Property – Who owns the city?

Property is one of these categories that one seems to know what it means to try to put this meaning into concrete words. In our capitalist society, it initially seems to be a matter of course, but a precise examination of the same shows that it is a complex, socially competitive and self -contained concept.

To clarify the same, the Oldenburg social philosophers of Niklas Bender, Jacob Blumenfeld and Tilo Wesche have now presented the extensive band “Competitive Property”. This is preparing to shed light on the most burning questions that the social category of property currently reveals. If the first two parts are expected to be theoretically kept – they deal with concepts and reviews of property as well as its limits – the following parts become pleasant. The extensive third part is devoted to the field, on which most of us experience the problem of ownership in everyday life: the question of residential property. Another part is then devoted to the question of the connection between ecology and property, one last finally that according to intangible property.

Tilo Wesche initially noted the “forgetfulness of ownership” of social research until the 2008 financial crisis. Until then, ownership was mostly simple as Private property understood. An understanding that is still socially predominant today. “Regardless of whether it is the redistribution from the bottom to top, concentrations of social power, the global gap between poor and the empire, the exceeding planetary borders or the endangered privacy in the digital space acts: social conflicts of this kind are powered, tightened and streaked.” Especially in the two “theoretical” parts, the author of the thesis follow that the category of property, which is justifies in liberal society from the concept of freedom, undertaking it in capitalism.

This thesis – which remains as well as abstract at first – is plausible in the texts that deal with the apartment question at the latest. The Berlin philosopher Rahel Jaeggi manages to show the example of Kreuzberg’s example why the conceptual narrowing of property to private property must lead to the dissolution of social cohesion. “Living”, according to their thesis, is not a private matter, even if it takes place in private, but a public affair. “This may first seem paradoxical. What is meant by this, however, it becomes clear when we show ourselves the simple fact that the practice of living is not exhausted in what we do in the “own” four walls, but also affects neighborly coexistence: In which quarter I live, what work, educational and pleasure are available here, etc.

The ownership of living space, as in our society as a private property for the purpose of exploitation (vulgo: for rent), is paradoxical that it negates this social component at the same time and exploited. On the one hand, the horrendous rental prices in so -called trendy areas by social life in these quarters are justified in the market logic, and on the other hand, this is destroyed by capitalization by putting a displacement process into work. Rahel Jaeggi summarizes this paradox: it doesn’t just ask the question wem the city belongs, but above all, How it belongs.

The texts that deal with the question of “ecology and property” show that this paradox of civil property has accepted global features in our time in a very material sense. Here, for example with the question of man -made climate change, the term that aims at the exclusive rights of use of individuals must reach its limit. It is therefore only consistent that a significant part of climate activism is working on ownership issues. Not only theoretically, but very practical through blockages and sabotage actions. The author succeeds in establishing this connection between the socially prevailing concept of ownership, the consequences for climate change and the forms of action of the opponents without scandalizing.

So what the band has announced is that he also shows that ownership is a multi -layered, sometimes paradoxical term that can do far more than his one -sided narrowing to private property ownership. It also shows itself as a concept that requires its understanding not only in science, but above all in society of urgent reform, we want to face the challenges of the “poly crisis” summoned. A first step to this reform is certainly done with this profound debate contribution from Suhrkamp.

Niklas Bewert/ Jacob Blumenfeld/ Tilo Wesche (ed.): Competitive property. A socio -theoretical debate. Suhrkamp, ​​703 p., Br., € 34.

Even if it takes place in private, living is not a private matter, but a public matter.

–