We Have Found the Path to Dystopia. Can We Find Our Way Outta Here?
Imagine what it would be like if we followed our Constitution.
Continuing an exploration of psychological ownership, conceived in corporate culture thought as instrumental in motivating the workforce to perform and innovate, I read the paper by Pierce and Peck — or as properly sourced, the paper by Pierce, Jon L. and Joann Peck (2018), “The History of Psychological Ownership and its Emergence in Consumer Psychology,” in Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior, Edited by Joann Peck and Suzanne B. Shu, Springer.
There I found the answer to my question: “When did the concept of psychological ownership first appear in corporate culture thinking?”
Scientific inquiry across numerous disciplines has focused on the psychology of possession, property and mine. It was out of this work that the construct and current theorizing on psychological ownership (cf. Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001, 2003) finds its origin …………..Other disciplines that have found interest and utility in the construct include, but are not limited to: health care, environmentalism, small and family owned businesses, and entrepreneurship
……A recent review of the literature has identified over 200 papers that have been published addressing issues pertaining to psychological ownership. Approximately 100 of the published papers were quantitative in nature, drawing upon samples from more than a dozen different countries (e.g., China, England, Finland, Korea, India, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, United States) reveals a widespread interest in the construct. pg 25 Pierce, Jon L. and Joann Peck (2018), “The History of Psychological Ownership and its Emergence in Consumer Psychology,”
Reading the paper reveals that academic research can discover and articulate what is obvious. It is beneficial that there is a discussion of the effect of the working environment on the worker and vice versa but the solutions expressed in the context of psychological ownership seem at best rhetorical, in general obvious, and at worst manipulative.
The turn of the twenty-first century is often cited as the time when the corporate promise began to unravel particularly as homeownership became unattainable among the working classes.
Absent from the focus of the research paper is the structure within which the secrets of psychological ownership are examined, the growing publicly-financed privatized corporatization of human society. Could a corporate structure enveloping the entirety of human society into a public-private state be a cause of the problem looking for a solution in psychological ownership?
The Rising Ownership Class
2002 was the year that the University of Maine instituted a policy of ownership of intellectual property based on ownership of the (publicly funded) research facilities.
In 2003 positions on the board at the non-profit Maine Technology Institute, which is very closely linked to the University of Maine, were codified to include the pursuit of profit and ownership of intellectual property rights, not based on the ownership of the workplace facilities but on the input of the board members and their lawyers.
The innovators and creators using the University facilities retain psychological ownership as a property of their commitment and contribution to the knowledge base of the University.
The 2003 paper by Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks tells us that “Although possibly related, legal and psychological ownership differ in some significant ways” which is that legal ownership is recognized by society and protected by the legal system while psychological ownership is merely felt by the individual.
Corporate culture research targets methods that can be used to imbue feelings of psychological ownership in the workforce to increase performance but feelings of psychological ownership over what an individual creates are discouraged by University policy. The target of the individual creator’s ownership feelings should be identified with the University as the legal owner of the facilities and everything that takes place within the facilities.
It is easy to interpret the University’s policies of intellectual property ownership as pertaining to the University only in its role as a public-private research, development, and manufacturing corporation, but imagine if those policies are applied to a paper that a student writes in English class or to work done in any class.
The student might psychologically feel that because he or she wrote the paper it is theirs but the University’s claim to legal ownership rests on whether the student wrote the paper using any of the University’s facilities, per the University’s policy which assumes that anyone using the facilities has agreed that legally the intellectual property rights over work done in the facilities belong to the University, whether the users know it or not.
IV. APPLICABILITY This policy, as amended from time to time, shall be deemed a part of the conditions of employment for every employee of the University, and a part of the conditions of enrollment and attendance at the University by students. It is also the policy of the University that, by participating in a sponsored project and/or by making significant use of University Resources and/or by participating in teaching, research, or service projects, individuals (including non-compensated individuals) accept the principles of ownership of Intellectual Property as stated in this policy, unless an exception is approved in writing by the Intellectual Property Office. Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights
Now those using the facilities just have to create and innovate. The facilities don’t create value in and of themselves! How do corporations program their property to innovate? If psychological ownership fails, AI is rapidly developing, which according to some is in competition with human intelligence and someday will win and start programming itself and everything around it. An interesting theory! Can AI experience psychological ownership of itself?
But today we are looking at psychological ownership as experienced by human intelligence.
Consider also that in LD 2003 Public-Private State law forbids ordinances from prohibiting overcrowding thus allowing housing for those below medium income to be built smaller and packed more densely. If there is no workspace available in individually owned or rented spaces, where will individuals go to work on individual projects?
The policy instituted by the University of Maine reinforces the University’s psychological feelings of possession, property, and mine with legal claims to ownership of all innovation that happens within the facilities owned by U of M.
In the case study of the University of Maine, ownership is experienced as exclusively belonging to U of M and exclusively serving its self-interests. The public is not allowed to use the facilities for purposes other than University managed projects. If facilities are used in pursuit of an independent project the University asserts ownership of the intellectual property created by the project. This is an attitude usually found in privately owned corporations not public institutions, but when the public state merges with private interests boundaries evaporate.
The University facilities are not public resources to be shared, by employees, uncompensated individuals, or students. Rather U of M’s feelings of psychological ownership extends over the facilities and everything in the facilities including anyone using the facilities. The policy governing intellectual property as written by U of M declares U of M to be the final court of appeal that adjudicates ownership of U of M’s self-declared ownership of all intellectual property created in facilities it owns, identifying that the University’s feelings of psychological ownership are consistent with self-entitlement and control over others. Per University policy, the Intellectual Property Office is the court of the last appeal- which is the University,
2–22–2002 Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights rights University of Maine System 9. The term “Intellectual Property Office” refers to each campus’ cognizant administrative unit and members of the faculty retained for the specific purpose of administering the University’s Intellectual Property policy as outlined herein. Consistent with current and past practice, the University of Maine’s Intellectual Property Office, located in Orono, is available to serve the faculty and administrators at each of the System’s campuses on a fee-for-service basis. This does not preclude component institutions from developing additional policies and rules covering the subject matter of this policy or from establishing their own internal administrative procedures, provided they are consistent with this policy and other policies and procedures adopted by the University of Maine System Board of Trustees.
When the users of the University facilities, or other corporate facilities, psychologically identify as owners of the University or corporation, they absorb the feelings of self-entitlement and control over others as identified with the ownership target. If the user does not turn off this identity, it extends into their actions when they leave University facilities or any corporate headquarters, and parse the world as a hierarchical order and relationships of control manifest in every action, large or small, which is not at all to the public benefit.
As is evident in the words of the policy, The University of Maine possesses a strong psychology of ownership:
8. The term “University Resources” means any support administered by or through a University, including but not limited to University funds, facilities, equipment or personnel, and funds, facilities, equipment, or personnel provided by governmental, commercial, industrial, or other public or private organizations which are administered or controlled by the University. University Resources are to be used solely for University purposes and not for personal gain or personal commercial advantage, nor for any other non-University purposes. Intellectual Property that is developed with Significant Use of University Resources rather than Incidental Use of University Resources shall be considered to have been created through use of University Resources. The application and interpretation of the above terms in any particular situation rests with the Intellectual Property Office and its determination shall be final, subject to the review procedures set forth in Section VIII. Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights.pdf ( emphasis by author)
“Used solely for University purposes and not for personal gain or personal commercial advantage, nor for any other non-University purposes”
Really?
Not exactly! Pursuant to §948. Administration of fund and dozens of other statutes codifying the public-private state, gain and commercial advantage is the whole point. However, this sentence goes straight to the property of psychological ownership that the research papers ignore, the ability to use one’s talent in the service of a cause that one believes in, inseparably connecting self to action.
The “other non-University purpose” is a purpose emergent from the individual’s authentic self, giving the individual a strong sense of psychological ownership over one’s purpose. If the self’s purpose is consistent with the corporate purpose, all is well. If not, the authentic self becomes alienated from his or her environment and it is best to move on so there is a healthy greater community purpose in encouraging facility options beyond those owned by the public-private state.
The U of M policy language modifies “commercial advantage” with the qualifier “personal” as if to give itself, U of M, a pass as an institution. Corporations are legal persons but pursuant to Title 13 B the University is not a corporation despite employing all the functions of a corporation, and so in name only, the University is excluded from the prohibition against seeking commercial advantage by the modifier “personal”. Linguistically, the University can legally pursue commercial advantage to its heart’s delight. It’s not personal.
I submit that U of M’s intellectual property ownership policy can be challenged in a court of law, and if it involves a potentially large amount of money probably will be challenged. In the meantime, innovators beware and consider other alternatives to University and public educational resources- such as eighty-million dollar schools built on small peninsulas.
I predict that U of M will surely experience feelings of psychological ownership over any state-of-the-art public educational system in the State of Maine and its policy of intellectual property ownership will be extended to all of its targets of psychological ownership.
For the legally unprotected creator, a cultural environment composed of many options and many sizes is always better. Make cautious use of the dominant institutions with aggressive feelings of ownership. For your most creative and innovative work, find your own facilities. That is the only way to ensure your legal ownership of what you create. Outside of the public-private state, facilities can be rented without signing over intellectual property rights and royalties. If in doubt, protect yourself with your own terms of the agreement. The future is evolving at a pace faster than the speed of your imagination!
Businesses in a home are the new cottage industries, a lifestyle of making that existed before the Industrial Revolution. As the Industrial Revolution gives way to the era of automation, the corporate world order that grew up in service of industrialization will fall back, not into disappearance but less dominance.
Technically when our leaders tell us they are developing housing for diverse demographics- that should include businesses in a home- but in practice- when I approached an organization defining its mission as furthering both affordable housing and economic development solutions, I identified as a business in a home, I was told “in that case you are a business and we cannot help you”
“But Isn’t a business relevant to economic development?
“Not the way we think about economic development, economic development is just personal stuff”, which I interpreted to mean general entitlement programs covering living expenses- or living rations as wealth redistributed to those at or below medium incomes while growth opportunity distributions are reserved for those above the median income. That’s how the great wealth divide was built by the centrally managed economy. That is the psychological fabric that clothes a society governed by a corporate state.
I have a unique perspective in this discussion because Andersen Design’s primary assets are not conventional financial assets but are the brand and products created by seven decades of involvement in a work process. Today much is written about start-ups and corporate culture. Andersen Design is similar to every business in daily business operations, but when it comes to goals, swap out IPOs and scaling up with designing the next product and putting it into the market. That can be called scaling laterally. Aside from occasional collector or customer requests, there was never market research on what the next design should be. New forms and glazes flowed from inspiration within the artistic self. The business provided the means for continued engagement in the work process, the end goal of the business was to be engaged in the work process.
Although it was a struggle to get the business off the ground, the thought of quitting for a secure job was never an issue. My Dad grew up on a farm, an industry in which uncertainty is accepted. Farmers are beholden to the natural environment for their fortune, but farmers are deeply connected to their work activity, as an extension of themselves.
Growing up in a ceramic design and slip-casting production incorporated into a home is much like growing up on a farm. The psychology of small business ownership is premised on the ability to use one’s innovative talents in the service of personally held values. This is perhaps the reason why there are no case studies about psychological ownership that consider businesses in a home, where the worker is often the owner of the facilities.
The motivating objective behind research into psychological ownership is to use it in the interest of corporate purposes. Remote work is conceived of as an employee working remotely in their home for an employer, even though the ownership of the facilities belongs to the employee.
An Independent contractor is premised on self-ownership of one’s business that works with individuals or other businesses through a contractual arrangement. Independent contracting is not a hierarchical structure, it is lateral networking. This is the premise of my vision for the future of Andersen Design’s assets. You can read more about stage one of this project and support it HERE.
In or about 2004 a minor in Marxist and Socialist Studies was established at the University of Southern Maine. That’s unsurprising. The concept of psychological ownership is similar to the Marxian concept of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” since such a dictatorship is merely a psychological state, not a practical reality. What would be surprising is if the University of Maine were to offer a course on the Maine Constitution but as an instrument of the public-private state, U of M cannot do that as the public-private state cannot withstand Maine Constitutional scrutiny.
The question is what or who is the corporate personhood of the University of Maine that owns all the intellectual property of whatever takes place within its facilities?
The University of Maine is number 2 on the list of corporations found in the Nonprofit Corporation Act Title 13 B. which are deemed to be not-corporations and prefer to be called a “ corporate outgrowth of the state” The words “corporate outgrowth of the state” identifies the state as a unifying entity under which all corporate instrumentalists of the state emerge. However, there is no definition in the Statute for state. There is a definition for “entity”
11. Entity. “Entity” includes a domestic or foreign business corporation; a domestic or foreign nonprofit corporation; an estate; a partnership; a trust; 2 or more persons having a joint or common economic interest; a domestic or foreign unincorporated entity; a state; the United States; and a foreign government.
So do we accept the definition of a state as “a state”, “an entity”,” a corporation” “an unincorporated entity that spawns corporate entities” or a business interest”?
By definition provided in Title 13 B, the State cannot be a corporation since a corporation must file articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State’s Office. A State’s governing articles are its constitution, but that is not an exact correlation.
Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine Constitution forbids the Legislature from chartering corporations by special acts of legislation, with two exceptions, one for municipal purposes and the other if the object of the corporation cannot be achieved another way. That the private sector is the intended other way is supported by Article IV Part Third Section 13 which says that corporations shall be formed under general laws.
General laws apply equally throughout the private sector. Statutory authority is an outgrowth of constitutional authority. The Constitution does not make exceptions for non-profit corporations. The Constitution provides the process for making amendments to the Constitution and it is not by writing statutes that override the Constitution, and especially not statutes written by private special interests to override the Maine Constitution.
But no one cares. The corporate outgrowth of the State as public-private relationships has been entrenched for too long and will continue to expand unless it meets with resistance. and alternative inspiration. Today the public-private state dwarfs the constitutional state. The people, and specifically the workforces are the instruments of the state. We see that relationship mirrored in the University of Maine’s claims to ownership of intellectual property.
In 1981 the University was codified into the Maine statutes as an instrument of the State which by that time had been a public-private state since 1976 when Governor Longley’s advisory board said, “To help correct this situation, (authors note-the difficulty of small entrepreneurs finding capital) it is appropriate to use the profit motive of private investors to achieve additional economic development in the State”, meaning that it is appropriate to appropriate taxpayer money for the benefit of private profit motives as was the primary function of the Maine Capital Corporation.
The Fame Corporation then inverted the Maine constitutional philosophy as:
Any benefits accruing to private individuals or associations, as a result of the activities of the authority, are deemed by the Legislature to be incidental to the public purposes to be achieved by the implementation of this chapter. [1985, c. 344, §5 (AMD).]
IDEXX received up to $16 million in tax breaks for opening their new Westbrook facilities. That is qualified as an incidental benefit- not a significant one! Incidental benefits capitalize facilities. The tax breaks were possible due to a policy that IDEXX helped to write and was codified into law as the Major Business Headquarters Expansion Act, sponsored by Governor Paul LePage. To date, IDEXX is the only beneficiary of that act.
Around 2008 an Advanced Manufacturing Center was established at the University of Maine, seamlessly merging the role of the state control of education with state capitalism. The University of Maine is a central hub of the state corporate network with connections to all the subsidiary corporations of the corporate state. The Advanced Manufacturing Center at the University of Maine functions as a state enterprise in competition with private sector enterprises.
The most recent addition to State manufacturing is The Maine Space Corporation, signed into law on April 18, 2022, but already codified into law in 2021.
The About Page of the Advanced Manufacturing Center at the University of Maine describes the University of Maine as “Founded in 1865, the University of Maine is a land, sea, and space grant institution” but when it was founded it was just a land grant university. The Morrill Act establishing the land grant colleges was contested in federal Congress as an overreach of federal powers over state powers.
Elon Musk has established that the object of the Maine Space Corporation can be achieved in the private sector so there is an argument to be made that the Maine Space Corporation is unconstitutional in Maine, but who will make that argument?
A state with a long history of government disregard for the people’s will as codified in the Maine Constitution can now construct and monopolize satellites above us. What could go wrong with that?
A few days after the Maine Space Corporation was created by special act of legislation, on April 27, 2022, LD 2003 was signed into law, like two peas in a pod, codifying a new state-run industry, and codifying mandated “priority zones “ for housing that can be “overcrowded’ as a “density benefit” for investors, as the State silently took over centrally managing municipal ordinances, violating the Home Rule Amendment.
The University of Maine is an instrumentality of the State which is a Ministry of Corporations.
The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the center and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corporative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250. The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini( emphasis by author)
The above thought by Mussolini has some truth to it but the application is wrong. A neutral State can indeed play a balancing role but not if it has a self-interest in the field it manages. If the statutory policies were an outgrowth of Maine constitutional law the State would not be in the business of running businesses.
The State would be a neutral authority not invested in economic outcomes. Its role would be to ensure that economic opportunity is balanced and fair for the common good. The measure of such a form of government might be the GINI rating, with the government’s role in the economy targeting an equitable range of the GINI rating.
Diversity is a popular political talking point. Diversity is seeded through multiplicity. Diversity is furthered by a higher ratio of small independently owned businesses being in the mix.
A new resource!
I just discovered the MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE Legislative History Collection published by the Maine Legislative Library. It includes an excel spreadsheet of the amendments to the Maine Constitution since it was established in 1820.
I looked up Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14 and saw that the database includes a speech by Governor Dingley. I searched the speech but found no mention of the amendment.
The Maine Legislative Library has been very helpful. I wrote to them and suggested that Governor Seldon Connor’s Speech is more relevant to Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14. It was Governor Seldon’s speech that the 1951 Opinion of the Justices referenced, and it is Governor Seldon’s speech that Marshal J Tinkle talks about in The Maine Constitution, A reference manual, the official constitutional reference of the Maine Legislative Library.
I hope that they take this advice. Governor Seldon Connor’s speech is powerful and passionate. It would be beneficial should more people today become familiar with it.
I did not find relevant historical documents enlightening the reasons why the Home Rule Amendment came about. I hope that there will eventually be informative history about the Home Rule Amendment added to this valuable resource.
I am very glad to see our government investing in such a resource. We are creating the future now. It is our job to make sure we get it right for humanity.
Originally published at https://mackenzieandersen.substack.com on December 4, 2022.
