“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
Locke clarified the problem by pointing out his notions that mostly derived from the natural state of human beings. Each man was originally born and predestined to have his own body, hands, head and so forth which can help him to create his own labor. When he knew how to use his personal mind and labor to appropriate bountiful subjects around him, taking them "out of the hands of...
The way Jennifer Church approaches the issue of body ownership in “Ownership and the Body”, it sounds as though that we own our bodies is a given fact, and the controversy is over what follows from this and why it is important to have a discussion of this fact. I, however, intend to argue that it is a bad move to allow for the idea of self-ownership (or any sort of ownership of subjects), that it is more likely to perpetuate problems than to solve them to think in this way, and that the belief in the possibility of body/self-ownership is rooted primarily in linguistic ambiguities (“property” vs. “properties”, different senses of “mine”, etc.).
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
argues that man becomes to be viewed as a commodity worth only the labour he creates
The only logical conclusion to derive from this observation is that what we consider to be ourselves is not our bodies. As a result, an individual’s personal identity cannot be rooted in just his or her body, unlike what body theorists would like to
Throughout John Locke’s, Second Treatise of Government, he uses several methods to substantiate his claims on the natural right to property. Locke’s view on property is one of the most fundamental and yet debated aspects of his works within his respective view on politics. Locke views property as one of humankind 's most important rights, contending with the right to life and the right to liberty. However, certain claims made by Locke regarding property are may be unfeasible, which could be deduced from the time period in which he lived. Some of Locke’s arguments appear to be carefully considered and well executed, while others lack the equality that Locke strives towards. John Locke’s theory of property, is a somewhat well supported claim
Fear motivates many people to act upon matters, right or wrong. This emotion has been important in many events in both works of literature, and in the real world. It has forced military geniuses into retreat, and influenced them to plan another method of attack. Fear can be both a positive and a negative acting force in one’s life, a quality that can motivate one to success as well as to downfall.
In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions." Hence, right from the beginning, Locke places the right to possessions on the same level as the right to life, health, and liberty.
Furthermore, Locke's passion for morality is also seen in his interpretation of the social contract. We see that Locke's ideas in freedom of life, liberty, and property have formed the basic morals of past and current governments. One of Edwards's morals that have been seen throughout American history is the infinite sovereignty of G...
According to Locke’s theory, a commodity becomes the private possession of an individual who labors for it. Thus it is no longer a direct gift of nature: [A man] “that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them” ( 360).
The way in which the body is viewed is a complete social construction, dependent on the society, history and wider cultural attitude of a given group. Social constructionism can be defined as the ways in which society, culture and history builds up and dictates social norms. It shapes the way we think, behave and interact with our environment. The social construction of bodies is, therefore, the way in which society ascribes significance to different parts of the body and influences our understanding of it as a whole. The social construction of the body feeds into and reinforces inequalities to a great extent, on a number of levels. Gender inequalities and the issues of racism and colourism are good examples of inequalities that are fuelled
According to Locke, God has given the world to all of mankind, as well as given mankind the ability to reason and thus make use of the world (Locke, p. 52). The world, and the property therein, has not been bestowed on any individual person. Therefore, in order for “property” to exist, man must appropriate everything in its natural state in order to give one person the property right to it, at the exclusion of all others (Locke, p.53). Man has the ability to labor, which arises from the property he has in himself. Man can use that ability to take things from the commonwealth of the earth, annex it, and exclude it from the common right of others (Locke, p.53).
It is apparent that we are personified entities, but also, that we embrace “more” than just our bodies. “Human persons are physical, embodied beings and an important feature of God’s intended design for human life” (Cortez, 70). But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human mental life such as human dignity and personal identity.