Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
commons are being appropriated without the people thereby dispossessed subse-
quently being incorporated into the wage economy (George, 1998, p. x). A second,
implicit in the literature but vital, is over how narrowly to construe primitive accu-
mulation and enclosure: most examples focus on the enclosure of material assets,
but De Angelis (2004), Moore (2004), McCarthy (2004), Heynen et al. (2007) and
others collectively make a strong case that the broadly Polanyian social and envi-
ronmental protections won in the postwar period can and should be understood as
commons of a sort, one now subject to fi erce enclosure. Third and most important
are questions regarding agency and politics: should the manifold struggles against
enclosures briefl y chronicled above be understood as purely reactive, or can strug-
gles outside of the workplace still be central to capitalist development, and, relat-
edly, are there suffi cient commonalties of interest or politics among these disparate
struggles to forge effective coalitions among their participants? Harvey (2003,
p. 166) famously answered both of these questions in the negative, arguing that the
manifold struggles against recent forms of primitive accumulation around the world
are so varied in form, content and politics that there is little hope for effective
resistance to global capitalism emerging from them. In response, however, many
have argued that the substantive commonalties underlying the myriad different
forms of contemporary enclosure and extra-economic accumulation do offer suffi -
cient grounds for transnational solidarity and organising, and that indeed many
such movements and coalitions are already in evidence, not simply reacting but
making history (De Angelis, 2006; Glassman, 2006; Hart, 2006). Surely, this is what
animates and holds together much of the 'anti-globalization' movement and forms
of organisation such as the World Social Forum, whatever theoretical language their
participants may use.
Conclusion: Looking Back, Out and Forward to the Commons
A single thread unites these three very different (albeit related) conversations regard-
ing 'commons.' It is the belief that, in the language of the World Social Forum,
'another world is possible,' one in which our relations with other people and our
environments are not limited to those dictated by the logics of capitalism. The ability
to truly imagine such alternative relations is critical and rare, and all too readily
dismissed as mere utopian fancy. Geographers have important roles to play in this
vitally important task, whether we are demonstrating that functioning commons
have existed and tracing how they have changed, analyzing how those lessons can
be applied to new situations, or working with communities at multiple scales to
craft alternatives that can help to realise the seemingly deep and enduring desire for
commons (see, e.g., St. Martin 2007; De Angelis 2006). We are far from the sole
contributors to such efforts, of course, but geography's focus on carefully theorised,
empirically grounded research that pays attention to context, specifi city, and the
multiplicity of possible human-environment relationships surely gives geographers
a head start in such endeavors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnes, P. (2001)
Who Owns the Sky? Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism
.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
