Commons and the nature of modernity: towards a cosmopolitical view on craft guilds

Author:

De Munck BertORCID

Abstract

AbstractThis paper argues that historical research on late medieval and early modern craft guilds fails to escape teleological and anachronistic views, including when they are addressed as commons or ‘institutions for collective action’. These present-day conceptual lenses do not only create idealized views on guilds, but also of the contexts in which they operated, especially the state and the market. This is especially the case with neo-institutional views on the commons, which fall back on a transhistorical rational actor, who can choose between three options for the allocation of resources and surpluses, namely the state, the market and the common. The paper shows that guilds were fundamentally entangled with both the state and the market and that their ethic implied a less utilitarian and instrumental attitude towards natural resources. The consequence of this is that the history of the guilds offers different lessons to present-day commoners than those implied by present-day research. With an eye at launching a reflection on that, I argue in favour of a cosmopolitical perspective, which invites to take fundamentally different worldviews seriously. This includes questioning our own conceptual and analytical abstractions like the state, the market and the individual, up to and including the very distinction between nature and society or nature and politics, which are at the very basis of modern science itself.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Sociology and Political Science,History

Reference166 articles.

1. Arvidsson, A. (2019) Capitalism and the commons. Theory, Culture & Society, Online first. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419868838.

2. Ault, W. O. (1972). Open-Field Farming in Medieval England. London: George Allen and Unwin.

3. Belfanti, C. M. (2004). Guilds, Patents and the Circulation of Knowledge: Northern Italy During the Early Modern Age. Technology and Culture, 45(3), 569–589.

4. Bettoni, B. (2015). Usefulness, Ornamental Function and Novelty: Debates on Quality in Button and Buckle Manufacturing in Northern Italy (Eighteenth to Nineteenth Centuries). In De Munck, Bert and Lyna, Dries eds. Concepts of Value in Material Culture, 1500–1900. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 171–205.

5. Black, A. (2009). Guild & State: European Political Thought from the Twelfth Century to the Braekevelt, Jonas, Buylaert, Frederik, Dumolyn, Jan and Haemers, Jelle (2012) the politics of factional conflict in late medieval Flanders. Historical Research, 85(227), 13–31.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3