the messy social lives of objects: inter-personal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and...

The messy social lives of objects: Inter-personal borrowing and the ambiguityof possession and ownership

REBECCA JENKINS*, MIKE MOLESWORTH and RICHARD SCULLION

ECCG, The Media School, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB, UK

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we position inter-personal borrowing as a form of non-market mediated access-based consumption, a distinct form ofexchange that is complex and inherently ambiguous, and a form of consumption that is under researched. We argue that the temporarytransfer of possession is a defining feature of borrowing, which causes ambiguity to arise out of an object being simultaneously active inmore than one network; a good can often be different things to different people at the same time. From our empirical data, we establishtwo emergent themes or forms of ambiguity inherent in borrowing. First, we consider the ambiguity of relationships with goods and people.We note that borrowing is significant in forming and maintaining relationships, but also that relationships to goods are significant indetermining lending and borrowing practices. Second, we consider the ambiguity of ownership and find that borrowers make appropriationattempts, such that borrowed items may be temporarily treated as profane, before being re-sacralised by the borrower and thenre-incorporated by the lender into their active network of possessions. The unique characteristics of borrowing identified in our study offer anopportunity to better understand the ambiguity, or ‘messiness’, within an object’s social life that is not contained within existing work on thebiography of goods. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Borrowing reveals ambiguities in much of what we take forgranted about consumption, including issues of exchange,ownership and possession, the meaning of goods and howgoods mediate relationships. Further, borrowing complicatesour understanding of a good’s biography by being active inmore than one network simultaneously – a borrowed objectis also, always, a lent object and as such it may be part ofdifferent assemblages of reality for each party (Law, 2004).When it comes to borrowing, for example, a lender mayexperience a good as an owned but absent possession, whilstthe borrower may experience the use of a possession withoutownership. Complexities in the practices of borrowing revealhow these ambiguities arise and may be resolved withimplications for other forms of access-based consumption.

In light of the increase in commercialised and formalisedsystems of access (Botsman and Rogers, 2010), such aslibrary loans and car pools, or newer approaches such asShare Some Sugar and Twilbee, we suggest that it is impor-tant to acknowledge lending and borrowing between friendsand relatives as the foundation of such models and markets.Our interest is ‘inter-personal borrowing’, defined here as apervasive form of non-market mediated access-basedconsumption and a distinct form of exchange. For brevity,we simply refer to ‘borrowing’.

Borrowing is a form of exchange with characteristics andconventions that mark it as distinct. Borrowing can bepositioned as a non-market mediated form of access, basedon two core principles; the temporary nature of possession(limited time with/access to an object for the borrower) andthe absence of ownership (possession without ownershipfor the borrower) (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). However,

complexities arise out of the personal and social nature ofborrowing that make it different from market-mediatedaccess-based consumption. Through appreciating these com-plexities, we can know more about our attachment to goods,their social lives and how goods mediate social relationships.

For Belk (2006, 2007), lending and borrowing areincluded in the broad definition of sharing, demonstratinghow the two forms of exchange may be similar. Sharing isregarded as the ‘process of receiving…something fromothers for our use’ and lending means ‘distributing what isours to others for their use’. Yet, it is also possible to makedistinctions between the two forms of exchange. Tinsonand Nuttall (2007) separate sharing and borrowing, position-ing inter-familial borrowing as different because of itsvoluntary nature and more complex rules. Borrowingidentifies two parties – ‘lender’ and ‘borrower’ – which leadsto the key factor differentiating it from other forms ofexchange and access-based consumption, the nature of thetransfer (and non-transfer) of ownership and possession. Wealso recognise the potential for a double obligation in thepractice – to return the borrowed object and to return thefavour, by allowing the lender to borrow something in the future.

Although commodity exchange and gift giving alsoinvolve a transfer of ownership, and sharing involves jointownership (Belk, 2010), borrowing involves a temporarytransfer of possession, in which the borrower does notbecome the legal ‘owner’. This temporality leaves room foran object’s interpretation to be open to ambiguity becausethe object is experienced in an unstable environment(Kopytoff, 1986; Slater, 2002). This invites reflection onboth our relationship with the object and with the personwe are lending to or borrowing from. For instance, we mayreflect with uncertainty about what we may lend and towhom, and then the nature of what will be returned andwhen, and where this leaves our relationship with the borrowerand lent item.

*Correspondence to: Rebecca Jenkins, ECCG, TheMedia School, BournemouthUniversity, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 13: 131–139 (2014)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1469

POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP

Research documents how we make sense of possession andownership as goods graduate from commodity tosingularised possession and from the latter, back to commod-ity or an unwanted possession (Appadurai, 1986; Kopytoff,1986; Lastovicka and Fernández, 2005). Emerging concernshave also seen material objects as facilitating and modulatingour relationships to others, either as means to initiate andmaintain stable relationships (Mauss, 1990 [1950]; Douglasand Isherwood, 1979; Miller, 1987; Douglas, 2001), tomemorialise significant relationships (Csikszentmihalyi andRochberg-Halton, 1981; Belk et al., 1989), or as a vehicleto make visible existing social hierarchies and arrangements(Douglas and Isherwood, 1979; Douglas, 2001). However,within these enquiries, practices of borrowing and lendingare remarkably absent.

Consumer research tends to consider the movement ofobjects in terms of their changing status. A biography isenvisaged whereby a good is likely to be transformed fromcommodity to possession as it is incorporated into the ownersworld (Kopytoff, 1986; Miller, 1987) through commonplacepractices and rituals (Rook, 1985; Kopytoff, 1986;McCracken, 1988; Sherry and McGrath, 1989; Coupland,2005). Once this is achieved, objects are valued more fortheir personal meanings, than for latent exchange value(Kopytoff, 1986), but a good’s new status as singularisedremains in potential flux as the owner’s social relations orother rituals have the potential to change its value or evenrecommodify it. Borrowing, however, suggests that thereare more ambiguous activities taking place in relation to thesocial lives of material goods ‘in-between’ their status assingularised possession and re-commodification. AlthoughKopytoff’s (1986) work notes ambiguity in objects ever-changing biography, we highlight the possibility that theymay be viewed as more than one thing at the same time astheir biography unfolds. Borrowing has its own set ofcharacteristics and negotiations that impacts the social livesof objects. This invites us to consider a multiplicity in anobject’s status that as we classify goods, we might recognisethat they are sometimes, or often, different things to differentpeople at the same time, similar to the sorts of multipleassembled realities described by Law (2004) when anactor (in this case the lent/borrowed object) is present indifferent networks.

In previous research, ownership is relatively clear; com-modities, once incorporated as private, personal possessions,become extensions of their owners (Belk, 1992); as sharedgoods, they are owned by family or ‘in group’ members(Epp and Price, 2008, 2010), and as accessed goods, theyare used and enjoyed but not owned (Chen, 2009; Bardhiand Eckhardt, 2012). Although biographical approaches togoods have generally been linked to individual or familyidentity projects (e.g. Epp and Price, 2008, 2010) wherepossession and ownership are well-defined, in borrowing,ownership and possession are made messy by episodes oftemporary possession marked by appropriation by more thanone person. The value of understanding borrowing is that itgives us new insights into what temporary transfer of

ownership reveals about how individuals relate to borrowedobjects, whether or how a temporary owner can alter anitem’s biography and the role of the good in mediatingembedded social relations of borrower and lender.

OBJECT–PERSON RELATIONSHIPS

Modes of consumption shape ‘consumers’ relationship toproducts and services’ (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012: 882).In comparison with ownership, access produces a differentobject–self relationship, and the rules that govern andregulate this relationship are different (Chen, 2009; Bardhiand Eckhardt, 2012). Bardhi and Eckhardt’s (2012) studyof access-based consumption found that ‘the work of con-sumption’ is absent in this model of market-mediated access,in that consumers do not engage in appropriation practiseswith accessed objects. In their study, perceived ownershipwas not experienced; objects did not form even a temporaryextension of the self due to limited time with the object, fearof contamination due to others’ use of it, and especially theinvolvement of the marketplace. In market-mediated accessthen, the over-arching object–self relationship is one ofuse-value; objects are ‘nobody’s’ but everyone’s to use.(Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). However, if something isaccessed over a longer period, then a sense of ownershipmay be experienced and appropriation practices follow(Strahilevitz and Loewenstein, 1998). Just as an individualcan own without possessing, because of failing to lay claimto the symbolic properties of a good (McCracken, 1988), it isalso the case that, despite not legally owning something, indi-viduals invest energy in an object such that it becomesmeaning-ful to them (Belk, 1988). It may be the case then that borrowerscan possess (make meaningful) an object without owning it.

When some objects become singularised possessions,they may also become sacred (Kopytoff, 1986). We mightassume that a lent item (which has been singularised by theowner) may also be treated as sacred by the borrower andtherefore treated differently from other profane items (Belket al., 1989). However, singularisation ‘does not guaranteesacralization’ (Kopytoff, 1986: 74), and this leaves openthe possibility that a borrowed object may not be held in suchhigh regard. Given the ambiguities of the borrowing process,there is potential for the borrower not to treat the object as sa-cred (to the lender), risking the object’s original meaning, byeither singularising as their own possession, or treating it asprofane. Although singularisation is desirable for an owner,and not for market-mediated access, in borrowing, things areless clear. Indeed, the pro-social nature of borrowing suggestssomething more complex than market-mediated access due tothe wide range of relations with the owner (lender) thatsurround the practice, as well as potential for recognition ofthe owners relationship with the object being borrowed/lent.

OBJECTS AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

The temporary exchange and use of goods mediates socialrelationships, with borrowing being partly understood in terms

132 R. Jenkins et al.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 131–139 (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

of ‘cultural norms’ (Tinson and Nuttall, 2007; Bardhi andEckhardt, 2012) that distinguish what is socially accepted.Tinson and Nuttall (2007) emphasise the ambiguous natureof borrowing’s blurred rules of ownership and structure byintroducing the idea of ‘covert borrowing’ (wherebyindividuals borrow without permission). Other behavioursin relation to the treatment of the borrowed item may alsooccur that are not necessarily regarded as appropriate, soalthough aware of social norms, borrowers may sometimeschoose to ignore them.

In terms of market-mediated access, an individual’srelationship with and behaviour towards others are markedby anonymity (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). In borrowing,however, it is on a personal basis. This relationship is likelyto be important for borrowing to take place. For instance,the degree of trust between borrower and lender and experi-ence of borrowing in the past, all contribute to its inherent‘in flux’ character.

Pro-social forms of access have been found togenerate a range of social relationships. For example,Ozanne and Ozanne (2011) investigated not-for-profittoy libraries and found consumers to be sensitive andresponsible towards each other and the objects they areaccessing. In contrast, Bardhi and Eckhardt’s (2012)study finds car scheme users to be opportunistic, in thatthey look out for themselves at the expense of the objectand of other (anonymous) users. Because of the personalrelationship between lender and borrower, we mightexpect borrowers to be responsible and sensitive towardsthe object and the lender; however, research into sharingand borrowing between sisters indicates that suchresponsibility or care is not always practiced (Tinsonand Nuttall, 2007).

BORROWING AND AMBIGUITY

We have attempted to illustrate that borrowing alerts usto a variety of ambiguities when it comes to possessionand ownership, person–object relationships and socialrelationships. We draw on Law’s (2004) work on ActorNetwork Theory and epistemology to highlight thatambiguity may result from an object being simulta-neously active (i.e. an actor) in more than one networksuch that it assembles multiple realities. In this case,for example, we might recognise that a borrowed itemis also always a lent item. This has repercussions forissues relating to the experience of possession andownership as well as the role of goods in mediatingsocial relationships. Singularisation and sacralisation alertus to ambiguities regarding possession and ownershipand object–person relationships that are seen to varydepending on the mode of consumption that either invitesor resists sacralisation. With borrowing, such ambiguityis heightened by the temporality and social nature ofthe practice. Overall then, we see ambiguity as stemming fromtwo key characteristics of borrowing, social relationships andobject–person relationships.

METHODS

This research combines two datasets. The first focussed on bor-rowing and lending in the context of first year undergraduatessharing accommodation (18 interviews), and the later studylooked specifically at the experience of borrowing across abroader sample, ranging from students to retired grandparents(10 interviews), to explore a greater range of borrowing experi-ences and environments. Both studies used in-depth interviewstogether totalling 45 h of data across 28 interviewees (Table 1).All participants were recruited in the South of England usingthe personal and professional networks of the researchers.

Interviews drew on principles of phenomenology, in thatwe were interested in collecting detailed stories that focusedon lived experiences of borrowing and lending, together withbroader stories about participants’ lifeworlds (Thompsonet al., 1989; Van Manen, 1990; Thompson, 1997). At the timeof interviewing, the participants in the student-based studywere actively negotiating new social relationships and livingarrangements (they were in shared accommodation with peersfor the first time), although they contrasted these recentexperiences with previous lending and borrowing experiences.

Interviews were conducted in the participant’s homes andwe encouraged them to show us the borrowed and lent itemsthat they talked about to help us see and better understandhow such goods were integrated into their homes and lives. Thisoften highlighted a discrepancy between what individuals saidand what they actually do that was challenged in the interviews.For example, we find a tendency to initially offer a rationalisedpresentation of themselves as borrowers and lenders. Not onlydid they talk about wanting to be seen as a ‘good’ person in theirlending and borrowing but also in their accounts, they wanted tobe seen this way, despite later ‘confessions’ that they sometimeswere not good borrowers (or lenders).

The data from both groups were analysed together by theauthors. Interviews were transcribed, and idiographic profilesof individual participants were produced; emerging globalthemes were then identified (Thompson et al., 1989) andsynthesised amongst the team of researchers. Overall, ourdata highlight that accounting for borrowing encourages par-ticipants to think carefully about both their possessions andtheir relationships (actual and ideal) with others.

FINDINGS

We first consider the nature of relationships between lendersand their possessions and between lenders and borrowers,highlighting how relationships construct and are constructedby on-going practices of borrowing (and lending). Second,we note that in borrowing, the boundaries of ownership andpossession easily become blurred, resulting in a tensionregarding how such goods should be treated by both parties.

AMBIGUITY OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOODSAND PEOPLE

Efforts to develop and maintain social relationships (actualand desired) are in part mediated through goods. Practices

Borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership 133


DOI: 10.1002/cb

of borrowing bring to the fore some of the nuances of ourfluctuating and sometimes uncertain connections with others,manifest in decisions we make about what goods might beborrowed/lent and to whom.

Forming and maintaining relationships with peopleBorrowing requires the formation or maintenance of socialrelationships in subtle ways. For example, participantsexplained that although reciprocation is apparent when bor-rowing, it is less ritualised than gifting (Mauss 1990 [1950]),as it can seem non-reciprocal, when in practice forms of recip-rocation are expected. Further, borrowing has a double obliga-tion; not only is a borrower expected to return the lent object

appropriately but also to lend back in the future. Here, Julie,a first year undergraduate, notes a desire for reciprocation:

I say if you lend something to someone you’re more likely toget something back in return later on if you need something…

She then explains a negotiation over the return of aborrowed item:

…I offered my laptop again, and I gave her the charger aswell because I knew I was running low on battery. I askedher ‘are you going to be around tomorrow?’ and she saidshe has to be out by 8.00 so she said she’d leave it in thekitchen, so it was here when I woke up. So you’ve got toplan when you get stuff back as well…

Table 1. Participant profiles

Name Age Gender Occupation/life stage Lending/borrowing profile

Julie 19 F Student Willing lender but likes to set boundaries/organise the return of lent objects. Cautiousborrower.

James 18 M Student Doesn’t lend or borrow very much but happy to lend and borrow inexpensive objects (e.g.kitchen/household items and CDs).

Dee 19 F Student Happy to lend, hesitant borrower, and likes to return borrowed objects as soon as possible.Jessica 18 F Student Lends regularly but not always willingly. Doesn’t tend to borrow from others very much,

except her sister.Graham 18 M Student Generally a regular and happy lender and borrower but also cautious lender due to bad

experiences in the past.Tony 21 M Student Happy to lend but sometimes his willingness to lend gets taken advantage of, so he lends

less then he used to. Doesn’t borrow very much from others.Betty 19 F Student Generally happy to lend to and borrow from people she is comfortable with (friends and family).Lara 19 F Student Hesitant borrower, doesn’t trust herself with others possessions unless she knows the

lender well (e.g. family or close friends). Willing lender but reluctant to lend (andborrow) expensive things.

Helen 18 F Student Happy to lend and borrow.Dan 19 M Student Lends and borrows regularly and without reservation. Reluctant when it comes to

borrowing clothes.Rachel 18 F Student Freely lends and borrows within her student household, especially clothes, make up and

jewellery. More reluctant with expensive items.Rob 19 M Student Doesn’t lend or borrow very much. Particularly reluctant when it comes to expensive

items, and doesn’t trust self as a borrower and wants to avoid arguments.Dave 18 M Student Lending and borrowing quickly became sharing in his student accommodation because of

strong relationships amongst flatmates.Brian 21 M Student Regular borrower and happy to lend, especially when people need something.May 18 F First Year Student Happy to lend things and lends regularly. Regularly lends and borrows clothes from friends.

Often conscious of how some borrowers (housemates she likes less) may treat her items.Hannah 19 F First Year Student Heavy borrower and lender, especially clothes with friends. Often offers to lend things.

Willing to lend more expensive items to those in need (e.g. laptop)Donna 43 F Mature student Somewhat reluctant lender, worries about objects she lends. Bad past experiences of

‘changed’ objects being returned. Tends to ‘gift’ lent items to the borrower to avoiddealing with such changes.

Simon 25 M Mature Student Happy to lend, but often uncomfortable when it comes to borrowing unless knows thelender well.

Felicity 22 F Final Year Student Regular borrower, especially clothing.Rosie 20 F Unemployed Frequent borrower, from sister and friends.Jack 23 M Ski Instructor At ease borrowing. Conscious to return objects in good condition, although doesn’t

always do this in practice.Roxie 21 F Final Year Student Loves borrowing but very conscious of the lender, a ‘good’ borrower.Amanda 22 F Final Year Student Lots of borrowing experience, at ease borrowing but conscious of the lender.Lauren 21 F Student Conscientious borrower, often uncomfortable borrowing, even from family due to bad

experiences in past (damaging borrowed items).Bella 26 F Social Worker Reluctant borrower, bad experiences borrowing in the past (broken borrowed objects).

Sees self as a ‘bad’ borrower.Diane 51 F Full time Mother Bad lending experiences in the past. Reluctant borrower, rarely borrows.Craig 29 M Mature student Reluctant borrower, feels uncomfortable borrowing.Lesley 64 F Retired More a lender than a borrower, despite numerous bad experiences lending. Finds it hard

to say no.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

The implication is that borrowing creates and maintainson-going relationships between people. Whereas a gift isselected and then given, in expectation of reciprocation, inborrowing, expectations for return must be decided and/ornegotiated and this must be enacted, in addition to anexpectation that there will be appropriate reciprocation.

Borrowing may also offer a starting point in negotiatingsocial relationships. Although participants often didn’t knowabout the sorts of relationships they aspire to form, theydemonstrated the sociality of goods in a variety of waysincluding trying to fit in, be liked and be thought of highly.It became clear that participants are socialised into culturesof borrowing and lending. An individual’s personal biogra-phy impacts on the ways they use goods to build or maintainrelationships. Positive experiences of borrowing and lendingmake it easier to do so again, whereas bad experiences resultin reluctance to engage in future acts. Our relationship withthe people we borrow from, or choose not to, impacts onsuch practices. For example, knowledge of the other peopleinvolved makes borrowing more likely and less stressful. Inthe quote in the succeeding texts, Lara, a first year student,told us how she wouldn’t ask to borrow from someone unlessshe knows them well, she needs to feel comfortable with theperson so that there is little risk of damaging the relationshipeven if something goes wrong in borrowing;

I borrowed a DVD from Chris, I only really borrow frompeople I’m really comfortable with because I break stuff, Ilost it and it was new and I’ve still lost it, I’ve got theempty case in my room at home and he still asks me aboutit and he’s like ‘you should buy me a new one’ but I guessbecause I know I’m not going to lose contact with him anytime soon I don’t bother but if it was one of my newflatmates I would re-buy it….

Borrowing often becomes a form of bonding bydemonstrating similarities through goods; people tend toengage with others who have common characteristics andpersonality traits – we can see this as a way of trying toreduce the ambiguity of the act. Nonetheless, we foundtensions even in situations where high levels of mutualunderstanding existed, demonstrating how borrowing createsdelicate and fragile social situations, such as when a persondoes not want to lend a specific item and is faced with havingto say no, and where an issue emerges as a result of lendingor borrowing. In the aforementioned quote from Lara, we seehow a careful calculation of risk to the relationship isevident. It was evident that even if you trust someone, youmight still not lend an item because you wouldn’t want tohave to ask for a replacement if it was lost or broken.Participants explained that by asking for the return of anobject a relationship might be damaged.

Relationships with thingsReluctance to approach a borrower may centre on thetransformative potential of such acts, from friend-to-friendrelationship to a lender-to-borrower relationship; however,an existing relationship with a good helps to determine likelypractices. For example, here, a 19-year-old student, James, istalking about his watch:

I got mine for my 18th birthday from my Nan andGranddad and it’s quite expensive as well so if I brokeit I’d feel responsible. If I lent it out to someone and theylost it and broke it I’d be gutted I think....I know Iwouldn’t be able to afford to buy a new one, maybe that’sit as well. It’d cause an argument if they lost it…Yes, it’llcause some sort of issue that I wouldn’t want to have so Iwouldn’t let it happen.

James is not merely trying to protect the material objectinvolved but crucially to preserve his relationships withothers by avoiding potentially anxious situations that mayrisk both friendships and sacred objects. His use of the terms‘gutted’ and knowledge that ‘arguments’ and ‘issues’ withina relationship would arise demonstrates how lending andborrowing can put strain on a relationship. This storyillustrates how borrowed goods reveal the inherentuncertainty contained within consumption where symbolicmeanings are increasingly personal and where there is insta-bility and flux in the social conventions and classificationstructures active in such networks.

We also see how relationships with goods can continueeven when ‘lost’ through lending. Jessica, a first year student,told us about a friend who borrowed a Playstation game andsubsequently moved away, causing them to grow apart; theyare no longer friends. Six years on, even though she doesn’thave the game in her possession, Jessica still feels that sheowns it and is reluctant to buy a new one. The nature ofher ownership has been placed in a state of flux;

I really regret lending to her because I didn’t realise itwas precious to me until I didn’t have it. It was aplaystation game, like quite an old one, so it’s like quiterare… six years down the line I still haven’t asked for itback. I’m actually considering buying a new one ratherthan asking for it back just because it would be reallyawkward… I keep getting the urge to play it and then think‘oh I don’t have it’… it feels kind of stupid to buy anotherone when I already own one, it feels a bit wasteful.

As possession is transferred, not ownership, the borrowerbecomes a ‘guardian’ of the item, taking responsibility for it,such that third parties might assume that it is owned by theborrower. Thus, a form of restricted ownership emerges.For instance, Tony carried a book he had borrowed from atutor with him so that housemates could not access it, heeven kept it in a separate pocket in his bag to ensure hepreserved its sacredness – we can see this as a form ofsacralisation by designating a particular space to theborrowed (sacred) object and keeping it separate from otheritems (Belk et al., 1989). Similarly, Graham described howhe treated his flatmate’s Playstation;

When I first borrowed stuff it like stayed on my desk and Inever went near it, like D’s Playstation, for the first weekI like just stared at it cos I’m not very good with games, Ididn’t want to break it… it probably won’t break, we’renot two anymore. I always make sure I treat it with caution.

Experiences of borrowing may therefore produce a senseof burden, a desire or need to treat borrowed objects carefully



DOI: 10.1002/cb

– to sacralise them. Although the objects may not be sacredto the borrowers in terms of personal meaning, the object isgiven sacred status on the basis that it is someone else’s,and so the strength or type of relationship to the lenderinforms borrowing practices.

AMBIGUITY OF OWNERSHIP

There is usually a degree of clarity about ownership inrelation to commodity purchases. When commodities arepurchased, they are thought of as both owned and possessed.Alternatively, market-mediated access results in possessionwithout ownership and without a desire to treat an item asif it is owned (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). However, far lessprecision concerning possession and ownership is apparentin our data. The boundaries of ownership were not clear-cutsuch that this very idea – so central to capitalist objectrelations – became problematic.

Using borrowed itemsParadoxically, participants also revealed that borrowed itemsmay be thought of as sacred, based on knowledge ofsomeone else being the owner but end up integrated with aborrower’s belongings and treated as profane. For example,Diane, a middle-aged mother of three, at first told us shewould treat borrowed items carefully, keeping them separatefrom her own belongings;

I do tend to keep those (DVDs) separate from our own, forfear of forgetting to give them back probably, or whosethey were […] They tend to sit on one side […] I willput it specifically away from the DVDs.

However, when asked to show the interviewer the DVDmentioned, Diane found it mixed in with her own DVDs,placed in alphabetical order. This incident was not isolated.A similar situation occurred with a hedge trimmer aboutwhich she said;

We are very careful with it. And we store it very carefully.Unlike the rest of our stuff which is just heaped in!

In the garage, however, the hedge trimmer was on thefloor scattered amongst other items. Her view of howborrowed items should be treated was quite different frompractice. Such contradictions are the result of blurred bound-aries of ownership. There is recognition of how individualswould expect people they lent to, to behave, for examplenot to singularise a borrowed item because it is not actuallytheirs, but practices do not necessarily play out in this man-ner. Borrowers are aware of and sensitive to the person theyhave borrowed from (and the legal status of a borrowedgood), yet often do not enact this when they use a borroweditem. Thus, participants often think about and enact borrow-ing differently. Borrowers may readily use borrowed items asif they were their own, appropriating them into their networkof possessions and consequently not treating them as sacred.We also heard stories of individuals using borrowed itemsmore than they use their own so as to ‘make the most of it’before having to return it. Here, as with other access-based,

market-mediated consumption, use-value is maximised(Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). In this instance, Rosie talkedabout her borrowing from close friends;

‘these socks, they are a friend’s […] I wonder what that is,when you have someone else’s things and you use themmore than you do with your own stuff. You know that oneday you have to return it, so you want to make the most of it’.

Felicity, a student who has a keen interest in fashion,also provides an example, of ‘abusive’ use of a borroweditem – a scarf:

I was absolutely petrified! But I still borrowed it… Therewere times where I had a toothbrush and I was trying toget things out […] It had so much embellishment on it thatyou couldn’t tell things. And she couldn’t tell what she’ddone and what I’d done.

Felicity left marks and stains on the scarf, contaminatingit, just as second hand goods are by previous owners(Gregson and Crewe, 2003). Felicity has appropriated thisitem through her abuse and contamination of it. She justifiesthis by explaining that she felt that the lender had also treatedit similarly. Her knowledge of the use of the item by theknown lender informs how the borrower treats the item.

Re-sacralising before returningWe use the term re-sacralisation to refer to the act ofreturning something to a state of sacredness. Re-sacralisationoccurs by cleaning, mending and erasing traces of use beforereturning it to a lender, in order that the temporary appropri-ation by the borrower is removed. When a borrowed item isdue to be returned to a lender, social norms come to the fore,and individuals feel the need to be seen as a good borrower.Amanda, a final year undergraduate, explains how sheremoves signs of her use of clothing:

If you wash it with detergent, it will smell of detergent, itwon’t smell like you. I think you want to give it back inthe same condition, or in a nicer condition. I think if some-thing smells freshly washed, it’s nicer for them to receive.

Great efforts are made by consumers to address ambigu-ous states, and so we witnessed with our participants many‘successful’ outcomes of re-sacralising. In another example,Jack told a story of covertly borrowing a bike and trying toremove the evidence of his use by cleaning it and returningit in a better state than when he took it.

In these stories, the cleaning of an object attempts toremove signs of appropriation in line with McCracken’s(1988) divestment rituals, which individuals use to emptythe meaning they have invested in an object when preparingfor disposal. Rather than strip an object of all meaning so thatit is no longer personalised, the borrower attempts to removetraces of their possession – what has been added to its biog-raphy via the process of borrowing – and can be interpretedas re-sacralising the object in order to make it like theborrower believes it used to be. For the borrower, the separa-tion of object with its owner (the lender) that allowed forappropriation is ended.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

Reincorporation once returnedFinally, when a borrowed object is returned, the lender facesthe possibility that it still shows signs of appropriation by theborrower. Just as second hand goods may be perceived ascontaminated by the previous owner (McCracken, 1988;Gregson and Crewe, 2003), lent items may be perceived ascontaminated by the borrower. For instance, mature studentDonna spoke about how weird her car felt once a friendhad returned it after borrowing it. Seats had to be readjusted,settings changed and the paraphernalia they left behind hadto be removed. Similarly, Lesley, a retired nurse who at thetime of the interview had her son’s family living with hertemporarily, described how her laptop was different aftershe had let her son borrow it;

I let my son use my laptop for a few days because he hadproblems with his and when I went to go on the internetthe layout was all different and I had to figure out howto change it back, well, I had to get my daughter to do itfor me, because it wasn’t as I liked it and it’s still not quiteas it used to be. The address bar was in a different placeand there were none of the usual icons and things with it,I couldn’t find where my favourites were, and the desktopwas different too.

Here, we see how borrowed items have to be cleared ofmeaning when they are taken back by the owner in the sameway that individuals erase meaning associated with aprevious owner (McCracken, 1988), although this may notalways be successful.

DISCUSSION

Apart from the obvious use-value of borrowed goods,borrowing is about relationships with others, and with lent/borrowed objects. Such practices are manifestations of howwe demonstrate empathy, trust and connection throughmaterial objects. Indeed, the double obligation – and relatednegotiations – makes lending practice potentially morecomplex than gift giving. Reputation may be formed on thebasis of practices of borrowing, lending and returning items(or not). The extent of harmony achieved in the ‘movementof possessions’ through borrowing affects both anindividual’s reputation (Appadurai, 1986) and the state ofrelationships with others. The stories we heard werecharacterised by diversity, from family borrowing whererules were implicit and deeply flexible, through to borrowingfrom a tutor where extraordinary care and attention was paidto the object. This variation in borrowing practice furthercontributes to its ambiguous status.

Practices of appropriation, re-sacralisation and reincorporationreflect the movement between states of ambiguity and clarity,of singular and multiple meanings, and serve to raise concernsabout the idea that goods have a biography or singular fixedcategories. Indeed, the certainty of a possession granted bylegal ownership and singularisation is problematized inborrowing. Like other singularizing rituals described byMcCracken (1986) and others (Lastovicka and Fernández,2005) as necessary to empty undesired meanings, and those

which Belk et al. (1989) assign to the preservation of sacred-ness, lending too involves physically involved processes thathelp re-incorporate lent possessions. Such efforts can beunderstood as attempts to impose order on goods, where thehierarchies of value and meaning can be maintained (Douglas,1996; 2001; Douglas and Isherwood, 1979). The creation andmaintenance of order requires the functioning of rules ornormative held conventions (Appadurai, 1986; Kopytoff,1986), which become fluid in borrowing.

The practices of borrowing direct us to reflect on ambigu-ities related to the meaning of goods to us, the role goodsplay in our relationships with others and on what it meansto both possess and to own something. Such ambiguities alertus to the fact that borrowing complicates the biography ofgoods and to recognise that one good can be a different thingto different individuals, with different meanings associatedby different actors. This can sensitise us to a more generalcondition in which actors experience goods differently sothat even in market exchange, multiple realities are likely.Our current narratives of biographies of goods might berevised to include the broader networks goods may besimultaneously active in.

Although the legal owner is acknowledged, andborrowers recognise that there are social norms associatedwith borrowing (Tinson and Nuttall, 2007), when in theirpossession, borrowers may treat the borrowed items as ifthey were their own. This practice of separating theirrelationship with the good from their idealised view of whatit is to be a ‘good borrower’ is based on a projection offeeling towards their own lent items and on their relationshipwith the lender. It seems that once mixed with existingpossessions, objects are no longer sacred. The blurring ofboundaries in borrowing practices result in a number ofpoints of ambiguity that need to be resolved.

In terms of the singularisation of borrowed items, thereare contrasts with market-mediated access research that findsconsumers are likely to treat accessed objects differently totheir own – not engaging in appropriation processes (Bardhiand Eckhardt, 2012). However, we find that borrowers maytreat goods as if they are their own yet also know this isnot quite the case – an inherently ambiguous cognitive state.In some cases of appropriation, the notion of opportunism, asfound in Bardhi and Eckhardt’s (2012) study, is evident.Singularisation does not prevent appropriation, dependingon the relationship to the borrower, it may even invite it.Maybe then, singularisation is dependent on the relationshipwithin which lending/borrowing takes place.

The re-sacralisation process tells us something about thesocial norms associated with practices of borrowing, as wellas the relationship between lender and borrower. Althoughthis offers structure to the process, this is far from ridged.Although the abusive treatment of borrowed goods is similarto market-mediated access, the efforts individuals go to inorder to re-sacralise may be in contrast to market-mediatedforms. The concept of ‘divestment rituals’ (McCracken,1988), where possessions are emptied of their prior mean-ings, erasing personable qualities, easing dispossession, ishighly resonant here. Despite attempts to re-sacralise, we findthat lenders may still have to make efforts to re-incorporate



DOI: 10.1002/cb

items into their possession. Like other singularizing rituals,borrowing and lending involve physical processes that helpre-incorporate lent possession and so preserve sacredness(Belk et al., 1989). In Tables 2 and 3, we offer an initialsummary of the various resolutions of ambiguities that arisefrom borrowing and lending.

More broadly, our analysis of non-market mediatedborrowing tells us more regarding the development of mar-ket-based and non-market-based systems. If people are lookingto access rather than own (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012), theymay do so outside of the market – indeed, there is a growthof formalised inter-personal, community borrowing schemes(Botsman and Rogers, 2010) – and this might be easilyoverlooked in the analysis of access-based markets. Incommercialised forms of borrowing, we might recognisehow market structures formally resolve the ambiguitiesidentified here. For example, a commercial exchange replacesthe need for personal relationships or reciprocation, and a legalcontract resolves negotiations over return and the blurring ofpossession and ownership. Further, we might reflect on themore general issue of goods being active in more than onenetwork. For example, in addition to the consumer’s network,

a mobile phone remains active in both the service provider andhandset manufacturer’s networks as they provide updates andwarranties. Here, again, we might consider how these multiplerealities are maintained and resolved by market and legalmechanisms that replace inter-personal obligations.

CONCLUSION

Our attempt to conceptualise borrowing has demonstratedthat it is a sufficiently distinct and complex form of exchangethat tells us more about aspects of consumption littledocumented to date in terms of the social lives of goods.Regarding the biography of goods, we see that the act ofborrowing extends our knowledge and understanding of thealways in flux nature of possessions. Another way of seeingthis is that the status of goods has a multiplicity that is often‘manifest absent’ in existing categorisations (Law, 2004).Goods are usually seen as being in one state or another(commodity or singular, sacred or profane, and owned or not)because the focus in such categories tends to be the individual,or single network (e.g. the home). Borrowing shows us that

Table 3. Resolution of ambiguity in lending for borrower (treatment of the lent item)

Table 2. Resolution of ambiguity in lending for lender (decisions marking the moment of lending)



DOI: 10.1002/cb

goods may be two things at once as they inhabit differentnetworks simultaneously, and this is recognised by bothlenders and borrowers. It also illustrates the importance ofthe legal category of ‘ownership’ in how goods areunderstood, but also the tenuous nature of this often takenfor granted status. Looking at goods through the lens ofborrowing helps us to recognise their movement withinand between different networks, and this idea may beapplied to other situations to enrich our understanding notonly of the biographies of goods but also the growing rangeof access-based contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank their research students whoworked on the borrowing project: Elen Clement, JohnFossett, Laura Mihai and Amy O’Connor.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Rebecca Jenkins (Becky) is a lecturer in Consumer Culture andBehaviour at Bournemouth University. She is part of the EmergingConsumer Cultures Research Group. Her PhD was a study of howconsumption gives shape to everyday imagining. She is currentlydeveloping papers and further projects based on her PhD thesisand pursuing projects on the consumerisation of the wedding.

Mike Molesworth is a senior lecturer in Consumer Culture andBehaviour and Interactive Media at Bournemouth University. Alsopart of the Emerging Consumer Cultures Research Group, hisresearch interests include online consumer behaviour, digital virtualconsumption, the consumer imagination and everyday practices.

Richard Scullion is a senior lecturer in Advertising and MarketingCommunications and member of the Emerging Consumer CulturesGroup at Bournemouth University. His research interests include avariety of cultural practices and experiences including politics,citizenship, consumption and advertising.

REFERENCES

Appadurai A. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge.

Bardhi F, Eckhardt G. 2012. Accessed based consumption: the caseof car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research 39(December):881–898.

Belk RW. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal ofConsumer Research 15(2): 139–168.

Belk RW. 1992. Attachment to possessions. In Altman I, Low S(eds). Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theoryand Research vol. 12. Plenum: New York.

Belk RW. 2006. Ownership, ego and sharing. Proceedings ofConference “To Buy or to Rent.” ESCP-EAP: Paris; 9.

Belk RW. 2007. Why not share rather than own? Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science 611(May):126–40.

Belk RW. 2010. Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research 36(February):715-734.

Belk RW, Wallendorf M, Sherry J. 1989. The sacred and theprofane in consumer behavior: theodicy on the Odyssey. Journalof Consumer Research 15(June): 1–38.

Botsman R, Rogers R. 2010. What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise ofCollaborative Consumption. Harper Collins: New York.

Chen Y. 2009. Possession and access: consumer desires and valueperceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibitvisits”. Journal of Consumer Research 35(April): 925-40.

Coupland JC. 2005. Invisible brands: an ethnography of householdsand the brands in their kitchen pantries. Journal of ConsumerResearch 32(1): 106-119.

Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E. 1981. The Meaning ofThings. Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge.

Douglas M. 1996. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts ofPollution and Taboo. Routledge: London.

Douglas M. 2001. Why do people want goods? In Miller D (ed.).Consumption, Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences.Routledge: London; 262-271.

Douglas M, Isherwood B. 1979. The World of Goods. Routledge:London.

Epp A, Price L. 2008. Family identity: a frame- work of identityinterplay in consumption practices. Journal of ConsumerResearch 35(June): 50–70.

Epp A, Price L. 2010. The storied life of singularized objects: forcesof agency and network transformation. Journal of ConsumerResearch 36(February): 820–837.

Gregson N, Crewe L. 2003. Second-Hand Cultures. Berg: Oxford.Kopytoff I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditiza-

tion as process. In Appadaurai A (ed). The Social of Life ofThings. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Lastovicka J, Fernández K. 2005. Paths to disposition divestment:the movement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journalof Consumer Research 31(4): 813-823.

Law J. 2004. After Method. Routledge: London.Mauss M 1990 [1950]. Hall W.D. (trans). The Gift: Forms and

Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge: London.McCracken G. 1986. Culture and consumption: a theoretical

account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaningof consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13(June):71–84.

McCracken G. 1988. Culture and Consumption. Indiana UniversityPress: USA.

Miller D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. BasilBlackwell: Oxford.

Ozanne LK, Ozanne JL. 2011. A Child’s right to play: the socialconstruction of civic virtues in toy libraries. Journal of PublicPolicy & Marketing. 30(2): 264–278.

Rook DW. 1985. The ritual dimension of consumer behavior.Journal of Consumer Research 12(December): 251–264.

Sherry Jr., JF, McGrath MA. 1989. Unpacking the holidaypresence: a comparative ethnography of two gift stores. In Inter-pretive Consumer Behaviour, Hirschman EC (eds). Associationfor Consumer Research: Provo, UT; 148-167.

Slater D. 2002. Markets, materiality and the ‘new economy’. InMetcalfe S, Warde A (eds). Market Relations and theCompetitive Process Manchester University Press: Manchester:95–113.

Strahilevitz, MA, and Loewenstein, G 1998. The effect ofownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal ofConsumer Research 25(3): 276-289

Thompson CJ. 1997. Interpreting consumers: a Hermeneuticalframework for deriving marketing insights from the texts ofconsumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing Research34(4): 438–455.

Thompson CJ, Locander WB, Pollio HR. 1989. Putting consumerexperiences back into consumer research: The philosophy andmethod of existential-phenomenology. Journal of ConsumerResearch 16(September): 133–146.

Tinson J, Nuttall P. 2007. Insider trading? Exploring familialintragenerational borrowing and sharing. European Advancesin Consumer Research 8: 41–42.

Van Manen M. 1990. Researching Lived Experiencecb. StateUniversity of New York: USA.



DOI: 10.1002/cb

the messy social lives of objects: inter-personal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and...

Documents