TOUR OF THE HABITAT WORLD SEEN BY CIVIL SOCIETY

Social function (of property)

Dernière mise à jour le 23 juin 2019

According to Aristotle (-384 to-3220 the social notion of property means that individual ownership is turned to a common use). Believing that private property was a necessity for people to acquire some goods (and therefore to respect them, maintain them), he felt that he did not condemn private property (as did Plato), but that each citizen-owner should make common use of his property.

Many social movements particularly under the influence of the major derivatives of the phenomenon of land grabs that takes place everywhere in the world (and particularly in Africa), today tend to wonder about the notion of property, whether real estate or land. (For example in Tunis in 2012 Social Forum – POLIS to the Brazil network)

As a reminder, the meaning of the notion of property:

In many cultures, property is a very different concept than we know. For example, Native Americans believed that property did not exist. They had no rights on the land occupied and exploited. They were only the guardians, custodians. They couldn’t then sell it, nor offer it, or pass it to their children.

In legal language, the property right covers several concepts (Belgian right cfr):

  • « fructus » which is the right to enjoy the fruits of a something belonging to you
  • « usus » which is the right to use a property
  • « abusus » which is the right to dispose of property (turn it, give it away, destroy it)

Thus, according to history and cultures, the concept of property has evolved, or regained only some of the aspects of the legal definition. According to the site Homo Rationalis, « the concept of property has nothing of real: it expresses human, political, legal, symbolic reports that vary in space and time ».

Definitions of the social function of the property:

Although Aristotle seemed first to have proposed a social function to the property, other thinkers or philosophers after him have also defined this not always easy to understand concept. Here are three examples:

  • St. Thomas: he wrote some literature on the subject and that could inspire the popes such as Clément IV (XII century) and Pius VI (XVIII century) who saw that if a land was still not cleared, anyone could seed it and enjoy a third of this earth. In summary, IF AN OWNER DOES NOT MEET THE OBLIGATIONS to « PRODUCTIVE SOCIAL FUNCTION, the STATE has the OBLIGATION TO FORCE him TO PART OFF SOME OF HIS PROPERTY.
  • Auguste count (1798-1857): believed that « society should consider the property as a whole which spontaneously tends to go beyond the individual aspect of this property. It must therefore be seen as a social function designed to train and administer the capital by which each generation shall prepare the work of the next. « The property tends to impose obligations and not to be defined as simple right. » Thus, according to him, THE PROPERTY TEND   BECOMES (SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY) RATHER THAN A WILL.
  • Léon Duguit (1859-1928): great critic of the law and defender of the social function of property, meanwhile it is estimated that the owner is invested with a specific social function: « the right to property, I deny, his social duty, I said. » THUS, THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS, BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST DUTIES.

Social movements in decision-making with examples from Latin America:

In some countries such as Colombia, Peru and Venezuela, it is estimated that property implies obligations and that it also has a social function. However Mexico, first country in the world to have in its 1917 constitution grant a social function to property, and to further  adopt a number of amendments which have represented a considerable decline. (UNHABITAT)

 After a period of dictatorship, Brazil introduced in its new constitution (1988 – art. 23) the notion of social function of the property: « property will meet its social function. A bridge was thus introduced into law concerning private property. This is a real type of Copernican legal innovation … (As seen by Monseigneur the Bishop Tomas Balduino). Brazil did add an extra element to our test of definition: the right to property is legitimate only if this property performs A SOCIAL FUNCTION DIRECTED TOWARDS MORE SOCIAL JUSTICE. It’s what has allowed this country to impose some limitations on the level of the rural land: first of all, the property must not be considered as heritage but also as a production and uncultivated land can therefore be reclaimed by the Brazilian Government. There is SOCIAL FUNCTION WHEN THE PROPERTY MAY EXERCISE ITS PRODUCTIVE FUNCTION.

At the 2012 World Social Forum Social which took place in Tunis, representatives of social movements began to advocate and to reflect to honor this social function of the property. Nelson Saule of the POLIS Association recalled that this social function must be understood as the priority given to the common interest on the individual right of the property. Or more specifically: it entails the equitable  use of urban space, so that the citizens can own the territory; the democratization of its spheres of power; production and culture in compliance with the standards of social justice; and finally the creation of sustainable environmental conditions.

Sources: