My Groups Progress Through Inquiry

Throughout working on this inquiry project, both of my group members and I have been exploring different avenues of this topic. Each of us were assigned specific questions that we were to try and answer about our topic, through our individual research. During this process we have all been realizing just how difficult it is to find sources and concrete research on this topic. Given the fact that our main question is “what would the world be like without money?” is a hypothetical question, research on this topic is limited. Even with these constraints, I believe my group and I are doing a great job so far evaluating the possibilities and picking apart this topic.

Ellana’s job in in this inquiry process is evaluating the questions: Psychology between owing someone something, why as humans do we need to be paid back? And was there a turning a point for money to come into existence? One thing I’ve noticed since reading Ellana’s posts is that she has a great line of clear thinking that goes into her writing, you can really she the definitive avenues she choses to go down throughout her research and writing. There is a great amount of detail she presents and lots of intriguing questions she asks to further her writing process. So far, I think she is doing a great job with her part of this inquiry project. One suggestion I might have for her is to explore different areas of thinking, try and piece things that seem unrelated to the topic into new directions of her writing.

Larissa’s job in this inquiry process is evaluating the questions: How did currency develop in cultures? And how did bartering turn into currency? One thing I’ve noticed since reading Larissa’s posts was how great her research is and how much she is able to relate things from her sources into answering her specified inquiry questions. However, I am beginning to realize a narrowing of the topic instead of a broadening. I realize this is because she has the challenging job of taking fact based material and trying to turn it into something more abstract or create a new line of thinking while still remaining on topic and within the confines of her specified questions. She has given great detail so far in her writing and I feel like if she could continue this same way of writing while branching out a little more, she could accomplish a lot through her writing on this topic. One word of advice I would give to her would be to not to be scared to go completely out of range in her research from what she has been typically sticking to At this point our questions will be changing no matter how hard we try and that’s okay. It will allow for more opportunities and knowledge on exploring different angles of this theoretical society and its true potential.


A Reflection on Reflection

The three parts I found to reflection are identify, analyze, and naming. One question I have is throughout the reflection, who am I addressing? Myself? And if so, is my now self addressing my future self? Another question I have is what is a vignette? How does it pertain to writing exactly? My interpretation of it it to not rely and base writing simply off the moment or event, it shouldn’t be a narrative, but more so an expansion and analysis of what happened or what is at hand, not simply explaining the event itself. Reflection is more so about the meaning behind what happened, not so much telling what happened. The interpretation part of reflection is typically the most difficult. Interpretation is like looking at the meaning behind the meaning and looking at a specific event in a contradictory perspective. For part three, the naming or identifying is the part where you piece together the connections between the other two parts. I also is working forwards finding the larger learning from the event of experience. Another way to look at this would be the word articulate.

Extending Ideas and Understanding a Writer’s Frame

Upon my writing for Inquiry Logs 1 and 2 and approaching Log 3, “Extending Ideas” is one of the key components of this process. My topic, Money’s Connection to Humanity, I have been searching for credible sources and acknowledging the fact that I have to build my own ideas on top of the ideas of others who have already evaluated this topic. It is extremely important when extending upon others ideas, that one doesn’t have a single minded view or filter to the ides. It is vital that the ideas you extend upon have multiple view points. This goes along with understanding the writer’s frames. The writer’s frame is kind of like the lens in which the writing is viewed through. It is the writer’s focus point of theme or persuasion of the piece. Every piece of writing should have a good frame or view point through which it is seen.

Perspectives on a Moneyless Society

There are many possibilities when it comes to a society and its economy. In our society we have a strong focus on money and the possibilities it can open for us. But imagine a world without it. Do you think it is even possible? Maybe it could be if money never came into existence? But could there still be any chance of converting to a world without it, or is it too late? These are just a few of the questions I have found I am asking myself while inquiring about this topic. The issues at hand for this topic are: Is a world without money a realistic possibility in today’s society? If there were no money, would we have an alternative type of currency? Or would be simply use a trade system? And if there were no money, could that potentially limit the advancement of technology today?

In Jacques Maritain’s, A Society Without Money, he talks about a theoretical society being converted from one based on money in its transition to a world where trade is used and money is seized by the government. He says, “Trade with other countries, who live under the regime of money, requires that our State possess a supply of money kept in a special fund to which it alone will have access.” To me the frame and focus through which he is speaking is almost communistic. He is speaking about total government control of money and having the people run on a trade system. A society where any money used in trade with other countries would be taken by the government and they would have total control over it. I believe this relates to my inquiry because it shows one way of a society being run without money. This could have a very negative impact on the people of such a society. The compliance of citizens to the government is really at stake in a situation like this. One question I have for this theoretical situation is how would one anticipate people going along with government being in complete control of money and the economy? Would members of such a society trust the government to keep the peace and develop a trade system? Or how might people stay motivated to work if they aren’t getting paid?

Another source I found on this topic was on the article “No More Money” this author claims that without money, “There would be no rich or poor. People don’t need to work hard because they don’t need to have lots of money to spend for their daily needs. They just need to hunt for their food. There will be no war. No racists, too, because there’s no supreme race or blood. Without money, there’s equality.” I believe the issue at hand with this statement is people working hard. Who is to say whether or not people would have to work hard? There may be people who are used to never having to work who suddenly are forced to work. Or for others, those who work excessively will no longer have to work so hard because their world won’t be based off of solely how much money they have to make. The focus or frame this writer has is on a society being more equal if money were eliminated. They are trying to explain how life would be more simplistic and reasonable if money didn’t exist. Theoretically, there would be more peace in the world without money. I feel like this relates to my inquiry because it is a different view on how a society without money would affect the people. This person believes that without money, people would have a better work ethic, but a more reasonable level of how hard they have to work. One question I have for this writer would be, if money weren’t the determining factor in class or status, would something else not just take its place creating different classes? Would there really be equality or are we as a society doomed to inequality no matter the object, money or something else?

One very interesting article I found was on the Venus Project. This is a theoretical society developed by a man who truly believes in a thriving society without money. He claims that “It appears that the real wealth of any nation is in its natural resources and its people who are working toward a more humane life-style through the elimination of scarcity. All social systems, regardless of the political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social mores, ultimately depend upon natural resources…” This is yet another view on how and what or society really depends upon. This writer’s focus and frame is on the fact that we don’t actually rely on money, we rely on our own natural resources to which most of which don’t even have a price. I believe this relates to my inquiry because he believes that a society without money could work due to the fact that we are already provided with the materials we need to survive. And that these necessary things are already provided to us at no cost. One question I have for this writer is, what would happen to the society if people became greedy with these natural resources? What and who would mediate between who gets what and how much of it they get? Would a trade system have to be brought into existence in order to sustain equality?

One last source I found was by Paul Piff. He wrote an article and conducted a seminar called “Does Money Make You Mean?” I this article it states, “through surveys and studies, Piff and his colleagues have found that wealthier individuals are more likely to moralize greed and self-interest as favorable, less likely to be prosocial, and more likely to cheat and break laws if it behooves them.” The issue at hand here is, could money be poisoning our minds? Has our society conformed to a more selfish and immoral way of life because of the prevalence of money in the importance of our every day lives? I believe the Piff’s focus and frame in this article is to explain that as much as we as a society love and appreciate everything money does for us, is it morally justifiable? He tries to explain how psychologically money has a negative affect on the mind and it drives us to do things we wouldn’t be as likely to do without the influence of money. This article applies to my inquiry because it addresses the psychology behind money’s affects on our society and a person in general, through poles and statistics. One question I have for Piff would be, how would you suggest dealing with these psychological affects? Do you think they are inevitable whether or not money is the object of selfishness or if anything could take its place? Also, do you think people would be more generous and law biding if money weren’t so influential in society, or even nonexistent?

What is at stake with all of these findings is the potential for a society without money. There are many people who truly don’t believe in this idea and find it completely unrealistic. However, there are people who have hope in bettering society and hope to stray away from a society based so heavily on money. I hope that in further researching this topic, I will find better ways to expand the possibilities of a society such as this.