Commons analysis should emphasize subjectivities over measurable institutional variables.

Evidence

Theoretically, the circle of commoning takes a critical approach to Ostrom’s institutional analysis, which considers three “clusters of variables”: the characteristics of goods, the rules-in-use and the attributes of the community of participants (Ostrom 2007, p. 245). The Circle of Commoning is different in some important ways. Importantly, rather than focusing on measurable variables like rules and attributes, the framework relies on the less formal concept of social practices (including rules, values and norms ), and the more nuanced concept of subjectivities (which is embodied and practice-oriented). These are particularly helpful if the analysis seeks not to characterise “the institutional landscape of a place or social-ecological system (…)” but to offer “insights regarding the social and cultural processes shaping identity, motivation, and power” (Sinner et. al., 2022). — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 44

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does the subjectivities-vs-rules framing fare against Ostrom’s empirical record, and where do the two approaches diverge in predictions?
• DEFINE: Clarifies the distinction between measurable rules/attributes and embodied, practice-oriented subjectivities.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 44
• XREF: connects to: Scholarship on commons divides between rational-choice design principles and contextual co-evolution accounts. — Emil Sandström and Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm, Commoning in the periphery – The role…, 9; Commons are best understood as dynamic processes of commoning, not static resources. — Emil Sandström and Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm, Commoning in the periphery – The role…, 12; Commons persist through symbolic meaning even after losing economic purpose. — Emil Sandström and Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm, Commoning in the periphery – The role…, 75 (+4 more)

Related

• Scholarship on commons divides between rational-choice design principles and contextual co-evolution accounts. (similarity 0.83)
• Commoning practices vary with each commons’ unique context, aims, membership and culture. (similarity 0.82)
• Commons are best understood as dynamic processes of commoning, not static resources. (similarity 0.82)
• Commoning should be analysed through internal and external dynamics among subjectivities, visions and practices. (similarity 0.81)
• Commons function as social resources binding communities together, not just property rights. (similarity 0.79)
• Commoning practices simultaneously produce group relations, member subjectivities, and material culture. (similarity 0.79)