Advertisement

Joining People with Things. The Commons and Environmental Sociology

Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy book series (PASTESP)

Abstract

The theme of the commons has long been discussed, with a variety of meanings. The chapter addresses basic questions and approaches from an environmental sociology perspective. It first looks at the origins of the debate, marked by Hardin’s seminal article and Ostrom’s path-breaking research. Second, it deals with discussions associated with the global order and its crisis, where the notion of ‘commoning’ gains relevance. Third, it considers the new commons, as directly or indirectly related with knowledge. Fourth, it reviews the question of old and new enclosures and deals with legal scholars’ debate over the commons. The last section suggests that the human-nonhuman connection is crucial to the commons, yet it has to be considered in the context of current processes of value extraction.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (2013). The Highest Poverty: Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baccaro, L., & Howell, C. (2011). A Common Neoliberal Trajectory: The Transformation of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalism. Politics & Society, 39(4), 521–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borras, M., Jr., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., & Wolford, W. (2011). Towards a Better Understanding of Global Land Grabbing: An Editorial Introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, W., Prudham, S., & Schurman, R. (2001). Industrial Dynamics and the Problem of Nature. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 555–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyle, J. (2003). The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1–2), 33–74.Google Scholar
  6. Brabham, D. (2013). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caffentzis, G. (2012). A Tale of Two Conferences. Globalization, the Crisis of Neoliberalism and the Question of the Commons. Borderlands, 11(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
  8. Calvert, J. (2007). Patenting Genomic Objects: Genes, Genomes, Function and Information. Science as Culture, 16(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castree, N. (2008). Neoliberalising Nature. Environment and Planning A, 40, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXI siècle. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  11. De Angelis, M. (2007). The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  12. De Angelis, M. (2013). Does Capital Need a Commons Fix? Ephemera, 13(3), 603–615.Google Scholar
  13. De Moor, M., Shaw-Taylor, L., & Warde, P. (2002). The Management of Common Land in North Western Europe c. 1550–1850. Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delanty, G. (2003). Community. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Esposito, R. (2009). Communitas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Grossi, P. (1972). Usus facti. La nozione di proprietà nella inaugurazione dell’età nuova. Quaderni Fiorentini, 1, 287–355.Google Scholar
  18. Gudynas, E. (2010). Si eres tan progresista ¿Por qué destruyes la naturaleza? Neoextractivismo, izquierda y alternativas. Ecuador Debate (CAAP-Quito), 79, 61–81.Google Scholar
  19. Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen vivir: Today’s Tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haiven, M. (2016). The Commons Against Neoliberalism, the Commons of Neoliberalism, the Commons Beyond Neoliberalism. In S. Springer, K. Birch, & J. MacLeavy (Eds.), Handbook of Neoliberalism (pp. 257–269). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hobsbawn, E. (1992). Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In E. Hobsbawn & T. Ranger (Eds.), The Invention of Tradition (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Labban, M. (2014). Deterritorializing Extraction: Bioaccumulation and the Planetary Mine. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(3), 560–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linebaugh, P. (2008). The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Locke, J. (1823[1689]). Two Treatises of Government. London: Thomas Tegg. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/government.pdf
  30. Mattei, U., & Capra, F. (2015). The Ecology of Law. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  33. Napoli, P. (2014). Indisponibilité, service public, usage. Trois concepts fondamentaux pour le ‘commun’ et les ‘biens communs. Tracés, 27, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson, S. (2014). Beyond The Limits to Growth: Ecology and the Neoliberal Counterrevolution. Antipode, 47(2), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostrom, E. (2000). Private and Common Property Rights. In B. Bouckaert and G. De Geest (eds,), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. II, Civil Law and Economics. Cheltenham, Elgar, pp. 332–379.Google Scholar
  37. Pais, I., & Provasi, G. (2015). Sharing Economy: A Step towards the Re-Embeddedness of the Economy? Stato e Mercato, 105, 347–377.Google Scholar
  38. Pellizzoni, L. (2016). Catching Up With Things? Environmental Sociology and the Material Turn in Social Theory. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson, M. (2012). Measurement and Alienation: Making a World of Ecosystem Services. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(3), 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rose, C. (1986). The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property. University of Chicago Law Review, 53(3), 711–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, N., & Novas, C. (2005). Biological Citizenship. In A. Ong & S. Collier (Eds.), Global Assemblages (pp. 439–463). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, H. E. (2000). Semicommon Property Rights and Scattering in the Open Fields. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 131–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Söderberg, J., & Delfanti, A. (2015). Hacking Hacked! The Life Cycles of Digital Innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 793–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spanò, M. (2014). Who Is the Subject of the Commons for Future Generations? An Essay in Genealogy. In S. Bailey, G. Farrell, & U. Mattei (Eds.), Protecting Future Generations Through Commons. Trends in Social Cohesion, No. 26. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  46. Thacker, E. (2007). The Global Genome. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. The Nature Conservancy. (2013). The Case for Green Infrastructures. Joint-Industry White Paper. Arlington, VI: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from https://www.nature.org/about-us/the-case-for-green-infrastructure.pdf
  48. Thomas, Y. (2002). La valeur des choses. Le droit romain hors la religion. Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 6, 1431–1462.Google Scholar
  49. Vercellone, C. (2007). From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism. Historical Materialism, 15, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Virno, P. (2004). A Grammar of the Multitude. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  51. Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community Renewable Energy. What Should It Mean? Energy Policy, 36, 497–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations