Each of this week’s readings addresses the validity of private property by presenting theological or spiritual approaches to the relationship between people and land. In the Hebrew Bible, man is characterized as a caretaker of the land. Adam is placed in the Garden of Eden to “dress it and keep it,” but is also sent forth from the Garden, “to till the ground from whence he was taken” (Genesis, 2). It is clear that the Hebrew Bible paints man as originating from the earth he is meant to take care of, which begs the legitimacy of privately owned property if all people, as descendants of Adam and Eve, were made from earth they may be barred from inhabiting. The underlying question here is, as St. Augustine asks, “By what right does every man possess what he possesses?” (Gibb 1). As Christians and Jews today certainly own private property, origin is by no means a right to possession. For St. Augustine, the Lockean alternative seems also ill-fitted. Nowhere does St. Augustine mention labor as a necessary component for man to possess what he possesses. And if we were to go down the Lockean route, since God created the heaven and the earth, and since that creation can be construed as labor, he technically owns everything. However, the Lockean interpretation is anachronistic, and therefore perhaps not applicable.
Chief Seattle’s discussion of land is similar to the Hebrew Bible’s in that there seems an obvious tether between the physical and spiritual. In the Hebrew Bible, “everything that creepeth upon the earth,” within exists, “a living soul” (Genesis, 1). Comparably, Chief Seattle claims, “the soil is rich with the life of our kindred,” when describing the deep sorrow his people felt as white settlers violently took over the natives’ land. However, Chief Seattle’s explanation of man’s connection to the earth seems deeper and more mystical because the connection does not stem from an all-powerful, central being but animates the inherent spirit inside the living and nonliving alike. And because of the spirits so deeply ingrained in the landscape, Chief Seattle describes why man can never truly be alone despite desires to privatize the uses of land. He says, “In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless.” The values of community so crucial to Native American culture insisted that even without other people around, man was in the spirited company of the natural world around him. Whereas Native Americans saw the natural world as a force to cohabitate and act in symbiosis with, the white settlers saw it as something to tame and control. For the settlers, the earth was not a living thing, but something to subdue for the progress of civilization. As such, nature and civilization would never be able to exist at the same time; civilization depends on such a subduing. Even to be considered a “man” in the eyes of the settlers required a recognition of private property. “Rights” to such “property” were given to Native Americans often as code for the true intent to break up their communal ties to land, leaving the natives defenseless against this damning liberty.
Radically different from both conceptions of property and ownership in the Hebrew Bible and by Chief Seattle is Confucius’ offering of the Dao. Confucius proclaims that popular interest in government is a sign of political failure and moreover that, “when the Dao prevails in the world, governance does not lie in the hands of grandees. When the Dao prevails in the world, the common people do not discuss governance” (16.2). I cannot speak to the governing structure of Chief Seattle’s tribe, but white, and by 1854, “American”, settlers were bound by the principles of “democracy” which necessitating the allocation of private property. Suffrage was linked to property ownership and race. Civic participation was (and is) inextricably linked to private ownership and wealth. Yet Confucius insists the goal is for “common people” to be unconcerned with governance. Clearly we are straddling two very different conceptions of the best way to organize society, but what is intriguing is that the organization of society is primarily talked about in terms of property. The thread of all of these readings seems to be that in order to discuss how to live, we also must discuss our relationship as to where we do that. Whether it be a relationship of caretaking, symbiosis, or duty, it becomes clear that the basis of society rests upon our relationship with land– how we treat it, who it’s been stolen from, and what say we even have over it.
I love the title of this post! Of course, you also point out the ways in which the founding text of Judeo-Christian religion offers some room for interpretation: Private property may be a religion, but this particular religion can also suggest (as Sts. Augustine and Ambrose do) a plan for commoning land. For example, as you note, the very premise Locke uses much later to argue FOR private property — that is, that man owns the land upon which he labors — could support the notion that the earth CANNOT be privatized because God was the laborer in creation, so He alone can own the earth. I also like the similarities you draw out between a certain interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1) and the description Chief Seattle presents of the relationship between his people and the rest of the natural world. It’s true that each society’s relationship to property is central to its system of government and citizenship, but the Seattle/Genesis interpretation also allows us to envision a property-less society that still functions.