<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>The social Theory of Georg Simmel</title>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <forname>Nicholas J.</forname>
            <surname>Spykman</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1024612627</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>MONEY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 227 
ore 
ion 
of 
ter- 
se. 
atic 
1Ce, 
in- 
5b- 
de- 
ion 
‘fic 
de- 
Jsl- 
5 1t 
sto 
ex- 
ing 
\CO- 
t of 
~ific 
SOT. 
imi- 
lom 
also 
hit 
and 
a SO 
our 
:nd- 
29ANS 
of our possessions. They mean an extension of the ego, an 
enlargement of the sphere of the individuality. An external 
object would be without significance if it could not obtain 
value, and the ego would be a point without extension if 
it could not express itself in external objects. 
One may say that the acquisition of property means the 
growth of the individuality beyond the individual. If lib- 
erty means a state in which the will can realize itself un- 
hampered, an increase in possession will mean an increase 
in liberty. But this liberty is restricted by the character- 
istics and the properties of the objects possessed. Our will 
is usually sufficiently adapted to life’s conditions not to 
demand from objects what they cannot perform and not 
to consider that limitation as a positive restraint, but it 
would be possible, none the less, to arrange objects in a 
series according to the amount of obstruction which they 
place in the way of the expression of our will. The last item 
of that series would again be money. It lacks all structure of 
its own and adapts itself immediately to any demand or 
purpose. The objects which stand behind it may exert limi- 
tations; money itself adapts itself immediately to our will. 
But because of its lack of structure it is also the most 
unadapted object. Because we possess it so completely, 
we cannot obtain any more from it than possession. Only 
in so far as an object is something in itself can it be some- 
thing for us; only in limiting our freedom can it allow an 
expression of our freedom. This logical opposition reaches 
a maximum tension in money. It is more for us than any 
other object because it belongs to us without reservation, 
and it is less for us than any other object because it lacks 
any content which can be actually possessed apart from 
the mere form of possession as such. We possess it more 
completely than any other object, but we possess in it less 
than in any other object.</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
