Note: an earlier version of this piece was published on Medium, I think it makes sense to publish it here too as the issues surrounding property underlie a lot of our current problems.
I suspect battles over land rights will only become more urgent in the coming decades, so your explanation of all this deep history is so helpful. Are you aware of Antonia Malchik's wonderful blog, On The Commons? She is currently writing a book about the history of our modern individualistic conception of land and property, and its ethical dimensions. You might find these descriptions of the book project interesting:
You don't mention here the distinction between land and everything else, which I think is important. Mediaeval land came with conditions attached, but I don't think that applied to other kinds of property. Or did it? If you had possession of a lump of gold back then, did it also imply obligations to someone?
It's only about land--other kinds of property had different conditions attached to it. I don't think the thick, morally laden ownership conception was as strong for land with other goods, but still it is plausible (as anthropologists like Anette Weiner have remarked) that the modern western conception of ownership as something you can exchange at will and that is alienable is fairly recent. But I'm not a historian (this post more came from a rabbit hole looking at ownership as conceived by Jane Austen)
I suspect battles over land rights will only become more urgent in the coming decades, so your explanation of all this deep history is so helpful. Are you aware of Antonia Malchik's wonderful blog, On The Commons? She is currently writing a book about the history of our modern individualistic conception of land and property, and its ethical dimensions. You might find these descriptions of the book project interesting:
https://antonia.substack.com/p/introducing-no-trespassing
https://antonia.substack.com/p/private-property
thanks for all your stuff
You don't mention here the distinction between land and everything else, which I think is important. Mediaeval land came with conditions attached, but I don't think that applied to other kinds of property. Or did it? If you had possession of a lump of gold back then, did it also imply obligations to someone?
It's only about land--other kinds of property had different conditions attached to it. I don't think the thick, morally laden ownership conception was as strong for land with other goods, but still it is plausible (as anthropologists like Anette Weiner have remarked) that the modern western conception of ownership as something you can exchange at will and that is alienable is fairly recent. But I'm not a historian (this post more came from a rabbit hole looking at ownership as conceived by Jane Austen)
Boy, this is great--thank you Helen, I didn't know any of this! (I confess, I am remiss in my Austen scholarship!)