Ann Pendleton-Jullian in her talk suggests the need for a new type of metanarrative to change the world, something strategically ambiguous towards which to head despite our differences, and that would aggregate coherence from a variety of micro narratives that shape events and build trust at the grassroots level.

The idea of growth or expansion of the commons is worth looking into as such meta-narrative or vision. An idea I have developed in an article here: http://menemania.typepad.com/helene_finidori/2012/08/systems-thinking-and-commons-sense-for-a-sustainable-world.html

The commons in its widest definition -of what shapes and enables social entities and in turn is shaped by social entities- is ‘fuzzy’ and ambiguous enough to encompass many forms of objects (common goods), processes (manners in which) and outcomes (results such as well-being, prosperity…). Commons are at the same time the whole and parts, the input and the output…

Much of the initiatives around sustainability, thrivability, social innovation, resilience are geared toward maintaining the integrity and growing or nurturing a piece of the commons, and could be expressed as commons oriented even if not organized as an intentional commons.

Growth itself, when you think of it, is a great meme! It got [almost] everyone these last decades rolling up their sleeves to do it best -even when not for self enrichment-, with the result that we know! Unfortunately not applied to the right things… If the concept of growth, rather than applied to GDP and profits, consumption, addictions, and other toxic or enclosing behaviors and practices and non relevant metrics, or means that lose tracks of ends, was used to (re)generate, and expand a variety of enabling outcomes (capabilities, abundance, health, well being, thrivability, resilience), and all types of resources and inheritances and ways of doing things right, we could accelerate the paradigm shift…

Several articles adopt a wide view of commons and offer an approach to the transition using part of the current paradigm:
Tom Atlee: Wholesome Capitalism http://tom-atlee.posterous.com/wholesome-capitalism
David Ronfeldt: Speculations on assurance commons http://twotheories.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/speculation-is-there-assurance-commons.html
Benni B: The Commons as a strategic perspective for social movements http://keimform.de/2009/the-commons-as-a-strategic-perspective-for-social-movements/
Another article of mine: The commons at the core of our next economic model http://menemania.typepad.com/helene_finidori/2012/04/the-commons-at-the-core-of-our-next-economic-models.html

The conference could be an opportunity to formulate this meta narrative and examine how various micro narratives can be expressed in a way that connects to the commons. And also to formulate the basic principles for the integrity of the commons and ‘beneficial’ growth. This would give the commons a voice, and set a framework to prevent or limit the cooption and corruption of the commons vocabulary. It could provide a basis for viral communication.

I suggest the discourse on the commons should center on cases rather than on theories or principles. When we look at cases we see things we like and dislike, even if we may not know why. Theories and principles can help us explain what we like and don’t like, but seldom help us recognize it.

PR

I would put this differently: production, consumption and governance are sufficiently integrated when there are no more externalities. Externality is almost too simple an idea, and its importance is easily lost in the intellectual fashions of the day.

“The very idea of “the economy” is a social construction, not a natural fact.”

The “ecosystem” is also a social construction. The word is not the thing (Korzybski). On the other hand, the words ecology and economy can be applied almost interchangeably. Ecology is the natural economy. If we took this approach, it might help us improve our social economy via lessons from nature. But there are ways we don’t want to “go back to nature”. We don’t want to go back to the nature Hobbes characterizes as “the war of all against all” and “red of tooth and claw”. So natural and unnatural are not sufficient bases for comparing anything.