Bradshaw’s definition of a post-place community, although
poignant and accurate in regards to modern techno-societies, conspicuously
fails to address the role of nature within said community. Perhaps it is true that “community without
propinquity” is entirely plausible for people, but ecosystems without propinquity are
not. This suggests that nature is not
part of the post-place community.
The big question then becomes, if social communities can be
created and tightly bonded regardless of place, who then is responsible for protection
of the commons? Chasing the tail
further, what then is the commons?
Ontologically, this is a problem. Communities cannot simultaneously be free
from place and include nature as well.
--
LR>>You've got the right issue: what of the commons; who is responsible for it?
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced the social sciences offer much guidance in helping us understand the core issue of sustainability. The social justice literature is also limited. The natural and ecological sciences are more instructive.
The core issue is the capacity to re-generate (to be self-sustaining). Natural systems re-generate, but usually not on a scale and schedule preferred by humans or their regulating modern social institutions (i.e., economic, political, cultural). The local firestorm is again instructive...
The Bastrop Lost Pines Forest would 're-generate' if left on its own. However, it probably won't have the luxury of time. Humans will intervene under misguided notion they can speed the 'recovery' of an ill-advised blending of a natural eco-system and a primarily economic one -- suburbanization.
The forest is a common-pool resource. A common-pool resource is place specific. Humans must have a sense of solidarity to be good stewards of common pool resources: forest, fisheries, water, etc. Solidarity leads to collective actions by individuals that maintain and sustain the resource of a place beyond the life cycle of a particular individual.