In Reply to: The essence of property? posted by Crystal Bourbeau on November 18, 2001 at 21:53:40:
It has to do with both the memories shared and the attachment to one's ownings. I do not, however, think that it is selfish or hopeless. Frankly, I do not comprehend why it would be selfish. I feel like the attachment to ones land, e.g. the farmers in The Grapes of Wrath, was the simple fact that it was theirs. Their families had lived there for generations and they were quite content with that. I feel like if they had wanted to take a chance at a potentially more productive and income-generating employment they would have made the attempt. But they didn't need to, before the droughts, that is, because they were happy at their farms. The somewhat dramatised attachment to the land is due to the expropriation they were about to endure. The state was taking away their land because they couldn't afford to live there anymore. I think it was a natural response. It's like somebody stealing your teddy-bear when you are a kid. It has almost no correlation to one's mental health. Does this make sense at all to anyone?
: What are the implications of investing yourself into your property or your land. In several films, we see people defining themselves according to their land and on one hand it seems noble because they have an attachment to their surroundings. However, it also appears hopeless and selfish at times to identify so greatly with your property. Is property based on the memories shared on one's land or an attachment to one's ownings? From a less practical stand point, I think that a rigid self-identification from one's property can inhibit a person from concentrating on themselves as people, similar to the implications of a deep attachment to any material object.
Post a Followup