"Of Property"

Fuck white fragility

Fuck your complacency

If you don't fight oppressive systems, you're contributing

Let's tear it all down, down to the fucking ground

The Imperialist, Capitalist, White Supremacist, Patriarchy!

-Lyrics of “Call You Out” (2018) by Mommy Long Legs

During the last semester of my senior year, I was enrolled in HISTORY 329 which was a course about the histories of race and law in the United States. One day in the beginning of the semester, our discussion section focused on the article, “Whiteness as Property,” written by Cheryl Harris and published in 1993 to Harvard Law Review. I’m not going to summarize what Harris argues, one, because a few sentences wouldn’t do justice to her work, and two, because you really should just go read the article yourself. Rather, what is important to notice is that, on that day in class, Harris squared up with a deceased three-hundred year old Englishman- and the winner was not the one who might predict to win.

After our professor opened the floor to first impressions and the usual students, who had always done the readings, talked for a while, she asked the class a seemingly simple question: What is property? Now, she was looking for Cheryl Harris’s definition of property (something both tangible and intangible, exclusively benefiting the material status and wealth of white people), but the white man was faster at opening his mouth than the rest of us were. He said, quoting his 101 Intro to Political Theory essay, that:

“Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”

The classroom fell silent. Harris had already defined what she meant by Property, but the Englishman must not have heard, or if he did then he was most likely thinking about his century-old investments into the slave trade. We were simply stunned, not because he had risen from death to defend his lot, or because of the state of nature shit, or even because of the mixing labour with property thing; but, rather, because of his sheer audacity to even speak in the first place. It was unsolicited, unnecessary, and tone-deaf. Locke stood, ready for an answer he had already received from Harris… it would not be repeated.

But, as we sat in silence, and we returned back to reality from this fever dream, Harris and Locke disappeared, and alas stood a student and the professor. Understanding the situation, some of us other students started snickering and smiling at each other. Did this kid really just cite his 101 Intro to Political Theory essay- instead of Cheryl Harris’s?

I have so much admiration for my professor and her patience in dealing with this student, not just at this moment, but throughout the semester. You see, this particular student had been known for playing a sort of Devil’s Advocate in the classroom- or atleast, he would sometimes preface what he was going to say by asserting something like, “This might be problematic- but.”

But going back to that day, with the class still sitting in silence, my professor answered:

“Yeah you’re right, according to Locke… But, you know, I think I like Harris’s definition better.”

So why am I telling you this story? You don’t possibly believe that could have Locke come back from the dead to defend his title and go face to face against Cheryl Harris, do you?

Well, I’m not telling you this story because I think it’s hilarious that a student would even think about citing their own 101 Intro to Political Theory essay in a class; nor do I admire the micro-aggression in asserting Locke’s definition of property as more valuable than Cherryl Harris’s definition. But, rather, I’m telling you this story because Locke did rise from the dead. No, there wasn’t a zombified Englishman sitting at a desk in the class- but he was there in spirit.

Even after his death more than three hundred years ago, his voice and the systems of oppression, which he maintained and strengthened, are still much alive today. I mean, it’s known that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness came, again, directly from Locke’s Second Treatise: “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” And it’s not just John Locke, no, it's all of them.

In my first semester of college, I also took a 101 Introduction to Political Science course. I was back at Wayne State then, and to this day the professor of that class has greatly influenced my attitude towards the canon of western political thought, philosophy and politics in general, and in life. He was a political theory scholar in the ancients, particularly on Plato and Greek thought and like the ancients, he carries with him an admiration and love for inquiry. Perhaps if I had another professor for this class I would have ended up an engineer, or a medical doctor. But throughout my undergraduate years, originating from his influence, I have obtained a sincere and careful devotion towards the critique and investigation of western political thought.

If, by now, you haven’t picked up that I’ve been re-reading John Locke and other dead white men since that 101 Introduction to Political Theory course, then simply, in totality I've written six essays on John Locke alone In my Junior and Senior years of college, I have been devoted to critiquing Locke and others like him through a gender-focused lens.

For example, I have written an essay on “Of Paternal Power” in Locke’s Second Treatise about the way Locke presents women, children, and the man in the family. In the same class, I wrote an essay about the Veil of Ignorance in Susan Moller Okin’s book, “Justice, Gender, and the Family” (1993) and overt/covert gender narratives Terrel Carver’s, “Men in Western Political Thought” (2004). In another class, I wrote about congruities and similarities between the labor theory of John Locke and Karl Marx. In summary, I have devoted much of my undergraduate education towards critiquing Locke’s work, as well as other canonical thinkers from western political thought.

But, it's not something that I’ve just been studying or writing about. I don’t write about Locke because I’ve read his work before, or because he’s a pretty easy target for critique.

Locke and other canon thinkers are invaluable to me because through investigating their works, they continue to unveil their own systems of oppressions that subject me, and many others like me. They give me a reality check.

When I hear someone say that a husband should be the head of the household, he should provide for his family and, if necessary, physically defend them, I think Locke’s “Of Paternal Power.”

I’ve tried to understand these systems of oppression and the ideologies that drive them. I am still young in my journey of investigation and understanding of these systems of oppression, but there is one thing I know for sure: these dead white men are still alive today. The imperialist, capitalist, white-supremacist, patriarchy perpetuates itself throughout the canon…

We just have to notice it.

"Of Men" An Essay Collection: By Blake Byle

"Of Men"
An Essay Collection:
By Blake Byle