The Police and Commons
Thinking with Ivan Illich about why (and if) police are necessary
“By definition, resources call for defence by police. Once they are defended, their recovery as commons becomes increasingly difficult.”
- Ivan Illich
There was much furore recently about defunding the police, the consequence of protests about violence inflicted by law enforcement officers. I hope it goes without saying that if the police serve their community, they do not kill their fellow citizens. But there is something fascinating about the concept of ‘defund the police’. It is a ridiculous and paradoxical slogan, although not for the reasons that are usually trotted out. The police are far from the necessity they appear to be, yet if we wished to live in a world without police, we would also have to live in a world where it would be meaningless to ‘defund’ them. Both ‘defunding’ and ‘police’ presume economics.
It has been said that science (well, magical science) is the religion of our age, but I might counter that it is, and has been for some time, economics. We have utterly forgotten that there was an era - and for parts of our planet it was not that long ago - when people lived in communities that upheld tacit collective agreements about how to live. These cultures, which were centred upon the village, were not subject to economics as it is dogmatically understood. Rather, life in the world of the village was about the commons.
Imagine a village on the edge of the sea, that lies also on the edge of a forest, through which a river runs. The sea is a commons, from which the villagers draw fish to eat. The forest is a commons, providing shelter from the sun, nuts to eat, and dry branches to make fires. The river is a commons providing fresh drinking water for all. Because everyone shares in the benefits of these commons, nobody has a reason to harm them. If the village cuts down a tree to build a hut, it is sure to replant it, but felling the entire forest is beyond comprehension - it would be to commit violence against your own world.
No police are required in a world of commons. Police are only required when this common world ends and becomes instead a world of resources. Resources are scarce, we are told, but they are so because they are standing reserves to be exploited and depleted. Once the forest becomes a standing reserve of timber, it can be used up - conveniently transforming it into grazing land for livestock, a phrase that effortlessly conjures up these animals’ role as a standing reserve. The world of resources is one that requires the police to defend these possessions, to ensure they are not taken from their owners. This world of resources is the world of economics, and this is the origin of all police.
Ivan Illich, whose epigram commences this reflection, observed that the commons can exist without police, but resources cannot. The moment we live in the economic world, the world of resources, the police become a requirement. It is difficult to conceive this all-but-lost world of the commons - I am asking us to imagine living on an alien world, albeit one that was the dominant form of human life on this planet for far, far longer than the insignificant speck of time the economic world has dominated. Yet if we truly understand what it means to live in a world of commons, we will appreciate why ‘defund the police’ is a hilariously contradictory battle cry.
Do not be confused: none of these remarks are arguing for communism or socialism or anything of the kind. Karl Marx was, after all, just another economist. Communism is just as committed to resources as its rival, it merely deploys its police to protect the state’s ownership of them rather than enforcing private ownership. The ideological opposition between ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’ has effectively concealed the authentic divide between a world of resources and the many worlds of the commons it has supplanted. The New Normal is merely the next logical step in the world of resources, destroying the last of our commons - the political solidarity implied by our human rights agreements - and finally fulfilling the economic promise implied by that ghastly phrase ‘human resources’.
This question of the commons and of the ownership of land has often wrankled with me although I do not have a sophisticated enough understanding of the issues to argue them. In the world of the commons were there no resources? I mean is my hut part of the commons? Or mine? How do I defend my hut? Is our village part of the commons so that someone from outside our village can also freely/fairly (for whatever value of fair we choose) use it? Or does our village turn into "police" when they feel you are treated their resources as your commons? It seems to me there is no easy divide here.
Chris, I would find it helpful if you would provide a little more information about other entities in social reality [1] that are closely related to the concept you present here. You mentioned Ivan Illich. Where might I find comments of Ivan’s that are pertinent to your reference?
Lacking any guidance from you, I googled “Ivan Illich commons” and read his 1982 “The ‘commons’” piece at https://www.panarchy.org/illich/commons.html .
In this piece Ivan tells his story without any references to evidence. But I think it is safe to take the general societal change from ‘common’ to ‘resource’ as historical fact.
Apparently, Ivan ascribes this change to the avarice of evil individuals (the “lords”). Undoubtedly, in many specific instances the change was facilitated by aggressive, self-serving individuals, but it seems to me that more fundamental economic and social forces were at work. Despite Ivan’s rosy view of a common based society, I guess that I would prefer living in our present resource based society, even with all of its short comings and inequities. These problems, I think, can be effective addressed within a resource paradigm.
I’m having trouble following your thoughts. I think I understand (and agree) that ‘defund the police’ is, in it’s extreme, ridiculous, but paradoxical? For me, your imaginary world of commons needs clarification. You say it is a village. For me that conjures up a place of a few hundred to a few thousand people; smaller would be a hamlet, larger would be a town. Given the invariants of how human brains operate, even a village of a few hundred would have a variety of ongoing social problems that would need to be addressed. Presumably in a small village such problems could be addressed as they arose by a voluntary village council. But a village of a few thousand would probably find it advantageous to create some sort of recognized office of public safety, i.e., some sort of police.
Another problem I have with Ivan’s vision of a commons based society is that at scale they have not happened. Some hunter-gatherer bands took all of their substances from ‘the commons,’ [2] but once year-round, settled agriculture took hold my impression is that social hierarchies formed, and with them private ownership and ‘police.’
In your closing, I’m not sure what you mean by “The New Normal.” In response to “What is meant by the current phrase ‘the new normal'?” ChatGPT replied (among other things) that “Ultimately, the ‘new normal’ refers to a shift in the way things are done, which has become the expected and accepted standard.” Certainly, human rights agreements are under attack around the world. In a human society of any significant size, to be operable ‘rights’ must be encoded in laws. The police, are by definition, an agency charged with enforcing laws. So, aren’t police necessary to ensure the continuation of this common?
Are human rights in fact being eroded? In the democracies I’m not sure there is a clear-cut answer. In a democracy there will always be contention over what is a ‘right’, and what us not. Operationally, when push comes to shove, in a democracy this is decided by majority vote. There is constant disagreement and back and forth changes. As long as civility, empathy, and compromise prevail, I think that this is the best that humans can manage.
Notes
[1] For me, Stranger Worlds is a social reality entity. “The Police and Commons” is a sub-entity.
[2] The Old Way, Elizabeth Thomas, 2007.