- Email: [email protected]
Privatizing Nature: political struggles for the global commons
Book Reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 117–133
131
corporations are not just media firms but are part of larger multinational corporations with diverse interests. The authors conclude when dicussing the effects of the media that “the media’s ability to produce people’s social identities, in terms of both a sense of unity and difference, may be their most powerful and important effect” (p. 206). In the last part of their book the authors deal with ‘media globalization.’ They point out that the dominant media corporations are exclusively First World firms like Germany’s Bertelsman, Japan’s Sony Corporation, France’s Hachette, and the USA’s Time Warner, “the world’s largest media corporation” (p. 402). Secondly, “the major media firms worldwide are vertically integrated—they attempt to control all aspects of production—as well as horizontally integrated—they attempt to control multiple media” (p. 402). Americans worry when the Japanese company Sony buys Columbia Pictures, “but the fact that American movies dominate the world motion picture market and that American TV programs likewise are seen worldwide raises serious concerns for the leaders of other countries” (p. 402). This is a useful addition to the literature available for all media courses. David Childs 0962-6298/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 7 - X
Privatizing Nature: political struggles for the global commons; Michael Goldman (Ed.); Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1998, 257 pp, ISBN 08135-2554-3 In the summer of 1999, five hundred peasant farmers from around the world (the majority of whom were from India) participated in an Inter-Continental Caravan. Moving between the major cities of Europe, the Caravan’s purpose was to protest the economic marginalisation, unemployment, environmental destruction, and displacement faced by peasant and indigenous peoples around the world as a result of the exigencies of neoliberal capitalism—in the forms of Third World debt, economic restructuring and the assault on the “commons”. In collaboration with social movements, non-government organizations, and citizen’s groups from around Europe, a host of demonstrations and direct actions were conducted throughout European cities, culminating with protests at the European Union and G8 summits. It is timely, therefore, that Privatizing Nature seeks to examine the various political struggles that are taking place around the “local” commons—by people whose livelihoods are dependent upon commonly managed natural resources—and the global commons—i.e. the air, ozone, seas, forests, species upon which we all depend. The central tenet of this edited collection is that new forms of enclosure and notions of private property are emerging as a result of the machinations of neoliberal capi-
132
Book Reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 117–133
talism, such as global trade agreements (e.g. GATT), and legislation on intellectual property rights. The architects of neoliberalism such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, state agencies, and transnational corporations, are staking claims to these commons resources on a global scale in order to invest in, and exploit them. In so doing, millions of people are being excluded from the resources which provide them with a livelihood. Rather than having their labour exploited by capital in order for it to realise surplus value, these people are now deemed surplus to capital’s requirements. Such attempts at erasure are not without their resistances, of course, and many of the chapters in this book examine the causes behind the political resurgence of the commons and the widespread struggles that are taking place to transform existing nature-society relations into ones that are non-exploitative, socially just and environmentally sustainable. As many of the contributors to this book attest, common property tends not to be exploited by (local) people when they are able to retain the power to manage their own resources. Rather, it is through the transformation of the commons into private property—by neoliberalism’s architects and their policy “experts”—that economic, social and environmental problems are created that precipitate the tragedy of the commons. In examining these issues, the contributors to the book examine a variety of case studies from around the world including examples from Brazil, India, Mexico, Cameroon, and the United States. Through richly detailed empirical materials, the book engages with several important themes. In reviewing scholarly debates on the commons, the book challenges grand theories of commons practices and argues for plural, locally-based interpretations. The book examines the complexity and dynamism of commons institutions across local and global scales and explains how and why commons institutions work in coordination (or not) with other social institutions and actors. Moreover, the book also shows how communities in different parts of the world hold complex and contrasting interpretations of “nature” and “sustainability” and analyses different types and different scales of activism from the locally-based to the globally-coordinated. The analyses provided in Privatizing Nature, enables a more informed engagement with the issues of neoliberalism and its effects upon distant others. Events such as the Inter-Continental Caravan can thus be conceptualized within a broader analytical frame that recognizes two crucial transnational tendencies in ecological politics— the ever more powerful incursions made by transnational corporations, northern states and global finance institutions into the planet’s resource base and people’s livelihoods, and the increasingly powerful linkages being forged among social movements across national boundaries in order to resist such incursions. However, the purview of the book raises the important question of the positionality and role of academics within such processes. Given the sympathy with people’s struggles evinced by the contributors to this book, one must ask whether the role of academics is to act as interpreters of, or also to critically engage with, social change. There is little evidence in this book of the engagement of the contributors in the struggles that they discuss. Moreover, while the accounts of social movement practices lend texture and context to the unfolding dramas of resistance and the
Book Reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 117–133
133
articulation of development alternatives, what is largely missing from this book are the voices and interpretations of the people involved in such dramas. A collaborative venture that evoked these in concert with academic representations would have added political weight to the claims and arguments of the authors. In addition, while the book correctly identifies a multicultural commons as a major site of future resistance, it fails to fully analyse the local, national, and global connections, alliances, and strategies that will shape such resistance. Given the heterogeneous affinities between non-government organizations and resistance movements that are developing around the globe, this is an urgent research task that requires both interpretation and critical engagement by academics. Paul Routledge Department of Geography and Topographical Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK 0962-6298/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 0 - X
131
corporations are not just media firms but are part of larger multinational corporations with diverse interests. The authors conclude when dicussing the effects of the media that “the media’s ability to produce people’s social identities, in terms of both a sense of unity and difference, may be their most powerful and important effect” (p. 206). In the last part of their book the authors deal with ‘media globalization.’ They point out that the dominant media corporations are exclusively First World firms like Germany’s Bertelsman, Japan’s Sony Corporation, France’s Hachette, and the USA’s Time Warner, “the world’s largest media corporation” (p. 402). Secondly, “the major media firms worldwide are vertically integrated—they attempt to control all aspects of production—as well as horizontally integrated—they attempt to control multiple media” (p. 402). Americans worry when the Japanese company Sony buys Columbia Pictures, “but the fact that American movies dominate the world motion picture market and that American TV programs likewise are seen worldwide raises serious concerns for the leaders of other countries” (p. 402). This is a useful addition to the literature available for all media courses. David Childs 0962-6298/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 7 - X
Privatizing Nature: political struggles for the global commons; Michael Goldman (Ed.); Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1998, 257 pp, ISBN 08135-2554-3 In the summer of 1999, five hundred peasant farmers from around the world (the majority of whom were from India) participated in an Inter-Continental Caravan. Moving between the major cities of Europe, the Caravan’s purpose was to protest the economic marginalisation, unemployment, environmental destruction, and displacement faced by peasant and indigenous peoples around the world as a result of the exigencies of neoliberal capitalism—in the forms of Third World debt, economic restructuring and the assault on the “commons”. In collaboration with social movements, non-government organizations, and citizen’s groups from around Europe, a host of demonstrations and direct actions were conducted throughout European cities, culminating with protests at the European Union and G8 summits. It is timely, therefore, that Privatizing Nature seeks to examine the various political struggles that are taking place around the “local” commons—by people whose livelihoods are dependent upon commonly managed natural resources—and the global commons—i.e. the air, ozone, seas, forests, species upon which we all depend. The central tenet of this edited collection is that new forms of enclosure and notions of private property are emerging as a result of the machinations of neoliberal capi-
132
Book Reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 117–133
talism, such as global trade agreements (e.g. GATT), and legislation on intellectual property rights. The architects of neoliberalism such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, state agencies, and transnational corporations, are staking claims to these commons resources on a global scale in order to invest in, and exploit them. In so doing, millions of people are being excluded from the resources which provide them with a livelihood. Rather than having their labour exploited by capital in order for it to realise surplus value, these people are now deemed surplus to capital’s requirements. Such attempts at erasure are not without their resistances, of course, and many of the chapters in this book examine the causes behind the political resurgence of the commons and the widespread struggles that are taking place to transform existing nature-society relations into ones that are non-exploitative, socially just and environmentally sustainable. As many of the contributors to this book attest, common property tends not to be exploited by (local) people when they are able to retain the power to manage their own resources. Rather, it is through the transformation of the commons into private property—by neoliberalism’s architects and their policy “experts”—that economic, social and environmental problems are created that precipitate the tragedy of the commons. In examining these issues, the contributors to the book examine a variety of case studies from around the world including examples from Brazil, India, Mexico, Cameroon, and the United States. Through richly detailed empirical materials, the book engages with several important themes. In reviewing scholarly debates on the commons, the book challenges grand theories of commons practices and argues for plural, locally-based interpretations. The book examines the complexity and dynamism of commons institutions across local and global scales and explains how and why commons institutions work in coordination (or not) with other social institutions and actors. Moreover, the book also shows how communities in different parts of the world hold complex and contrasting interpretations of “nature” and “sustainability” and analyses different types and different scales of activism from the locally-based to the globally-coordinated. The analyses provided in Privatizing Nature, enables a more informed engagement with the issues of neoliberalism and its effects upon distant others. Events such as the Inter-Continental Caravan can thus be conceptualized within a broader analytical frame that recognizes two crucial transnational tendencies in ecological politics— the ever more powerful incursions made by transnational corporations, northern states and global finance institutions into the planet’s resource base and people’s livelihoods, and the increasingly powerful linkages being forged among social movements across national boundaries in order to resist such incursions. However, the purview of the book raises the important question of the positionality and role of academics within such processes. Given the sympathy with people’s struggles evinced by the contributors to this book, one must ask whether the role of academics is to act as interpreters of, or also to critically engage with, social change. There is little evidence in this book of the engagement of the contributors in the struggles that they discuss. Moreover, while the accounts of social movement practices lend texture and context to the unfolding dramas of resistance and the
Book Reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 117–133
133
articulation of development alternatives, what is largely missing from this book are the voices and interpretations of the people involved in such dramas. A collaborative venture that evoked these in concert with academic representations would have added political weight to the claims and arguments of the authors. In addition, while the book correctly identifies a multicultural commons as a major site of future resistance, it fails to fully analyse the local, national, and global connections, alliances, and strategies that will shape such resistance. Given the heterogeneous affinities between non-government organizations and resistance movements that are developing around the globe, this is an urgent research task that requires both interpretation and critical engagement by academics. Paul Routledge Department of Geography and Topographical Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK 0962-6298/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 0 - X