Commoning should be analysed through internal and external dynamics among subjectivities, visions and practices.

Evidence

This paper proposes a conceptual framework for the process of commoning: the Circle of Commoning. This framework identifies two interrelated dynamics in the practice of commoning: internal and external. It identifies three key elements of commoning (subjectivities, visions and social practices) and shows how they affect each other and how they relate to wider systems beyond the commons. The framework explains how the interplay between the internal and external factors determines the nature of the commons. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 6

Categorization

• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 6
• 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 practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 70; Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 94 (+5 more)

Related

• Becoming a commoner, visions, and social practices shape each other cyclically (similarity 0.91)
• Commoning simultaneously shapes and is shaped by its practitioners (similarity 0.90)
• Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. (similarity 0.90)
• Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. (similarity 0.90)
• Commoning practices vary with each commons’ unique context, aims, membership and culture. (similarity 0.90)
• Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time. (similarity 0.88)
• Commoner subjectivities emerge historically through practice rather than being fixed identities. (similarity 0.86)
• Commoning joins producing shared goods with cultivating collective skills and character. (similarity 0.86)
• Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning. (similarity 0.84)
• Commons governance proceeds through a fixed cycle of subjectivity, vision, and practice. (similarity 0.84)
• Commons are best understood as dynamic processes of commoning, not static resources. (similarity 0.82)
• Commoning transforms participants’ identities even as it embeds practices of power and difference (similarity 0.81)
• Commons analysis should emphasize subjectivities over measurable institutional variables. (similarity 0.81)
• The circle of commoning framework adopts a critical realist ontology compatible with CIAD. (similarity 0.78)

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 simultaneously shapes and is shaped by its practitioners #corroborates (0.82) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 36
• Social practices drive ongoing formation of commoning subjects. #corroborates (0.80) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 94
• Commoner subjectivities emerge historically through practice rather than being fixed identities. #corroborates (0.80) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 47
• Commoning transforms participants’ identities even as it embeds practices of power and difference #expands (0.78) — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 15
• Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning. #exemplifies (0.75) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 57