Money & society · 2008
How does this author challenge the claim that market societies undermine friendship?
The author argues that markets and friendship share voluntary relationships, reciprocity, and ethical norms, so market societies can support rather than undermine friendship. The argument concerns personal friendship and bonds among citizens; it is a philosophical case, not an empirical comparison establishing that market societies support friendship better than other societies.
Details
The abstract begins with a criticism: a society built around property rights and freedom of contract can turn relationships into commodities and weaken friendship. The author argues that this criticism misunderstands both markets and friendship.
The central premise is that market relationships and friendship are both voluntary and reciprocal: people participate willingly and give and receive in return. Both are structured and supported by ethical norms and, in turn, support those norms. The author also argues that using relationships to achieve a goal, or treating people or things as interchangeable, is not unique to markets. These features can appear to varying degrees in both market relationships and friendships. Yet a market relationship serving a practical purpose does not mean that the people involved are merely tools. Markets and friendship also have corresponding virtues and vices.
On this basis, the author concludes that market societies provide a more secure setting for personal friendship and bonds among citizens than any other developed form of society. This is a philosophical argument based on comparing the character of these relationships. The abstract reports no participant sample, measurements, or empirical comparison that would establish that broad superiority claim.
What do you think?
Good conversations begin with curiosity.
You can read comments without an account. Sign in to write.
Loading comments…