Community Economy: Ontology, Ethics, and Politics for Radically Democratic Economic Organizing

Abstract

Far from naming a singular postcapitalist politics, J. K. Gibson-Graham's notion of “the community economy” is a polyvalent term that condenses a number of distinct elements. Distinguishing between these and exploring their connections and tensions can clarify and strengthen what has become one of the most compelling contemporary attempts to develop a radically democratic approach to imagining life beyond capitalism. In this paper, I read Gibson-Graham's “community economy” as if through a prism, refracting it into three constituent elements—ontology, ethics, and politics—and placing them in conversation with one another via comparative explorations of both “community economy” and “solidarity economy” as contemporary articulations for radically democratic economic organizing. In teasing out their tensions and complementarities, I hope to contribute toward the further development of community economies theory as a set of conceptual tools for engaging and strengthening the complex ethical and political work of building noncapitalist livelihoods.

Key Words:

• Community Economy
• Ethics
• J. K. Gibson-Graham
• Ontology
• Radical Democracy

Acknowledgments

This paper began as a conversation with Julie Graham in her 2009 “Rethinking Economy” seminar at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. While the present text bears only slight resemblance to the tentative notes that I shared with Julie, its content was profoundly shaped by her detailed responses—scribbled in pencil across the back of multiple pages and mailed to me a few months before she died. This is a reply and a thank you. Gratitude also to Stephen Healy, Olivia Geiger, Katherine Gibson, Jenny Cameron, Rhyall Gordon, Ann Hill, Jo McNeill, Yahya M. Madra, and Maliha Safri, each for thoughtful, challenging, and immensely helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. For examples of such projects, see the “Diverse Economies in Geography: Online Bibliography,” http://phg.sagepub.com/content/suppl/2008/06/02/0309132508090821.DC2/Diverse_Economies_Online_Bibliography.pdf.

2. Even a negative ontology must be seen as an ethical and political choice and thus must be examined in terms of that which might be foreclosed or enabled by such (paradoxical) positivity. Thanks to Yahya Madra for pointing this out.