Locke, Inherent Value, and Labor

John Locke starts his Chapter on Property with a conversation about God. On the very first page of the chapter making a massive assumption. Not that god is real or that there are many or one. A much more simple and widespread assumption that nature is a gift to man-kind. It is affirmed immediately and is the start of all understanding of property and the world. The idea of nature as a gift is something which need not be paid back. Yet, gifting is a rather human conception is it not. Locke's starting common assumption beckoning some questions: Is this planet or nature even capable of gifting? And further how does the idea of something being a gift move it from having societal value to having inherent value? In order to explore the above questions the paper will follow a format which builds on our own assumptions. First defining the concepts of inherent value and societal value before tying them in with the ideas of gifting and transactions. Then flowing into a discussion on how this might affect humanities outlook on nature, by extension women's bodies, and then ultimately each-other. The idea of a gift is extremely powerful, it is by and large seen as a positive expression but, when used ideologically in a certain fashion it can be used to take things for granted, and justify the exploitation of a relationship that may not have the attributes of a gift but, are more easily explained away through the logic of gifting as to not have to pay the bill.

Inherent Value vs Societal Value

According to Locke “The Earth, and that is therein is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (Sect. 26 Locke). Inherent value is the natural value of earth and its processes, it is something that does not need labor to have value. Everything in its natural state has inherent value because it is symbolically linked in space and time with other things in their natural state. Physical things can have inherent value, like plants ability to turn Co2 into Oxygen and humans ability to breathe in oxygen and release Co2. By default they have value to each other as they require one another to some capacity to continue in their current state. Abstractly things can also have inherent value. Humans for example not only have inherent value through their physical presence but also through their emotions. Love, Compassion, and Creativity being all of inherent human value. That is because as soon as every human is born they have these inherent emotions which they can foster/share or not. This value is constant and can not be taken away, it is foundational to the being of each subject and object.

To flesh out what is meant by societal value another quote by Locke seems pertinent. Labor being the transforming factor. In line with Locke we define societal value as: the act of perceived labor being represented in a wage or monetary compensation. Monetary compensation being the abstraction of property as in the accumulation of stored labor. In his words “If the first gathering made it not his, nothing else could. That labor put a distinction between them and common”(Sect. 28 Locke). Once the distinction of labor was made the object not only had its inherent value but, also now a societal value. Now that it was held by one person it could be exchanged for something that was held by another person thus giving it a societal value in addition to and despite its inherent value.

Gifting and Transactions

A gift is then the act of a conscious entity giving something of value (inherent or societal) without the need or even expectation of re-compensation or even consideration. The reason for the need of a conscious entity being that, consciousness is the only thing that can distinguish between gift giving and taking. Without some sort of intent of giving a gift how can one be sure that they are not simply taking. Gift giving is an act that is seen in humans and possibly observed in animals but in how we perceive the word it is a completely human idea. Consider that even when we apply the idea of a gift to something like nature, as Locke does, we conceive it as if it were given by a larger bigger entity (god) who is in the act of gifting us the earth. In this definition there can be no gifting without a giver. Because without a giver, a gift becomes anything that comes (seemingly) for free.

Transactions on the other hand are between humans which take stored labor in the form of currency and exchange it back and forth. If there is a wall that needs to be built then there could be a transaction where my labor is compensated for in money. Or where one has bread and another has coffee they may transact such things for their respective attributed values.

Societal value is associated with transactions (being a product of labor) while inherent value is associated with gifts. This is not to say that inherent value can not be transacted or that societal value can not be gifted. It is to say that when something is gifted it can no longer be a transaction and that when something is transacted it can no longer be a gift.

Nature, Women, and Each-other

Now imagine nature, women's bodies, and each-other in the context of gifts or transactions.

Nature:

If nature is a gift then it was given to us and it presupposes a god or entity which has bestowed it upon us. Taken as a gift (as Locke does) it is easy to imagine why he defines nature as only having inherent value until it is imbued with labor to create societal value. If he conceived as nature as already having societal value before labor he would then have to imagine a way to compensate the invisible benefactor. This being impossible, the concept of nature being a gift allows for the unlimited use of it without consequence, even though the idea/proof of nature as gift is a fruitless argument based on faith and ego. This starting point of nature as a gift has allowed for our entire story as humanity to unfold yet, is it a sound assumption? Or merely the best justification?

If we were to imagine instead a world where the beginning is not a gifted earth, but a transactional earth where we must pay for the formerly gifted inherent value… then that change with the base material of our existence would also change the way we develop, treat each-other and ultimately affect our ability to compensate inherent value that was formerly overlooked and taken for granted under the label of convenient god given gifts.

Women:

Women have, in a sense the gift of nature. Being so, they suffer the same pitfalls attributed to the assumption that nature and its functions are a gift. So, like a natural resource a woman's ability to reproduce is taken by society as a gift. Yet, who is the woman giving this gift to? Did she chose who and where this gift would be bestowed? Does a woman not expect reciprocation from society, the father, and her community? A child can very well be a sort of “gift” but not in the way that it comes free and without labor (without transactions). Then why, is it so common to refer to woman’s ability to reproduce as “the gift of life” or that the babies should be gifts to society. If it were truly a gift every woman would attest to it and declare her gift without implications, yet this is not the case. A child is not something that is given without consequence. It implicitly sneaks in assumptions that women are always willing, they need not be compensated, and that they are choosing exactly who to gift. This association between the exploitation of nature and women's bodies is linked through the idea of them being gifts full of inherent value. The challenge being the immense labor required in converting inherent value into societal value since transacting inherent value is paradoxical in the sense that, transaction value is always shifting while it exists in the realm of inherent value. The inherent being infinite while the societal not. Still far from an excuse, as mankind has shown time and time again its ability to commodify parts of inherent value where it benefited most. Ignoring only where such labor could not be justified within the contemporary societal value so then becoming a gift as to not become a consideration. The gift to society as a way to justify the use of inherent value without consideration to its societal value.

Each-other:

Similarly and by extension if we already perceive of nature and our mothers as gifts then we also ultimately become gifts to one another. For individuals, if each sees the other as a gift, then why would one gift themselves? After all, their very presence is already a gift that also requires no reciprocation. Only a feeling of love would make an individual reciprocate with their own gift as the original gift doesn't call for, and even at times rejects the need for any compensation. When everyone thinks that they are surrounded by gifts then why not receive as many as possible without the slightest pang of conscience. Strictly seeing each-other as gifts to one another opens up a rational where we all owe each-other everything and nothing simultaneously. This sort of nihilistic set up is born from the neglect of the limits of what constitutes a gift. Every concept has two sides to its coin. Gifting while fundamental to human interaction, can also lead to gross misunderstandings of exchange value by not critically thinking about the origins of the gifts that may or may not have been intended as gifts to begin with.

Love:

Love is the inherent value that allows us to really conceptualize gift giving. The two are intertwined. To love is to let go and to let come. And to give without expectation.

Without love, does humanity not see the world as wholly transactional? Love being the engine of gifting. Locke assumes this love to be present and unconditional in nature for humanity without ever realistically rationalizing how nature could be a gift without his faith. Nature loves us because god loves us… But if there is no god then there really is no rationale for nature being a gift. As such there is only a void where something must love us to gift us or we have been misunderstanding our world all along.

Conclusion

As individuals it is up to us to make sure that we do not take the world as a gift; as a world for granted. Not to take reproduction as a gift; as reproduction for granted. And finally to not take each-other as gifts; as each-other for granted. Looking at Locke and his assumption of nature as a gift that need not be discussed or questioned has had long lasting repercussions as to what we consider to be of societal value and what we purposely keep as inherent value. This process is then reflected in our choice to either: transact or gift. The ramifications of this relationship are deep as we have seen. If we revisit many of our gifts, they may not turn out to be gifts after-all but, things we should attribute societal value. Leaving then those things we do for each-other out of love as gifts. Society as transacting what it must, while being grateful for the rarer and exceptional circumstances that it simply cannot. To conclude society often mistakes transactions it doesn't want to pay for as gifts that fall from the sky because to compensate the sky would also mean to compensate each-other and that is the one thing society seems truly terrified of.

Works Cited

Locke, John. 1986. The second treatise on civil government. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.