What the Commons Is Missing

A contribution by the “Economics and the Commons” conference attendee, Joel Dietz:

“After the “Economics and the Commons” conference here in Berlin, I spent a long time digesting the proceedings here in Berlin. Despite near consensus among interested parties on the importance of the “commons” and “commoning,” I had an eerie sensation that something was missing. Despite so much vision casting, I suspect that tangible outcomes would be limited, that something more was needed to bring people together.

As I mulled, I came up with this set of suggestions and, along the way, a few strategies for stimulating the commons:

(1) The study of natural ecosystems is, pace Andreas Weber, a fantastic way of understanding what life in common together can be. Numerous recent scientific trends, including epigenetics, have illustrated how intertwined human life is with its surroundings. But at times it seems we lack models for what an optimal ecosystem is and looks like. What does it mean to have an ecosystem that is growing and facilitating optimal outcomes for those within that ecosystem? Do we have an answer for this question?

(2) The effort to agree is often the lack of ability to debate, to propose alternative models and to expose them to critical feedback. If we simply mesh together a bunch of different models and theories, one does not allow for models to emerge that have gone through the much harder process of consensus building after legitimate critical comments have been raised.

Consensus without commitment is useless. A consensus that arises from a common commitment to build an ecosystem that can accommodate real people is valuable. If you abandon critical thinking and feedback mechanisms, you get agreement that does not include tangible outcomes. If you abandon progress, you often get merely stasis. Even ideas get old, as do the people promoting them.

(3) One very real issue is the economic one, sustainable solutions must also include a way for the people who live in the ecosystem to have all the necessary resources needed to live. For most of this includes currency of some kind. Here there seems to be a lack of viable hybrid models. Either you have a profit driven companies (AirBnB) or people that are in some way living off of state funding (i.e. salaried university professors). If a commons is to truly be built, we need more institutions that produce value, but are not driven by profit, and that ideally do not fuel themselves primarily via resources extracted via taxes from the populace.

(4) In the reaction against market fundamentalism, it seems that we are often afraid to leave behind the boundaries of materialistic modern philosophies all together. Too much is tied implicitly or explicitly to Marx, and there are far too few references to spirituality, aesthetics, positive health, and the great philosophical traditions of the non-Western world. This often seems to make the movement at times more reactionary, in the sense of simply throwing off existing incompetent overlords, rather than casting a positive vision for the future. We need instead to integrate the things we have learned from the past century about a more integral experience into our political philosophy.

(5) Dare I suggest that in a time when the global financial infrastructure has more or less imploded, rainforests are burned to the ground overnight by teams of well-organized profit seekers, and soldiers of once proud republics are butchered in public in broad daylight, that people dedicated to global democracy and the commons need to a bit more radical? Who is actually organizing to prevent these atrocities from continuing? Can you prevent whole forests from being cut to the ground with mere words? I have the sense that many people are content to merely comment on these trends that are ripping apart the world. The world needs more do-ers.

Joel Dietz is co-editor of Ouishare.net and a teacher of mediation and yoga. He also runs a startup which provides an ecological digital currency.”

2 Comments What the Commons Is Missing

  1. AvatarBernd

    Well, yes, except, “(1)… But at times it seems we lack models for what an optimal ecosystem is and looks like.”

    I say yes if Joel Dietz means models as positive examples that we can learn from. Let’s build a lively list to share what works if there is need to be a bit more radical.

    I say no if this means scientific models, which selectively discard variation to arrive at generic conclusions that work well in many places. Much of what defines ecosystems are emergent properties in a bizarre domain, hardly accessible to scientific modeling, but rather to the few model-free methods we have. Monica Anderson explains. http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6023/Science-Beyond-Reductionism

  2. AvatarTom Atlee

    Great inquiries, Joel! What comes up for me….

    (1) I see permaculture as an answer to that question, and I see the inquiry about “social permaculture” that is emerging within the permaculture movement as a pursuit of truly useful answers. I also think that “emergent processes” (Open Space, World Cafe, etc.) and work related to my co-intelligence worldview (including the theory and practice of addressing human needs, as exemplified by Nonviolent Communication and Manfred Max-Neef’s work) also offer interesting approaches.

    (2) Consensus-as-agreement can generate conformist groupthink at worst or low-energy coherence at best. Consensus-as-co-sensing generates inquiries that lead to breakthroughs with little if any compromise and with real passion (“heart and meaning”) for realization. Dynamic Facilitation exemplifies this energy. Various forms of formal deliberation can also be powerful where they minimize competitive debate while enhancing productive shared inquiry wherever differences and dissent signal important factors for the group to attend to.

    (3) “Making a living” is a truly vital factor. Alternatives will require both accessing the abundance that is hidden beneath market waste and oversimplifications (e.g., “jobs” versus community asset mapping and the Maker movement) and a dematerialization of human fulfillment – using everything from miniaturization, sharing, and virtualization to focus on spirit, relationship, creativity and learning = so-called “simple living” — as well as nonprofit/gifting monetary innovations like credit exchanges, crowdfunding, CrewFund, etc. At big scales, I suspect this will follow “stumbling towards sustainability” evolutionary patterns rather than through neat plans and models. This is already underway on all fronts.

    (4) I see Charles Eisenstein’s SACRED ECONOMICS as one remarkable exemplar of what you are seeking. “What would economics look like if we believed we were call connected (which we are) instead of all separate?” Gifting would be central, and wealth (both actual and reputational) would be the result of generosity. And realizing how much joy and satisfaction are available from nonmaterial sources and the ways in which “less is more” (or can be, if viewed and used in particular way).

    (5) The dichotomy of thinking/talking/writing vs doing is a problematic one. A supposed Chinese proverb says that if you are going in the wrong direction, the more progress you make, the further you get from where you want to be. I see the thinking/talking/writing as helping clarify useful directions and guidance – ideas, stories, visions, plans, scenarios, etc. – for actually doing things. And doing not only produces real-world results but – properly integrated with thinking/talking/writing – provides feedback that generates better guidance for the future (as in e.g. “action learning” and “learning communities of practice”).

    Some individuals can readily do both well. Some are naturally better at one or the other. All can fit – although we face the dynamic that the thinkers/talkers tend to be more comfortable with their own kind, which is also true of the doers. We need to counter that with more conscious invitation (e.g., including diverse people whose personalities fit the incubation, inspiration, perspiration, and completion steps of the creative process outlined by Charles Johnston’s Creative Systems Theory, or using Edward De Bono’s “six thinking hats” model) and more effective forms of interaction (e.g., Future Search, Dynamic Facilitation, Open Space, etc.).

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.