Bioregional Commoning: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Third: we need BOTH traditional institutions AND network commons. This isn't either/or—it's both/and. Like a body needs both bones and blood, bioregional coordination needs structure AND flow. Each offers gifts the other lacks." | Third: we need BOTH traditional institutions AND network commons. This isn't either/or—it's both/and. Like a body needs both bones and blood, bioregional coordination needs structure AND flow. Each offers gifts the other lacks." | ||
(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/bioregional-coordination-sacred-work) | |||
==[[Institutional Self-Negation]]== | |||
Benjamin Life: | |||
"Let's talk about what bioregional backbone organizations can uniquely provide. These are traditional nonprofits, but with a radically different purpose. | |||
Think of them as translation membranes — interfaces between the dying world of empire and the emerging world of bioregional commons. They speak the old language when necessary: receiving grants, signing contracts, interfacing with government agencies, providing tax receipts. | |||
But here's what makes them revolutionary: they practice institutional self-negation. They explicitly recognize their own limitations. They refuse to claim authority over the bioregion. They commit to flowing significant resources directly to network-governed allocation. They implement rotating leadership with clear term limits. They make their decision-making and resource flows transparent. | |||
They exist to serve, not to control. To enable, not to direct. This institutional humility is a spiritual practice — an ongoing recognition that the institution is always servant to the living commons, never its master." | |||
(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/bioregional-coordination-sacred-work) | (https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/bioregional-coordination-sacred-work) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:36, 18 August 2025
Contextual Quote
digital networks enable commoning at bioregional scale
< We're taking ancient wisdom about how to share and govern together, and we're applying it with modern tools at the scale of living systems. >
"We can practice collective governance across entire watersheds, with thousands of participants, in ways our ancestors couldn't imagine. Networks become the soil in which bioregional commoning can grow.
I also want to honor David Henke and the early leaders of the bioregional movement who, starting in the 1980s, began exploring what governance could look like if it emerged from the land itself rather than being imposed upon it. The bioregional congresses of that era weren't just gatherings—they were laboratories for reimagining democracy from the ground up, asking: "What if governance grew from watersheds instead of arbitrary political boundaries?"
But here's what the bioregional congresses of the 1980s and 90s taught us: this can't just be something we do at annual gatherings. The praxis — the daily practice of bioregioning, of commoning — is what matters. Bioregional governance needs to be embedded in every organization we're part of, every network we participate in, every project we undertake.
This means your food co-op starts making decisions based on watershed health. Your community land trust considers itself accountable to seeking advice and consent from the local watershed council. Your transition town initiative coordinates with your local regenerative farmers network. Every organization and relationship becomes a site of practice for bioregional commoning.
We're taking ancient wisdom about how to share and govern together, and we're applying it with modern tools at the scale of living systems. But most importantly, we're making it real through daily practice, not just annual convening. This is how we govern like the forest — not through one time events, but through the ongoing, embedded practice of caring for place."
- Benjamin Life [1]
Characteristics
Benjamin Life:
"So what are our design principles for bioregional coordination?
First and foremost: a bioregion cannot be owned. Any attempt to claim authority over a bioregion reproduces colonial logic. A bioregion is a living system that exists before and beyond any human organization. We can be in relationship with it, we can serve it, but we cannot control it.
Second: we need polycentric governance — many centers of decision-making, like organs in a body. Each watershed council, each neighborhood assembly, each working group has its own sovereignty while being part of the larger whole.
Third: we need BOTH traditional institutions AND network commons. This isn't either/or—it's both/and. Like a body needs both bones and blood, bioregional coordination needs structure AND flow. Each offers gifts the other lacks."
(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/bioregional-coordination-sacred-work)
Institutional Self-Negation
Benjamin Life:
"Let's talk about what bioregional backbone organizations can uniquely provide. These are traditional nonprofits, but with a radically different purpose.
Think of them as translation membranes — interfaces between the dying world of empire and the emerging world of bioregional commons. They speak the old language when necessary: receiving grants, signing contracts, interfacing with government agencies, providing tax receipts.
But here's what makes them revolutionary: they practice institutional self-negation. They explicitly recognize their own limitations. They refuse to claim authority over the bioregion. They commit to flowing significant resources directly to network-governed allocation. They implement rotating leadership with clear term limits. They make their decision-making and resource flows transparent.
They exist to serve, not to control. To enable, not to direct. This institutional humility is a spiritual practice — an ongoing recognition that the institution is always servant to the living commons, never its master."
(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/bioregional-coordination-sacred-work)