The ‘Vocabulary of commons’ is a socio-linguistic enquiry into the legal and livelihood consequences of the term ‘commons’ – a search for a vocabulary that reflects a commons approach to a life with dignity in harmony with Gaia and communitarian aspirations. It is to strengthen community articulation and make their voices heard in the ongoing efforts of dialogue between communities, academics, practitioners and decision makers. The book is co-authored by over 30 practitioners, intellectuals and researchers.

This book is the collaborative effort of many… a collective effort in the knowledge commons. It is a practitioner perspective, of those who work with some of the most marginalised and excluded sections of society. As we, the authors, moved further, we realised the truth of the saying ‘commons need commons’ and the need to thoroughly de–romanticise the commons while affirming that the commons are the source of life. It became obvious that the ‘commons’ could be as inaccessible as property. The discrimination and exclusion are too stark to wish away, and too blatant not to be visible but to the most blinkered. So we took a long hard look at the mechanisms of exclusion… the power which makes it possible—as Alvin Toffler put it in Powershift: the material, muscle and mind—which brought the state, culture and religion firmly in our sights. Since the entire superstructure of ideology determined this exclusion, we needed to look at the knowledge commons, including culture and religion, in its role of socio–economic control. The book therefore has a lot to do with social justice and exclusion, from the perspective of those who are excluded from the commons… for whom the commons were never their commons.

The non–physical and the new commons figured prominently in our discussions, since the concept of ‘control over the commons’ is fundamentally changed with development of new commons. However, there was a clear understanding of the role of power, and power relations, with respect to commons. Forcible commoning—internal colonisation—is a potent and ever present threat, whether by ethnic swamping or by slow strangulation or through religion and patriotic nationalism. The objective of both sides—property and commons—is the maximum territory, and is akin to what Sun Tzu warns us of in his classic The Art of War. It was recognised that the institutions of property—of which the state, as the only instrument of legal violence, was key—was the greatest threat to the commons. Control of the state by corporations adds a disturbing new dimension to the threat. Addressing state and non–state power is an important factor in protecting the commons. Since the state has claimed the sole right to violence, neither it nor power can be ignored by any serious student or supporter of the commons. Though commons are the natural order and property an exception—even the law restricts copyright and patents to a finite time—the present institutions of the state are institutions to protect property.

Therefore, it is not the ‘capture of the state’ or its present institutions that is important. These institutions can only protect property. To nurture the commons, a new kind of institution, social organisation, socialisation and reproduction of knowledge—a different way of life itself—is necessary. These are explored in different contexts, in different chapters throughout the book.

Each chapter is self–contained. They are ordered so that similar topics are grouped together, but you can read them in any order, according to your interest.

The glossary will guide you through the specific terms used.

The list of authors is given at the end, as also their emails, if you would like to carry on this conversation to develop a vocabulary of the commons.