Innovations in information technology, payment methods, and financial concepts are reshaping the foundations of contemporary social life. Photo: IC PHOTO

In classical sociology, monetary studies holds a nuanced position. On one hand, money and its circulation are fundamental concerns within sociology, serving as a key area of development in the discipline’s conceptual and intellectual frameworks. Money plays a critical role in most significant sociological discussions on major issues. On the other hand, while money is consistently present, it seldom occupies center stage. Sociological reflections on money often crystallize into vague, basic premises, becoming standardized and marginalized within the sedimentary layers of sociological concepts.

Nevertheless, sociological reflection on money has remained persistent, with a subset of this intellectual output drawing from classical sociological theory. Sociologists like German sociologist Georg Simmel, for instance, interpreted money from cultural and historical perspectives, viewing it as a constitutive element of modernity. Empirical research in subfields such as cultural sociology and economic sociology has also contributed to our understanding. Scholars like American sociologist Viviana A. Zelizer have emphasized the profound impact of money—due to its role as a universal equivalent and interchangeable medium—on social change. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that social relationships, moral norms, and social structures also influence money, shaping its meaning and usage.

Even if the theoretical appeal of these viewpoints is set aside, the creative opportunities and intellectual value contained within emerging monetary practices offer fertile ground for intellectual exploration. China’s emergence as the world’s largest cashless society marks a historic transformation, prompting critical sociological reflections on money. To fully understand and engage with this revolution, it is vital for us to understand and grasp its cognitive patterns, practical features, and social consequences, both empirically and theoretically.

Three aspects of money: special commodity, cultural symbol, ‘vital object’

Money is the key to understanding modernity. Classical theorists fully recognized its immense potential to alter human modes of production, as well as the overall structure of society. As a fundamental element of capitalist systems, money—alongside the market—acts as the genetic blueprint of modern society. Studying money, then, is akin to decoding the DNA of modernity. Scholars like Marx distilled the nature of money as a general equivalent, and the profound relationship between this special commodity and the trajectory of human history laid the foundation for the classical narrative of modernity in social theory.

Economic sociologists have shifted the focus of monetary studies away from the overarching framework of modernity to money’s role in everyday life. Scholars like Zelizer have pointed out that while money indeed has the characteristics of an abstract value scale and a general equivalent, monetary behavior is embedded in concrete social spaces and relationships. Money is not merely an economic tool; it also operates as a moral practice and a symbolic system within a cultural framework. Through financial transactions, individuals construct social relationships and impose certain social moral norms upon the symbols of money. In other words, money and emotions are not mutually exclusive.

The post-humanist paradigm challenges the binary opposition between subject and object, reinstating the materiality of things in social science research. In the context of digital currencies and other new forms of money, it delineates a third perspective on money—beyond its roles as a special commodity or a cultural symbol—by conceptualizing money as a “vital object.” This interpretive approach integrates insights from linguistics, science and technology studies, and ethnomethodology, shifting the focus from “users of money” to “money as a socially alive entity.”

This shift emphasizes the materiality of money, treating it as a tangible entity that exists, circulates, and transforms within the social world, interacting with various technological configurations and contributing to the construction of social realities. Scholars in the “vital objects” school have developed theoretical frameworks focusing on three aspects: money as a communicative tool in negotiation, as a procedural mechanism in transactions, and as the material foundation of payment. In this view, money transforms into an ambiguous yet deeply embedded presence in everyday life—both an abstract medium of exchange and an integral component of unarticulated social behaviors and material practices.

A common thread running through these perspectives is the issue of abstraction. Classical social theorists typically approach money in highly abstract terms, analyzing its instrumental role in societal transformation amid modernity, including its contributions to the alienation of labor value, the individualization of social relations, and the rationalization of everyday life.

Cultural and economic sociologists who view money as a cultural code build upon this abstraction but introduce the concept of “embeddedness.” They argue that even in its abstract form, money is embedded in social relationships—the two are mutually constitutive. Consequently, social ties can shape the meaning and value of money.

Scholars who conceptualize money as a “vital object” take this argument a step further by emphasizing its concrete materiality. They examine how money, as a form of physical and technological infrastructure, affects the experience of its use in market transactions. They also focus on the primary agents of economic exchanges, such as buyers and sellers, exploring how payment interactions shape economic behavior.

Monetary revolution: new topic in China’s monetary studies

In the contemporary era, innovations in information technology, payment methods, and financial concepts are reshaping the fundamental structure of social life, driving a groundbreaking monetary revolution. As a global leader in mobile payment technology and digital currency innovation, China stands at the forefront of this transformation, home to the largest cashless society in human history, the most cutting-edge monetary innovations, and the most dynamic public engagement with money. This revolution necessitates an update in sociological knowledge to better understand new monetary perceptions and practices.

A key hallmark of the monetary revolution is the decline of cash and the rise of digital currency—two forms of money with fundamentally different structures, social meanings, and effects. Broadly speaking, digital currency differs from cash in three distinct ways: traceability, reliance on smart devices, and transactional virtuality.

First, digital currency exists as digital information. Behind every digital payment lies a string of numbers—rendering digital money intangible, weightless, and invisible—yet it remains controllable, computable, and mathematically analyzable. Its digital nature also ensures that transactions leave records, making it inherently traceable.

Second, despite its perceived virtuality, digital currency remains dependent on physical infrastructure.

Lastly, the virtuality of digital currency transactions is most evident in their representation as numerical characters displayed on smart device screens. In this sense, digital currency is shaping a new form of sociality—one that is redefining identity and social connections in the real world.

At the same time, the monetary revolution also signifies a transformation in how money generates meaning through new social mechanisms. The cognitive interaction rules and technological configurations that shape monetary actions are undergoing a subtle reorganization.

At a macro level, digital currency and mobile payments still rely on traditional, state-organized circulation and settlement systems. However, at a micro level, they have reshaped the intersubjectivity of transacting parties and the infrastructure of transaction devices—a shift that can be described as a transformation in the semiotic mechanisms of money.

First, money functions as a transaction certificate, contingent on a shared understanding between parties—a form of intersubjectivity in money. In the digital era, transacting parties actively adapt and synchronize their behaviors, developing new cognitive and interactive patterns, which will help construct new transactional conditions.

Second, the monetary revolution has fundamentally altered the infrastructure underpinning monetary actions. A set of technological solutions and financial operations, independent of traditional banking systems, is replacing the conventional cash-based system. These innovations integrate the internet, information technology, and algorithmic processing, embedding seamlessly into everyday life through smartphones. Beyond mobile phones and POS systems, various smart devices now facilitate transactions, including facial recognition payment systems promoted by major tech companies. As a result, biometric data has emerged as the latest payment tool, further liberating individuals from physical payment devices such as phones, bank cards, and wallets, and further intertwining biological identity with financial transactions.

Advocating sociological research on money through the lenses of “changes in its overall form” and “shifts in its semiotic mechanisms” requires a close examination of its everyday use. This entails focusing on its material foundations and the intersubjective understanding between transacting parties. Researchers should explore how evolving monetary forms reshape transactional dynamics and reconfigure money’s symbolic functions.

Exploring digital currency in Chinese context

China’s proactive exploration of the digital renminbi (e-CNY) reflects a pivotal moment in monetary development, where competition among different forms and modes of currency circulation is reshaping daily life and influencing broader societal trajectories. This calls for a comprehensive sociological examination of the relationship between money and society.

Beyond macro-level discussions on money’s role in social transformation and its significance within specific social relations, monetary research in the Chinese context should focus on examining the concrete processes of its usage. It should focus on real transaction scenarios, analyzing the intersubjectivity between money and individuals, which would serve as a valuable supplement to studies on digital payments and the adoption of digital currencies.

The impact of digital payments on financial services extends to business activities such as entrepreneurship, resource optimization, and credit access, making it an important lens for analyzing financial inclusion and inclusive growth in the digital economy. Given its inherently interdisciplinary nature, monetary studies should engage with insights from multiple fields, integrating diverse methodologies to deepen its perspectives. This approach will better capture the complexity of contemporary monetary phenomena.

Li Rongyu is an associate research fellow from the School of Social Development at East China University of Political Science and Law; Liu Zixi is a professor from the School of Sociology and Anthropology at Xiamen University.