Money & Collective Intentionality:

The application of Searle’s Social Ontology to Money

Alberto D’Ansi Mendoza EspañaPhD CandidateYork University

Outline of Presentation

The Major Themes:1)The Problem2)So what? Equivalently, why do we care?3)The Method4)The Fundamental Aspects of the Solution

The Problem: the Nature of Monetary Institutions

• What motivates the problem?– The debate over the nature of money.• Ingham’s response:

– As a credit theorist1) Money is credit denominated in a unit of account2) Unit of account assigned by collective Intentionality in

act of sovereignty– Ingham’s answer can be categorized in accordance with two

fundamental questions any theory of money must answer: I. What is money & II. How is money produced

Institutions under Searle’s defense of social ontology

The Schematic Connection of Collective Intentionality & Action

Pre-linguistic collective intentionality

Linguistic collective intentionality

Schematic Connection between Collective Declaration & Action

The Problem

• Assuming Ingham’s ontology of money is correct, only the state can count as being a monetary institution.

• Source of the problem:– Ingham’s interest are primarily empirical, whereas

Searle’s interest in ontology are primarily logical.– The difference based on 2 senses of ‘general’:

1) Empirical sense – “tends to be the case”2) Logical sense – the answer to “what do certain cases have

in common in order to belong to the same kind/class

The Problem (cont’d)

• Innes’ theory of money uses ‘general’ in a logical sense, which is consistent with Searle

• The Whole Problem:How are monetary institutions qua monetary institutions created & maintained under Searle’s social ontology while consistent with a credit theory of money qua money

So What?

1. A theory of monetary systems2. A theoretical framework for incorporating

the nature of money & nature of institution3. Ontology of capitalism

Connective Analysis

• What is it in the context of money & monetary institution (i.e., what is its significance to our problem)?1) Money & Monetary Institutions exist2) What is money & a monetary institution (simply)?3) They are both analyzed through genus & specific

difference, & these establish the base for further implications.

4) Monetary Institutions can be shown to be dependent on money.

Connecting our fundamental facts with our fundamental problems

• Suppose we started with the assumption, money does not exist instead of money does exist. What then is the corresponding question? Two alternatives:I. What is money that does not exist? OrII. Why does money no longer exist?

Ontological Schematic Connections

The Strategy for getting the Main Results

Answer the what with respect to:1) Money & Quantities of Money2) Institutions3) Monetary Institutions

and show the logical and ontological connection between the answers through their analytical definition.

Money & What follows from Money

• The analytical definition of money:– Money is an entitlement to demand satisfaction

for paying debt by credit in virtue of mutual indebtedness

• Implications of money pertinent to (continuous) quantities of money:– Being as much a creditor of … as – Having the capacity to set-off debts, i.e. having

worth

Institutions under Searle’s defense of social ontology

• Have already discussed the nature of institutions under Searle in setting up the problem, but a few remarks are still necessary

• First, the nature of monetary institutions begins with the assumption that language has been created and is maintained, which entails all the assumptions made by Searle.

Institutions under Searle’s defense of social ontology (cont’d)

• Second, one assumption not included nor discussed by Searle’s defense of social ontology pertains to quantities of money.

• Thus, I rely on Walter Freeman’s (neurocognitive scientist) observation that through intentional action (similar enough to Searle’s view) we can count and measure, and operate over quantities

• The significance: quantities & operations over quantities are included in representational content

Institutions under Searle’s defense of social ontology (cont’d)

• Third, the representational content does not have to consist of a mere proposition, instead it can also have the meaning of speech acts.

• e.g. of mere proposition: The cat is on the mat• e.g. of speech act: We agree that you have a

debt. This contains a proposition also ‘you have a debt’, but the speech act is not a mere proposition.

Comparison of Proposition & Speech Acts as content in relation to Schematic

Connection between Collective Declaration & Action

What makes an Institution be about Money?

• First, the institutional constraints– A system of declarations– The system is introduced in a collective manner

• Second, the content of the declarations must be about money:1.A mutuum of quantities of money, which are

denominated in a unit of account2.Transferring credit & settling debt (both

denominated in a unit of account)

The Types of Declarations that Characterize a Monetary Institution

• Creation of Monetary Institution :– Creating a mutuum of money & quantities of money:

I. A collective approval of the contract that is denominated in a unit of account

II. A declaration to open an account under someone’s name• Maintenance of Monetary Institution:

I. Maintaining an existing account by collective confirmation of:

1. Having transferred credit, which in turn is fulfilled by endorsement of an order that was put forward

2. Having settled debt, which in turn is fulfilled by declaration of release of a request that was made

II. Creating new/additional mutuum of quantities of money

Timeline for the Declarations of the Creation & Maintenance of a

Monetary Institution

Creation of a Mutuum of

Money

Maintenance of Quantities of Money

Creation of Quantities of

Money

Creation of a Monetary Institution Maintenance of a Monetary Institution