Tragedia de los comunes
http://youtu.be/FOpfTWexD64
La tragedia de los comunes (en inglés Tragedy of the commons) es un dilema descrito por Garrett Hardin en 1968, y publicado en la revista Science. Describe una situación en la cual varios individuos, motivados solo por el interés personal y actuando independiente pero racionalmente, terminan por destruir un recurso compartido limitado (el común) aunque a ninguno de ellos, ya sea como individuos o en conjunto, les convenga que tal destrucción suceda.
Hardin utiliza el ejemplo para analizar la relación entre libertad y responsabilidad. A pesar de que su trabajo ha sido duramente criticado por otros autores, la publicación del mismo dio comienzo a un amplio debate acerca del análisis del comportamiento humano en las áreas de economía, psicología, teoría de juegos, política, sociología, etc. — in Wikipedia .
El numero de artistas, instituciones, eventos culturales y proyectos culturales colaborativos y comunitarios en el mundo desarrollado llegó probablemente a un límite parecido al de otros dominios sociales impactados por una disminución relativa de los recursos naturales e energéticos disponibles. Sobre este asunto los investigadores Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert de la University of Pennsylvania han publicado hasta ahora los resultados de varios estudios sobre el impacto social de las artes (Social Impact of the Arts – SIAP). Sus observaciones sobre la repercusión del paradigma conocido como La Tragedia de los Comunes sobre la competencia entre las organizaciones y personalidades del mundo de la cultura por los recursos monetarios disponibles son de una grande importancia, sobre todo en los tiempos de crisis que vivimos.
The arts, civic engagement, and the “tragedy of the commons”
[…]
Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert
University of Pennsylvania
June 2008The Tragedy of the Commons
Small – budget cultural organizations are embedded in an arts scene that has become increasingly marketized over the past two decades. Artistic occupations are now clearly part of the “winner – take – all” economy described by Frank and Cook, in which a few stars gain a disproportionate share of the compensation. Indeed, during the last decade, only professional athletes have had a less equal distribution of earnings than artists’ occupations. Public and philanthropic funders who used to see their task as compensating for the difficulty that smaller, socially conscious groups had in generating earnings, now often use fiscal rectitude and earned income as filters for identifying worthy and unworthy groups. Small cultural groups face increasing isolation and competition.
(…)
There is a risk that a similar process could happen in the field of civic engagement and the arts. Let’s use one concrete example. Several years ago we were asked by a local cultural group to undertake a comm unity impact study. Sure enough, we were able to demonstrate a correlation between this group’s activity and a set of positive social outcomes. If we had stopped there, we would have made the group very happy. Unfortunately, as social scientists, we felt called upon to “control” for a relevant variable — in this case, other cultural groups’ activity in these areas. When we did so, the individual effect disappeared. It wasn’t that this group made no contribution, far from it. But the social impact was a collective result of all of these organizations’ work. Suppose we hadn’t felt called upon to control for the effect of other groups. As we’ve said, the individual group would have been happy. They might have broadcast the results. Other groups would commission community impact statements. Funders at the start would be thrilled that they could identify the groups that “really” were making a difference, but over time, they might start to wonder why all of these groups keep claiming the same social impact. Like much of the economic impact literature, we would breed a cynicism that this was another case of “lying with statistics.”
[…]We’re in no position to guess what form of collective organization would make sense for smaller arts groups and artists. We do know, however, that if we persist in trying to exploit the commons rather than figure out how to exercise social control over it, the small arts sector is likely to follow in the footsteps of those English farmers who, when the commons was played out, had no choice but to find a nother line of work.
Full text here | Texto integral (en inglés)