Boyer gives a reductionist account of the effects of culture. He claims near or total cultural universality for several effects (e.g., ownership, trusting kin over strangers). But cultural differences are much richer. For example, Boyer asserts that there is a widespread tendency for men to have a proprietary attitude toward partners. But there are significant differences between the manifestations of this attitude, which range from older and wealthier men collecting wives in Fiske's (Reference Fiske1991) authoritarian ranking societies versus egalitarian matching of wives in his equality matching societies. There are few, if any, cultural universals.
Ownership intuitions have a mix of innate and learned aspects, as evidenced by the significant variations in ownership practices across cultures. In some cultures, personal ownership is frowned upon and taking possession of even small personal items is disapproved (Woodburn, Reference Woodburn1982). Ownership intuitions may even reverse, such as when a tribe perceives the forest as being their owner, rather than their possession (Rochat, Reference Rochat2014). In some cultures, unattended objects, such as shoes left in front of a house, are regarded as available for use and subsequently passed on to the next individual in need (Rochat, Reference Rochat2014). The meaning of ownership is fluid and changes over time in response to the current social and economic structures. People learn and unlearn what can be owned, with examples such as slaves, personal data, and cryptocurrency becoming subjects of ownership in different times and contexts (Belk, Reference Belk, Chaudhuri and Belk2020).
In brief, ownership intuitions are highly flexible and heavily influenced by culture, making any model that disregards the learned aspects of ownership intuitions overly simplistic. If Boyer's model is consistent with all these varied and sometimes conflicting intuitions, then the model's ability to explain is limited and its falsifiability is questionable.
Boyer also suggests cultural dichotomies (e.g., groups are either competitive or cooperative [with some variability]). Rather than just competition and cooperation (together with their mirror effects in trading vs. giving), there is shared ownership in which things are not only mine or yours, but also ours. Children as well as parents in a household are apt to regard most items in the household this way, even though the home, furnishings, and appliances are legally owned by the parents. Nota bene, such households are not merely collectivities with a single agent, as there is no legal joint ownership or transfer of property rights in sharing.
In essence, Boyer's model only accounts for personal ownership, specifically an individual's recognition and respect for another person's claim to an object. Inasmuch as Boyer's goal is to understand the origin of ownership intuitions as a fundamental aspect of human psychology, limiting the focus to just personal ownership is idealistic. Personal ownership only gained prominence recently in human history, starting with the advent of agriculture and becoming more pronounced with industrialization and market economies (Widlok, Reference Widlok2017). On the other hand, shared ownership was the norm for most of human history, as evidenced by the practices of hunter-gatherers (Widlok, Reference Widlok2017). It is important to note that shared ownership is different from the transfer of personal ownership through gift-giving.
Moreover, forms of ownership beyond personal ownership exist not only in the past or in non-industrial societies, but also in contemporary industrial societies. There are new forms of human relations with objects. Examples include the (1) so-called sharing economy (which is actually short-term rental), (2) digital objects such as avatars in virtual worlds, metaverses, and online games, (3) ownership with fractionalized property rights and residual seller rights to a fraction of future sales as with some non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and (4) online streaming services such as music, TV/film, and luxury accessories, where access is a new form of de facto ownership as long as monthly fees are paid. Thus, ownership cultures are becoming much more complex than the forms considered by Boyer. Artist resale rights are an example. By means of a self-executing smart contract tied to the blockchain (which is also specified as the means by which ownership of the NFT of a digital artwork is transferred), the artists and their heirs in perpetuity are entitled to a share (typically 10%) of the escalation in the value of the NFT when it is next sold. The artist does not participate in any decline in value however; the sellers of a serial edition of the digital copy (the NFTs) bear such losses. Meanwhile, the owners of these NFTs lack any right of exclusion and copies of the digital artwork circulate freely online. Boyer's model cannot account for such fractionalized property rights based on copies of the original digital artwork for which full property rights remain with the artist.
Finally, Boyer uses the concept of “possession” more than 50 times without once acknowledging that our possessions can carry special meanings and memories that result in greater value due to attachment feelings. He is so focused on the fact of possession/ownership that he fails to appreciate the meanings of possessions. He selectively uses culture-specific behavior to build a case for an idealized core influence on ownership intuitions.
You have
Access
Boyer gives a reductionist account of the effects of culture. He claims near or total cultural universality for several effects (e.g., ownership, trusting kin over strangers). But cultural differences are much richer. For example, Boyer asserts that there is a widespread tendency for men to have a proprietary attitude toward partners. But there are significant differences between the manifestations of this attitude, which range from older and wealthier men collecting wives in Fiske's (Reference Fiske1991) authoritarian ranking societies versus egalitarian matching of wives in his equality matching societies. There are few, if any, cultural universals.
Ownership intuitions have a mix of innate and learned aspects, as evidenced by the significant variations in ownership practices across cultures. In some cultures, personal ownership is frowned upon and taking possession of even small personal items is disapproved (Woodburn, Reference Woodburn1982). Ownership intuitions may even reverse, such as when a tribe perceives the forest as being their owner, rather than their possession (Rochat, Reference Rochat2014). In some cultures, unattended objects, such as shoes left in front of a house, are regarded as available for use and subsequently passed on to the next individual in need (Rochat, Reference Rochat2014). The meaning of ownership is fluid and changes over time in response to the current social and economic structures. People learn and unlearn what can be owned, with examples such as slaves, personal data, and cryptocurrency becoming subjects of ownership in different times and contexts (Belk, Reference Belk, Chaudhuri and Belk2020).
In brief, ownership intuitions are highly flexible and heavily influenced by culture, making any model that disregards the learned aspects of ownership intuitions overly simplistic. If Boyer's model is consistent with all these varied and sometimes conflicting intuitions, then the model's ability to explain is limited and its falsifiability is questionable.
Boyer also suggests cultural dichotomies (e.g., groups are either competitive or cooperative [with some variability]). Rather than just competition and cooperation (together with their mirror effects in trading vs. giving), there is shared ownership in which things are not only mine or yours, but also ours. Children as well as parents in a household are apt to regard most items in the household this way, even though the home, furnishings, and appliances are legally owned by the parents. Nota bene, such households are not merely collectivities with a single agent, as there is no legal joint ownership or transfer of property rights in sharing.
In essence, Boyer's model only accounts for personal ownership, specifically an individual's recognition and respect for another person's claim to an object. Inasmuch as Boyer's goal is to understand the origin of ownership intuitions as a fundamental aspect of human psychology, limiting the focus to just personal ownership is idealistic. Personal ownership only gained prominence recently in human history, starting with the advent of agriculture and becoming more pronounced with industrialization and market economies (Widlok, Reference Widlok2017). On the other hand, shared ownership was the norm for most of human history, as evidenced by the practices of hunter-gatherers (Widlok, Reference Widlok2017). It is important to note that shared ownership is different from the transfer of personal ownership through gift-giving.
Moreover, forms of ownership beyond personal ownership exist not only in the past or in non-industrial societies, but also in contemporary industrial societies. There are new forms of human relations with objects. Examples include the (1) so-called sharing economy (which is actually short-term rental), (2) digital objects such as avatars in virtual worlds, metaverses, and online games, (3) ownership with fractionalized property rights and residual seller rights to a fraction of future sales as with some non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and (4) online streaming services such as music, TV/film, and luxury accessories, where access is a new form of de facto ownership as long as monthly fees are paid. Thus, ownership cultures are becoming much more complex than the forms considered by Boyer. Artist resale rights are an example. By means of a self-executing smart contract tied to the blockchain (which is also specified as the means by which ownership of the NFT of a digital artwork is transferred), the artists and their heirs in perpetuity are entitled to a share (typically 10%) of the escalation in the value of the NFT when it is next sold. The artist does not participate in any decline in value however; the sellers of a serial edition of the digital copy (the NFTs) bear such losses. Meanwhile, the owners of these NFTs lack any right of exclusion and copies of the digital artwork circulate freely online. Boyer's model cannot account for such fractionalized property rights based on copies of the original digital artwork for which full property rights remain with the artist.
Finally, Boyer uses the concept of “possession” more than 50 times without once acknowledging that our possessions can carry special meanings and memories that result in greater value due to attachment feelings. He is so focused on the fact of possession/ownership that he fails to appreciate the meanings of possessions. He selectively uses culture-specific behavior to build a case for an idealized core influence on ownership intuitions.
Financial support
There was no external funding for these comments.
Competing interest
None.