessarieswereso ambiguously definedthatmerchants werereluctant to riskextend-

finances."Justto obtain"a fewdollarstheycan call theirown," women

moneyin odd places, coaxingit fromtheirhusbands, . . . or saving it

Dole versusAllowance: The Allowanceas a Solution

p. 15). Even the courtsoccasionallyagreed, refusingto treatdomestic

yearnsforit. The man is determinedthatshe shall not have it .... " As

The Allowanceversusa JointAccount:The Allowance

thereforean inappropriatecurrencyforthe modernwoman (New York

A Husband's Allowance: DomesticMoney in the WorkingClass

economicstextbook,could well be enviedbywealthierwomen.Whilethe

11The availableevidencesuggeststhatdifferent ethnicgroupsoperatedwithsimilar

the century,familybudget studiesshow the precariousnessand uncer-

increased individualizationof children'sincome, especially after the

Pin Money versusReal Money: DefiningWomen'sEarnings

forwages, the boundarybetweenthat incomeand real moneywas still

sonal injurycases, wherethe law had to decide whetherthe husbandor

and less freelythan the hus-

15 The relativeimportanceof gendervs. the sourceof incomein distinguishing

structure, and by social class. Normativeexpectationsof the familyas a

variabilityof allocationmethods,the earmarkingof a wife'shousekeep-

special money,notjust a mediumof economicexchangebut a meaning-

demeaning? Or consider the definitionalproblems of "institutional

Liverpool,1919-39." Pp. 195-219inLabourand Love,

. 1929.SellingMrs. Consumer.New York:BusinessBourse.

Lynd,RobertS. 1932. "FamilyMembersas Consumers."Annalsof theAmerican

Peattie,Elia W. 1911."Your Wife'sPocketbook."Delineator77:466.

Smith,Helena Huntington.1928. "Husbands,Wives,and Pocketbooks."Outlook,

Wong,Diana. 1984."The LimitsofUsingtheHouseholdas a UnitofAnalysis."Pp.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen