Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
analytical clarity around commons, and a third that articulates diverse contempo-
rary political projects through invocations of commons. The subfi elds of historical,
environmental, and radical geography have made important contributions to these
three conversations, respectively, while geographic scholarship in the realm of politi-
cal economy is of relevance to all three. Of course, such labels and distinctions are
partly analytical devices to sharpen our focus on various active meanings of
'commons' in turn; in practice, the content of each of these conversations affects
the others. Similarly, while some particular concerns and contributions of geogra-
phers are pointed out in each section, for the most part this essay treats commons
as an inherently geographical subject, regardless of who is speaking about them: as
Gregory (1994) and others have pointed out, professional geographers are far from
the only actors producing geographical knowledges.
The Historical Signifi cance of the Commons
Human history is full of commons, that is, of instances in which groups of people
have used, controlled, and governed resources collectively and directly. As might be
expected, the outcomes of such management have varied widely, but in many cases,
natural resources have been managed as commons successfully and sustainably for
generations, over centuries in some cases. The historical existence of such successful
commons throughout the world has been critical in efforts to think about commons
in analytical and institutional terms, as discussed in the following section.
For our purposes here, though, we will focus on the history of the commons in
England, which remains in many respects the paradigmatic case and referent for
most discussions of the commons in contemporary geography and many contem-
porary political conversations. Many discussions of historical commons centre on
the common lands and associated rights that existed in parts of England prior to
the development of capitalism, and whose elimination or curtailment played a
central role in the transition to a capitalist economy and society.
A full history of these common lands and rights, and ongoing debates about their
precise contours, is beyond the scope of this essay; see Thompson (1991), Williams
(1973). For our purposes here, what matters is that up until the 19th century, resi-
dents of much of rural England (commoners) enjoyed a wide variety of use rights
on nearby common lands, including rights to dwell, hunt, graze livestock, gather
wood or other materials for fuel, building, and fencing, gather fruits, glean leftovers
from fi elds after the harvest, collect stones and sand for building, and more. As this
partial list suggests, these rights often played critical roles in livelihoods, enabling
the survival of individuals and entire communities. Crucially, these rights were
established and defended on the basis of custom and tradition, rather than through
market exchanges; being born into a particular social group in a particular place
suffi ced to secure some of these rights, which played a major role in the feudal social
order.
This sketch is far too singular and static, however: in actuality, common lands
and rights were varied and dynamic in several dimensions (see Williams, 1973;
Thompson, 1991). First, they varied considerably over space, with different regions,
counties, and local communities differing with respect to the existence, extent, and
content of common lands and rights. Moreover, different common rights applied to
different types of land. For instance, some lands were 'waste' and nearly unowned,
with use rights for adjacent residents being quite extensive; some cultivated lands
