More about 'Explaining the commons'

The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the environment - forests, atmosphere, fisheries or grazing land - that we all share. These are the tangible and intangible aspects of the environment that no-one owns but everybody enjoys.

 

But there are other conceptions of the commons. Today, the commons need to be understood within the cultural sphere as well. The commons within this sphere include literature, music, performing arts, visual arts, design, film, video, television, radio, community arts and sites of heritage. The commons can also include ‘public goods’ such as public space, public education, health and the infrastructure that allows our society to function (such as electricity or water delivery systems). There also exists the ‘life commons’ – the human genome that makes us a unique species. Though a central government may ‘manage’ these, realistically we have inherited them and any governing body only holds them in trust for the public as well as future generations.

 

The commons can also include the areas of human relationships such as the need for safety, trust, cooperation, shared intellect and so on. These are aspects of culture that our society shares and promotes a more functioning community.

 

The Ecologist (1996: 9) refers to the commons as “the social and political space where things get done and where people have a sense of belonging and have an element of control over their lives”, providing “sustenance, security and independence”.

 

For the commons to thrive, we must work to protect and enhance our natural environment and promote aspects of our cultural heritage. An important aspect of this is the sharing of information and the education of the wider public of Australia.

 

There are a number of important features that can be used to describe true commons. The first is that true commons cannot be commodified – and if they are – they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that while they are neither public nor private the Ecologist (1996: 9) claims that they tend to be managed by local communities. While this may be true to a degree, commons cannot be exclusionary. That is, they cannot have borders built around them otherwise they become private property. The third aspect of the commons is that, unlike resources, they are not scarce but abundant (Ecologist 1993: 9). In fact, if managed properly, they work to overcome scarcity.

Loss of the commons

Today, life for the commons is precarious – they are rapidly being enclosed: privatised, traded in the market and abused. We are seeing Australia’s commons being transformed into market resources – something that has a parallel in the movement to enclose common lands in eighteenth-century England. This is the private appropriation of collectively owned resources.

 

Much of the current processes of enclosure can be traced to a 1968 essay by Garret Hardin titled the tragedy of the commons. Hardin argued that humanity inevitably exploits the commons and concludes that “the survival of the commons depends on ‘mutual coercion mutually agreed on’” (Reid 1995: 29). Hardin (1968) argued that this should be undertaken by an administrative elite, though today’s neo-liberal capitalism offers us ‘the market’. For it is (incorrectly) argued that a lack of private property rights means that “resources” are subject to constant dispute and potential conflict.

 

Today, much of what has traditionally been thought of as the commons has disappeared. The expansion of private property rights has resulted in there being very little left in our world that is shared. We have seen the commons commercialised and run like a business – otherwise they will be neglected. For example, recent discussions about the soil salinity around Australia’s rivers prompted leading corporate figures demanded that Australia’s rivers be run “like a business” (Peatling 2002).

 

This is an ‘enclosure’ that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and effectively deprives us of access to resources that are legally or morally owned by all. The result is the market colonises untouched natural resources and public life while eroding our democracy.

 

This is a re-occurring theme in much of the neo-liberal literature, as it is often suggested that the future of conservation lies in the privatisation of global commons. A 2002 report from Britain’s Royal Society (quoted in Pearce 2002: 10), criticises government run conservation programs, development aid, protected areas and even gene banks, and claims that it is time “for capitalism to take charge” (Pearce 2002: 10). According to the report, the environment should be “parcelled out to the private sector, with market forces influencing everything from cleaning up our rivers and atmosphere to protecting forests and soils” (ibid.).

 

In a recent article, David Bollier (2004) argued that “such enclosures are troubling because they disproportionately benefit the wealthy and effectively deprive ordinary citizens of access to resources that they legally or morally own. The result is a hypertrophic market that colonizes untouched natural resources and public life while eroding our democratic commonwealth.”

Implications for our society

The implication that the ‘market knows best’ is that the community cannot manage communally based resources; ‘human nature’ means we are ‘greedy’ and, as such, we must be protected from ourselves or all resources will disappear. Te argument continues that human nature must then be disciplined by market forces and the profit motive.

 

The general argument is that environmental destruction should be blamed on the selfishness of people. As such, communal institutions must be replaced with ‘private ownership’.

 

Thus, as the Ecologist (1996: 13) notes, the original belief presented by Hardin is one in which profit is the only social value that is operating. Despite the fact that Hardin’s position was never based on empirical evidence, it is linked with a long liberalist theoretical tradition that we must commercialise to get the best out of people. Despite being “debunked”, the model’s assumptions have persisted and are now applied all aspects of our lives.

 

Based on this, today’s proponents of privatisation work to convince us that people will no longer do “the right thing”. For example, the idea of the public education system is that it is available for everyone to share. However, the continued privatisation of the public schooling system means that the public education system is being abandoned. Parents are left with the inevitable decision – even if only imagined – to support the public education system at the risk of their children receiving a poorer education compared to that offered by private institutions. Thus, the choice is one of trusting others to also attend public institutions, or to feel the anxiety that ‘if I do not do it, others will anyway’.

 

Similar parallels can be drawn from other commons such as neighbourhoods. Davis (1992: 174) notes the growing demand for gated communities as people lose a sense of trust and safety replaced by ‘security’. Davis (ibid) notes that this is not unique to Los Angeles, but a general trend toward the establishment of “defensible urban centres” and fortress cities. As one private security organisation explains: “We’re not a security guard company. We sell a concept of security” (quoted in Davis 1992: 174). The demand for gated communities has become a worldwide trend (Gorden 1999).

 

A journalist based in the United States, Mike Davis, presents a bleak account of what happens when ‘security’ replaces safety in major urban centres. Concentrating on Los Angeles, Davis describes how “wealthier neighbourhoods in the canyons and hillsides cower behind walls guarded by… private police and state-of-the-art electronic surveillance systems”. For Davis, this has been driven by a loss of safety within the communities. The result is a merging of architecture and police apparatus (ibid: 155). To make the point, Davis (1992: 160) quotes an article from Urban Land magazine on new urban designs:

 

“A downtown can be designed and developed to make visitors feel that it… is attractive and the type of place that “respectable people” like themselves tend to frequent… A core downtown area… (that includes) offices and housing for middle- and upper-income residents… can assure a high percentage of “respectable”, law-abiding pedestrians”

More about 'The global ‘Reclaiming the Commons’ movement

Naomi Klein (2000: 311) describes the battle over “street culture” as one that has emerged between corporations attempting to commodify it – both physically (through billboards) and culturally (through the cooption of local cultures by the advertising industry) – and “anti-corporate activists” aiming to reverse this commodification as part of a global campaign to ‘reclaim the commons’. We see examples of protests organised by groups such as Reclaim the Streets (RTS) that work to reverse this commodification. This reaction is part of global campaign to ‘reclaim the commons’.

 

In fact, many communities are attempting to establish a new political space based on opening up new commons. This includes both the physical commons, such as the fight for more public space, as well as in the cultural commons. The commons re-emerge when ‘streets’ again can be shared. In this way, new commons are continuously emerging (Ecologist 1993: 7).

 

The reclaiming the commons movement has emerged in many parts of the world – from Australians defending public education to members of remote communities in India fighting for once communally-owned lands. This trend has seen many communities work to establish a new political sphere based on opening up new commons. This includes both the physical commons as well as the cultural commons. The message is clear – it is no longer acceptable to privatise and commodify everything in life.

While the market may be appropriate for some commodities, the reclaim the commons movement argues that it is time to draw a distinction between those goods that can be managed by the market and those that belong to the community.

 

Click here to go back to TCI Home page.