Introduction
The concept of ‘commoning’ is a notion generally applied to the realm of natural resources; however, its potential in managing collective action is highly underestimated. This phenomenon used for increasing the awareness of stakeholders regarding the distribution of goods also has significant power in explaining the dynamics of social relationships. Thus, the examination of the human factor in this respect appears to be one of the optimal approaches to understanding the combined efforts of citizens directed for or against innovative measures.
The emerging practices, when reviewed through the lens of commons, explicitly speak of human behavior, which is readjusted in accordance with external stimuli. In other words, governmental policies contradicting the actual needs of various population groups lead to the outbreak of conflicts resolved through the formulation of local requirements as per inhabitants’ evolving perceptions. It means that the concept of ‘commoning’ is advantageous for understanding the potential for collective action outside the realm of natural resources as it serves as the evidence of psychological processes underpinning people’s vital choices.
Commoning as a Phenomenon: Psychological Aspect
The autonomy of individuals and entities presents an obstacle to prosperity when it is not equally accessible by them. From this standpoint, commoning can be considered as a multi-faceted area of people’s activity, the power of which to serve as a basis for combining efforts positively correlates with the manifestations of will. When analyzing the availability of resources, such as water, food, or funds, it is critical to pay attention not solely to their distribution but the reaction to this process on the part of ultimate beneficiaries (Dwinell & Olivera 2014; Meyer & Hudon 2017; Zitcer 2016). The psychology behind the corresponding events is expressed by the resistance of the affected populations that, in turn, is directly linked to their cultural practices, social discrimination, and perceptions of human rights (Mosse & Nagappan 2021). Hence, the seeming or confirmed violation of any of these provisions inevitably results in the emergence of complications, and they are related to the potential of commoning in uniting people for the same objectives.
Economies Influenced by Collective Action: Opposition
The principal aspect confirming the above stance is the formation of opposition by individuals under the influence of economic factors. Their combined efforts are conditional upon the unity in opinions regarding the inadvisability of underlying changes, and they are laid in the basis of power attributed to commoning as a process critical for everyone’s wellbeing. For example, the situation with coal mining in central Appalachia replaced by more profitable activities in terms of resources was complicated by the citizens’ standpoints (Jones 2020). Stating that “creative destruction” following “capitalist logics” does not bring favorable results as expected (Jones 2020). On the contrary, the elaborated projects of this nature were deemed as causing higher unemployment rates and accompanying maladies, thereby increasing the potential of collective action grounded on the received evidence (Jones 2020). Similarly, these methods proved to be erroneous when neglecting the human factor and, more specifically, emphasizing the allocation of public funds for such initiatives instead of focusing on community currencies (Meyer & Hudon 2017). These findings suggest that commoning cannot be separated from residents’ involvement, including organizing operations within communities with respect to their benefits instead of projected feasibility.
Social Discrimination Determining Potential
The discussed economic circumstances reflecting the necessity to develop opposition to processes combined under the notion of commoning when used with excessive generalizations are complemented by social discrimination. If the former aspect was somehow connected to natural resources, the latter presents a clear shift from these considerations while justifying collective action in terms of the appropriateness of measures for communities. The examples of NGOs in India disrupting these people’s customs concerning their place in society and exclusion from affairs and Appalachian coal mines replaced by more attractive entreprises for initiators are vital in this respect (Jones 2020; Mosse & Nagappan 2021). They demonstrate the effects of such projects on citizens’ activity while significantly limiting it and thereby causing inequality. In this case, capitalistic benefits also serve as a trigger for enhancing the potential for collective action since the struggles are shared by all of the affected individuals (Jones 2020; Mosse & Nagappan 2021). Surprisingly, they allow exercising greater local control by uniting people depending on their sentiment towards innovation. Therefore, the concept of commoning applied to the specified outcome brings the awareness of its power to facilitate communication among individuals.
Human Rights
The described social discrimination as one of the aspects of commoning while ignoring the human factor is accompanied by the violation of people’s rights, which, in turn, results in the increasing potential for collective action. In this situation, the nature of the problem or the resources involved in the matter is of no importance for the population. The main issue they intend to resolve is their freedom restricted by the authorities when managing tangible assets (Jones 2020). Consequently, the decisions are coordinated with the help of this provision put in the center of the challenge.
Meanwhile, rationality is not necessarily taken into account and is frequently relegated to the background. New decisions made collectively by the people in a particular region might resemble those suggested by outsiders (Mosse & Nagappan 2021). Nevertheless, the debates on the power which belongs to the citizens as standard are guided by these considerations, and they are reflected by the requirement of establishing the security of their position concerning the commons (Dwinell & Olivera 2014). The uniting element presented by the intention to maintain their essential rights in managing resources correlates with the growing potential of collective action. Alongside the desire to avoid social inequality among individuals living in the same community, it presents the basis for combining efforts, whereas the subject matter of the dispute is not important.
Cultural Aspect
The potential for collective action as per the concept of commoning also corresponds to the culture of the population under consideration. Any attempts to introduce measures contradicting it leads to the unity of opinions of the opposition. As can be seen from the experience of the Maasai tribe and Dalit elite, they inevitably lead to combining efforts by the affected persons, and their interventions are as well-planned as those of the government (Mosse & Nagappan 2021; Mwangi & Ostrom 2012). The improvements in terms of the power of the indigenous peoples in resisting the policies elaborated by the governments for managing resources stem from their shared cultural values (Mosse & Nagappan 2021). Subsequently, this area happens to be more influential than new approaches as it is characterized by greater precision of action and their suitability for the regions’ needs. The neglect of the significance of established practices for culture can be detrimental to the image of the organizations developing innovative approaches (Jones 2020). In this regard, the understanding of commoning when applied to the potential to combine efforts is enhanced by realizing the link between individuals resisting the change.
Conflicts of Interest
Another principle supporting the above conclusions is the presence of conflicts of interest that cannot be simply resolved by negotiating the matters. These obstacles to the prosperity of communities are based on the impossibility of matching the perceptions of the indigenous population with those of the authorities (Jones 2020). Both parties appear to have well-justified opinions on the needs of specific regions, whereas the insider’s perspective is clearly more accurate due to the availability of more comprehensive information (Zitcer 2016). For instance, in the case of Bolivia and its water resources, the primary circumstance was not the assets themselves but the greater effectiveness of measures developed under popular control (Dwindell & Olivera 2014). In other words, the interests of people were better represented and managed when granting them the required degree of autonomy. The opposing efforts of the government to exercise control corresponded to the failure to assess the rationality of measures (Demarrais & Earle 2017). In this way, the patterns of commoning demonstrate the dependency of the potential for collective action on the knowledge of individuals.
Collective Action Theory: Complexity of Society
Complications attributed to social discrimination, human rights, culture, and conflicting interests of the parties can be examined through the lens of collective action theory determining the power of individuals to combine efforts for their benefit. As follows from this approach, regularity is the key to proper evaluations of decisions made in terms of managing commons, and large-scale initiatives cannot be effectively introduced when neglecting this provision (Demarrais & Earle 2017). This statement contributes to the complexity of society as a whole since individuals and, consequently, entities have unequal access to information depending on their locations. The intention to make changes while having limited data seems to be one of the reasons why people in a community combine their efforts in the first place (Demarrais & Earle 2017). From this point of view, the ongoing social processes serve as the evidence of their voluntary nature, and satisfying needs is possible only when activities are self-organized (Euler 2018). It means that problems at hand require the solutions guaranteed by the collective action of participants who are closer to their source.
Public Rights and Commons
The mentioned conditions for the productiveness of the management of commons significantly increase the potential for coordinating efforts for achieving general objectives, but this target can also be seen through the comparison of human and public rights. The former aspect already discussed in the previous sections is already critical for motivating the participants to act together, and its importance is especially emphasized when the latter prevails. Thus, the organization of any campaigns by the governments, regardless of their connection to natural resources or the lack of thereof, incorporates this conflict (Dwinell & Olivera 2014). Its course is frequently determined as usurping people’s rights, and the response inevitably implies resistance.
This provision confirms the citizens’ better chances of dealing with the commons. Their capabilities are emphasized by researchers claiming the feasibility of autonomous choices (Dwinell & Olivera 2014). By examining this phenomenon, one can easily recognize its power in uniting people, whereas the subject matter of the problem remains unimportant as in the case of other factors that were previously described. In addition, the interdependence of the so-called rulers and the populations based on the need for performing tasks for the perceived benefits of communities does not allow disregard the necessity to establish a balance (Demarrais & Earle 2017). In other words, the potential for collective action is increased by the presence of numerous interests.
Resilience and the Role of Institutions
The opposition of residents of different communities triggered by the alleged violations of their rights in different forms is supported by the evidence of the greater efficiency of measures developed on a local level. Thus, for example, the robustness of entities as a principal criterion for determining productiveness in the case of the Maasai tribe was confirmed to be better developed compared to governmental interventions (Mwangi & Ostrom 2012). These findings show that it is reasonable to grant freedoms to the communities that improve their potential for collective action because of their awareness of the environment and its needs (Mwangi & Ostrom 2012). It is clear that the response of the populations might appear negative and even aggressive; however, it should not be viewed as such since the applied measures are purely protective (Hardin 1968). The misinterpretation of the resilience demonstrated by groups and their combined efforts might cause conflicts. Nevertheless, similar events, when investigated through the lens of the concept of commoning, reflect the increasing potential for taking action instead of actual problems.
Inevitable Transformation of Social Relations
The growing power of communities contrasted by the lack of interventions on the part of authorities in managing local affairs inevitably leads to the transformation of social relations. As in the example given above, the shared practices, such as consumerism, are credible sources of information regarding these outcomes (Zitcer 2016). In this case, “shifting consumer habits” can be used to analyze the changes evoked on an individual level and affect the collective results (Zitcer 2016, p. 181). Hence, the considerations of sustainability in any area are guided by the societal operations deriving from the shared notions of appropriateness (Jones 2020). It means that the concept of commoning sheds light on the dependency of any new events on their collective support. This conclusion implies the importance of the emergence of innovative practices within communities and their successful adoption for developing specific social interactions. It is clear that the economic aspect, or natural resources and the ways of their use, is critical, while the circumstance explaining the willingness to co-operate is people’s responses. Thus, using commoning for understanding the potential for collective action is efficient for analyzing the human factor.
Consumerism as the Main Historical Factor
One of the most interesting notions that explicitly speaks of the power of people to regulate their daily lives as per the consideration of commoning is consumerism, and its historical influence is impossible to underestimate. This condition is also not linked primarily to natural resources since they do not play a significant role in the matter. Meanwhile, the resulting patterns of individual and group behavior provide sufficient information for analyzing the opportunities to achieve prosperity in the long run (Zitcer 2016). Routine activities shared by the population seem to be crucial for the transformation of social relations, as mentioned above, but they also unite individuals in their pursuits of prosperity. Hence, the “emergence and dissolution of commons” from the historical standpoints shows that governance is more than merely institutional policies but the participation of individuals within their groups (Basurto & Lozano 2021, p. 167). Therefore, the examined concept of commoning demonstrates the significance of different levels of initiatives, which eventually turn into global projects.
Individualism Vs. Collective Action
The balance between individual and group perspectives achieved in the process of managing commons is the main circumstance determining the awareness of underlying processes. This stance is supported by the scholars investigating the conditions for promoting community development and elaborating long-term initiatives for this objective (Meyer & Hudon 2017). They claim that distinguishing between the factors explaining varying levels of the process, such as financing on a global scale and community currencies in local affairs, helps assess the effectiveness of practices (Meyer & Hudon 2017). Interestingly, the productiveness is mainly reached through emphasizing the individual aspect that, consequently, turns into collective action (Jones 2020). As a result, the underlying occasions of social nature serve as evidence of the inevitability of strengthening the potential for collective action under the influence of residents in specific areas.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of commoning improves the understanding of the potential for collective action outside the realm of natural resources in several ways. The awareness is increased when admitting the power of motivation as a psychological notion in fostering community development. In this respect, economies evoke the opposition of individuals, who need to combine efforts to avoid social discrimination accompanying the corresponding processes and protect their rights. The willingness to act together is supported by shared cultural values and the inevitability of conflicting interests in the context of managing commons. The resulting complexity of the groups leads to the resilience towards reducing the impact of governmental institutions, which subsequently leads to societal transformations for meeting the most critical needs.
References
BASURTO X. & LOZANO, A.G. 2021. Commoning and the commons as more-than-resources: A historical perspective on Comcáac or Seri fishing. In Making commons dynamic (ed) P.K. Nayak, 167-190. Oxon, Abington: Routledge.
DEMARRAIS, E. & EARLE, R. 2017. Collective action theory and the dynamics of complex societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 46, 183-201.
DWINELL, A. & OLIVERA, M. 2014. The water is ours damn it! Water commoning in Bolivia. Community Development Journal, 49(suppl_1), i44-i52.
EULER. 2018. Conceptualizing the commons: Moving beyond the goods-based definition by introducing the social practices of commoning as a vital determinant. Ecological Economics 143, 10-16.
HARDIN, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons: The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.
JONES, B.M. 2020. The end(s) of capitalism: Ruination and rebirth in Central Appalachia.Anthropological Theory Commons.
MEYER, C. & HUDON, M. 2017. Alternative organizations in finance: Commoning in complementary currencies.Organization, 24(5), 629-647.
MOSSE, D. & NAGAPPAN, S.B. 2021. NGOs as social movements: Policy narratives, networks and the performance of Dalit rights in South India. Development and Change, 52(1), 134-167.
MWANGI, E. & OSTROM E. 2012. A century of institutions and ecology in East Africa’s rangelands: Linking institutional robustness with the ecological resilience of Kenya’s Maasailand. In Institutions and sustainability: Political economy of agriculture and the environment – Essays in honour of Konrad Hagedorn (eds) V. Beckmann & M. Padmanabhan, 195–222. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
ZITCER, A. 2016. Collective purchase: Food cooperatives and their pursuit of justice. In New food activism: Opposition, cooperation, and collective action (eds) A. Alkon & J. Guthman, 181-205. Oakland, California: University of California Press.