Commons are internally contested, shifting coalitions rather than unanimous wholes.
Evidence
This example illustrates two crucial points. First, commons are not coherent or cohesive; commoning together does not entail agreement on all aspects of the project. Differences within communities can be a source of conflict and drivers for change. Importantly, the debate is never purely ideological but set in a specific political context; all members would have preferred the more radical model if it was financially viable under a different policy regime. Secondly, the balance within communities can shift over time, and visions that were once marginal can take center stage as membership and wider contexts change. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 66
Categorization
- XREF: Contradicts the idealized, consensual picture of commoning found in key Ostrom and commons literature summaries. — connects to: Commons types differ in how open or kin-bound their membership is. — Emil Sandström and Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm, Commoning in the periphery – The role…, 81; English Commons members originally represented local groups, not the whole people; Fault line wars involve more internal and cross-cutting parties than ordinary negotiations
- SEED: Essay angle: ‘the myth of the harmonious commons’ - how internal dissent and policy-contingent pragmatism actually drive commons vitality.
- corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 66
Related
- Commoning practices vary with each commons’ unique context, aims, membership and culture. (similarity 0.82)
- Commons types differ in how open or kin-bound their membership is. (similarity 0.81)