10 September 2012
8 August 2013 revision
First, I introduce my favorite definition of the “commons,” given by D. M. Nonini:
What is now at stake at this point in world history is control over ‘the commons’—the great variety of natural, physical, social, intellectual, and cultural resources that make human survival possible. By ‘the commons’ I mean those assemblages and ensembles of resources that human beings hold in common or in trust to use on behalf of themselves, other living human beings, and past and future generations of human beings, and which are essential to their biological, cultural, and social reproduction.
Various kinds of commons have long existed as viable and durable arrangements for providing for the needs of human survival.
(Nonini 2006: 164; 2007: 1. 日本語訳Japanese translation by h_k)
At the same time, Nonini does not fail to caution as following:
In case anyone was tempted to treat commons as utopias, it should be pointed out that often outsiders are excluded by violence from the commons resources when they try to use them.
(Nonini 2006: 166; 2007: 4)
I. Illich also defines the “commons” uniquely:
I could express the distinction between the commons within which people’s subsistence activities are embedded, and resources that serve for the economic production of those commodities on which modern survival depends.
(Illich 1983: 6, original emphases)
More general definition is given by C. Hess and E. Ostrom, without reference to any function of the commons:
Commons is a general term that refers to a resource shared by a group of people. In a commons, the resource can be small and serve a tiny group (the family refrigerator), it can be community-level (sidewalks, playgrounds, libraries, and so on), or it can extend to international and global levels (deep seas, the atmosphere, the Internet, and scientific knowledge). The commons can be well bounded (a community park or library); transboundary (the Danube River, migrating wildlife, the Internet); or without clear boundaries (knowledge, the ozone layer).
(Hess and Ostrom 2007: 4-5, original emphasis)
They, however, point out an important aspect of the term:
The term “commons,” however, has various histories, from property to shared spaces to notions of democratic ideals. It refers to the house of British Parliament representing nontitled citizens, and agricultural fields in England and Europe prior to their enclosure. In the United States, commons refers to public spaces such as the New England town square, campus dining halls, and concepts of the “common” good. In almost all uses, the term has been contested.
(Hess and Ostrom 2003: 115)
By the way, and finally, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, the 1911 First Edition says as following:
co·mmon2, n. Land belonging to a community, esp. unenclosed waste land; (right of) c., a man’s right over another’s land, as c. of pasturage; out of the c., unusual; in c., in joint use. shared. [prec. as n.]
Relevant note:
Commons Advocates against “Globalization,” etc.
Relevant short notes:
What are you Doing with (the) Commons?
REFERENCES
- Hess, Charlotte., and Elinor Ostrom. 2003, “Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Resource,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66(1-2, Winter & Spring): 111-145. L&CP
- Hess, Charlotte., and Elinor Ostrom. 2007, “Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons,” in Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, eds. Understanding Knowledge as Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 3-26.
- Illich, Ivan. 1983, “Silence is a Commons,” CoEvolution Quarterly Winter 1983: 5-9.
- Nonini, Donald M. 2006, “Introduction: the Global Idea of ‘the Commons’,” Social Analysis 50(3): 164-177.
- Nonini, Donald M. 2007, “Introduction: the Global Idea of ‘the Commons’,” in D. M. Nonini, ed. The Global Idea of ‘the Commons’, New York: Berghahn Books: 1-25.