The Commons in History: Culture, Conflict, and Ecology

3. Commons in Conflict

3 Commons in Conflict All these changes from the original communal property conditions did not, of course, take place without friction, the opposition often taking place in peasants’ revolts; hundreds of thousands of these being killed in their attempts to preserve their commons, forests and waters free for all, to re-establish their liberty to hunt, fish and cut wood, and to abolish titles, serfdom and duties.1 In early May 1189, the abbot of Crowland closed his fens to the “men of Holland,” who used them to pasture their livestock . The abbot’s land was intercommoned, which means it was shared by different groups, but the abbot argued that it was his right to restrict access and that custom had established as law the closure of the fens at this time of year to allow the grass to grow lush for summer use. The men of Holland were urged to ignore him by the rival prior of Spalding and refused to remove their animals. In response, the abbot’s bailiffs impounded their animals, but the intercommoners entered the marsh and occupied it. Although many local pastures had dried out, which put pressure on the “men of Holland,” the abbot claimed that the occupation was at root an act of aggression inspired by greed and envy: However, the seeming aggressors probably had more reason than is at first apparent from the Crowland tradition. The process of reclamation only gathered pace after the Norman Conquest. It had begun as an essentially communal operation. Before large tracts of the 72 Chapter 3 waste were divided up between communities, the whole area had been intercommoned, that is it was used for pasture by all without any boundaries. . . . Elsewhere in the fens Crowland was not slow to take advantage of the opportunities offered to extend their demesnes, and it is probable that they attempted the same around Crowland. The men of Holland’s claim was almost certainly based upon their former rights of common in the unenclosed marsh.2 The occupiers won, and their intercommoning continued for the time being, despite the hostility of the abbot. The account illustrates the political nature of common-pool property. The historian David Roffe argues that it was within the shift from one kind of commons system to another, with the movement of English society from the Anglo-Saxon to early medieval feudalism: It was symptomatic of more widespread changes in a society which was moving from a communal and tributary nexus to a seigneurial and manorialized one. There is no reason to doubt that the bounds of Crowland as expressed by the five rivers that surround the island represent some sort of ancient territory.3 On January 18, 2012, the English-language versions of Wikipedia closed down for a day. Instead of online encyclopedia entries, it showed a black screen with a protest message challenging the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was moving through the U.S. legislative system at that time. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, along with millions of other users of the Web, argued that far from acting purely against online piracy, SOPA would allow U.S. corporations to close down Websites such as Wikipedia merely on the suspicion that links were available to allegedly pirated information. The massive protests against SOPA are part of a wider battle over property rights in cyberspace and over access to the Web commons. Conflict over property rights is a significant issue at present. From free and open-source software to continuing battles over land and seas, the commons is as much about power and politics as it is about issues of culture and management. The Ostrom Commons in Conflict 73 versus Hardin debate ignores a significant and alarming fact: most commons have not been found to succeed or fail on the basis of their own merits. Instead, they have been enclosed, and access has been restricted and often turned over to purely private ownership or state control. Discussing the assault on the English commons in the eighteenth century, the historian E. P. Thompson notes that “Enclosure (when all the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery.”4 This chapter discusses the often violent destruction of commons by various groups of enclosers as well as resistance by commoners. However, the radical case for commons, which argues that commons work for the benefit of the poor and marginalized, also demands critical attention...