A mapping proposed by the Co-Intelligence Institute:
“These diagrams present economic dynamics in a concentric circles model which frames human economics as functioning within – and dependent on – the larger economies of nature – what might be called the natural and spiritual commons. It also presents a layer of human commons within which the community economics of gifting and sharing take place. It suggests that exchange – which currently dominates our conceptions of economics – is properly conceived of as only one smaller part of a much bigger economic picture, and that the monetized economy is even smaller than that. It further proposes that purely speculative economic activities that have no direct relationship to actual productive activity – abstract investments and trades that currently make up the majority of financial transactions globally – should be minimized or eliminated, or at least strictly managed where they colonize or harm the more productive sectors of the economy.
“The commons” is a sufficiently new concept as to warrant explanation here. The commons is a generic term embracing all that we hold and use in common. It is most readily understood as our shared lands, spaces, atmosphere, natural resources, natural systems and the “eco-system services” that those natural systems perform (like purifying our air and water). But it also includes our genetic heritage; our cultures, languages and institutions; our economics and politics; our sidewalks, streets, utilities, internet, and other infrastructure; our accumulated and co-created knowledge; and the human and social resources of our communities and relationships. Many people also believe that we share a common spiritual reality and heritage. In short, whatever we all have access to – or should have access to – is our commons. The economic view of “the commons” has been developing rapidly in the last few decades as we acknowledge how thoroughly we depend on the larger social, cultural, and natural bounty that surrounds and precedes us — and thus how we need to treasure, preserve, and support the commons as fundamental to our existence.”
The maps:
Today:
A possible tomorrow:
These illustrations are very nice, and I’ve put them up on my blog. I will use them as illustrations for a future article for kulturverk.com,where I also plan to translate this text by Eisenstein into Norwegian:
“Community is nearly impossible in a highly monetized society like our own. That is because community is woven from gifts, which is ultimately why poor people often have stronger communities than rich people. If you are financially independent, then you really don’t depend on your neighbors—or indeed on any specific person—for anything. You can just pay someone to do it, or pay someone else to do it.
In former times, people depended for all of life’s necessities and pleasures on people they knew personally. If you alienated the local blacksmith, brewer, or doctor, there was no replacement. Your quality of life would be much lower. If you alienated your neighbors then you might not have help if you sprained your ankle during harvest season, or if your barn burnt down. Community was not an add-on to life, it was a way of life. Today, with only slight exaggeration, we could say we don’t need anyone. I don’t need the farmer who grew my food—I can pay someone else to do it. I don’t need the mechanic who fixed my car. I don’t need the trucker who brought my shoes to the store. I don’t need any of the people who produced any of the things I use. I need someone to do their jobs, but not the unique individual people. They are replaceable and, by the same token, so am I.
That is one reason for the universally recognized superficiality of most social gatherings. How authentic can it be, when the unconscious knowledge, “I don’t need you,” lurks under the surface? When we get together to consume—food, drink, or entertainment—do we really draw on the gifts of anyone present? Anyone can consume. Intimacy comes from co-creation, not co-consumption, as anyone in a band can tell you, and it is different from liking or disliking someone. But in a monetized society, our creativity happens in specialized domains, for money.
To forge community then, we must do more than simply get people together. While that is a start, soon we get tired of just talking, and we want to do something, to create something. It is a very tepid community indeed, when the only need being met is the need to air opinions and feel that we are right, that we get it, and isn’t it too bad that other people don’t … hey, I know! Let’s collect each others’ email addresses and start a listserv!
Community is woven from gifts. Unlike today’s market system, whose built-in scarcity compels competition in which more for me is less for you, in a gift economy the opposite holds. Because people in gift culture pass on their surplus rather than accumulating it, your good fortune is my good fortune: more for you is more for me. Wealth circulates, gravitating toward the greatest need. In a gift community, people know that their gifts will eventually come back to them, albeit often in a new form. Such a community might be called a “circle of the gift.”
Fortunately, the monetization of life has reached its peak in our time, and is beginning a long and permanent receding (of which economic “recession” is an aspect). Both out of desire and necessity, we are poised at a critical moment of opportunity to reclaim gift culture, and therefore to build true community. The reclamation is part of a larger shift of human consciousness, a larger reunion with nature, earth, each other, and lost parts of ourselves. Our alienation from gift culture is an aberration and our independence an illusion. We are not actually independent or “financially secure” – we are just as dependent as before, only on strangers and impersonal institutions, and, as we are likely to soon discover, these institutions are quite fragile.” – Charles Eisenstein
http://www.nationofchange.org/build-community-economy-gifts-1325082127
Thanks!