Communiquer ou contracter?

Abstract

In his theory of mind, self and society, George Mead considers money as a symbol that is almost as universal as language and at least as universal as religion or democracy. Hence, despite being part of an Hegelian tradition that rejects the principle of the social contract, Mead is faced with a dilemma created by a conception in which money stems from a situation of interaction of a necessarily contractual nature. In this respect Mead's communication theory, like that of Habermas or Luhmann, is confronted with the problem posed by the communicative transfer from words to things.