It may be affecting the resources, which many locals accepted, but they did not see that it was up to them to prevent such. They believed it was for the external authorities to ensure poaching was prevented, and by not doing so, it legitimised it in their eyes.
The locals believed that Fr McDyer had confused the notion of common ownership with that of cooperation; furthermore, they could not comprehend how on the one hand he expected them to act as friends and equals and on the other to act as businessmen. As the locals saw it, businessmen act independently, in self-interest, whereas family and community work as one. Generally Taylor discovered that the locals had no objection to the idea of private ownership per se, it was more so, that they as a community did not want to take on such responsibility, as it would entail taking on authoritative roles, thus each one of them would become a bailiff to some extent. This was not an appealing proposal to the Teelin community who preferred to turn to external authorities when and if necessary. If they were to accept McDyer's proposal they would experience an uncommon restraint' in having to refrain from poaching which considering the tradition was most unlikely (Taylor:1987:303). Therefore, they would end up trying to police one another to try and ensure that poaching did not continue in the interest of the business, which, according to the locals would destroy the sense of closeness and cooperation present within the community. They believed, they would become everything that a community is not and ought not to be, and this was simply not acceptable, as one man said we're all to close here' (Taylor:1987:303).
Therefore, according to Taylor, the locals saw the proposal as creating serious role conflicts within and amongst themselves. If they accepted it, different authoritative positions would arise within their egalitarian community, were they presently saw and accepted one another as equals. To disrupt this equality and impose levels of authority would surely, they believed, cause the river to run red with blood' (Taylor:1987:303). Rather than work as a community using the present system, where each naturally cooperated with the next, each individual and or family would take on their own ideals, in the race for capital and its benefits. It is the fact that they, as a community, do not own the river and its resources, that enables them to cooperate so easily. Whereas, if they bought the river each individual would be driven to seek greater gain, as greater gain is the ultimate outcome of capitalism. They community at large believed in the current system where authority was located externally. Ultimately, Taylor shows that Teelin as a community is defined in relation to external sources of authority' and there rejection of the proposal was really the refusal of authority within the community itself (1987:303).
Hobsbawm, Eric John and Terence O Ranger. (1992), The Invention of Traditon. (Cambridge University Press).
Taylor, Larry (1987), The River Would Run Red with Blood''': Community and Common Property in and Irish Settlement', pp,291-307 in Mc Cay, B. and J.Acheson, eds, The Question of the Commons. (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press).
Learn more about this author, Jennie Mc Donald.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Add your voice
Know something about The importance of ethnography in media research?
We want to hear your view.
Write now!
Featured Partner
Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP)
The Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP) has partnered with Helium, giving you the chance to write for a cause....more
hide