Banknotes have existed in England since the 16th century. The earliest banknotes were handwritten receipts issued by goldsmiths with whom individuals made deposits of gold coins. Each goldsmith would honor only his own receipts but the addition of the words “or bearer” after the name of the depositor allowed the notes to be exchanged and circulated among the public in a limited fashion. In 1694 the Bank of England was established and began to issue bank notes that also acted as receipts for the deposit of physical gold. During the 18th century the bank began to move toward the use of pre-printed notes, gradually standardizing them and reducing the amount of information that was filled in on each individual note by the cashier issuing the receipt. England went off the gold standard several times during wars between the formation of the Bank of England and 1931 when it finally abandoned the gold standard altogether.[1] Consider this bit of circular logic from the Bank of England: “Exchange into gold is no longer possible and Bank of England notes can only be exchanged for other Bank of England notes of the same face value. Public trust in the pound is now maintained by the operation of monetary policy, the objective of which is price stability.”[2]
With the standardization of banknotes issued by the Bank of England, the notes themselves have become a more identifiable product. This “product” must be produced just like any other and involves the sourcing of materials, including paper, cotton, ink and even metal for the small security threads that are included in the modern notes. Considering the production of these notes from the perspective of Robbins’ article brings to mind the far-reaching scope of not only the sourcing of these materials, but of the labor required, not only to produce the raw materials and transport them to the printing presses, but also to design the notes, approve the designs and then to physically manufacture the notes. Perhaps the inconceivable scope of this process has contributed to the Bank not discussing any of it on their website; after all, the Bank officials are not the type of intellectuals that Robbins proposes to task with the contemplation of the ramifications of such complexities.
Robbins’ example of the user of the kettle being the “beneficiary of an unimaginably vast and complex social whole”[3] is not only applicable to the use of the banknote but must be expanded upon when considering the utility of the note itself. Whereas the user of the kettle reaps the benefits of the kettles labor (a very specific payoff), the user of the banknote not only has the ability to utilize the outcome of all of the labors that have gone into the production of the note, but because the note itself represents the ability to gain access to the other products and services rather than performing actual labor, it allows the bearer access to the labor of any products/he chooses and by corollary, the ability to reap the benefit, not only of the labor of that potential kettle, but also the benefit of all of the labor that went into producing it.
By extrapolating Robbins’ concept of access to the labor of a product which is itself a benefit of the labor of an immeasurable supply chain, to encompass the potential of a banknote in its ability to signify any and all products and therefore any and all labor and supply chains, the banknote becomes the ultimate symbol of power. A sense of this power is conveyed on the bank of England’s website in the FAQ section discussing banknotes:
Are old Bank of England notes worthless?
No; all Bank of England notes retain their face value for all time.[4]
This assertion seems a fitting point of entry into Ali Smith’s novel, Hotel World. In fact, much like specific items of American currency, specific serials and designs of Bank of England notes can be worth more than the face value, especially by collectors. For Clare, this certainly becomes true with the five pound note she is given by Duncan, even though her note is a standard issue.
So how does the face and permanent value of the note compare to the characters it is associated with? For Clare, “it’s worth more than anything” [5], symbolically. The fact remains that the note’s value remains “five pounds” no matter the significance it holds for her. But it’s importance increases as something that Clare can hold. For Sara, it is a representation of her missing place in society. Her human value is equivalent to value of her exchange of work for money, and money for goods. When Clare withholds the five pounds from circulation, Sara’s value becomes five pounds. But the five pounds is only valuable to Clare because it is something that was owed to her sister. If Duncan had bet Sara a cheeseburger or a bottle cap, would it still be as valuable to Clare? It is very likely that as long as it was a tangible item, it would hold infinite value for Clare, even if it was something comparatively worthless.
Clare first mentions the five pound note in the third paragraph of her tirade, stating “& since there was the five pound note” [6]. The five pound note exchanged hands once, in the time we see it, from Duncan to Clare, and it’s very clear that the exchange is much more symbolic than it is an actual purchase or return on a bet. Duncan has been holding on to this note since Sara’s death, folding it into a little square to the point where it loses its recognizability [7]. It isn’t until Clare unfolds it that she discovers what it is and what it means to Duncan. For Duncan the five pound note represents a debt that he will never be able to pay, and the guilt associated with it. After he gives it to Clare, it becomes a sacred object to her, something of Sara’s that she can hold on to that isn’t intangible frass, such as dust with Sara’s dead skin cells, or the dried detritus of Pepto from the bottom of the cup she used.
Clare’s relationship with money is dependent on it’s value in comparison to Sara. When Else leaves “her share” from the money that was given to her as she sat on the stairs, Clare doesn’t even respond to it [8]. The money isn’t hers, and it isn’t Sara’s, therefore it holds no value. The wealth isn’t valuable to her unless it is tied to Sara. This is echoed in the response to the trophies that her father tries to throw away, even though they are not necessarily valuable items, to Clare they are worth more because they were Sara’s possessions [9]. When Sara is removed from circulation, her value in society is decreased, as she no longer contributes to the flow of money.
To Clare, Sara’s worth is incapable of decreasing. However, when the five pound note is removed from circulation, it never loses its value, and has the potential to increase based on any significant features it may have. Who knows, with England’s pending switch to plastic notes in 2016, cloth based notes may have more worth than their face value.
[1] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/history.aspx
[2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#general
[3] Robbins, 84.
[4] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#general
[5] Smith, 216
[6] Smith, 185
[7] Smith, 205
[8] Smith, 206
[9] Smith, 192-195
Interesting discussion of the value of money. It reminds me of the copper wire given to the Africans in Heart of Darkness. Even though the colonial powers said it was valuable, the wire actually had no value because the Africans were unable to trade it for food. We mentioned in class that gold, for example, is only valuable because someone says it is. It is somewhat hard to find and then extract from the earth, but it seems to me that gold has primarily retained its value because it is shiny and can be hammered or melted into pretty things, so people want to possess it. Of all the metals we can mine, gold has the fewest problems -- it's not too heavy and it doesn't tarnish easily. Primarily, though, its value stems from the fact that it's shiny and looks excellent as a sword or as an ancient death mask or as jewelry to adorn clothing. It reflects light -- so it creates a sense of awe when we see it encasing a statue or as trim on a building. It has a sublime quality. In our era, gold is no longer used directly as currency nor is it the real currency behind the paper that served as its convenient substitute. Now currency is a certain type of paper issued by a government and is valuable because we say it is; therefore, it can be used to buy things, like gold for example.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you discussed the change in value of any tangible item as it is passed from one person to another. Not only does the value hold different meaning for different people, but it evokes different feelings for each person. For Duncan, for example, the 5 pounds evokes immense guilt and terrible memories but for Clare, it evokes a sense of promise or pride. While there is no doubt that Clare misses her sister terribly, that 5 pounds is able to serve as a reminder of Sara's adventurous and fun-loving spirit. And although her death was tragic, the immediate moments leading right up to her death were filled with an inexplicable carefree happiness. Even though the bank note evoked drastically different emotions and its meaning was incredibly different to both Duncan and Sara, one common thread is that the value of that banknote was worth far more than the 5 pounds that it stood for the both of them. Just as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's 5 pound banknote is another man's fountain of eternal wealth and happiness.
ReplyDeleteI think you both make an excellent point in pointing out the ability of an item to have more than just one value. I really enjoyed your reading of the 5 pounds note as, having value in different ways to each of the characters in the novel. I think that it exemplifies Robbins' ideas very strongly as well. To the worker who places electric tea kettle after electric tea kettle in boxes the tea kettle signifies the pennies he will earn per day to help feed his family. However, to the housewife it represents, having a cup of tea after her morning chores as a break or kind of reward. However, the housewife's reward may seem supercilious in comparison to the meaning it holds for the sweatshop laborer who produced it, who sees it as a means to an end to feed and support his family. Just as Sandra points out that the copper wire given to the workers in Heart of Darkness hold little value because, like the electric tea kettle, they are only symbolic of what the men really need, which is food to survive. They only see the wire in terms of what it can get them. It holds value because they are told in has value, similar to the 5 pound note whether that value be monetary or intangibly personal.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this really thought-provoking introduction to the bank note! You mention that the Bank of England doesn't readily offer information on the sources of the materials and labor that go into the making of the notes. One obvious reason for this is to prevent counterfeiting, but your discussion also makes me think that there is some intentional mystification going on. You all discuss the mechanisms by which a bank note comes to be a universal exchange value--when in fact it is made of fairly ordinary materials (cloth, paper, ink). So, some suspension of reality needs to take place to allow a piece of paper to have the value that it does. By foreclosing the note's material and bureaucratic origins, can central banks and governments not maintain the mystification of origins that is money? Interestingly, it seems that this conversation is pointing out how the novel takes that mystification of money as a use value and expands it out: money isn't just exchangeable, but takes on other mystical and "sacred" qualities. In other words, maybe Smith's novel plus the historical insights that Jerremy and Julie have offered take the signification of the bank note out of its prescribed parameters (those that, say, governments want to create) and show us that money is unmoored just all signifiers.
ReplyDeleteYour blog has me contemplating as to whether the commodification of all things coupled with the fact that each item then has a different meaning and/or value is not also a major part of the sweatshop sublime. It adds many layers of identity and value before one even begins to contemplate production. Also, it is very interesting to me that currency's value is determined by the government producing it, but that government's value is based on several other factors which then globally confirm or reject that promised value.
ReplyDelete