Ownership as interpersonal dominance

Rudmin, Floyd W.

Bibliographic data

Book

Document type:: Book

Collection:: POP - Possession, Ownership, Property

Title:: Ownership as interpersonal dominance: a history and three studies of the social psychology of property

Author:: Rudmin, Floyd W.

Year of publication:: 1988

Language:: English

Subject:: Besitz Eigentum Sozialpsychologie

Topic:: C - Psychology

Shelfmark:: C/R916 O9

Access:: Free access

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.48671/pop.AC14489044

] Lattke (1936) ail argued that possessory behavior in children had much to do with interpersonal dominance. In Isaacs’ words, These considerations suggest that the motive of possession is not to be regarded as an atomic psychological unit, one of the irreducible “instincts” of original human nature. To think so is to miss its most significant aspects, viz. its intimate relation with the motives of power and of rivalry. It is essentially a social response, not a mere direct reaction to the physical objects which may serve individual purposes. (Isaacs, 1933, p. 225) Despite these criticisms, acquisitiveness and collecting continued to be described by some as innate tendencies. For example, Thouless was still advocating this in 1958: Evidence as to how far human acquisitiveness is based on a tendency that is innate might be drawn from its appearance in the animal world, from its appearance as a play activity in childhood, from its appearance as a crude and ungraded tendency in mental disorder, or 202) the universality of its appearance amongst all races of mankind. (Thouless, 1958, p. Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) consider tenable the hypothesis that there is a continuity from animal possessiveness to human possessiveness. Also, psychological research continued on the innate motivations for collecting by animals (e.g. Miller, 1945; Miller & Postman, 1946; Miller & Viek, 1944, 1950). Human collecting has also remained a topic of interest (e.g. Belk, 1982; Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry, Holbrook & Roberts, 1988; Carroll, 1968; Fatke & Flitner, 1984; Jensen, 1963; McKinnon, Smith & Hunt, 1985; Stewart, 1984; Walls, Moxley & Gulkus, 1975). The instinct theory of owning continues to have currency among some economists (e.g. Humphry, 1979; Heilbroner, 1958; Cho, 1977) and can still be heard in popular, political discussions. The instinct theory of possession also appeared in an indirect fashion in psychoanalytic discussions of property. Freud is noted for his argument that anal eroticism is the source of possessiveness, orderliness, and parsimony (Beloff, 1957; Jones, 1919). However, later in his career, Freud argued that property is a function of aggression, which in turn is a manifestation of the death instinct. His argument against communism is reminiscent of Aristotle’s reply to Plato that the negative characteristics of private property fie in human nature not in ownership per se: in abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness. nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property. (Freud, 1930, p. 50) in the historical development of psychoanalytic thought, Adler came to reject Freud's emphasis on libidinal drives and focused instead on social power as the central motivating

Book

Cite and reuse

Book

Image

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation