Abstract
In regard to the purpose of money use, economic theory provides a functionalist answer, while a dominant sociological view focuses on culture. However, Simmel noted the paradoxical nature of money in this respect. Money brings together both quantity and quality; therefore, it simultaneously has different potentialities for its usage. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis by using a representative sample (n = 2000) of the population in Austria to explore the potentialities of money usage. We found seven factors: freedom, community, status, institutional control, conflict, work-related control and household control. A discussion of the factors reveals the simultaneous, ambiguous existence of the qualitative and quantitative potentialities of the usage of money. We conclude that the ambiguity of money can only be described in all its contradictoriness by distinguishing between the concrete earmarking money for specific social purposes (Zelizer) and the potentially unspecific, open usability for alternative concrete or fictional purposes (Simmel).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
