Tragedy of the Commons

Before I start looking into my specific cases, there is one more topic I want to look into. As we've discussed (that's not a royal we, since I discussed it with you...), collective actions are an important feature of social movements.

There's a large body of literature covering collective action and examining what causes people to cooperate for the the greater good. In early studies into the subject, it was widely accept that individuals would voluntarily act to achieve common interests.

In 1965, Mancur Olson argued against this point in his book The Logic of Collection Action:

...unless the number of individuals is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests.

The argument used by Olson and others who accept this view is largely based on the premise that acting in the interest of the collective good is often detrimental to individual interests. One example of this is the case in which someone who doesn't contribute to the public good still gets to benefit from it. Think of arguments against socialism: if wealth is redistributed equally, then it's in an individual's self-interest not to work and instead benefit from the work of others.

Many discussions of collective action center around shared resources. In a 1968 article published in Science, Garrett Hardin presented a model for collective action around a shared resource. Imagine shepherds sharing a field. Each herder receives a direct benefit from his or her own cattle. However, the negative impact felt from the field being over grazed is not felt immediate. In this situation, it is in the self-interest of an individual herder to have as many cattle as possible - thus getting the largest benefit without "missing out" by letting the pasture be over grazed by others' cattle. Herdin explained:

Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination towards which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.

So, what does this have to do with social movements?

Well, I'm glad you asked. While the collective action of social movements often do not involve divvying up a resource, there is an important self-interest v. collective interest issue at stake. In even the most just social movement, taking action on its behalf can lead to a number of personal costs. At the most basic, these costs are the time, energy, and money used to take a specific action. In extreme cases, the cost can involve imprisonment, injury, or death.

The lesson social movement marketers need to learn from the tragedy of the commons is to remember that individuals act out of self-interest, not out of collective interest. To encourage an individual to act for a cause - even one that would bring great benefit to society - the communicator must convince them that the action is in their own self-interest.