Brigid Slipka

There’s two ways for us to think about our stuff.

One way is to think that we own it.  Right now, you’re thinking: Um.  Duh.  Ownership is so obvious, so prevalent, so common in a society like ours that we frequently don’t even recognize that there is another way of considering our stuff.  Everything I can see around me as I type this is something that is owned by someone: the Ford minivan owned by the neighbor, the street sign owned by the city, the crayons theoretically owned by me and The Spouse but don’t tell that to The Toddler.  All the stuff that is bought and sold.  All the stuff that is used to generate wealth.

However, there are some objects or assets or things that cannot be bought and sold.  Kidneys, for example.  We cannot sell our kidneys, we can only donate them.  They are beyond trade, beyond proprietary ownership.  Instead of generating wealth, exchanging this type of stuff generates goodwill and relationships.

The first type of thinking is Stuff as Capital.  The second way is Stuff as Gifts.

In America, pretty much everything outside the boundary of our skin is, to someone, a bit of Capital. (And some argue the stuff inside our skin is proprietary as well).  Others can argue the merits and demerits of a capitalist society, the point here is merely this:

If something is Capital, it can’t be a Gift.

Or rather, if a bit of Capital is given away, lots of folks will be startled.  And might question your sanity.

But it happens.  One of the most popular talks at February 2010 TED conference was given by Derek Sivers.  The gist of it was to recognize that followers are the ones who transform the action of one “lone nut” into a movement.  It’s not only a nifty perspective, it’s a potentially lucrative one.  It’s an idea that seems perfectly suited for a round on the lecture circuit, consulting gigs with various Fortune 500 companies, and the business book-on-display in an airport bookstore.

It’s an idea that could make Derek Sivers some nice cash.

He’s giving it away instead.

Yep, I’ll admit it, my gut level response here was a resounding head thunk.  Even though his explanation is perfectly reasonable.  And even though others have done the same.

When we think of something as Capital, something that could be used to make us some bones, something that is instead given away, we get confused.  It forces us to rethink our mindset about Stuff.

As in:

Maybe, not everything that comes into our lives and homes and bank accounts is OURS.

Maybe, some of our Stuff should be used not to generate wealth, but to generate connections and community and common good.

Maybe, some of our stuff needs to stop being Capital and start being Gifts.

No small feat, but Derek Sivers and Seth Godin show it can be done.

p.s. And, as always, when I write “We,” what I actually mean is: “Me.”