why not share rather than own? russell belk university of utah usa

26
WHY NOT SHARE RATHER WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? THAN OWN? Russell Belk Russell Belk University of Utah University of Utah USA USA

Upload: cody-boone

Post on 11-Jan-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

WHY NOT SHARE WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN?RATHER THAN OWN?

Russell BelkRussell Belk

University of UtahUniversity of Utah

USAUSA

Page 2: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Consider Daily CommutingConsider Daily Commuting

Lone drivers in private autos & SUVLone drivers in private autos & SUV Air pollution, global warmingAir pollution, global warming Dwindling fossil fuels, global competitionDwindling fossil fuels, global competition Increased stress triples heart attack riskIncreased stress triples heart attack risk

Sharing alternatives (e.g., Sharing alternatives (e.g., AutoShareAutoShare, car , car pools, public transit, bike sharing)pools, public transit, bike sharing)

So why don’t we share?So why don’t we share?

Can we share more?Can we share more?

Page 3: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Alternative Forms of DistributionAlternative Forms of Distribution

Marketplace ExchangeMarketplace Exchange

Gift-GivingGift-Giving

SharingSharing

On the whole, you find wealth much more in use than in ownership (Aristotle)

Page 4: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Commodity ExchangeCommodity Exchange

Strangers barter or purchase with moneyStrangers barter or purchase with moneyBalanced transactions incur no debt nor Balanced transactions incur no debt nor create/maintain social relationscreate/maintain social relationsSimultaneous exchange idealSimultaneous exchange idealEstablishes equivalence between objectsEstablishes equivalence between objectsSimmel’s society of strangers (not friends or Simmel’s society of strangers (not friends or enemies)enemies)Sahlins’ balanced or negative reciprocitySahlins’ balanced or negative reciprocityEgoisticEgoisticIn Derrida’s & Economists’ views, the only form In Derrida’s & Economists’ views, the only form of human transactionof human transaction

Page 5: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Gift ExchangeGift ExchangeIn Mauss’s view, still based on reciprocity In Mauss’s view, still based on reciprocity (obligations to give, receive, & reciprocate)(obligations to give, receive, & reciprocate)In Gregory’s view, the opposite of commodity In Gregory’s view, the opposite of commodity exchangeexchange Establishes relationships between peopleEstablishes relationships between people Ideally staggeredIdeally staggered Money taboosMoney taboos

May involve Sahlins’ generalized reciprocityMay involve Sahlins’ generalized reciprocitySocial exchange and ritual prestationSocial exchange and ritual prestationAltruism and agapic love possible, but not “ours”Altruism and agapic love possible, but not “ours”In Granovetter’s terms, even business In Granovetter’s terms, even business transactions can be embedded in this way (also transactions can be embedded in this way (also Carrier, Silver)Carrier, Silver)

Page 6: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

SharingSharingA third alternative not fully consideredA third alternative not fully consideredPrototype—income pooling and resource sharing Prototype—income pooling and resource sharing within the family; predecessor: the motherwithin the family; predecessor: the motherA Marxian ideal: from each according to his or her A Marxian ideal: from each according to his or her abilities and to each according to his or her needsabilities and to each according to his or her needsAn Internet reality? File sharing, P2P, open An Internet reality? File sharing, P2P, open source, BBs, Wikipedia, free democratized source, BBs, Wikipedia, free democratized informationinformationThe open science/academic model since the The open science/academic model since the Scientific Revolution vs. closed Scientific Revolution vs. closed technology/businesstechnology/businessBut even the prototype of the family may pool & But even the prototype of the family may pool & share lessshare lessIPR may trump biodiversity, human life, blood & IPR may trump biodiversity, human life, blood & organsorgans

Page 7: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Key QuestionsKey Questions

What don’t we share What don’t we share

more?more?

Incentives to share Incentives to share

intangibles?intangibles?

Incentives to share Incentives to share

tangibles?tangibles?

Are these incentives changing?Are these incentives changing?

How does this change our understandings How does this change our understandings of gift and commodity exchange?of gift and commodity exchange?

Page 8: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Sharing: An Alternative to Sharing: An Alternative to Private OwnershipPrivate Ownership

IncludesIncludes Voluntary lending, giving awayVoluntary lending, giving away Pooling & allocation of resourcesPooling & allocation of resources Authorized use of public propertyAuthorized use of public property NOT contractual renting or leasingNOT contractual renting or leasing NOT Unauthorized use by theft or trespassNOT Unauthorized use by theft or trespass

We can share things, places, people, pets, We can share things, places, people, pets, ideas, values, time, affection, animosityideas, values, time, affection, animosityExcludes non-volitional coincidenceExcludes non-volitional coincidence ““Sharing” a common place of birthSharing” a common place of birth ““Sharing” a languageSharing” a language ““Sharing” a set of experiencesSharing” a set of experiences

Page 9: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Example: Car sharingExample: Car sharing

Car Sharing, launched in 1987 in Car Sharing, launched in 1987 in SwitzerlandSwitzerland and and later in 1988 in later in 1988 in GermanyGermany, came to North America , came to North America via via Quebec CityQuebec City in 1993. As of December 2005 - in 1993. As of December 2005 - 17 U.S. car sharing programs claimed 91,995 17 U.S. car sharing programs claimed 91,995 members sharing 1,737 vehicles, and 11 members sharing 1,737 vehicles, and 11 Canadian car sharing programs claimed 13,576 Canadian car sharing programs claimed 13,576 members sharing 672 vehicles. members sharing 672 vehicles.

Toronto Toronto AutoShareAutoShare 4 hours cost $33.81 4 hours cost $33.81 membership $100+GST; deposit $250membership $100+GST; deposit $250 60 locations 60 locations Book online; some plans include insurance & gasBook online; some plans include insurance & gas

Page 10: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Sharing DefinedSharing Defined

The act and process of distributing what is ours to The act and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use (can also share in production)others for their use (can also share in production)The act and process of receiving something from The act and process of receiving something from others for our use others for our use We may share what we feel is ours so that others We may share what we feel is ours so that others come to feel it is at least partly theirs to use (ours)come to feel it is at least partly theirs to use (ours)Use may be for an indefinite or prescribed period Use may be for an indefinite or prescribed period & for our exclusive use or for use by us as well as & for our exclusive use or for use by us as well as others others Givers and receivers can be individuals or groups Givers and receivers can be individuals or groups Distribution may or may not make the access to Distribution may or may not make the access to things more equalthings more equal

Page 11: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Cultural InfluencesCultural Influences

Sharing, possession, & ownership are all Sharing, possession, & ownership are all culturally learned behaviorsculturally learned behaviors

In the West, possession & ownership learned In the West, possession & ownership learned first; sharing, fairness, justice laterfirst; sharing, fairness, justice later

Australian aborigines learn sharing firstAustralian aborigines learn sharing first Vestigial affect from nomadic pastVestigial affect from nomadic past Led to difficulties with private cars & landLed to difficulties with private cars & land

Chinese Chinese ZhanguangZhanguang; Japanese hole-in-one; Japanese hole-in-one

African hospitalityAfrican hospitality

Culture also prescribes what is selfish vs. Culture also prescribes what is selfish vs. altruistic, generous vs. stingy, & fair vs. unfairaltruistic, generous vs. stingy, & fair vs. unfair

Page 12: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Mixed Effects of SharingMixed Effects of Sharing

Recipient can feel grateful or hostileRecipient can feel grateful or hostileMay feel we get our fair share, more, or lessMay feel we get our fair share, more, or lessCan reduce envy & foster feelings of Can reduce envy & foster feelings of community or create dependency & feelings community or create dependency & feelings of inferiorityof inferiorityWe may see sharing as a sincere effort to We may see sharing as a sincere effort to please or a sopplease or a sopCan take place within excess or insufficiencyCan take place within excess or insufficiencyWe may share broadly or narrowlyWe may share broadly or narrowly

Page 13: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Impediments to SharingImpediments to Sharing

Feelings of object attachmentFeelings of object attachment

Cathecting objects as part of extended self (e.g., Cathecting objects as part of extended self (e.g., body organs)body organs)

MaterialismMaterialism The importance attached to possessionsThe importance attached to possessions Components: envy, possessiveness, non-generosityComponents: envy, possessiveness, non-generosity Fear of loss/damage, tragedy of the CommonsFear of loss/damage, tragedy of the Commons Materialism accounts in 4 culturesMaterialism accounts in 4 cultures

E.g., Christmas givingE.g., Christmas giving From broad charitable givingFrom broad charitable giving To narrow giving with the familyTo narrow giving with the family

Page 14: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Sharing & the Museum Sharing & the Museum Without WallsWithout Walls

Fine art is FiniteFine art is Finite

But it can be broadly But it can be broadly distributeddistributed Art MuseumsArt Museums Inexpensive copiesInexpensive copies

What is the problem here?What is the problem here? Benjamin’s loss of “aura”Benjamin’s loss of “aura” Denigrating reproduction, fraud, fake, forgeryDenigrating reproduction, fraud, fake, forgery Status hierarchies – e.g, Visiting Luxor in Egypt vs. Status hierarchies – e.g, Visiting Luxor in Egypt vs.

Las Vegas, vs. books, Internet & postcardsLas Vegas, vs. books, Internet & postcards

Page 15: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Incentives to Share IntangiblesIncentives to Share Intangibles

Some of “our” intangibles are not legally ours – a Some of “our” intangibles are not legally ours – a view, classroom seat, “our” songview, classroom seat, “our” songOther intangibles may be our property – ideas, Other intangibles may be our property – ideas, designs, & various creations (open science)designs, & various creations (open science) Academic ideas – ours vs. plagiarizedAcademic ideas – ours vs. plagiarized Presenting & publishing = sharingPresenting & publishing = sharing It also = the way to make them oursIt also = the way to make them ours We should give them rather than sell themWe should give them rather than sell them We are more apt to share with doctoral studentsWe are more apt to share with doctoral students But sharing raw data = less likely But sharing raw data = less likely Others may admire our garden, but may not borrow Others may admire our garden, but may not borrow

our tools, seeds, & potting soilour tools, seeds, & potting soil Alternate model exists (e.g., Human Genome Project) Alternate model exists (e.g., Human Genome Project)

Page 16: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Sharing without LosingSharing without Losing

A song, joke, story, body, digital filesA song, joke, story, body, digital filesEven books, journals, videos can be copiedEven books, journals, videos can be copiedThe online gift economyThe online gift economy Linux, Napster, freewareLinux, Napster, freeware BBSs, chat rooms, web sitesBBSs, chat rooms, web sites

Why join these virtual communities?Why join these virtual communities? Keeping while giving (Weiner)Keeping while giving (Weiner) Cheap altruism (Coyne)Cheap altruism (Coyne) UtilitarianismUtilitarianism True hi-tech gift economyTrue hi-tech gift economy

Other motivations: “Paying back,” cornucopia, & Other motivations: “Paying back,” cornucopia, & movementmovementE.g., ReviewingE.g., Reviewing

Page 17: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Intangible Sharing CommunitiesIntangible Sharing CommunitiesMarker goodsMarker goods

Sharing SecretsSharing Secrets

Extended SelfExtended Self

Sports fans, music fans, brand cultsSports fans, music fans, brand cults

Proselytizing & recruiting membersProselytizing & recruiting members

Feeling of minority status, persecution, & Feeling of minority status, persecution, & uniquenessuniqueness

iPod?iPod?

Page 18: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Case in Point:Case in Point:The Grateful DeadThe Grateful Dead

Long known for “tapers” freely trading & Long known for “tapers” freely trading & trading (not profiting from) concert tapestrading (not profiting from) concert tapesEvolved into digital downloadingEvolved into digital downloadingBut in late November, 2005, GD did an about But in late November, 2005, GD did an about face & told Live Music Archive to stop making face & told Live Music Archive to stop making it availableit availableFan uproar caused a partial reversalFan uproar caused a partial reversalBut GD already suggested shiftBut GD already suggested shift From Internet as cornucopiaFrom Internet as cornucopia To Internet as pay-per-play jukeboxTo Internet as pay-per-play jukebox

Page 19: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

The Grateful Dead BrandThe Grateful Dead Brand

““The Dead had created an anarchy of trust, going not The Dead had created an anarchy of trust, going not by statute but by instinct and turning fans into co-by statute but by instinct and turning fans into co-conspirators, spreading their music and buying conspirators, spreading their music and buying tickets, T-shirts and official CD’s to show their tickets, T-shirts and official CD’s to show their loyalty. The new approach…changes that loyalty. The new approach…changes that relationship….The change also downgrades fans relationship….The change also downgrades fans into the customers they were all along. It removes…into the customers they were all along. It removes…brand value from the Dead’s legacy by reducing brand value from the Dead’s legacy by reducing them to one more band with products to sell” (Jon them to one more band with products to sell” (Jon Pareles, “The Dead’s Gamble: Free Music for Sale” Pareles, “The Dead’s Gamble: Free Music for Sale” NYTNYT, December 3, 2005)., December 3, 2005).

Page 20: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Incentives to Share TangiblesIncentives to Share TangiblesSchool boys/girls sharing clothingSchool boys/girls sharing clothing

Leveraged lifestyles—e.g., AutoShareLeveraged lifestyles—e.g., AutoShare

Virtual SharingVirtual Sharing Bag, Borrow, or StealBag, Borrow, or Steal Borrow rip CDsBorrow rip CDs Share music, films on-lineShare music, films on-line

Greek hospitality & OdysseusGreek hospitality & Odysseus

Page 21: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Other Tangible Sharing IncentivesOther Tangible Sharing Incentives

Family heirlooms & extended selfFamily heirlooms & extended selfSharing within the familySharing within the familyGroup sharing (e.g., time-share homes)Group sharing (e.g., time-share homes)Institutional sharing—e.g.,Institutional sharing—e.g., MuseumsMuseums National ParksNational Parks But, tragedy of the commons?But, tragedy of the commons?

Limited good vs. Unlimited good (e.g., Limited good vs. Unlimited good (e.g., shells; Bible; the commons; Halloween)shells; Bible; the commons; Halloween)Communally extended self & humanityCommunally extended self & humanity

Page 22: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

John Donne (1623)John Donne (1623)

No man is an island, entire of itself; every No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manner of promontory were, as well as if a manner of thy friend’s or thine own were. Any man’s thy friend’s or thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. [Meditation XVII]for thee. [Meditation XVII]

Page 23: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Individual Reasons to ShareIndividual Reasons to Share(Summary)(Summary)

Self-interest (e.g., leveraged lifestyle)Self-interest (e.g., leveraged lifestyle)

Extended sense of self (e.g. brand cults)Extended sense of self (e.g. brand cults)

Altruism (e.g., sharing within the family)Altruism (e.g., sharing within the family)

Social justice (e.g., paying back for Social justice (e.g., paying back for successes in life)successes in life)

Unlimited good (e.g., shell on the beach)Unlimited good (e.g., shell on the beach)

Common humanity (e.g., Donne)Common humanity (e.g., Donne)

Page 24: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

Social Factors in SharingSocial Factors in Sharing(Summary)(Summary)

POSITIVEPOSITIVE Internet sharing (e.g., Internet sharing (e.g.,

Napster)Napster) Limited goods (e.g., Limited goods (e.g.,

environmental environmental resources)resources)

The greater good The greater good (e.g., open science)(e.g., open science)

Rise of virtual Rise of virtual communities online communities online (e.g., MUG)(e.g., MUG)

NEGATIVENEGATIVE Intellectual property Intellectual property

rights (e.g., TRIPS)rights (e.g., TRIPS) Decline of sharing Decline of sharing

within the family (e.g., within the family (e.g., privatization)privatization)

Decline of family (e.g., Decline of family (e.g., divorce rates)divorce rates)

Decline of Decline of neighborhood neighborhood community (e.g. community (e.g. Bowling Alone)Bowling Alone)

Page 25: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

ConclusionsConclusions

Social desirability of sharingSocial desirability of sharing Why? Community, civil obedience, environmentWhy? Community, civil obedience, environment Why not? ID through things vs. people, financial Why not? ID through things vs. people, financial

security vs. social security, economic capital vs. social security vs. social security, economic capital vs. social capitalcapital

Compared to private ownership through Compared to private ownership through marketplace exchange or gift-giving, sharing is marketplace exchange or gift-giving, sharing is more casual, less reciprocal, and potentially more casual, less reciprocal, and potentially more altruisticmore altruistic Santa replaces sharing with gift-givingSanta replaces sharing with gift-giving Luxury & surprise also make sharing gift-givingLuxury & surprise also make sharing gift-giving

Page 26: WHY NOT SHARE RATHER THAN OWN? Russell Belk University of Utah USA

ConclusionsConclusionsNegative social desirability of sharing: spouse, Negative social desirability of sharing: spouse, womb, soldiers, childrenwomb, soldiers, childrenBattle: Online sharing vs. intellectual property Battle: Online sharing vs. intellectual property laws vs. public access (e.g., eBooks)laws vs. public access (e.g., eBooks)Sharing through post-materialism, VS, Sharing through post-materialism, VS, downshifting, dematerializing, experience downshifting, dematerializing, experience economy?economy?One boom U.S. market: storage One boom U.S. market: storage Business leads with the virtual corporationBusiness leads with the virtual corporationIs the virtual consumer next? “Why rent when Is the virtual consumer next? “Why rent when you can buy” vs. “Why own when you can rent by you can buy” vs. “Why own when you can rent by the hour?” (the hour?” (AutoShareAutoShare))