View Full Version : Eisenstein: "Ownership implies an attachment of things to self"
Not sure where this belongs, but since possessions are in the heart of this quote and how we use them to define ourselves, I'll post it in Consumerism. But it almost belongs in the Spirituality forum.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I LOVE Charles Eisenstein. He is so provocative. There's a great website called SustainableMan.org and I get their FB posts, which are always amazing. Today's post was this Eisenstein quote, and I think it's great fodder for discussion.
I personally believe this. How about you? How do you feel about the line between "self" and "tribe"? How much are you your stuff?
"As that word "mine" indicates, ownership implies an attachment of things to self. The more we own, the more we are. The constellation of me and mine grows. But no matter how large the discrete and separate self grows, it is still far smaller than the self of the hunter-gatherer. The pre-separation mind is able to affirm, all at once and without contradiction, "I am this body," "I am this tribe," "I am the jungle," "I am the world." No matter how much of the jungle we control, we are smaller than the one who knows "I am the jungle." No matter how dominant we are socially, we are far less than one who knows "I am my tribe." And far less secure, too, because all of these appendages to our tiny separate selves may be easily sundered from us. We are therefore perpetually and irremediably insecure. We go to great lengths to protect all these accessories of identity, our possessions and money and reputations, and when our house is burglarized, our wallet stolen, or our reputation besmirched, we feel as if our very selves have been violated."
- Charles Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity
"[...]We go to great lengths to protect all these accessories of identity, our possessions and money and reputations, and when our house is burglarized, our wallet stolen, or our reputation besmirched, we feel as if our very selves have been violated."
I understand and largely agree with Eisenstein's point here, though I will quibble with this particular passage. Safety in shelter is a basic human need; a burglarized house or a wallet stolen from our person threatens that safety. It is not unreasonable to think people would feel violated in those instances.
Then there is the matter of trust when dealing with money, our chosen method of exchange. The feeling one might have about, say, losing a bet on a ball game, and the feeling one might have if their bank goes into default are different. Maybe they should not have, but people have become accustomed to trusting their financial institutions, which makes failure on their part (even if the loss is socialized or covered by insurance) a pretty big deal.
Finally, I think reputation is an intrinsic part of one's personality. Yes, reputation is assigned to individuals, but it can be affected strongly by individuals themselves. It is personal, impossible to transfer to another, and it is priceless.
It is how one identifies oneself initially but after Maslow's need are met.
I don't need much but I need food, water, safety, clothing, warmth, shelter, and will take steps to ensure these are met. Do any of these identity who I am per se, no. Are they my possessions, no, but they enable my needs to be met. I could rent them and have my needs met, does that change the equation in the OP. I don't want to sell them but to ensure that I have basic needs met.
For that reason, I bought a farm, drilled a well, grow a garden, cut and split wood, purchase clothes or material and machine for making them. Some clothes are 20 years old, in good repair and I am content because they meet my need.
I am a farmer meeting others' needs, a woodlot owner supplying wood to meet builders' needs. The birds and insects around my house love the water that I make available to them especially in a drought
Great points:
Steve, I think in today's society, you are absolutely right, and your responses are appropriate in the context of today. But I wonder if there could be some time down the road when the amount of time and attention given to fear and insecurity is minimized because of our reduced attachment to things. I'm talking about the collective "we"--in many cases, posting this here is preaching to the choir. But go one step further. It's kind of like all of us getting to the point where we're like that Porgy and Bess song: "I got no lock on the door--that's OK by me. They can steal the rug from the floor, that's OK by me 'cuz the things that I prize like the stars in the skies all are free."
So of course, getting stuff stolen is a pain, but if you are spending a lot of time protecting that stuff and worrying about it and it's going to create a big void in your life if it's stolen, maybe thinking about how to minimize that would create a higher quality of life. And is it possible to have a society where no one feels any need to take other people's stuff at all? And if they did, the "victims" would be like the bishop in Les Miz and say, "fine, and by the way, take this, too." Just wondering.
And razz, you sound like the perfect example of someone who has stuff to benefit themselves and their needs but who doesn't define themselves by it. Again--preaching to the choir here.
It's interesting. There is this parable where the rich young man asked Jesus what he needed to do to be a good man. And Jesus said "give up everything that you have and follow me."
Now, because this was a rich man, a lot of people think of this in terms of economics. But upon one contemplation that I had some time ago, I actually take this to mean far more than "stuff" and rather go deep into identity.
That is to say, what ideas do I hold about myself that are really nonexistent? It's been an interesting process of attempting to live that, because it creates a freedom in just being.
And is it possible to have a society where no one feels any need to take other people's stuff at all?
The problem is games theory. Check out Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation".
There are many stable systems in which the majority is happily cooperating, while still a minority may well logically choose to "defect", because it produces better outcomes for them at the expense of others.
You can design your conditions and rule sets to minimize this behaviou, but it's very very hard to eradicate entirely.
That is to say, what ideas do I hold about myself that are really nonexistent? It's been an interesting process of attempting to live that, because it creates a freedom in just being.
Yes
The problem is games theory. Check out Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation".
There are many stable systems in which the majority is happily cooperating, while still a minority may well logically choose to "defect", because it produces better outcomes for them at the expense of others.
You can design your conditions and rule sets to minimize this behaviou, but it's very very hard to eradicate entirely.
I will definitely check out Axelrod. As for stable systems, I think about existing tribes, such as the one that Jim Merkel (Radical Simplicity) visited, the Kerala's. From what he says, they are a community of mutual cooperation. That's what makes me think it might be possible to achieve that kind of community.
I will definitely check out Axelrod. As for stable systems, I think about existing tribes, such as the one that Jim Merkel (Radical Simplicity) visited, the Kerala's. From what he says, they are a community of mutual cooperation. That's what makes me think it might be possible to achieve that kind of community.
Keep in mind that in a small community, with transparency of reputation and repeated interactions with the same players, "defecting" gets stamped out pretty quickly if there are consequences.
In large-ish modern communities, this is a bit difficult - you often don't interact with the same people repeatedly, and there's not a good mechanism for distributing reputation information.
Consider the case of leaving a tip for a waiter. If you are travelling through the town, and will never be back, what sort of tip is "optimal" to leave, compared to if you are a resident of the area and dine there every week?
Consider the case of leaving a tip for a waiter. If you are travelling through the town, and will never be back, what sort of tip is "optimal" to leave, compared to if you are a resident of the area and dine there every week?
Great point: and it makes the case for defining your world as locally as possible.
At the same time, I travel a lot for business, and I never see the maid, but always leave a fairly generous tip. I put myself in her shoes and I get angry when I think that the valets with whom one makes eye contact probably make a lot more in tips than those unseen heroes who clean out our yukkiness. So I overtip the maids and undertip those chirpy bellboys.
I can see what he is talking about in that our things are our identifiers. So much of what the world uses to identify me has no relation to what I call the real me.
For example, my passport states the name my parents gave me. I had no say. Where I was born, a place I had no say, nor a place I've had any relation to since I was 1 year old.
A credit report containing errors, etc, etc, etc
So what does truly identify me? My actions and my stuff, what little there is of it.
Just a tangent off of this - when I've watched the show Hoarders I'm fascinated by those who cannot seem to separate their 'self' from their 'stuff.' Literally, even the hair their dog sheds or the toy their adult child played with 30 years ago is just impossible for them to part with without great personal angst even in the face of the authorities condemning their home.
I'm sure most of us watching realize their behavior is extreme, but I've started to think there are plenty of people who are not that far behind in the spectrum but manage to stay in the normal range. They are their stuff and their stuff is them.
They are their stuff and their stuff is them.
Outside of the context of hoarders, I think people in Western developed countries have taken this statement to heart. Items confer status -- the "right" car, the name-brand jeans, the house in the right ZIP code, the fancy headphones (especially now that almost everyone has those famous white earbuds)... So then we spend money on car immobilizers, alarm systems, gated communities, and so on. Even insurance, which, of course, is more expensive to cover expensive objects. From that perspective, Eisenstein is absolutely correct in our attachment to things.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.