Ecological Science and Practice: Dialogues Across Cultures and Disciplines - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 18

One reason has been the dominance of the logical argument known as the “tragedy
of the commons,” one modern version of which was articulated forcefully by Garrett
Hardin ( 1968 ). According to this logic, resources that are held in common will
inevitably be over-exploited by the resource users, and therefore a solution can
come only from the outside, either in the form of privatization or some type of coer-
cion or regulation of human action. This argument long predates Hardin's infl uen-
tial article and has created a stumbling block to bringing scientifi c and lay
communities together for productive dialogue. A good example is the history of
acrimonious debate about oyster conservation in the Chesapeake Bay on the east
coast of the United States. The still-unsolved problem is how to preserve this
once-productive estuary and the once-abundant oysters that are so important for
maintaining water quality. Environmental historian Christine Keiner ( 2001 , 2009 )
has analyzed the “oyster question” in this region and argues persuasively that one
persistent blind spot in trying to solve environmental problems has been failure to
recognize the crucial link between conserving oysters and valuing and protecting
the culture of the local watermen or commercial fi shermen. One reason has been
that scientists and policy makers have been in thrall to the “tragedy of the
commons” logic.
As Keiner points out, the need to conserve the Chesapeake oyster population was
recognized well over a century ago. William Keith Brooks, a zoologist at the Johns
Hopkins University, published a topic on oysters in 1891 that was an early interdis-
ciplinary work (Brooks 1996 ). He drew on biology and political economy to argue
for the importance of sustaining the Chesapeake oysters. Brooks's studies of oyster
reproduction revealed that the Chesapeake oyster could be cultivated, and he con-
cluded that the best conservation strategy was aquaculture, which meant privatizing
the commons. For many years he advocated privatizing oyster beds because he
thought it would bring prosperity to the impoverished watermen living on the eastern
shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Other scientists picked up the refrain: the solution was
to enclose the commons and develop oyster culture.
But Maryland's watermen, the people he was trying to help, were vehemently
against the idea of privatization because it was expensive and threatened many
aspects of their worldview. Quite simply, privatization and aquaculture required
capital, for underwater farming was expensive, and the watermen did not have capi-
tal. Those with the ability to afford the high costs of aquaculture were the packers
and canners, the capitalists of the oyster economy, who if allowed to farm oysters
would gain control of the oyster beds. If aquaculture were instituted, the watermen
would become the equivalent of farm workers, employees working for the capitalists.
Watermen fi ercely valued their independence, as they still do today, and being
corporate employees was much against their self-image and their culture. As it hap-
pened, the watermen had considerable political clout in the state legislature, because
Maryland's system of representation favored the rural counties, where the watermen
lived, over the city of Baltimore, where the scientists lived. While the scientists in
Baltimore continued to defi ne the “oyster question” as a question of privatization, or
oyster culture, the watermen continued to resist a “solution” that threatened their
core values and their culture.