Commoning joins producing shared goods with cultivating collective skills and character.

Evidence

Work in common explains how individuals divide their tasks to produce shared goods (objective dimension) while supporting the development of individual and collective skills and virtues (subjective dimension) (Sison and Fontrodona 2012). It encourages decentralized forms of community work based on key virtues, cooperation, participatory work, deliberation, creativity and integrity. In addition, commoning generates communities of work and practice (Wrenger and Snyder 1999), fostering cooperative work that develops new collective identities and novel experimentation (Dentoni et al. 2018). — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing, 99

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Elinor Ostrom’s collective-action work and to the commons-as-practice literature; also resonates with the grafted-community themes in the Trees-as-infrastructure piece. — connects to: Commons organizing names the process by which communities jointly produce and govern common goods. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 17; Communities can act collectively as a single entrepreneur and enterprise. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 71; Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 70 (+9 more)
• DEFINE: Clarifies what distinguishes ‘work in common’ from mere task division: it always carries a subjective/virtue-formation dimension alongside the productive one.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 99

Related

• Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. (similarity 0.89)
• Commons organizing names the process by which communities jointly produce and govern common goods. (similarity 0.88)
• Commons organizing fuses ethical common-good production with peer sharing. (similarity 0.87)
• Commoning should be analysed through internal and external dynamics among subjectivities, visions and practices. (similarity 0.86)
• Commoning simultaneously shapes and is shaped by its practitioners (similarity 0.85)
• Commoning transforms participants’ identities even as it embeds practices of power and difference (similarity 0.85)
• Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. (similarity 0.85)
• Communities can act collectively as a single entrepreneur and enterprise. (similarity 0.85)
• Becoming a commoner, visions, and social practices shape each other cyclically (similarity 0.84)
• Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time. (similarity 0.84)
• Commons are best understood as dynamic processes of commoning, not static resources. (similarity 0.83)
• Cooperatives reproduce themselves through shared governance and yield both material and immaterial common resources. (similarity 0.82)
• Commoning practices vary with each commons’ unique context, aims, membership and culture. (similarity 0.82)
• Commons function as social resources binding communities together, not just property rights. (similarity 0.82)
• Communities organize around common resources motivated by virtues and cooperation. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. #expands (0.88) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 70
• Becoming a commoner, visions, and social practices shape each other cyclically #corroborates (0.85) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 38
• Commoning should be analysed through internal and external dynamics among subjectivities, visions and practices. #complicates (0.85) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 6
• Commoning simultaneously shapes and is shaped by its practitioners #corroborates (0.82) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 36
• Commoning transforms participants’ identities even as it embeds practices of power and difference #expands (0.80) — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 15
• Commons organizing fuses ethical common-good production with peer sharing. #corroborates (0.78) — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing, 151
• Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. #expands (0.75) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 94
• Cooperatives reproduce themselves through shared governance and yield both material and immaterial common resources. #exemplifies (0.75) — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 14
• Communities organize around common resources motivated by virtues and cooperation. #corroborates (0.72) — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing, 201
• Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time. #qualifies (0.72) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 95