Comodification Of The Body In John Locke's Of Property

1007 Words3 Pages

“Every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government [1690] 2015: 371). In writing chapter five “Of Property,” John Locke discusses the parameters of property, initially theorizing that each person’s body belongs to his or herself. Locke did not go into further detail of this analysis to express commodification of the body and its parts. However, it can be reasoned that Locke did not intend for readers at the time to understand the body itself as a material object to be owned with parts that can be sold others. In spite of this school of thought, increasingly, the body is becoming a marketable piece of property, through the selling and donating of bodily fluids, prostitution, …show more content…

This element is seen clearly in her thesis where she notes there are three paramount issues in regards to viewing the “self” as proprietor and the body as property, including language, payments, and markets (Phillips 2011: 726). Through the problem of language, Phillips addresses the rhetoric used in reference to bodies. She asserts “we do not need to assert property in the body in order to express what we mainly care about when we say ‘it’s my body,’ which is bodily integrity” (Phillips 2011: 728). When property language is used to describe the body, an entire societal shift can occur where bodies aren’t seen as people, but rather products that can be owned by others. Phillips refers to a distinct property language change that people may adopt, stating that there is a difference “between ‘me’ and this ‘thing’ that is my body” which would even fall into a categorization of a dualistic view of body and self (Phillips 2011: …show more content…

It can be argued that because commodification of the body would separate the self from the body that it would lead to a form of alienation. Karl Marx suggests there are different types of alienation a person can have. For example, some forms of alienation include alienation from themselves, others, and products of their own labor (Ball, Dagger, and O’Neill 2014: 148-149). Acceptance of the body as a piece of property would further alienate people from themselves because while their bodies may be used for one action, their “self” may be yearning to do another. It would cause people to feel as if they may not always be in control of their own bodies because their bodies may be owned by other people at different times in their life. In her article, Phillips addresses the argument that bodies can be owned by others through everyday jobs because it is suggested the body is actually doing the work, rather than the self. She explains that thinking of the body in terms of property language is dangerous in this situation because when property rhetoric is used in the workplace, it can cause workers to feel as if they are owned by their employers, and therefore, cannot oppose their employer or take pride in what they accomplish (Phillips 2011:729). Similar to Marx’s proposals, Phillips’s discussion of the commodification of the body leading to dissatisfaction in people and their work is a form of

Open Document