EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Celebrating 'All That We Share'
Annie Leonard, Creator of 'The Story of Stuff,' Shows What's At Stake with Commons Assets
Annie Leonard is one of the most articulate, effective champions of the commons today. Her webfilm The Story of Stuff has been seen more than 15 million times by viewers. She also adapted it into a book.
Drawing on her experience investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues in more than 40 countries, Leonard says she’s “made it her life’s calling to blow the whistle on important issues plaguing our world.”
She deploys hard facts, common sense, witty animation and an engaging “everywoman” role as narrator to probe complex problems such as the high costs of consumerism, the influence of corporate money in our democracy, and government budget priorities.
In 2008, she founded the Story of Stuff Project, to help people get involved in making the decisions that affect their future and to create new webfilms on critical issues such as The Story of Citizens United and The Story of Bottled Water. Her most recent film The Story of Broke , provides a riveting rebuttal to claims that America can no longer afford health and social protections.
Here Leonard answers a few questions from OTC about the importance of the commons in her life, work and the world.
—Jay Walljasper
What are a few of the most beloved commons in your life and community?
I asked this question to our Story of Stuff team over lunch recently and the conversation lit up as we each called out commons we cherish most. We identified cultural commons that add such richness to our lives (music, recipes, the amazing murals in San Francisco), physical commons that we use daily (the library, bike lanes and dog parks ranked high); social commons that make the broader society better for all (teachers, health care providers, the woman who helps pedestrians cross the street at a particularly busy intersection near our office). We also thought of another category, which I’ll call aspirational commons: hope, passion, commitment, the future. These belong to all of us, and it is up to all of us to protect and nourish them—because a society without hope and passion, and without a possibility-rich future, is a dreary society indeed. And, of course, our democracy: it belongs to all of us and only works when we all engage.
For us at The Story of Stuff Project, the commons is also an orientation; it is about how we do things, how we work together as much as the assets that we all share. It is the act of figuring out solutions together and ensuring diverse voices are engaged in planning processes. It is a commitment to collective action, collective wellbeing and having each other’s backs. It is the realization that no one is as smart as everyone. It’s the realization that we all do better when we all do better.
How did you first learn about the commons?
I first learned about the commons as a kid using parks and libraries. I didn’t assign the label “commons” to them, but I understood early on that some things belong to all of us and these shared assets enhance our lives and rely on our care. I also learned that investments in the commons pay back manyfold: if we organize a litter clean up, we get a super fun park to play in.
Like many other college students, my first introduction to the word “commons” was sadly in conjunction with the word “sheep” and “tragedy.” That lousy resource management class tainted the word for me for years, until I heard Ralph Nader address a group of college students. He asked them to yell out a list of everything they own. This being the pre-i-gadget 1980’s, the list included “Sony Walkman…boombox… books…bicycle…clothes…bank account.” When the lists started to peter out, Ralph asked about National Parks and public air waves. A light went off in each of our heads, and a whole new list was shouted out: rivers, libraries, the Smithsonian, monuments. That’s when I realized that the commons isn’t an overgrazed pasture; it really is all that we share.
How does the commons influence your work?
The commons is a key piece of building a sustainable, healthy and fair society. At the Story of Stuff Project, we’re concerned about the hyper-individualization and consumer-mania that has taken over our society. It’s a problem because we’re consuming more resources than the planet can produce each year and creating more waste than it can assimilate. The Global Footprint Network says we’re using 1.5 planets worth of resources a year. Basic physics dictates that we simply can’t keep consuming at this rate. In addition to depleting the very planet on which life depends, our consumer culture isn’t making us happy. We’re working longer hours than in just about any other industrialized country, we’re constantly stressed, tired and burdened by debt. It’s no coincidence that rates of social isolation, loneliness and depression are also on the rise. A thriving commons helps on all these fronts.
Shared things means we use less resources overall; that we can slow down the frenzied work-watch-spend treadmill; and that we’re investing in community rather than clutter and consumer debt. For example, my town has a Tool Lending Library as part of the public library system. Rather than every household needing to own a power drill and jackhammer, we can just borrow them for the few times a year we need them. This could be extended to include all sorts of things. Shared public resources means less resources consumed overall, less waste generated, less money spent and more time chatting with our neighbors – building community.
How does the commons affect your life?
Recognizing and nurturing the commons makes my life sweeter, easier, richer, lighter, happier. I end up with less stuff and more friends.
What strategies do you recommend for making more people aware of the importance of the commons?
Talking about the commons is a critical first step. We’re so indoctrinated in an individualist focused approach to stuff and private property that we need to be reminded—like my college class mentioned above—that there’s much more that we share and, that for a wide range of things, sharing is better. So, let’s introduce the term into public discourse, slip it into conversations, include it in letters to the editor and blog posts. Talking more about the commons will make it more visible.
It’s hard to love what we don’t see, so let’s bring the commons right out into the spotlight!
I also fear that I am not alone in having associated the “commons” with a sheep-filled pasture for too long. We need to think of more ways to explain what the commons is, to create a new frame for the word, so that the full richness of the commons comes to mind when we hear the term. I love the phrase “all that we share.” That’s clear, accessible and makes us feel good thinking about all that we share. That’s what we want people to feel when they think of the commons.
What do you see as the biggest obstacle to creating a commons-based society right now?
There are so many interrelated aspects of our current economic and social systems which undermine the commons. Some obstacles are structural, like government spending priorities that elevate military spending and oil company subsidies over maintenance of parks and libraries. Others are social, including the erosion in social fabric and community-based lifestyles. Actually, even those have structural drivers; for example, land use planning which eliminates sidewalks and requires long commutes to work contribute to breakdown of social commons by impeding social interactions. It’s all so interconnected!
A huge obstacle is the shift towards greater privatization and commodification of physical and social assets. Many things that used to be shared – from open spaces for recreation to support systems to help a neighbor in need – have been privatized and commodified; they’ve been moved out of the community into the market place. This triggers a downward spiral. Once things become privatized, or un-commoned, we no longer have access to them without paying a fee. We then have to work longer hours to pay for all these things which used to be freely available – everything from safe afterschool recreation for kids to clean water to swim in to someone to talk to when you’re feeling blue. And since we’re working longer hours and spending more time alone, we have less time to contribute to the commons to rebuild these assets: less volunteer hours, less beach-clean-up days, less time for civic engagement to advocate for policies that protect the commons, less time to invite a neighbor over for tea. And on it goes.
What is the greatest opportunity to strengthen and expand the commons right now?
In spite of real obstacles, we have a lot on our side as we advance a commons-based agenda. First, we have no choice. There’s a very real ecological imperative weighing down on us. Even if we wanted to continue this overconsumptive, hyper individualistic and vastly unequal way of living, we simply can’t. We have to learn to share more and waste less, to find joy and meaning in shared assets and experiences rather than in private accumulation, to work together for a better world, rather than to build bigger walls around those who can. And the good news is that these changes not only will enable us to continue to live on this planet, but they will result in a happier, healthier society overall.
There’s another shift emerging which offers some real opportunities for building support for the commons. People in the overconsuming parts of the world are getting fed up with the burden of trying to own everything individually. We used to own our stuff and increasingly our stuff owns us. We work extra hours to buy more stuff, we spend our weekends sorting our stuff. We’re constantly needing to upgrade, repair, untangle, recharge, even pay to store our stuff. It’s exhausting.
The shift I see emerging is from an acquisition focused relationship to stuff, to an access- focused relationship. In the acquisition framework, the more stuff we had, the better, as captured in the 1990s bumpersticker “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins.” Having spent a couple decades being slaves to our stuff, we are rethinking. Now it is “He Who dies with the Most Toys Wasted His Life Working to Buy Them and Lived in a Cluttered House When He Could have been Investing in Community with which to Share Toys.”
Increasingly people want access to stuff, not all the burden that comes with ownership. Instead of owning a car and dealing with all that comes with it, we get one just when we want through city car share programs. Instead of hiring a plumber, we swap music lessons with one through skillsharing networks. Why buy something to own alone, when we can share it with others? Why signup for an even more crushing mortgage for a house with a big back yard, when we can instead share public parks? From coast to coast, there’s a resurgence of sharing, so much that it even has a fancy new name: collaborative consumption.
I’m really excited about this. A whole new generation of people is realizing that access to shared stuff is easier on one’s budget and on the planet, then individual ownership. Now, that’s liberating.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



19 Comments so far
Show AllWhen asked about the biggest obstacle to creating a commons-based society, why does Annie fail to mention income inequality and capitalism in general?
She lists "government spending priorities" but fails to mention the capitalist bankster oligarchy that very intentionally promotes and is responsible for those skewed priorities.
In that sense Annie falls into the great void in US political debate, the one that swallows up the reality of capitalist political economy in the US.
You are too quick to condemn someone who does not use your jargon. The commodification of social assets is the real obstacle to creating a commons-based society. Cliches such as "income inequality and capitalism in general" are too general to be useful. Commodities can only be bought and sold. They cannot be enjoyed collectively.
You are too quick to label my criticism's condemnation in a transparent effort to make this about me, rather than about the issues that I raise. So f-ck your moralistic hypocrisy.
Your comment demonstrates an ignorance of basic political economy. Commodification is an inherent function of capitalsim and imperialism. This idea is central to Marxist critiques of capitalism.
Socialism is an attempt to move in the opposite direction from commodification, and promotes a vast increase of socialization of all assets.
So why would one discuss the commons and commodification without discussing socialism and capitalism?!! Perhaps because such "jargon" is unappealing to capitalist donors. ..
Why would one blame "government" spending priorities without mentioning whose priorities are primarily represented in the US Military Industrial State?
While income inequality is a big issue in it own right, the commons that Annie refers to seemed to me to be mostly physical and infrastructural in nature, such as public sidewalks, public parks and plazas, public libraries, the now-rare traditional public markets, and especially, public transportation. After a life in faceless sunbelt-style suburbia I moved to an city neighborhood and experienced real public space in places like the 86B bus, where lawyers and janitors, rich and poor all sit and stand tightly together and even converse on the way downtown to work. The importance of such public spaces hit me like a hammer. These physical spaces are why urban areas tend to be, politically, well to the left of suburban or rural areas.
So, I'd say the biggest enemy of the commons is the whole automobile-suburban model of development. The way the sealed, soundproof, isolated, interior of a car has replaced the bustle and human interaction of the sidewalk, bus, or trolley, has been especially pernicious. Of course, Capitalism - particularly the unregulated USAn variety, has had a role in this
Well stated.
Shared public space for actual pedestrians is truly fundamental to the creation of a community in which people feel linked to others ... even to those who are very unlike them. It's not all you need for a sense of connection, but it's an essential start.
There is a reason why visitors to places like San Francisco and Perugia and Oaxaca and Amsterdam feel an instant sense of connection to place that they will never sense when they visit, say, Billings or Fresno or North Platte, Nebraska. I don't know how people who care about aesthetics and friendly public spaces can live in the latter cities without dying of angst.
Thank you, pjd412. Having lived in urban centers my whole life, I agree. You get to know diverse people, become friends with people you never would have imagined becoming friends with, learn about the struggles of others. I grew up in lucky, middle class circumstances, with parents who had black friends in the 1950s. When I was 5 or 6 my best friend was Billy Fleming, a black kid. But millions of kids grow up in segregated, bigoted communities that foster race hatred through generations.
I agree with others that it's far too simplistic (and not constructive) to blame an economic model. A market-based economy would not result in such income or wealth inequality if it were based on a broad understanding of the difference between the commons and the private sphere.
Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and even Abe Lincoln all understood that the earth and its resources were to be held in common, and that any private use must be balanced by a monetary return to the public, in the form of economic rent, use taxes or estate taxes. If American capitalism had been based on such an understanding, it would not be nearly as problematic as it is today.
Henry George, the most read economic author in America in the late 19th century (his book, Progress and Poverty was the second most popular after the bible), differentiated between "trusterty" (the commons) and "property" (that which we create by our own effort), and he advocated a single tax on the private use of the commons to pay for all public needs, while income (that which is produced by one's own labor) would not be taxed since it is legitimate property.
In early America, the corporation was defined by law as a short-term economic tool to allow a limited private profit in the advancement of a public good. Even the old aristocratic notion of noblesse oblige required those with wealth to act responsibly in service to the broader society as an obligation of their status. The problem with modern capitalism is that it has been stripped of all responsibility so that only privilege and power remain.
Private property was intended to be a "solution" to the tragedy of the commons - the overuse of common assets because, while benefits were internalized, costs were externalized. Privatizing assets was supposed to lead to the internalizing of both costs and benefits. But our legal structure evolved to allow even greater externalization (or socialization) of costs while internalizing (privatizing) only the benefits.
What is needed, as Annie rightly suggests, is a return to a proper appreciation of our individual and collective responsibility toward the natural, cultural and social commons.
---"Private property was intended to be a "solution" to the tragedy of the commons..."---
I doubt it; becasue, the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" only dates back to an article of the same name, written by ecologist Garrett Hardin and published in the journal Science in 1968. (Don't feel bad; until a couple years ago I always thought the concept went back to Adam Smith as well.) And, Dr. Hardin never intended it to be a defense of privatization of "the commons" as it is often used by the capitalists since 1968. It was simply a description of the externalized environmental damage, as you described, to common resources, like air and water, due to economic activity.
In fact, "the commons" were very well managed in an egalitarian manner by pre-capitalist peasant societies, and the forcible "enclosure of the commons" by the first capitalists in the 1600's was resisted very vigorously by the Diggers in 1649. Later when the industrial equivalent of the closure of the commons - the forcible replacement common craft of textile trades with "satanic mills" pressing independent craftsmen into the wage-slavery - the Luddites arose in the early 1800's.
No aspect of capitalism _ever_ came "naturally". It was imposed through coercive force on harmonious communities. Only later, through great propaganda effort, did the capitalists create the illusion that capitalism is "natural".
Wha? You don't believe in 100% natural capitalism? :) How 2oth century of you.
The capitalists try to commidify anything and everything, and they're doing a heck of job, Brownie.
Can we all agree that under monoploistic capitalism (the last stage according to Marx) privatization allows mega-corporations to steal private assets and make the public pay to buy or rent them back? That privatization is a function of capitalism and the opposite of socialism?
So my problem with this interview remains that Annie lists her obstacles to a commons based society; yet never degns to acknowledge that privatisation is a function of capitalism and imperialism. For instance, it can be seen on display in the bankster rape of Greece that is now occurring. It can be seen in the water battles in the US, and I wonder what will happen to Qaddafi's socialist and amazing waterworks that were a landmark in Libyan development.
Jack Weatherford, in his short and wonderful book "Indian Giver's" shows how only with the vast loads of gold and silver stolen from the natives of the Americas did capitalists have enough "magic" backing their "money" for capitalism to come into existence.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=indian+givers&x=0&y=0
Robert Riversong---This is bullshit- Abe Lincoln was an attorney for the railroad monopolies, he did not believe that the "earth and all its resources should be held in common", Thomas Jefferson orchestrated the huge land theft and invasion of the "frontier", was a slave owner whom did not "believe the earth and all its resources should be held in common"-he was a sadistic rapist whom did not even respect the physical bodies of other people let alone have some altruistic beliefs about SHARING. You often are here promoting lies about the origins of our country and the people involved in the rebellion against the English oligarchy. This is an example of the spin I decry: "the problem with modern capitalism is......"-the problem with capitalism is it is based on authoritarianism, capitalism is the problem, it has not been stripped of anything-except lately its veneer of lies- it has never been anything but a methodology of oppression on the very "commons" you are discussing.
Postscarcity,
I agree with everything you say. I would like to add that the "people" didn't rebel against an English oligarchy, but rather the oligarchy in America "rebelled" against the oligarchy in England.
No one teaches us that our heroic leaders like George W. Bush Washington and the other oligarchs "paid" the soldiers of the "revolution" with "title to land" in lieu of actual money. But since the soldiers needed money to live, they sold their titles to capitalists for pennies on the dollar worth tens of thousands of acres of land.
John Hancock, of the famous signature on the declaration of independence, made his vast fortune from smuggling. He owned a fleet of ships that smuggled and paid no English taxes. Because even then the big issue was taxes.
I would have to go to some books for the actual figures, but this is a pretty good description from memory. Americans in the 1700s drank to extreme. We have very good evidence that the average person drank 7 alcoholic drinks a day, not including beer. New England had many distilleries that relied on sugar (molasses) from British colonies in the Caribbean. England had taxes on the import of this sugar. But we have records of the taxes paid and they show things like 800 barrels paid taxes, when the actual amount of liquor produced in New England required tens of thousands of barrels.
In other words, people like John Hancock paid no taxes, the government objected, Hancock and other plutocrats organized a revolution, and we switched plutocracies.
Excellent addition- and I suggest one area of investigation along these lines- George Washington himself was facing the gallows for tax evasion, the revolution was "do or die" for him, his real genius was in setting up myths about himself, the colonial oligarchy, and the emerging country. His legends are based on his incredible capacity for violence, and his incredible ability in combat. He was regarded as the BEST horseman in the colonies, feared by his allies AND his enemies- "George Washington never told a lie" comes from the fear instilled in people because of his ability to kill-kill anyone who deigned to contradict his "word", kill any one whom the crown would pay for the killing of- it is reported that he could ride a horse down a stone wall and was horrific in his application of saber and cudgel. The actual person of Thomas Jefferson was also completely different from the persona presented through "history" and the hagiography so common- even common here on Common Dreams- his interactions with Aaron Burr provide excellent insight into the actual person. It is no coincidence that Burr is still reviled while Jefferson,Hamilton, and Washington among the other rebellious oligarchs are considered Demigods- and while Aaron Burr was a member of the elite, he was at least not a hypocrite and fought against the tyranny of "The Conspiracy Of Paper" that the banking/insurance cabal unleashed against the world.
Are you for real? How can you spout worn out ideologies from three centuries ago, like libertarian capitalism. Founding Fathers b=llshit. Your portrayal of early American history as homespun capitalism ignores the mercantalist underpinnings of the colonies. They depended on huge state monopoly capitalist imperialist "charter companies" for their existence during their first 150 years. .
In the past you have mocked my references to Marx and class struggle, calling them antiquated ideologies, but you are fine with much older, more regressive ideologies.
Socialism is a step in the right direction towards a commons based society, Capitalsim is the opposite of such a social ordering, and your apology for it is in direct contradiction to your claim of supporting the commons and opposing commodification...
Arundhati Roy - Confronting Empire
"Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.
Let us remember this and use it as a mantra..'
Celebrating 'All That We Share'
sometimes it's difficult to find something these days to CELEBRATE and i guess that's all the more reason we should. changing the perspective might be the key that opens new doors.
p.s. good post 'sheepherder'! and ♥ that quote, 'Aberfan'!
To take the notion of the commons to its root, the ultimate commons is the collectively (and, often, unconsciously) shared story of how things are the way they are and how we are to be in the world - our cultural myth or paradigm.
The modern global paradigm is that humanity is separate from nature and that each of us must compete against each other for our survival (social Darwinism). This story quite naturally leads to the necessity for private property and economic (and social) competition, or what we unfairly (to our canine friends) call a dog-eat-dog world.
What we need more than anything else is to take responsibility for our common paradigm and collectively re-write it into a more holistic and satisfying story for the next era of human evolution. That story will be based, as it was so very long ago, on the Gift Economy, in which sharing is the dominant mode of economic interaction and all things are valued for their intrinsic worth rather than their monetary cost.
The best articulation of this, perhaps, is in Charles Eisenstein's book Sacred Economics, which (to put his money where his mouth is) he is serializing for free at Reality Sandwich (http://www.realitysandwich.com/homepage_sacred_economics).
At a recent public talk, Eisenstein discussed how, now that we have already commodified almost all stuff as "goods", we have shifted to commodifying human relationships as "services". This is similar to Annie's thoughts about the loss of community to the marketplace. We must redefine both stuff and relationships as gifts to share rather than "goods" and "services" that can be owned and sold for profit. Only then will we have story worth teaching to our children and grandchildren.
The world of unsustainable plunder is complex and intriguing.
The world of sustainability is also complex and intiguing.
The world of unsustainable plunder is full of gratifications.
The world of sustainability is also full of gratifications.
The difference is that the world of sustainability offers a view that's coherent, understandable, and holistically connected, and satisfies our inner spirits, deeper gratifications and true needs. So the task at hand is to learn to better distinguish between the two worlds. Exposing elite propaganda that keeps us locked into the world of unsustainable plunder.
rtdrury,
Great point, thank you.
At every moment and in each action, we ALL can either vote for sustainability (new paradigm, interdependency) or what opposes life (competitive consumptiveness).
Yes.
Our ever increasing awareness and open hearted connections to each other, leads to the indispensable ability to see and
"to better distinguish between the two worlds … Exposing elite propaganda that keeps us locked into the world of unsustainable plunder"