Table 1
Embodied commons conceptual framework (authors’ own).
| FORMS OF EMBODIMENT IN THE COMMONS | EXPLANATION |
|---|---|
| Embodied knowledge(s) | Situated knowledge(s) (Haraway, 1988) on the commons capture a form of embodiment. Feminist geographers have long challenged practices of knowledge created as disembodied and objective, by focusing on the link between knowledge and the body (Longhurst 1995; Thien 2005). This idea of embodiment strongly considers situated knowledge(s) as entanglements between aspects of identity, territory, and physical bodies that produce different ways of knowing (see Federici, 2019; Haraway 1988; Mies, 2014; Rocheleauet al., 1996). Similarly, in problematising risks of a ‘disembodied’ knowledge on the commons, FPE scholars call for “experiencing and learning from communities’ responses to environmental change in a participatory co-production of knowledge” (Clement et. al, 2019: 5), rather than reifying technical or “expert” knowledge. |
| Embodied experiences | Embodied experiences contain the corporeal and emotional dimensions, as lived through the gendered (and racialised ed.) body (Grosz, 1994). For instance, a concept like cuerpo-territorio, a feminist method from Latin America, emphasises embodied experiences of women in relation to their land and territory (Zaragocin and Caretta, 2021: 1507). Feminist political ecologists have connected the body to water in particular. Sultana (2011) and Harris (2015) connect contaminated water to experiences of emotional struggle. In this context, acknowledging embodied experiences can increase community-relational support for tackling resource challenges (Clement et al., 2019). Emphasising the gendered (and racial, class, age etc.) differences in lived physical experiences and how they impact the creation of the commons or manifest in commoning projects is critical when disentangling links between power, identity, a resource and the body (see Mandalaki and Fotaki, 2020; Sultana, 2011; Harris, 2015; Zaragocin and Caretta, 2021). |
| Embodied practices | Practices of inclusion/exclusion are often shaped and demarcated by institutions, understood as agreed to rules, norms and strategies (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). Boltanski (2013: 54) speaks of ‘bodiless institutions’, claimed to be ‘timeless’ and ‘disembodied’ and yet that can only be created and defended by their spokespersons – actors who are often backed by power relations. Thus one can argue institutions are always embodied – the key question is ‘whose bodies’ are they representing? In the construction of the commons, it is therefore important that these institutions and rules, particularly around practices of participation and access to a resource, be open to co-design, critique and adjustment by those who are directly implicated by them. This is linked to decisions on how to participate in a resource’s governance structure, and the day-to-day collective ‘taking care’ practices (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017). Such a lens can improve our understanding of the tensions that exist within commons-oriented projects that fall short of including institutions for commoning (see also Fournier, 2013; Gutierrez-Aguilar, 2017). Paying attention to structural disembodiment also points to the pitfalls of the role of public administrations in facilitating institutions (and laws) that are not ‘bodiless’ and ‘timeless’, while asking questions around ‘whose bodies’ are being invisibilised (see as example Kaika and Ruggiero, 2016; and García Lamarca and Kaika, 2016). |
Figure 1
Sequence of privatisation laws introduced by the Italian government between 1903 and 2022 (authors’ elaboration).