To me, “the public” can be defined as any grouping of people who interact with one another, and has a resulting communal effect. This can range from a small group like the nuclear family to a much larger one, like those of sovereign nations. I’d like to offer a more concrete definition; however, the concept of the public is nebulous and abstract in nature. It changes depending on the scale you view it. One thing that strings these groupings together, regardless of their size, is an emphasis on the interaction and the consequences that arise. But before we begin a discussion on the public, it is also important to call attention to “the private”. Directly opposed to the collective’s interests, “the private” can be defined as personal interests– interactions that would benefit the individual, rather than the whole. This is not to say that the private and the public operate as opposites and have no effect on one another. And while, as Dewey puts it, “…the consequences of an action are confined, …, mainly to the persons directly engaged in it.” (Dewey p. 12), it does not mean that these consequences cannot bleed into the public. These actions may go unnoticed, but the consequences can have resounding effects. Dewey even states that, “private acts may be socially valuable both by indirect consequences, and by direct intention.” (Dewey p. 14). While the interests of the two might seem to be in contention, I believe that there is great synergy between “the public” and “the private”.
———-
With the advent of technological advancements, groups who did not have the capacity to previously interact now can do so, resulting in much of the focus taking place on the larger end of the spectrum. Dewey states that this is due to “the consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate the rapid and easy circulation of opinions and information, …[generating] constant and intricate interaction far beyond the limits of face-to-face communities.” (Dewey p. 114).
Prior to this, the face of “the public” mostly consisted of small localities like townships. These communities, through the pragmatic lens of Dewey, had “political objectives” that consisted of, “roads, schools, and the peace of the community,” (Dewey p. 111). The creation and care of these social services are directly influenced by the public’s social interactions. When people congregate and decide to live and interact together as a unit, whether it be as a nuclear family or as a township, problems and consequences are sure to arise. The desire to cope and abate these consequences results in the creation of regulatory systems of control, and as this social system continues to evolve and grow at the behest of the collective, it will result in the coalescence of “The State”.
———-
Now that we’ve introduced the conception of “The State”, we can begin to discuss how its regulatory role has impacted the public’s resources and communal spaces, known as the commons. The commons exist as a natural consequence of human interaction. Because conflicts will also naturally arise, a regulatory system known as “The State” will also be born. The question of whether it is a solution or a tragedy seems, to me, to be disingenuous. The commons will always exist as long as humans interact with one another. How we use this resource depends entirely on “us”. Dewey states that, “Everything that is distinctly human is learned.” (p. 154). Because of this, man has the capacity to reason with his natural instincts. This ability to reason directly affects how we use, allocate and distribute our resources. Perhaps unfortunately, we often relegate this responsibility to the system of “The State”—almost to the degree where, as Baviskar states, “[it has a] monopoly over urban land.” (Environment and Society p. 118). This relegation of resources and capital has given The State direct control and influence over the commons. Akin to the desires of townships past, human interaction will always create a desire or rather a need for social projects.
Depending on the system in place, is it the private or the public which benefits most from the commons. Here it is where I say the question concerning the morality of the commons becomes disingenuous. If you were to ask the community of Jhuggi of Delhi, the answer becomes obvious. However, if you were to ask those who individually benefit from it (i.e., the private, or in this case, the bourgeois), the answer changes. The reason I designate these the bourgeois as a private group is because of its exclusionary nature; denying the right of access to the commons directly goes against the communal ideology at the heart of the public. The current nature of The State, creates a principle of elaboration, resulting in a group that is inherently marginalized.
Herein lies the formation of what Moten and Harney might consider, the undercommons. (I would like to note that the concept of the undercommons is not limited to the marginalized. The concept transcends this idea, while challenging traditional structures of power.) The state, due to its relegation of finite resources directly creates the marginalized, which can be seem in the struggle of the Jhuggi; interpellation becomes fruitless when The State decides what is “incompetent, unethical, and irresponsible, [bordering on criminality].” (Moten and Harney p. 36). If human nature is in fact learned, as Dewey states, the idea set forth by Moten and Harney seems to become viable, and I suppose this compounds the idea of the disingenuous nature of the question. The question becomes disingenuous because it is simply a question we should refuse to answer—we should not consider which is the better descriptor of the commons, or even the contention of the space. Rather, we should consider the creation of a system where these descriptors of the commons don’t even make sense. The presentation of this idea might seem harmful, but it is seen as harmful to everyone. As Moten and Harney said, “ …no one will really be able to embrace the mission of tearing “this shit down” until they realize that the structures they oppose are not only bad for some of us, they are bad for all of us.” (Moten and Harney p. 10). We should seek to create a system where there balance between the private and the public, the individual and the collective– Where there is no “Us versus Them” and all that remains is “I and Us”.
