‘Decommonising the mind’: historical impacts of British imperialism on indigenous tenure systems and self-understanding in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland

Iain Mackinnon

doi:10.18352/ijc.814

Abstract

Common pool resource theory appears to assume that external authorities are responsible for initiating attempts to ‘decommonise’ common property regimes. An unusual decommonisation proposal put forward in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland in the 1960s questions this assumption; in this instance the decommonisation proposal was initiated by rightsholders in the common property regime. The proposal would have enabled rightsholders to purchase their arable fields, thus privatising them and removing them from the hybrid tenure system called crofting. A critical historical and contemporary survey of the political contexts surrounding this proposal discloses that the particular hybridity of the ‘crofting commons’ is a result of a historical process of ‘domestic colonization’ within Britain, and that this tenure system exists within a deeply-sedimented structure of domination whose normative assumptions may have influenced the decision of the rightsholders to propose decommonisation in the first place.

Highlights

This article outlines a long historical process of ‘decommonisation’, the process by which a joint governance regime for a common pool resource loses its defining ‘Decommonising the mind’: historical impacts of British imperialism characteristics of resource system excludability and resource unit subtractability (Ostrom 1990; Nayak and Berkes 2011, 132)
A critical historical and contemporary survey of the political contexts surrounding this proposal discloses that the particular hybridity of the ‘crofting commons’ is a result of a historical process of ‘domestic colonization’ within Britain, and that this tenure system exists within a deeply-sedimented structure of domination whose normative assumptions may have influenced the decision of the rightsholders to propose decommonisation in the first place
On the basis of this historical account the article goes on to argue that the request by members of the crofting common property regime to deregulate themselves and take on private property rights was occurring within, and partially in response to, a long-standing structure of domination which over generations had limited the ability of rightsholders to think within and act upon the conceptual structure and cosmology by which indigenous governance regimes for common land had been maintained before the application of ‘domestic colonization’

Summary

Introduction

This article outlines a long historical process of ‘decommonisation’, the process by which a joint governance regime for a common pool resource loses its defining ‘Decommonising the mind’: historical impacts of British imperialism characteristics of resource system excludability and resource unit subtractability (Ostrom 1990; Nayak and Berkes 2011, 132). It draws attention to an apparently unusual moment in this historical process at which rightsholders in the common pool resource themselves appear to have initiated a call for its privatisation It outlines a proposal initiated in 1967 by rightsholders in land which had been made subject to the Crofting Acts created by the British Parliament in the late 19th century. Drawing on work from political theory on the nature and power of the state it argues that common property regimes for common pool resources may exist within deeply sedimented structures of domination which influence the development and integrity of common property regimes and the viability of common pool resources, and have the capability to impact on the self-understanding and worldviews of common pool resource members In doing so it raises questions about where the boundary lines of authority for common pool resources are situated between the claims of private rights, state sovereignty and common property regimes. On the basis of this historical account the article goes on to argue that the request by members of the crofting common property regime to deregulate themselves and take on private property rights was occurring within, and partially in response to, a long-standing structure of domination which over generations had limited the ability of rightsholders to think within and act upon the conceptual structure and cosmology by which indigenous governance regimes for common land had been maintained before the application of ‘domestic colonization’

Decommonisation

Hybridity and decommonisation in crofting tenure

The political context of the internal decommonisation proposal

Conclusion

Findings

Literature cited