Questions on today's society in correlation to property? --Luis
Locke makes us focus on what the "right of property" means. He starts with the idea that all men are created equal but that "every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right but himself" (19). The definition made sense to me, but my mind automatically applied his definition to today's government in the United States. We are in a present time where the body of women is being dictated to and criminalized by the government, thus contradicting one's right to themselves. The politics on abortions tend to dismiss the women's existence because their body's autonomy (which I think Locke is hinting at) is becoming debated by leaders who are supposed to value consent.
Furthermore, Locke moves on to state that the right to oneself is their labor and work, but that is not the case in the United States. Coming from an immigrant household, I question my parent's property rights. Why is there no written existence of their labor and work in building their property?
Lastly, I wanted to highlight Locke's section on paternal power. He focused on the role of the father to aid his son in maturing to find his own will. On that idea, I question the concept of "failing as a parent," when Locke the child is not set free from the government of the parent. Would it be the father, past generation, or even an oppressive society to blame? I question the blame because freedom is rooted in Locke's opinion, rationality. The discipline of the child is also in question. I agreed with Locke when he stated, "It is one thing to owe honor, respect, gratitude, and assistance; another to require an absolute obedience and submission" (37). While I understand the power dynamics of parents and children, I wish there was more highlight on how parents push their children away from obedience and towards rebellion.
Locke's property chapter was interesting. It provided me with the opportunity to agree with his definitions but challenge their existence in today's society.
Hi Luis, I wanted to expand on your initial point of having the right to bodily property. I really started thinking about how Locke would view other political topics, namely sex work (prostitution).
ReplyDeleteHow would Locke view sex work through his conception of property rights? Locke presents a liberal view of property rights in his Second Treatise, but to what extent would Locke endorse commodifying one's own body? He writes, "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his" (Locke 19). At first, it appears that Locke could support sex work just through his conception of private property. Locke writes, "The labour of his body, the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his" (Locke 19). Locke presents his views via analogy, recognizing how someone can dig for ore in a common area but with his use of labour, make the ore they recover their private property. His view allows people to commodify their bodies through labor (since his body's labor is properly his). As such, women could commodify their bodies through sex work to exchange for justly held property. So, one could conclude that Locke could support, or at least justify, sex work as a rightful means to property.
But Locke's stance on human sanctity complicates commodifying one's body. Much of Locke's theological foundation, combined with his ideas of human sanctity, undermines a more liberal interpretation of commodifying one's body. In his chapter on slavery, Locke notes that men cannot kill themselves or put themselves into slavery because it violates their nature of self-preservation – a tenet that stems from man and God's relationship (and man's quality of God's image and likeness). But, if humans are as sacred as Locke asserts, it is far less likely that Locke would support the commodification of bodies for fields like sex work.
I find that there is a larger conflict within the issue of commodifying se work and other modern debates by Lockian standards. The interpretation of Locke's view on commodifying one's body greatly depends on whether prostitution would violate man's god given right of personal dignity. Does a sex worker's labour rightfully result in a transfer of services for property, or does the act itself, in Locke's view, degrade her dignity and violate her natural qualities?
Luis and Kat, I think you both raise very thought-provoking questions about what exactly Locke’s right to bodily autonomy entails. I’m afraid that my interpretation of the text is that Locke has a much more conservative/limited definition of bodily autonomy than perhaps you both would hope for. On the issue of abortion—raised by Luis—Locke’s statement “every man has a property in his own person” (19) does not indicate support for abortion. In fact, in Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he writes “we know that it is part of the worship of God…not to procure abortion.” Indeed, many people of the Christian faith believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, in their view, the unborn child’s right to life trumps any claims of bodily autonomy (and I believe that logic would hold for Locke). I think this point illustrates one of the fundamental reasons why the U.S. is so polarized when it comes to abortion and why the debate surrounding the issue is both passionate and often unproductive. Pro-choice individuals often frame the issue as one of bodily autonomy, whereas pro-life individuals frame the issue as protecting innocent life.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kat’s point, I think Locke would have despised sex work because it deeply violates his religious convictions. Even putting religion aside however, I still think sex work would be forbidden under Locke’s conception of property for two reasons. First, as you mention, Locke draws limitations on what you can do with your body (you cannot kill yourself, you cannot sell yourself into slavery, etc.). It is reasonable to think that he would view commodifying your body through sex work as a grave injustice against yourself, and therefore not a proper usage of your own property. Second, as pointed out by other blog posts, Locke’s conception of property notes that it ought to be used for the betterment of the community. From there, one needs only make the argument that the existence of sex work does not benefit the community (an argument that, regardless of if you agree with it or not, is relatively straightforward and has been articulated many times) to posit that such work does not align with Locke’s conception of property usage.
DeleteHi Josh,
I do not know whether we will have the chance to discuss this in class today, so I thought I would comment again here!
I totally agree with your analysis os Locke's view on sex work. Although, I wonder how similar profiting from sex work can be to selling yourself into slavery or killing yourself. Locke does not allow people to put themselves under the arbitrary power of another. But do acts of sex work truly count as a grave injustice against the body if the woman consents to the act itself. By agreeing to exchange money for sex (labor), the sex worker does not put themselves under the arbitrary power of another person. They merely allow the client to use their labor, their sex work, under the terms of their contract. Setting aside Locke's religious convictions, under Locke's definition of property, and even slavery, sex workers are working within Locke's limitations to use their body's labor. No sex worker's client is granted unlimited control over their body, only a limited use specified by a contract between sex worker and their client. As for your second point, on communal benefits of property, if you analyze the human body as a common resource (each human has one, as given by God, like the rest of nature), then I do not know whether the sex work cannot be justified because of its lack of communal benifit. Locke writes, in “he who appropriates land to himself by his labor, does not lessen, but increases the common stock of mankind: for the provisions serving to the support of human life, produced by one acre of inclosed and cultivated land, are (to speak much within compass) ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in common” (23). So, as long as the sex worker does not wastefully accumulate private property through their body’s labor, are they not benefiting society by using common resources?