Re-imagining Structural Synergies of Power: a Method for Systemic Intervention

Recent efforts have been made to articulate a commons oriented economy. In lockstep, an emerging social ecology of economic alternatives with a commons ethos has emerged over several decades. Social enterprises such as cooperatives, fair trade enterprises, peer to peer and open sources initiatives, permaculture based farming, and other forms have attempted with varying levels of success to carve out niches within the dominant industrial-capitalist economy.

A major problem faced by any effort to create an alternative, however, is a structural one. The ‘rules of the game’, by which all economic actors must play, favor industrial-capitalist incumbents. As C.W. Mills and more recently economic theorists such as Leslie Sklair and William Robinson have pointed out, power in our global system is reproduced through the interlocking spheres of politics, culture and economics. This paper proposes a method to explore the nature of these ‘rules of the game’ through the analytic lens of structural synergies of power across the spheres of economy, culture and politics. The method provides a framework to explore alternative rules of the game, alternative structural synergies of power that support and privilege a commons-oriented or ‘commoning’ economy. The method intends to support a transition to a commons economy and society, requiring social innovations within such new structural synergies.

The method and its explanation take a critical pedagogy approach, to unmask power in an accessible and participatory way, which allows people develop strategies to forge new structural synergy for a commons economy and society.

Introduction

This paper develops a method to analyse and reimagine structural power, which can help activists, advocates and social innovators for the commons to develop “counter power” insights and strategies, to support the creation of a commons based society and world.

The paper seeks to open up a conversation on power structures and the synergies between them, and through the proposition of the method, make power move visible and accessible as a participatory and educational process. The method provides a framework to understand systems of power that reproduce themselves through “synergies”. In this paper I describe these key spheres of power, how these spheres of power express influence, and how synergies between these spheres are enacted to reproduce regimes of power. The paper presents a method, here called the “Structural Synergies of Power Method” (SSP method), which provides a way to re-imagine alterative structural synergies that clarify critical strategic pathways for change. The paper provides an analytic window into how “commoning” strategies fit within both existing and re-imagined regimes of power, which can provide strategic and actionable insights.

A further goal of the paper is to elaborate the SSP method such that it can make a contribution to popular critical education, in the tradition of Paolo Freire (1973) and the Participatory Action Research tradition (Borda, 2002), which provides an accessible and participatory way for anyone to unmask power and reimagine alternative societal systems, and develop the strategies to enact these.

The method is diagrammatic, and requires the depiction and visualisation of the system and its dynamics. For this reason, this paper provides detailed visual examples which are essential in showing how the method is employed.

What is a structural synergy of power?

For the purpose of this paper, a structural synergy of power is a regime of societal power that interlocks three domains: cultural, political and economic. The interlocking of these domains of power are a strategy for the reproduction of the regime of power. This is to say that a regime of power is both protected, reproduced and reborn through these strategic linkages and value exchanges across these spheres of power.

To see a structural synergy of power in action we don’t need to look any further than the influence of corporate lobbying in the US and elsewhere. Corporate lobbying in the US has received much attention and research of late. The 39th President of the Unites States, Jimmy Carter, recently described the US as an Oligarchy, primarily because of the Citizens United ruling that allows for unrestrained political donations which lack transparency. Gilens and Page (2016) conducted a study to find out which groups exert influence over public policy: citizens, economic elites, or interest groups, (whether mass-based or business-oriented). Their findings suggested that economic elites and business interests have substantial influence on policy, while citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no influence. A structural synergy is enacted when there is a value exchange between two spheres of power. In this case the value exchange is first, the support that politicians must receive to compete in an election, and secondly, the reciprocating value exchange is the support from politicians to enact legislation favorable to their business interests.

In Leslie Sklair’s analysis, the current global capitalist system is composed of three main spheres of power, the economic, political and cultural, and through this we have witnessed the emergence of globalized structural synergies of power (Sklair, 2002, 2005). This is carried forth economically through transnational corporations, politically through an emerging transnational capitalist class, and culturally through the ideology of consumerism (Sklair, 2005 pp. 58–59). Mills, half a century earlier, also explored the circulation of power in the US between economic, military and political domains (Mills, 1956). David Korten, in his exploration of alternatives to capitalism/consumerism, also points out the need for structural (cultural, political, economic) alternatives (Korten, 2006). In table 1 I use both Sklair’s and Korten’s distinctions as examples of how alternatives presented are structural in nature.

Table 1: Capitalist to Alternative Globalisation, Sklair (2002) and Korten (2008)

Social alternatives (commons oriented or other) do not exist in the somewhat ambiguous territory of (global) civil society, but are directed at a variety of structures (Robinson, 2005; Sklair, 2002, p. 315). For commons oriented initiatives to have the possibility of becoming social realities, they must be enacted across these spheres of power.

The substantive direction of this paper is therefore in providing conceptual space and methodological clarity for ‘structural synergies’ to emerge between key spheres, showing how fields of self-politicising counter power emerge, becomes resilient and influential in democratising and commoning core aspects of social and institutional life.

The three ‘spheres’ of power

The idea of spheres of power is here not taken literally, but rather is more an analytic window that can help provide insights. It is a constructivist formulation that provides sense-making rather than a more structuralist formulation that points to a real ontology. There are indeed many institutions, take for instance a Reserve Bank, that straddle political and economic spheres of power.

The three spheres of power used here, economy, politics and culture, also express different modes of influence. The economic sphere expresses influence through exerting wealth. The political sphere expresses influence through enactment of policy and law. The cultural sphere expresses influence through mediating levels of legitimacy and shaping the public idea of the good. To represent this I use this “fishbone” diagram below.

Diagram 1: Three fishbones: culture, politics and economics

The top of each fishbone represents what has great power, and the bottom represents what has less power. Remembering that power is different depending on the sphere, here are some example to clarify how the SSP method works.

In the realm of culture, remembering the second Gulf War of 2003, in the US the public sentiments toward war was high. A climate of fear had been manufactured by Fox News and the Bush White House, and links were proposed between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Voices for no war had less influence. This might be depicted as such:

Diagram 2: Fishbone one, culture

In the realm of economics, over the past 30 years, the size and power of the oil, gas and coal industry has been large. By comparison, the renewable energy sector has been small. Only recently (last 10 years) has the renewables sector become larger. This might be depicted as such:

Diagram 3: Fishbone two, economics

In the realm of politics, up until recently centre left and centre right parties have followed neo-liberal and Washington Consensus policies. Detractors of economic globalization and neo-liberalism over the past 15 years (alter-globalization / world social forum, occupy movement) have held a low position of power politically, and only recently, with Brexit and the election of Trump has this changed.

Diagram 4: Fishbone three, politics

When describing power, we must be issue and sector specific, and show where some actors are positioned relative to others.

Public versus counter public spheres

An important dimension in this inquiry is the idea of the public sphere. Whereas definitions of civil society can includes cricket clubs, church groups, hiking associations and also political associations, the idea of a public sphere helps to locate the Logical relationships between various value centres and epistemological positions with respect to public discourses and political practices.

Weber argues that power with respect to globalisation, including both protests against it at key economic summits, and other counter movements (commons) cannot be adequately understood by conventional approaches to global civil society, in particular the neat intellectual segregation between ‘state / economy / civil society’ (Weber, 2005, p. 194). He argues for the need to name as a ‘counter-public’, more substantive challenges to ‘the status quo and its institutional setting’ (Weber, 2005, p. 193). Teasing out any useful generalisation about civil society is simply too difficult when faced with the plurality of interests from which the category is comprised. He argues that: ‘complexity abounds to such a degree which can make the search for emancipatory sociopolitical agency and its contents look futile in the face of the sheer plurality of interests, motivations and orientations’ (Weber, 2005, p. 196). This plurality and complexity is dealt with by conceiving of ‘public spheres’, with varying qualitative characteristics and potentials. Following the work of Dewey and Cochran he writes:

“Public spheres thus conceived share with states the pragmatist definition of their purpose: ‘a shared interest in controlling indirect consequences that affect those associated.’ It is upon this outlook that publics ’have traits of a state’. Each public can thus be seen as a ‘tool, which serves the specialised function of helping individuals, through cooperative social inquiry, to work towards more effective control of the indeterminate situations in which they share common interests.” (Weber, 2005, p. 199)

In Weber’s reading of trans-national public spheres, contrasts are seen reflecting the unequal relations in a capitalist system. Dominant publics reproduce the ‘Dominant Social Paradigm’ of unequal relations of domination and subordination. Even among the dominated, normalised state society relations are manifest through struggles for social change which take the institutional and organisational foundations of the social system as a given, and allow for ‘a relatively small range of antagonistic forms of struggle, biased from the outset towards the ‘incorporation’ of collective claims via compromise ‘solutions’ (Weber, 2005, p. 197). This might be thought of as a ‘reformist public’. Finally, the subaltern movements (e.g. the commons movement), identified as a counter public, is conceived, which relies on meta-political practices:

“Meta-political practices are most pronouncedly what differentiate an approach to collective agency that includes a working notion of the counter public sphere from approaches which focus on access and participation from an institutional perspective…. The focus on counter publics brings to the attention of political analysis practices of collective agency directed at politicising the dominant mode of political engagement itself”. (Weber, 2005, p. 203)

Diagram 5: Regimes from dominant to subaltern

Weber argues meta-political practices emerged in the ’68 student revolts which aimed at a ‘comprehensive disruption of the dominant order’ (Weber, 2005, p. 202). Meta-political practices continued with the New Social Movements, in particular challenging the modern states legitimacy and monopoly on violence. He argues today such a counter public can be seen through ‘the diversity of creative challenges which query the dominant logics of globalisation: from the ‘copyleft’ movement, and alternative ‘subaltern’ news media, to street protests and other symbolic events, such as the Social Forum gatherings’ (Weber, 2005, p. 205). The antagonistic relationship between a sub-altern counter public and the dominant public sphere parallels the Gramscian analysis of the struggle for hegemony (Weber, 2005, p. 201). While the alter-globalisation counter public engages in a discursive attack on the foundations of the dominant order, through proposals for participatory democracy (Ponniah, 2006), workplace democracy (Albert, 2003), post-consumerism (Lasn, 2000), and the politicisation of social institutions (Teivainen, 2007, pp. 71–72), the ‘industrial-capitalist’ sphere equally engages in the discrediting of counter publics:

“From the perspective of the dominant form of ‘publicity’ reinforced by the business interest of mass media and the attempt of powerful actors to control, or at least shape and delimit the possibilities of public debate, counter public movements must be neutralized (not necessarily ‘suppressed’). Neutralization can take many different forms, but the identification of, for instance, ‘alter-globalisers’ with incurable romantic luddites, anti-modern forces or adolescent hooligans in ‘public’ discourse is a fine example”. (Weber, 2005, p. 204)

In my own research on approaches to globalisation have identified at least 3 ways to fraction apart such public spheres. There is the “third way” or centrist neo liberal public sphere which is held by the center right and center left politically. Secondly there is a reformist public sphere which held by advocacy groups such as World Vision. A reformist public sphere aims to address social ills through charity and welfare, but does not challenge core structures. A critical and counter public sphere is held by groups and institutions that see the problem structurally (requiring deep systemic transformations and social innovation). Groups that understand the need to protect commons / global commons, see fundamental deficiencies in conventional property law, the need for alternative ownership and governance systems can also be put into a counter publican stance. The public sphere is therefore a useful window into looking at what types of structural synergies are existent across differentials of power relations, and to look at domains of influence in the reproduction of power.

The SSP method and examples of structural synergies of power

I have used the SSP method for the past 8 years in my research and teaching. First through my PhD work (Ramos 2010) I began to use an early form of the method to understand power in relation to globalization, then later through teaching at Victoria University in Melbourne I began to use the method with students.

The SSP method follows these steps:

1. Choose a specific area / issue

2. If possible articulate the desired alternative (if not yet possible this can be done later)

3. Using the three fishbones, describe the nature of power across the three categories of economy, politics and culture

4. Explore the connections across each of the three structures of power

5. Explore synergies for dominant power

6. Explore synergies for the alternative (innovation or system)

7. Look for what structural synergies need to be created — these provide the strategies

Example one — the Green House Mafia

According to Clive Hamilton (2007) in his book Scorcher, in the 1990s a collection of lobbyist from the coal and mineral industries, which called themselves the “Green House Mafia”, attacked the legitimacy and discourse of global warming (now climate change) to effectively neutralize any policy movement to address it and to protect mineral industry interests. The Green House Mafia worked in the context of the Australian Commission for the Future, a commission which took a proactive communications role in putting commons and sustainability issues on the public agenda.

Diagram 6: The Greenhouse Mafia

In this example the key structural synergy was between the conservative political party (the Liberal and National Coalition) and the mineral industries in Australia. The mineral industries would continue to support the Coalition in exchange for non-action on global warming and favorable government policy toward the industry. In the process the influence of CSIRO and the Australian Commission for the Future was neutralized.

Example two — Rudd’s mining super profits tax

Another example is the mining super profits tax that the Australian Rudd / Swan government wanted to introduce. Shortly after the tax was introduced as an idea mining companies swept into action to undermine its legitimacy. Mining companies used an advertising blitz with a well-crafted narrative to undermine the Rudd government efforts to apply the mining tax. The advertizing blitz led to a serious decline in Rudd’s popularity, which in turn destabilized his government, and made it vulnerable to the Gillard challenge which toppled him.

Diagram 7: Rudd’s mining super profits tax

In this second case a structural synergy between economics (the mining industry) and cultural production (advertising) was utilized to undermine political legitimacy and efforts to implement a policy.

Example three — Gillard’s carbon tax

A finally example is the governmental dynamics during the period of former prime Julian Gillard. She and her government faced considerable attacks, which were both grossly ideological and misogynistic in character. While on the one hand the Murdoch press attacked her viciously, there were other cultural and structural elements at play. Resistance to a carbon tax and her alliance with the greens, as well as the conservative media response to a woman in power with a progressive agenda ignited the conservative hornets nest. Despite the fact that the Gillard government was the most legislatively productive in recent history, the policies were soon subject to dismantling by the Abbott government in a counter movement. Critical is the role of cultural production and the establishment of the legitimacy by which policies can drive change in the long term. Part of the problem with the Rudd and Gillard Governments’ policy actions where not the policies themselves, but the underlying lack of cultural support, and the context by which these policies could stick across the political spectrum, indeed the structural synergies of counter power needed for such changes to endure.

Diagram 8: Gillard’s carbon tax

This perspective argues that cultural shifts must accompany proposed policy changes. If there is not robust enough popular support for new policies, they are houses of cards that may topple with the first unfavorable political winds. Enacting progressive policy requires building the cultural foundations for that policy to flourish. As well, structural synergies are not simply functional strategies of reciprocation, but are expressive of particular types of public spheres, with different cultures and even epistemologies. The alliance between a Labor-left leader and Greens might be considered a counter public shift held together by shared worldviews. However the synergies with broader Australian cultural production (news media and popular opinion) were not well established enough to withstand Abbots assault on Gillard and the carbon tax.

While all of these examples are oversimplifications, and a deeper analysis would go into the intricacies, the purpose here is to show how the SSP method analyses power and the insights that may be gleaned from its use. By better understanding social power dynamics and the reciprocation of power, we can better consider more durable and effective social commoning strategies, the subject of the next section.

Looking at commons based approaches with a view toward structural synergies

To begin this section it is useful to start by exploring what is meant by “commons” in the first place, and how the commons as movement and conception form part of an insurgent counter-public.

The idea of the commons has experienced a recent resurgence. Elinor Ostrom’s work, for which she won a Nobel Prize, has been seminal in showing how people effectively manage their common resources as communities, outside of the state-market dualism. Scholar of the commons, David Bollier, provides this succinct definition for what a commons is:

· A social system for the long-term stewardship of resources that preserves shared values and community identity.

· A self-organized system by which communities manage resources (both depletable and replenishable) with minimal or no reliance on the Market or State.

· The wealth that we inherit or create together and must pass on, undiminished or enhanced, to our children. Our collective wealth includes the gifts of nature, civic infrastructure, cultural works and traditions, and knowledge.

· A sector of the economy (and life!) that generates value in ways that are often taken for granted — and often jeopardized by the Market-State. (Bollier, 2011)

Peer to Peer (P2P) theorist Michel Bauwens likewise has offered these four categories to explain some of the dimensions of the commons:

Diagram 9: Bauwens’ elaboration of the commons

“There are, I believe, four types of commons to distinguish … The first type is the immaterial commons we inherit, such as language and culture. The second type is the immaterial commons we create. This is where the hugely important knowledge and digital commons come in (since it this digital commons that is currently exploding). The third type is the material commons we inherit, the oceans, the atmosphere, the forests, etc.; and the fourth type is the as yet underappreciated potential for the created material commons, i.e. productively manufactured resources”. (Araya, 2015)

What binds disparate elements as commons is their characteristic of being critical to our mutual wellbeing and survival, such that they require a collective effort and ethos to protect, extend and govern them. They must be collectively governed by the members of society that depend on such commons for their wellbeing and survival. As we have witnessed, however, through the 20th century and through previous historical periods, the state does not always have the wellbeing of the community in mind. A state may be co-opted by moneyed interests as oligarchy, or it may become despotic. And we have also seen that private interests via processes of capitalism are also not equipped to protect the commons — capitalism, almost by definition, produces vast social and ecological externalities (problems) as a by-product of the concern with immediate profit. Protecting and extending our commons is synonymous with active, shared and inclusive governance that does not (just) rely on market and state, but which is based on the governance rights and practice of those that depend on such commons.

The idea of the commons is therefore an example of insurgent counter public processes for a number of reasons. First Ostrom’s definition of the commons challenges hegemonic systems of power, the inevitability that governance is the preserve of market and state. Commons based conceptions of social alternatives attempt to re-articulate the possibility of governance from the vantage point of the communities that both produce commons and that rely on such commons. The very notion that those dimensions of social life that are critical to our wellbeing (commons) require collective governance does challenge existing power relations in a fundamental way. Secondly, the commons is based on an epistemology, a way of knowing, that sees all life as fundamentally inter-dependent, whether human or non-human.

The language and worldview from which the commons as an idea arises sees the world systemically, interconnected and interdependent. Commons are relationally active — they are embodied through the social practices of people interwoven into culture and geography. A safe atmosphere as a commons arises only through its recognition as something we mutually depend on for our survival and well-being, and which we enact as such through our practices of collective governance and maintenance. Arturo Escobar talks about this relational dynamic as a “pluriverse… made up of a multiplicity of mutually entangled and co-constituting but distinct worlds” (Escobar, 2015).

Conceptions of the urban commons, for example, consider all inhabitants of a city as interdependent in terms of how the wellbeing of a city is produced. Ecosystem commons, be they rivers, forests or even our atmosphere are based on the human interdependence with such ecosystems and their enjoined coproduction of life. This view is in stark contrast to the rights based individualism typical of the capitalist market system, which based on foundations in positivist law grant absolute power over property and production even while it produces externalities inflicted on social and ecological commons (Buck, 1998).

As Bollier and Helfrich (2015, p2–3) argue, commons become so through enacting them with others and that “thing”. As much as a recognition of common needs and mutual inter-dependence on some thing (water, safety, participation), it is also the creative enactment of bringing what is a “common good” into being through “the consciousness of thinking, learning and acting as a commoner.” The interdependent coproduction of the common good flies in the face of the possibility of its capture by market actors, or its control by state bureaucracies.

With this understanding of the commons in mind, I here apply the SSP method to several recent developments. The next section describes four commons based approaches, with a view toward elaborating them using the SSP method.

Analyzing structural synergies within innovations for the commons

Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses (CBRLs)

Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses (CBRLs) (otherwise known as CopyFair or the P2P License) is an idea within the peer to peer and commons economy sphere, following other developments such as Creative Commons Licenses and Open Source licenses. Michel Bauwens’ has put forward the argument that the open source nature of early p2p economy has been easily appropriated by mainstream business, in a sense supporting capitalism’s reproduction through decreased costs. Examples include the way in which Linux, an open source project, was incorporated into mainstream business operations and corporate for-profit consulting. While volunteer labor peer produced Linux, some of the biggest beneficiaries have been the IT service corporations like IBM, who have mobilized the use of Linux for their own consulting arms. Another similar example is the way in which Google has used the open source Android system to develop its mobile services platform. In this view open source and creative commons licenses hemorrhage value, that does not necessarily re-circulate back into a commons economy, but which get expropriated by capitalist enterprise. Bauwens writes:

“Today, we have a paradox. The more shareable the license we use in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalistic the practice of the enterpreneurial coalition which forms around it. An example of this is the Linux commons becoming a corporate commons, enriching IBM and the like. It works, in a certain way, and seems acceptable to most free software developers, but it is insufficient for the creation of a true ethical economy around the commons”. (Bauwens, 2016)

The idea behind CBRLs would be to allow free sharing between commons based enterprises, such that commons based intellectual labor builds a commons economy. If a for-profit company wants to use it, however, there would be a licensing fee associated with its use.

“CBRLs will provide for the free use and unimpeded commercialization of licensed material within the Commons while resisting its non-reciprocal appropriation by for-profit driven entities, unless those entities contribute to the Commons by way of licensing fees or other means. Our intention is to stimulate wealth circulation within the Commons and strengthen the resilience of P2P as a proto-mode of production with a constructive, rather than extractive, relationship with the corporate sector”. (Bauwens, 2016)

Diagram 10: Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses (CBRLs)

The analysis here opens up critical questions with respect to ways forward:

· What kind of institutional innovation may be needed to enact the power of oversight and legal enforcement?

· How can CBRLs shift from a fringe idea to a value shared among many more people or organizations?

· How can an enterprise ecosystem/community be created around CBRLs?

Chambers of the Commons

Well known US based geo-political strategists David Ronfeldt has come up with the idea for a “Chamber of the Commons” as an alternative to Chambers of Commerce. It comes from his frustration watching Chambers of Commerce supporting vested industries and distorting the possibility of positive economic change. As a new idea he argues there is room in the design stage to include a variety of definitions of commoning economic activity (Ronfeldt 2016).

Ronfeldt also argues, like the US Chambers of Commerce, Chambers of Commons should work to improve the representation of commons based enterprise interests within political contexts, counter-balance extreme capitalistic influences on government policy, provide advice to government and also to engage in strategic advocacy.

Ronfeldt sees such Chambers of Commons as protecting the long term interests of society and environment, but through the mechanism of an entrepreneurial business coalition that has organized means of influencing policy. He believes that such a Chambers of Commons needs to be based on the network form and the ecosystems which enact commons based discussion and action.

Diagram 11: Chambers of the Commons

Here again the diagram opens up several questions:

· How might one constitute such an economic alliance across the meta-political space that is represented by commons?

· What are the organizational principles that will both bind such disparate entities and at the same time allow it to express efficacy toward policy change?

· What kind of cultural production is needed to make the support of commons a policy priority?

The City as Commons

The idea for a city as a commons and practices of urban commoning have recently emerged, following the landmark conference called the “City as a Commons: Reconceiving Urban Space, Common Good, and City Governance” in November of 2015.[1] Along side this, cities such as Bologna in Italy have pioneered a city as commons approach. In particular Bologna, after several years of citizen and city discussions and organizing, created a policy and legal document called: “Regulation On The Collaboration Among Citizens And The City For The Care And Regeneration Of Urban Commons.[2] This document creates a legally binding agreement between the citizens and state for the care of the urban commons.

The city as commons has some key distinctive features that are emerging. First, citizens are legally enfranchised as collaborators and creators of their cities. If a group of citizens have an idea for the improvement of the city, the city is obligated to support and facilitate this. This shifts the power dynamics that normally exist, in which citizens either petition government, or worse are disempowered in the face of city bureaucracies and officialdom. Secondly, this sets up a process for what Foster and Iaione (2016) called “urban collaborative governance”, in which:

… all actors who have a stake in the commons are part of an autonomous center of decision making as co-partners, or co-collaborators, coordinated and enabled by the public authority.

Thirdly, the city as commons requires a new culture of mature and active citizenship, which transforms the citizen from passive beneficiary of technocratic systems, to one who is actively shaping the city around them, taking responsibility for the care and development of their cities.

Fourthly it enables new value exchange systems that enact sharing, collaboration and value creation. Examples include local currencies, time-banking, circularization of waste / circular economy, and other ways in which people can mutualize redundant resources and exchange value (Ramos, 2016). Importantly this sits outside of the traditional money based exchange system, but also complements and interacts with it.

Diagram 12: The City as a Commons

The city as commons, as seen from the Bologna example, requires the enactment of a new political contract between citizens and the state. This can be seen as a “partner state”, as argued by Orsi (2009) and Bauwens (2012) where the state acts as a supporters and facilitator of localized social innovations and peer productions of value prioritized by citizens. However such political contracts can only be developed where there exists a new political culture — where citizens lift their own sense of civic responsibility and are prepared to work actively for the betterment of their city. Finally, such a configuration even though political and cultural in its production, is a transformative dimension in producing new systems of value, whether they are community food systems, sharing economy system, alternative currencies or other. Some important questions that arise here are therefore:

· What kinds of civic cultures must accompany the ‘city as commons’ civic-state partnership?

· What kind of partnerships with business and enterprise are enacted through the ‘city as commons’ approach and how does this change value creation in the city?

Discussion on the SSP method

Connection with Subaltern cosmopolitan legality

In the SSP method, legality is expressed as a spectrum from dominant positions which are most socially legitimate, to others which are marginal and considered less legitimate. This spectrum is a power spectrum, representing which modes of legality are empowered or disempower within our social systems.

Santos argues that, “Subaltern cosmopolitan legality is a mode of sociolegal theory and practice … to comprehend and further the mode of political thought and action embodied by counter-hegemonic globalization”. It challenges the dominant legal paradigm as one that generates the absence of a “myriad” of local and non-English speaking political actors, resistance movements (such as the anti-globalization movement), peasant struggles, trans-national NGOs and trans-national movements, grassroots movements and community based initiatives. He argues that these “subaltern actors are a critical part of the processes whereby global legal rules are defined” (Santos 2005, p11).

Commons governance, as articulated by Ostrom, is an example of a subaltern mode of legality, in comparison with private and state law. While Ostrom’s Nobel prize brought commons governance some notoriety, this is nonetheless a segment within much broader social and legal changes, and is yet to translate widely into legal practice — and even less so in mainstream economic processes. Examples such as Bologna’s Regulation, however, do take this one step further in the interlocking of structural synergies.[3] Legal movements for the rights of nature, “Wild Law” (Burdon 2011), and Earth Law also express subaltern cosmopolitan legality, meta-political practices aimed at a fundamental social transformation. These are as well situated within counter-public spheres and embody a different worldview.

As an example, the fishbone diagram considers dominance and marginalization, from top to bottom in issues of legality. Subaltern legality is expressed from the bottom moving up.

Global vs National Analysis

William Robinson argues we have seen the emergence of a transnational capitalist class that cuts across political and economic domains. He argues that since the 1970s this emerging class has over time become more and more powerful and also decoupled from nationalist connections and loyalties. Most nations today are coupled to the global capitalist system. An analysis of national power dynamics must therefore straddle an understanding of capitalist globalization.

An analysis of global power dynamics should also include a view of global counter power: through the p2p movement, the commons / urban commons, the world social forum, the city straddling occupy movement, and other transnational social actors and processes, which increasingly expresses transnational solidarity dynamics. We can call this a “planetary action system” where local counter-power strategies leverage the global, and visa versa and where new connections and synergies can be created such as transnational collectives and the emerging notion of CBRLs.

Diagram 13: Transnational to national dynamics

Oligarchy

According to Jeffrey Winters (2011) “Civil Oligarchies” (oligarchies embedded in democracies) are typified by strong bureaucratic and institutional rule of law with strongly established norms and codes of collective governance and where oligarchs need play no personal role in governance. Property defense is well established by the state, even when huge disparities in property wealth exist. An oligarch’s primary means of maintaining power is through income defense strategies deployed to sidestep democratic efforts to redistribute income. An army of professional income defense specialists (lawyers, lobbyists, accountants and offshore tax specialists) exist to support an oligarch’s income defense activities.

Diagram 14: Oligarchy and wealth defense

While nationally based capitalist structures of influence have been fundamentally superseded by the process of capitalist globalization, as argued by Robinson and Sklair, nations are still the strongest jurisdictional entities which have the capacity to regulate and tax corporate and oligarchic holdings. From this perspective, modern oligarchs are propositionally transnational actors that practice wealth defense across and between political jurisdictions, in fact conditioning nation-states for their own wealth accumulating interests. The defense of extreme wealth is enabled by national laws that provide opportunities to use the global tax avoidance and money laundering system, for example as revealed by the Mossack Fonseca scandal.

Conclusion

This paper provides a method to use in explicating power dynamics in relationship to commoning and de-commoning systems and practices. There is obviously much more work that needs to be done to clarify definitions and the nature of such domains of power as a constructivist rendition. The SSP method is a work in progress. This paper provides an initial method, which provides opportunities for the method to be changes and adapted for different purposes and contexts. It is hoped that the model can be used to help people analyze societal power relations and reimagine them toward more robust and effective futures oriented change strategies — to protect, create and extend our shared commons.

References

Albert, M. (2003). Parecon: Life After Capitalism. . London: Verso.

Araya, D. (2015) Interview: Michel Bauwens on Peer-To-Peer Economics and Its Role in Reshaping Our World, accessed via https://futurism.com/interview-michel-bauwens-on-peer-to-peer-economics-and-its-role-in-reshaping-our-world/

Bauwens M (2012) Blueprint for a P2P society: the partner state & ethical economy. http://www.shareable.net/blog/blueprint-for-p2p-society-the-partner-state-ethical-economy

Bauwens, M. (2016) Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses, accessed via http://commonstransition.org/commons-based-reciprocity-licenses/

Bollier, D. (2011) The Commons, Short and Sweet, accessed via

http://bollier.org/commons-short-and-sweet

Bollier, D. and Helfrich, S. (2015) Patterns of Commoning, Mass: The Commons Strategy Group / Off the Commons Books.

Borda, O. F. (2002). Participatory Action Research in Social Theory: Origins and Challenges In P. Reason, Bradbury, H (Ed.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 27–37). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Buck, S. (1998). The Global Commons: An Introduction. Washington D.C. : Island Press.

Burdon, P. (2011). Exploring Wild Law, Wakefield Press, South Australia.

Escobar, A. Commons in the Pluriverse, in Bollier, D. and Helfrich, S. (2015) Patterns of Commoning, Mass: The Commons Strategy Group / Off the Commons Books, (p355)

Foster, S. and Iaione, C. (2016). The City as a Commons, Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 34: Iss. 2, Article 2. P.290

Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.

Gilens, M. Page, B. (2016). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, American Political Science Association, Vol. 12/№3 (pp. 564–581).

Hamilton, C. (2007). Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change. Melbourne: Black Inc.

Korten, D. (2006). The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.

Lasn, K. (2000). Culture Jam. NY Quill.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. London Oxford University Press.

Orsi, C. (2009) Knowledge-based society, peer production and the common good. Capital Class 33(1):31–51

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ponniah, T. (2006). The World Social Forum Vision (PhD), Clark University Worcester.

Ramos, J. (ed) (2016). The City as Commons: a Policy Reader, Commons Transition Coalition: Melbourne.

Robinson, W. (2005). The Battle for Global Civil Society. Accessed via Venezuelanalysis.com.

Robinson, W. (2004). A Theory of Global Capitalism London John Hopkins University Press

Ronfeldt (2016). It’s Time to Create Chambers of Commons, 71–75, in Ramos, J. (ed) The City as Commons: A Policy Reader, Commons Transition Coalition, Melbourne, Australia.

Santos, B. (2006). The Rise of the Global Left: The World Social Forum and Beyond. London Zed Books

de Sousa Santos, B., & Rodríguez-Garavito, C. A. (2005). Law, politics and the subaltern in counter-hegemonic globalization. Law and globalization from below: Towards a cosmopolitan legality, 1–26.

Sklair, L. (2002). Globalisation: Capitalism and its Alternatives (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sklair, L. (2005 ). Generic Globalization, Capitalist Globalization and Beyond: A Framework for Critical Globalisation Studies. In R. Appelbaum, Robinson, W. (Ed.), Critical Globalization Studies (pp. 55–64). New York Routledge

Teivainen, T. (2007). The Political and its Absence in the World Social Forum — Implications for Democracy. Development Dialogue — Global Civil Society, 69–79.

Weber, M. (2005). ‘Alter-Globalization’ and Social Movements: Towards Understanding Transnational Politicization. In P. Hayden, el-Ojeili, C. (Ed.), Confronting Globalization in the Twenty-First Century: Humanity, Justice and the Renewal of Politics (pp. 191–207). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan

Winters, J.A. (2011). Oligarchy, Illinois: Northwestern University.

[1] http://urbancommons.labgov.it

[2] http://www.comune.bo.it/media/files/bolognaregulation.pdf

[3] http://www.comune.bo.it/media/files/bolognaregulation.pdf