Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" is an influential example of a long tradition of justifying enclosure based on asserting the flawed morality of the commoners
Brilliant as usual Ryan (and oh so relevant as I resent my way through my RSB submission!) What also really struck me is the way that “human nature” has been so casually flung around to explain all sorts of shitty collective behaviours, with so little attention as to who was doing the flinging. There are plenty of people who don’t behave in those shitty ways and are very good at working collectively, yet it’s not their qualities that are projected onto the great universal human nature. It really does always come back to who is doing the defining?
In working at a university writing center years ago, I had a boss in a general meeting reference "The Tragedy of the Commons" because apparently not enough people were pulling from the project bin during down time...it doesn't seem to even make much sense in reference to that original essay (I think he was aiming for some kind of "if everyone owns it, no one does" logic, which I think is more Milton Friedman--close enough i guess), but his passing reference to that struck me as some deeply reactionary ideology. Disturbing how many times that essay has been cited...
I’m the lab coordinator for our first year intro psychology class. We have a lab that is a simulation of a fishing problem straight out of Hardin. We used to discuss “Tragedy” uncritically in the lab slides. It’s such a damaging idea.
Excellent article, thanks Ryan. And such uncanny synchronicity. My latest book "An Uncommon Land", includes a section headed "The real tragedy of the commons" and suggests that Hardin's most famous utterance "reverberates with a poignant, unassailable truth" by substituting a few words:
"Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom [to exploit Earth’s finite resources]. Freedom [to exploit Earth’s finite resources without limit] brings ruin to all."
Perfectly encapsulating the neoliberal mindset.
Perhaps less known to many familiar with his most famous essay is that "Towards a Steady-state Economy" (1973) edited by the founder of ecological economics, Herman E. Daly, also carried an essay by Hardin, entitled - yes you guessed it! - "The Tragedy of the Commons".
I'm so glad you found it useful. Yes, many lessons to be learned from Hardin. His essays were republished in a number of anthologies over the years, and he returned to his telling of the tragedy over and over again.
Yes, though I guess what I found incongruent is Hardin's essay appearing in a book about ecological economics, which became foundational to the various forms of wellbeing-centred economics, such as Kate Raworth's doughnut economics model. Advocates of wellbeing-centred economics tend to talk a lot about the valuable role of commons and the need to strengthen the ethos and function of commons (as my book also argues). But of course too I guess this is the nature of the evolution of thinking - each scholar building on the work of others.
Well-presented and an important pattern. Another clean, pernicious example is Edward Banfield (The Moral Basis of a Backward Society and Government Project), recently trendy among the Silicon Valley set. The full list of examples would be very long.
I loved this brilliant dismantling of Hardin’s flawed premise and the racist ideology behind it.
I can't believe it's still being pushed as a valid social idea.
and btw, I would love to share with you an idea I had, of how we can empower online communities to gain money and control it through an online direct democracy.
I left the link to the article I wrote in your inbox. you can check it out when you have time.
Really, if Hardin had called it The Tragedy of the "Free" Market (now there's an oxymoron for you!) it might have had some value.
I mean really, did anyone imagine that we'd managed to survive until the "modern" world if we were too dumb to manage a commons? Wonderful as she and her work were, we should not have needed Elinor Ostrom to point out the bleeding obvious.
Ngā mihi, Ryan. I enjoyed your breakdown immensely and learned a lot. I wonder if Hardin’s ideas would have been neutralised if he had considered ‘herdswoman’ and their less selfish ambitions. Enclosure would have been easier with Fast Track Bills and the RSB of course
It's crazy how much we often just force other societies to conform to our idea of what human nature is. And this idea is dictated by those in the position to spread their ideas, most often those with money and influence. I think, to paraphrase Marx, that human nature is a function of the conditions in a given society. If people are selfish it's because our society rewards selfishness.
Brilliant as usual Ryan (and oh so relevant as I resent my way through my RSB submission!) What also really struck me is the way that “human nature” has been so casually flung around to explain all sorts of shitty collective behaviours, with so little attention as to who was doing the flinging. There are plenty of people who don’t behave in those shitty ways and are very good at working collectively, yet it’s not their qualities that are projected onto the great universal human nature. It really does always come back to who is doing the defining?
Thank you! The topic of the commons reminded me of your wholistic and organic perspective. I tried to incorporate it. I hope I did it justice.
In working at a university writing center years ago, I had a boss in a general meeting reference "The Tragedy of the Commons" because apparently not enough people were pulling from the project bin during down time...it doesn't seem to even make much sense in reference to that original essay (I think he was aiming for some kind of "if everyone owns it, no one does" logic, which I think is more Milton Friedman--close enough i guess), but his passing reference to that struck me as some deeply reactionary ideology. Disturbing how many times that essay has been cited...
I’m the lab coordinator for our first year intro psychology class. We have a lab that is a simulation of a fishing problem straight out of Hardin. We used to discuss “Tragedy” uncritically in the lab slides. It’s such a damaging idea.
Thankyou for this and for confirming so articuately that the current CoC, and especially the RSB, represent the continued colonisation of NZ.
I’m glad you found it useful.
Excellent article, thanks Ryan. And such uncanny synchronicity. My latest book "An Uncommon Land", includes a section headed "The real tragedy of the commons" and suggests that Hardin's most famous utterance "reverberates with a poignant, unassailable truth" by substituting a few words:
"Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom [to exploit Earth’s finite resources]. Freedom [to exploit Earth’s finite resources without limit] brings ruin to all."
Perfectly encapsulating the neoliberal mindset.
Perhaps less known to many familiar with his most famous essay is that "Towards a Steady-state Economy" (1973) edited by the founder of ecological economics, Herman E. Daly, also carried an essay by Hardin, entitled - yes you guessed it! - "The Tragedy of the Commons".
I'm so glad you found it useful. Yes, many lessons to be learned from Hardin. His essays were republished in a number of anthologies over the years, and he returned to his telling of the tragedy over and over again.
I will have to look up your book.
Yes, though I guess what I found incongruent is Hardin's essay appearing in a book about ecological economics, which became foundational to the various forms of wellbeing-centred economics, such as Kate Raworth's doughnut economics model. Advocates of wellbeing-centred economics tend to talk a lot about the valuable role of commons and the need to strengthen the ethos and function of commons (as my book also argues). But of course too I guess this is the nature of the evolution of thinking - each scholar building on the work of others.
Well-presented and an important pattern. Another clean, pernicious example is Edward Banfield (The Moral Basis of a Backward Society and Government Project), recently trendy among the Silicon Valley set. The full list of examples would be very long.
Very interesting. Thank you
I loved this brilliant dismantling of Hardin’s flawed premise and the racist ideology behind it.
I can't believe it's still being pushed as a valid social idea.
and btw, I would love to share with you an idea I had, of how we can empower online communities to gain money and control it through an online direct democracy.
I left the link to the article I wrote in your inbox. you can check it out when you have time.
Will do! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Really, if Hardin had called it The Tragedy of the "Free" Market (now there's an oxymoron for you!) it might have had some value.
I mean really, did anyone imagine that we'd managed to survive until the "modern" world if we were too dumb to manage a commons? Wonderful as she and her work were, we should not have needed Elinor Ostrom to point out the bleeding obvious.
Ngā mihi, Ryan. I enjoyed your breakdown immensely and learned a lot. I wonder if Hardin’s ideas would have been neutralised if he had considered ‘herdswoman’ and their less selfish ambitions. Enclosure would have been easier with Fast Track Bills and the RSB of course
It's crazy how much we often just force other societies to conform to our idea of what human nature is. And this idea is dictated by those in the position to spread their ideas, most often those with money and influence. I think, to paraphrase Marx, that human nature is a function of the conditions in a given society. If people are selfish it's because our society rewards selfishness.