David Graeber
Consumption
There is a great deal of debate about when the ideal of private property in the modern sense first developed and how early it could be said to have become common sense even among the popular classes. Some insist that it was well under way in the High Middle Ages, at least in England. 73 It was certainly so by the time of Cromwell. 74 The notion of consumption, I would suggest, eventually came to resolve a certain contradiction inherent within this ideal. From an analytical perspective, of course, property is simply a social relation: an arrangement between persons and collectivities concerning the disposition of valuable goods. Private property is one particular that entails one individual’s right to exclude all others all the world from access to a certain house or shirt or piece of land, and so on. A relation so broad is difficult to imagine, however, so people tend to over their subjects. These were the ultimate stakes of sovereignty; certainly, it was the one power kings were least willing to delegate or share. 75 The ultimate proof that one has sovereign power over another human being is one’s ability to have the other executed. In a similar fashion, one might argue, the ultimate proof of possession, of one’s personal dominium over a thing, is one’s ability to destroy it and indeed this remains one of the key legal ways of defining dominium, as a property right, to this day. But there is an obvious problem here. If one does destroy the object, one may have definitively proved that one owned it, but, as a result, one does not have it any more. In English law, such relations are still described according to the logic of sovereignty that is, in terms of dominium. The power a citizen has over his or her own possessions is exactly the same power once held by kings and princes and that is still retained by states in the form of eminent domain. This is why private property rights took so long to enshrine in law: even in England, which led the way in such matters, it was almost
the eighteenth century before jurists were willing to recognize a dominium belonging to anyone other than the king. 76 What would it mean, then, to establish sovereignty over an object? In legal terms, a king’s dominium extended to his land, his subjects, and their possessions; the subjects were included in the person of the king, who represented them in dealing with other kingdoms, in a similar fashion to that by which the father of a family represented his wife, children, and servants before the law. The wife, children, and servants of a head of household were likewise included in his legal personality in much the same way as his possessions. And in fact the power of kings was always being likened to that of fathers; the only real difference (aside from the fact that in any conflict, the king was seen to have a higher claim) was that unlike fathers, kings wielded the power of life and death the destruction of property, but it does lead to a choice of either destroying the Other or reducing the Other to property. Relations that are not based on property or, more precisely, on that very ambiguous synthesis between the two types of sovereignty suddenly become impossible to imagine, and I think this is true because Hegel is starting from a model of possessive individualism. We end up, then, with what might seem a particularly perverse variation on Hegel’s master / slave dialectic in which the actor, seeking some sort of impossible recognition of absolute mastery of an inanimate object, can achieve this recognition only by destroying it. Still, I do not really think this is a variation on the master / slave dilemma. I think a better case could probably be made that the dilemma described by Hegel actually derives from this. After all, the one thing least explained in Hegel’s account is where the necessity of conflict comes from (after all, there are ways to risk one’s life to impress another person that do not involve trying to murder that person). 77 He-
298
299