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

Year of publication:: 1988

Language:: English

Topic:: C - Psychology

Shelfmark:: C/R916 O9

Access:: Free access

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

J on the one hand, and a tenure by sufferance at the hands of superiors, on the other hand. (Veblen, 1898, p. 360) The logic of Veblen's (1899/1912) argument begins with man’s apprehension of himself as an agent, a centre of goal-directed activity. An agent seeks to achieve concrete, objective ends, and, therefore, has standards of serviceability and efficiency. This might be called an “instinct of workmanship”. As the result of comparisons between persons, workmanship becomes emulative and invidious: In any community where such an invidious comparison of persons is habitually made, visible success becomes an end sought for its own utility as a basis of esteem. Esteem is gained and dispraise is avoided by putting one’s efficiency in evidence. The result is that the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative demonstration of force. (Veblen, 1899/1912, p. 16) Within aggressive, predatory societies, productive efficiency is conquest and seizure, particularly of women and slaves. The prestige and display of prowess first seen in the forceful dominance of people come to be represented by the accumulation of goods and by other signs of dominance, for example, abstaining from work, being served by others, and wasting resources. Property is essentially a trophy representing successful aggression. The motivation for the acquisition and consumption of goods is not sustenance or utilitarian pleasure, but social status and self respect, success as defined by social evolution: ..there is reason to believe that the institution of ownership has begun with the ownership of persons, primarily women. The incentives to acquiring such property have apparently been: (1) a propensity for dominance and coercion; (2) the utility of these persons as ea once of the prowess of the owner; (3) the utility of their services. (Veblen, 1899/1912, p. Veblen might be charged with creating a romanticized origin to property. But it is interesting to note that Carpenter (1942) made a similar point by juxtaposing rhesus monkey social order, which has both exclusive possession of females and male dominance hierarchy, with howler monkey social order, which has neither. Although it appears to have not yet been noticed (e.g. Mason, 1981), most of Veblen's theory had appeared earlier in Spencer's (1879/1893) discussion of “Ceremonial Institutions”. Veblen’s contribution was to use popular, contemporary sociological illustrations and to argue against Spencer's claim that the use of possessions as status symbols would gradually disappear as societies advanced toward egalitarian industrialism. Veblen apparently had little impact on economic theory, but his analysis was generally accepted holus-bolus within the social sciences and soon became common knowledge (Mason, 1981). For example, in Hartley and Hartley's 1952 social psychology text, there are sections entitled “Status Symbols” and

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Ownership as interpersonal dominance

Book

Downloads

Full record

This page

Image fragment

Formats and links

Formats

Links

Cite

Full record

This page

Citation recommendation