‘When They See Money, They Think it's Life’: Money, Modernity and Morality in Two Sites in Rural Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I draw on archival documents and interviews with elderly Malawian men and women to elaborate a ‘philosophy of money’ very different from the mainstream classical view in social history. While social theorists in the classical Euro-American tradition have until now associated money with rationality, calculability and the draining of affect and emotion from daily life, Malawian elders looking back on the monetisation of their community see it as an agent of chaos, discord and irrational behaviour. This function of money is particularly pronounced in the realms of marriage and sexuality, as money is blamed for the perceived deterioration of relations between the genders. I argue that this view of money and economic change, while not empirically verifiable, provides a thought-provoking alternative to the tendency among Euro-American social theorists to associate money with rationalisation and the decline of emotion as a governing principle in social relations. Interviewer: Do you see that your grandchildren, or those of other people, will they have a good life like you had in the past? Esther Nambebwe: No, because the doing of today, they like wealth, this one is running after wealth, this one too, and when they are running for wealth, there they find death. (Interview with Esther Nambewe)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".