Becoming a commoner, visions, and social practices shape each other cyclically

Evidence

The Circle of Commoning consists of three internal elements: Subjectivities, Vision, and Social Practices. The framework views its three elements non-hierarchically: it does not prioritise one element as “the backbone of durable commoning efforts” (Nightingale, 2019). Rather, it shows how subject formation (becoming a commoner) affects and is affected by visions and social practices (including property rights and collective practices), and how these go on to influence each other in a cyclical manner in response to changing contexts. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 38

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the three-element non-hierarchical framework of the Circle of Commoning and its mutual-causation logic.
• QUESTION: Where exactly does the frame claim subject formation causes rather than merely accompanies practice? The author defers mechanism to ‘changing contexts’.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 38
• XREF: connects to: Commoning joins producing shared goods with cultivating collective skills and character. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 99; Commoning should be analysed through internal and external dynamics among subjectivities, visions and practices. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 6; Commoning simultaneously shapes and is shaped by its practitioners — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 36 (+9 more)

Related

• Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. (similarity 0.93)
• Commoning should be analysed through internal and external dynamics among subjectivities, visions and practices. (similarity 0.91)
• Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. (similarity 0.91)
• Commoning simultaneously shapes and is shaped by its practitioners (similarity 0.90)
• Commoner subjectivities emerge historically through practice rather than being fixed identities. (similarity 0.87)
• Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time. (similarity 0.86)
• Commons governance proceeds through a fixed cycle of subjectivity, vision, and practice. (similarity 0.85)
• Commoning practices vary with each commons’ unique context, aims, membership and culture. (similarity 0.84)
• Commoning joins producing shared goods with cultivating collective skills and character. (similarity 0.84)
• Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning. (similarity 0.83)
• Commoning transforms participants’ identities even as it embeds practices of power and difference (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Commoning transforms participants’ identities even as it embeds practices of power and difference #expands (0.90) — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 15
• Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. #corroborates (0.88) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 70
• Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. #expands (0.85) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 94
• Collective ways of life depend on embodied practice, not just recognition of group identity. #corroborates (0.80) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 868
• Social formation elements articulate with each other in complex ways #expands (0.80)
• Commoner subjectivities emerge historically through practice rather than being fixed identities. #qualifies (0.78) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 47
• Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning. #complicates (0.75) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 57