I have claimed the idea, that property is produced through ownership, but this claim is not to the words but rather to the concept. Here I will attempt to explain the concept - which I claim to have thought of...
My claim to my idea is similar to my claim to my spleen and to my socks. In each case, the claim seems to make the idea, my spleen and my socks my property. My idea, however, is that property requires something more than a claim. And this something is ownership. In order for there to be property, there must be ownership. More than this, it is the ownership which produces the property. In other words, property would not exist if there was no ownership.
The sense that property is produced through ownership means that property appears with ownership. Property comes into being with ownership.
So before I can define property, I need to define what I mean by ownership. This I attempt by way of rough analogy with semiotics - and the idea that meaning is produced through communication and is a triangle of signified and signifier etc. In brief, this means that what we understand as property exists when there is ownership and in order for there to be ownership there must be an owner, something which can be owned and an activity of owning. The owner, the ownable (or thing owned) and the activity of owning are the three elements of ownership. When all three elements are present, there is property. When only one of the three elements is present, there is something but it is not property.
And here lies the problem or conundrum presented by property - it exists only as a concept. Property appears only through the elements of ownership. Property is only an idea. Property does not exist in itself. And as an idea property needs to be imagined - the image I offer is as a diamond with three glimmering aspects - the object, the self and rights. And each of these three aspects corresponds and can be discussed as property as element of ownership.
My big idea, the concept of property as produced through ownership, suggests that in order to understand whether this idea or those socks are property - and in particular, my property - I need to determine if there is an owner (ie me), a thing capable of being owned and an activity which would allow my ownership to be 'lived' - that is take shape or be over time. The question as to whether a thing is property poses not one but three questions. Each of the questions can be answered yea or nay... and if any one of the elements of ownership is missing then whatever it is, is, but it is not 'property'.
The questions as to whether those socks are my property seems easy to answer: there is a potential owner (me), there are things which are commonly owned (the socks), and there is a whole legal system which sets out rules understood as rights governing my ownership. The questions as to whether the idea (this concept of property) is my property is more difficult to answer as while I am a potential owner, an idea is not easily owned and the rules governing the activity of owning are not easily understood - I cannot own the idea itself but I can under western copyright law own the expression of the idea. And while, me as the potential owner seems uncomplicated when thinking about me as the owner of my socks, complications may arise when the idea of the self is examined or when the owner is a group, community or corporation - when the nature of the self who owns is uncertain.
My idea is, therefore, lies not simply in the words, "property is produced through ownership" but in the use of the concept (for more information on concepts see the related article). And central to this idea is the idea about theory as strategy. By offering my concept of property I am offering a strategy for thinking and talking about property. My idea is, in effect, not about property but about service or as Hannah Arendt might suggest, about "action". Telling stories and appearing in history.
