The Tragedy of the Commons is an academic article written by Garett Hardin and published in 1968. The subtitle quotes, ‘The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.’ The principal themes of the text include a discussion on the problem of high levels of population growth, the central role of over-exploitation of commons in resource depletion and its connection with population growth, the absence of technical solutions, the problems in defining optimum levels of population and the definition of ‘good’, the failure of appeals to conscience and bureaucratic law and the necessity of employing alternative solutions such as enclosures and privatization of property to stop the negative effects of the use of commons. Garett Hardin was an American ecologist who centered his research on the issue of population growth and over-exploitation of resources. He is best known for his work The Tragedy of the Commons which has become one of the most frequently cited papers in environmental science.
The Tragedy of the Commons | Summary & Analysis
Hardin’s text begins with a discussion of an article written to address an issue not directly concerning what Hardin is working with. He says the reader must focus on the conclusion the author draws instead of the subject. He highlights the idea put forward by the authors that while technical solutions (which require a change in techniques of the natural sciences) are welcome, they often are not possible. He argues that there is a class of problems that do not have any technical solutions, and places his discussion of the population problem in the same category.
He asserts that people wish to solve the population problem without letting go of their own privileges and seeking to develop newer techniques such as framing the seas, but according to him, these methods are ineffective.
What Shall We Maximize?
Hardin starts off with a discussion of the Malthusian principles. He argues that since our world has finite resources in all practical terms, it can only support a finite population possible by achieving a zero population growth rate. He argues that the Benthamite philosophy of Utilitarianism of achieving maximum good for the maximum people is not possible because first, two variables can’t expand at the same time mathematically, and second, since all humans require energy levels derived from finite resources, an unlimited increase in population will necessitate reduction of individual energy levels until they reach zero, which is impossible. He also points out the theoretical difficulties in determining what is good for everyone since the definition may be subjective.
He argues that in order to reach the optimum level of population where everyone’s ‘good’ is achievable, it is necessary to determine a collectively acceptable system of weighing that decides on compromises and adjustments, yet no society currently has reached such a stage where this is possible. He is critical of Adam Smith’s theory of the ‘invisible hand’ that the pursuit of individual profit leads to collective good, and the current miserable state of the expanding population is proof of it.
Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons
In this section, Hardin considers critiques of Adam Smith’s theory, specifically the work of William Forster Lloyd, a mathematician. He elaborates on the same using the example of a hypothetical common pasture shared by multiple herdsmen. Each herdsman wants to maximize their own gain by adding more animals to graze on the pasture. However, as more and more animals are added, the pasture becomes overgrazed and eventually destroyed, rendering it unusable for anyone. Hardin labels this dilemma as the tragedy of the commons, where individuals acting rationally in their self-interest ultimately results in the collective loss of a valuable resource. He discusses other examples such as the case of oceanic territory rights and National parks, arguing that their use or function as commons has led to their overexploitation and exhaustion.
Pollution
In this section, Hardin discusses the reverse of over-extraction, which is over-pollution, wherein harmful and toxic substances are put in ecosystems. Each individual acts in terms of personal profitability which leads to large-scale degradation. He further states that while the tragedy of the commons may be avoided through the privatization of property, it is not possible to do this for resources such as air and water, rather, the concept of private property here favors pollution since it enables individuals to act according to their own will in their share of the ecosystem. He adds that the problem of pollution is a product of overpopulation which has deteriorated the natural cleansing capacity of resources.
How To Legislate Temperance?
Hardin argues that morality is produced and applicable under certain contexts, states, and systems, hence it changes with time and space. However, this idea of changing the nature of morality is something that escapes those who are involved in the process of codification. He argues that laws continue to be based on past ethics which make them unsuitable to the present problems. Additionally, the current structure of the state makes the implementation of laws a highly bureaucratic process which is also liable to corruption and malpractice. His central idea is that it is difficult to legislate and control temperance through any laws and hence what is required is corrective feedback systems that would keep custodians of the law honest whilst also developing mechanisms that invest valid authority in custodians so people follow the laws they seek to promote.
Freedom to Breed Is Intolerable
Hardin proposes the idea that in a welfare state which controls social behavior it is not possible to adopt an ‘each to its own’ attitude. This means that children who are ‘bred’ can’t be just abandoned and left on their own or get involved in a process of ‘dog eats dog’ that controls the population. Therefore, overbreeding becomes a social issue and one difficult to tackle for the state due to the overlapping of the principles of freedom to procreate and the rights of every newborn. He sees problems in ideas such as those proposed by the United Nations which give freedom to families to act in accordance with their own wishes. He asserts that one needs to see the fault lines in such an approach and consider the tragic consequences of population growth.
Conscience is Self-Eliminating
He continues his discussion on overbreeding by arguing that appeals to conscience are not sufficient to control such a process since it can cause endless debates and pleas. He states the work of C.G. Darwin to argue that since individual’s consciences differ and this difference only accumulates over time, the only solution is an evolutionary removal of conscience from human attitude
Pathogenic Effects of Conscience
Continuing his critique of appeals to conscience, he considers the issue to ‘double bind’, wherein individuals facing appeals to their conscience may either fear condemnation if they disagree or unfair distribution of resources monopolized by those who don’t disagree.
This can eventually result in a situation where individuals who are less responsible and use the resource carelessly outcompete and finally supplant those who operate carefully. He also considers the negative effects of guilt and anxiety that are caused by attempting to solve a problem through appeals to conscience.
Mutual Coercion, Mutually Agreed Upon
To address the tragedy of the commons, Hardin proposes the idea of ‘mutual coercion mutually agreed upon.’ He asserts that despite the fact that the word coercion is interpreted negatively often, it must function as a crucial form of social arrangements that prevent objects from becoming common. He argues that coercion is not some arbitrary guidelines but a mutually agreed upon measure that may not be enjoyed by everyone but nevertheless are important device for sustenance. He states that measures such as regulation, resource privatization, or other types of social action that restrict private use are necessary to prevent overexploitation. He acknowledges that the solution of private property is not without its limitations, but reiterates that unfairness to some is better than complete devastation and we do not have the time to wait for a ‘perfect reform’.
Recognition of Necessity
The concluding sections emphasize the idea that the use of commons is only explainable under optimum levels of population. In the absence of the same, it is important to acknowledge the need for collective action in the management of shared resources. Hardin suggests that societies must learn from historical examples and recognize the potential consequences of unregulated exploitation as well as continue the process of privatization. He states that past enclosures are acceptable while those in the present are criticized under the banner of rights and freedom. However, to Hardin, these small infringements on personal liberty are less important than addressing the problem at hand.
The Tragedy of the Commons | Socio-Historical Context
During the 1960s, the world was grappling with a range of environmental and social challenges. Significant economic and scientific breakthroughs during the post-World War II era fueled greater industrialization and population growth. Concerns about resource depletion, pollution, and the effects of human activity on the environment also arose as a result of these advancements.
During this time, environmental awareness and conservation movements grew in popularity as more people became aware of the possible effects of unrestrained use of natural resources. In light of this, Hardin’s essay connected with the continuing discussions about sustainability and resource management. Hardin highlighted the underlying tensions between individual self-interest and the well-being of society by framing the problem as the tragedy of the commons. His essay contested the widely held belief that people behaving in their own self-interest would inevitably result in the best outcomes for everyone.
However, beyond its value as a text written for the purposes of environmental conservation, there has also been a substantial critique of its arguments that highlight other nuances in its context.
It is worth noting that the essay was published during the Cold War era when the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism was a prominent feature of global politics. Scholars have since criticized his work as being propaganda for the promotion of private property and capitalist ethics. The issues of exploitation of resources remain undealt as big corporate firms and/or governments have used corruption and bribery to first, monopolize resources and b, exploit them unchecked. The problem of private ownership leading to unchecked exploitation and the issues of surpassing regulations through corruption and bribery are discussed by Hardin himself, but he somehow fails to address them when presenting private property as a solution. It has been argued that in an idealized world, proposed privatization regimes for land, oceans, and wildlife could theoretically satisfy the requirements for private property or market solutions, but in the real world, it is impossible to satisfy or even reasonably approximate those idealized conditions.
Beyond the Cold War, the post-World War II era was also the time when the ‘Third World’ was emerging. The Third World is used to generally refer to countries that emerged as post-colonial or post-imperial states in the 20th century. These countries with weak economies and fragile political systems were often under the influence or guidance of either Cold War camps and dependent on superpowers to support them. This is the context where scholars have traced the rise of neo-imperialism, wherein developed countries have systematically monopolized the internal resource management policies of Third World countries for their own financial gains in exchange for ostensible support being provided to develop the countries. Scholars have also looked into how the myth of the tragedy of the commons was used to promote the monopolization and enclosure of resources in the Third World.
Since its publication, the essay has been widely debated and has influenced environmental policy discussions, resource management strategies, and the understanding of collective action problems. It remains a significant contribution to the ongoing dialogue surrounding sustainability and the balance between individual rights and the protection of shared resources.
The Tragedy of the Commons | Literary Devices
Garett Hardin employs irony to highlight his arguments. He looks at the original purpose of a process or institution and then details the actual effect, pointing out the reversed nature of the consequences. His central critique of the idea of commons in the text is that a system of resource allocation that was supposed to mutually benefit everyone ends up causing inevitable ruin.
‘Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.’
When characterizing the inefficiency of using appeals to conscience to convince individuals to restrict the overexploitation of resources, he highlights how it actually leads to more exploitation and even causes negative consequences for the individual under concern.
He argues,
‘To conjure up a conscience in others is tempting to anyone who wishes to extend his control beyond the legal limits.’
He further states,
‘When we use the word responsibility in the absence of substantial sanctions are we not trying to browbeat a free man in the commons into acting against his own interest?’
He also points out the negative effects of inducing guilt in non-cooperators. He uses the rhetoric of irony to establish the negative and reverse from intended effects of appeals to conscience.
Another important theme in the text is that some common and mutually agreed upon regulations for the use of commas are necessary to prevent their overexploitation and eventual exhaustion. He also puts forth the idea that since appeals to conscience and bureaucratic law remain largely inefficient, coercive measures that are collectively agreed upon are necessary. However, he states that the current trend of liberal politics pushes forth the ideas of freedom, rights, and individuality, which work against the development of such coercive forces. He uses metaphor to compare these trends to a taboo, which disincentive criticism. While referring to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights states that ‘any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself’. He believes this to be an incorrect and harmful approach, and argues that liberal interpretations of coercion work like a taboo to prevent the conceptualization of a valid in-depth analysis or critique of such ideas.
‘At the present time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit criticism of the United Nations.’
He also uses metaphor and compares the discomfort experienced at the criticism of such ideas to the discomfort one may have felt denying the existence of witches in 16th century Salem, nevertheless, one needs to acknowledge the significance of such denials and criticisms and work on them.
‘It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the 17th century’
Occasionally, Hardin also used allusion and referred to other historical or mythological events that are not directly related to the question of property or commons.
For instance, he refers to the Witch Trials of Salem while discussing the criticism of the United Nations,
‘It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the 17th century’
He also refers to the exorcism (an adjuration addressed to evil spirits to force them to abandon an object, place, or person; technically, a ceremony used in both Jewish and Christian traditions to expel demons from persons who have come under their power, Encyclopedia Britannica) when referring to the need to remove the overpowering influence of Adam Smith in practical demography.
‘We can make little progress in working toward optimum population size until we explicitly exorcize the spirit of Adam Smith in the field of practical demography’
Hardin also uses the technique of rhetorical questions to reiterate the obviousness of some arguments.
To exemplify, he asks, ‘Is ours a finite world?’, to highlight the limited nature of earth’s resources.
He argues for the relative nature of interpreting goodness and benefits by asking:
‘We want the maximum good per person; but what is good?’
He also seeks to point out the ineffectiveness of previously used methods by asking questions about their failures or successes.
‘Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present time, even on an intuitive level?’
‘Has any President during the past generation failed to call on labor unions to moderate voluntarily their demands for higher wages, or to steel companies to honor voluntary guidelines on prices?’
Therefore, Hardin makes use of multiple literary devices to improve the persuasiveness of his text.
