“The public” refers to a collective that can be grouped based on size, separations in region or borders, and by which institutions represent them. One can be “public” to a particular area, but maybe not to another. And those in these collectives are not all equally affected by the actions of individuals in the collective, but affected none the less. Cooperation and interaction are needed for survival in these collectives. In the modern world, this idea of “the public” includes online and virtual spaces.
Of equal concern to my definition is that it provides acknowledgement to those existing in “the public” and being excluded from it. Common groups to think about are marginalized communities along the lines of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. These are folks who are visibly in the public, but often not considered for a nuanced look at the question — “is this good for the public?” The notion of visibility and invisibly in “the public” extends beyond historically understood marginalization. “The public”, but also outside it: the poor, those limited in access to technology, those with disabilities or impairments, criminals, and may more. What role do visibility and invisibility play when discussing “the public”?
“the public” shouldn’t separate who lives now and who will exist in the future. Those who follow inherit our resources (whatever is left) and the existing systems, such that they should be included in any discussion of “the public”.
“the commons” is a tragedy, a solution, and a site for political and social contest. The tragedy and solution are linked in how my thoughts emerge on this topic. Fundamental difficulties in scaling the measures we know to work in maintaining commons rarely fit the needs of our modern world. They are applied in conditions with either private or public choices, inadequate regulations, and excessive reliance on technology, which can cause new problems. Dewey notes in The Public and Its Problems, “We have inherited, in short, local town-meeting practices and ideas. But we live and act and have our being in a continental national state.” (113) and “consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate the rapid and easy circulation of opinions and information, and so as to generate constant and intricate interaction far beyond the limits of face-to-face communities. Political and legal forms have only piece-meal and haltingly, with great lag, accommodated themselves to the industrial transformation. (114) This becomes more complex where resources are shared globally and, especially, where deciding on best practices is predicated on collective ability to understand the scale of an issue, detailed in Revisiting the Commons, “Management of these resources depends on the cooperation of appropriate international institutions and national, regional, and local institutions. Resources that are intrinsically difficult to measure or that require measurement with advanced technology, such as stocks of ocean fishes or petroleum reserves, are difficult to manage no matter what the scale of the resource.” ( Elinor Ostrom et al, 214).
“the commons” as a site for political and social contest seems inextricably linked to ideals and actions proposed in The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study. “The coalition unites us in the recognition that we must change things or die. All of us.” (10). What “the commons” looks like without political and social contest? This is difficult to imagine for someone born in the US, in the modern times. We are watching in real time what failing to allow space for “radical” and uncomfortable discussion in public forums has done to the planet and our societies. Embracing messy and unconventional methods for tacking our problems is worth it. Understanding the Undercommons and perspectives like it help to envision commons that are less prone to tragedy.
