지난 3월 26일 월요일 연구센터 2018년 3월 월례포럼 [제주 공동자원과 커머닝]을 진행했습니다. 제주대학교 공동자원과 지속가능사회 연구센터는 2018년 3월부터 《월례포럼: The Forum for the Commons and Sustainable Society》을 진행하고 있습니다. 그 첫 번 째 월례포럼 주제로 “제주 공동자원과 커머닝”이란 주제를 선정하고, 이 주제로 논문을 준비 중이신 이재섭, 최현, 정영신, 김자경, 윤여일 선생님을 모시고 발표를 듣는 시간을 마련했습니다. 곧 발표를 앞둔 논문 초고들이어서 전체를 공개하는 것은 어렵습니다만, 포럼에서 제기된 핵심적인 문제의식만은 [커먼즈:Zine] 2호에 담아 공유하고자 합니다.
첨부된 파일을 다운로드 받으시면 됩니다.
1. The ownership and villiage-making as a recent commoning process in jeju : Lee Jae Sub and Choe Hyun
We selected the villages of Kashi-ri and Seonhwil 1-ri as the comparative study. Gashiri is a town where villagers own a large amount of land. On the other hand, Seonhwil 1-ri does not own a village forest called Dongbaek Dongsan, Which is stat-owned. although the village does not have ownership, it operates relatively well. The two villages utilize land and forests to promote the development of the village. We have found that the type of management of commons is more important than the ownership of commons.
2. From de-commonisation to re-commonisation : Conceptual approach for the social movement research of commons by Jeong Young Shin
In the academic sphere, Korean Commons studies have mainly focused on the efficient use of existing resources, or have evaluated the success and failure cases of collective action in light of institutional design principles proposed by Ostrom. Ostrom's research program, based on research work in the academic field, has understood as a collective action the process of forming institutions suitable for the sustainable management of resources while understanding commons as resources with competitive and non-dominant resources (CPRs). This approach sees the existence / absence of cooperation among users as an important problem situation surrounding Commons. However, the demand for Commons in the real world and the terrain of the movement surrounding it are beyond the problem posed by Ostrom. As we can see from the movement of creation of the city commons in the center of the world system and the resistance movement to defend the traditional commons in the periphery, the social movement that demands the commons as well as the social conflicts surrounding the commons, It is necessary to theorize about the principle of change rather than continuation or maintenance.
3. Sunureum as a traditional commoning in Jeju: reinterpretation of Jeju's Livestok culture by Kim Ja-Kyung
In order to answer questions about what makes Commons, we need to look at the life of Jeju people who have been using and managing nature jointly. We will look at the elements that emerge in this process, the system that villagers use and manage nature, the customs and institutions that appear in the process of operating the system, and how they are regarded as a culture of mutual assistance. This will be an empirical basis for living world economics using Commons.
In Commons' roles and functions, it is recognized as a commons when there are survival and social security functions, and of course it is closely related to life. Commons is a tool of life. This is also different from productivity. In terms of availability of those without productivity, it is close to just distribution. While this is used in the local community, it becomes a custom and culture as it is passed down from generation to generation in the community. It is acknowledged as a member of the community when the reciprocal of reciprocity is shared by experiences of interaction. And it can be interpreted that this is represented as Suhkurun, an experience of cooperation in Jeju.
4. From commoning without commons to political commoning : focusing on the commoning activities of Gangjeong village peace movement by Yoon Yeo Il
The singularity of considering Gikimee (village guardians) as a commoner is that they are creating a new common in the course of the destruction of the Commons. If Gangjeong's primary struggle was a struggle to defend the Commons, the secondary struggle is to do commoning. In the primary struggle was defeated. With the loss of commons, people are deprived of autonomy to meet basic needs for livelihoods, economic security and social connections. As a result of the defeat in the primary struggle, the village community was destroyed and the collective ability of the villagers to control their everyday life was degraded. In this situation, Gikimee, as a commonor, is transforming life into community, producing new commons, and developing collective ability for the sustainability of the movement. Furthermore, they are focusing on the resilience of nature when seeking sustainable sports and life directions. I do not intend to present the practice of Gangjeong-keeper as a success story. It is an object of thought that the social movement theory based on the commons paradigm should actively explore. However, the limits of the practice of these guardians need to think in terms of restructuring the community based on Commons.