Jonatham Lethem on The Commons

from a great article in Harpers this month:

Another way of understanding the presence of gift economies—which dwell like ghosts in the commercial machine—is in the sense of a public commons. A commons, of course, is anything like the streets over which we drive, the skies through which we pilot airplanes, or the public parks or beaches on which we dally. A commons belongs to everyone and no one, and its use is controlled only by common consent. A commons describes resources like the body of ancient Music drawn on by composers and folk musicians alike, rather than the commodities, like “Happy Birthday to You,” for which ASCAP, 114 years after it was written, continues to collect a fee. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a commons. Writings in the public domain are a commons. Gossip about celebrities is a commons. The silence in a movie theater is a transitory commons, impossibly fragile, treasured by those who crave it, and constructed as a mutual gift by those who compose it.

The world of art and culture is a vast commons, one that is salted through with zones of utter commerce yet remains gloriously immune to any overall commodification. The closest resemblance is to the commons of a language: altered by every contributor, expanded by even the most passive user. That a language is a commons doesn’t mean that the community owns it; rather it belongs between people, possessed by no one, not even by society as a whole.

Nearly any commons, though, can be encroached upon, partitioned, enclosed. The American commons include tangible assets such as public forests and minerals, intangible wealth such as copyrights and patents, critical infrastructures such as the internet and government research, and cultural resources such as the broadcast airwaves and public spaces. They include resources we’ve paid for as taxpayers and inherited from previous generations. They’re not just an inventory of marketable assets; they’re social institutions and cultural traditions that define us as Americans and enliven us as human beings. Some invasions of the commons are sanctioned because we can no longer muster a spirited commitment to the public sector. The abuse goes unnoticed because the theft of the commons is seen in glimpses, not in panorama. We may occasionally see a former wetland paved; we may hear about the breakthrough cancer drug that tax dollars helped develop, the rights to which pharmaceutical companies acquired for a song. The larger movement goes too much unremarked. The notion of a commons of cultural materials goes more or less unnamed.

Honoring the commons is not a matter of moral exhortation. It is a practical necessity. We in Western society are going through a period of intensifying belief in private ownership, to the detriment of the public good. We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those who would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain. Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise and initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people just for the benefit of a few.

Jonathan Lethem

-- JaneMarsching

JaneMarsching Says:

and another wonderful resource gathered by a far ranging thinker on this topic, David Bollier:
On the commons.org

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

MattShanley Says:

This is a wonderful quote. I’m looking forward to reading the entire article.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

throbgoblin Says:

This could be a lament from so many historic periods - all the more urgent now. We all need to resist the use of the word “economy”. We are assumed to inhabit an economy instead of a culture and it is reported as such through the commonplace terminology of the lawyers and stocktakers we vote for or allow to manage our collective inheritance, Personally I do not live in an investment or a property in an economy. I live in a house in a place. Not for nothing was common made to say poor and unworthy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

JaneMarsching Says:

are there only three ways of looking at this use of the word economy: either absence, resistance or renovation? in other words, do we just ignore or drop the word, demoting it from a valued frequency? or do we counter the word with new words, words that have meanings more suitable for the communication? or do we renovate the word, like a prisoner, using it in new contexts and new forms, stretching its boundaries, giving it a makeover. In the last case, a word such as economy then envelopes multiple rich meanings side by side, and the act of transformation exists within the same sphere as the contested meanings…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.