Contribution short abstract:

Doing research with people who selfidentify as indigenous and Protestant not only leads to question a one-world view of commons but also creates a dissonance with prominent examples of uncommoning. It points to the need for a diversity of uncommons including those that bear the scars of proselytism.

Contribution long abstract:

In Cambodia, state cooptation of indigenous minority commons did not impose a Western ontology that excludes non-humans. Rather, it rendered spirit-relations normative for people to register as indigenous community. This affected highland dwellers who have been historically living at the margins of the dominant Buddhist Khmer society but gave up their spirit-practices to adopt Protestant Christianity. As they were claiming indigenous community land, government officials tried to delegitimize their request and exclude them by saying that they no longer worshipped local spirits.

Doing research with people who self-identify as both indigenous and Protestant in the highlands of Cambodia not only lead me to question a one-world view of commons, but also created a dissonance with prominent illustrations of uncommoning, or disrupting the idea of a “large space-time box that goes by itself” (Law 2015, 127). This talk not only aims at addressing the Cambodian state’s peculiar way of coopting indigenous commons, but also at reflecting upon the limits of existing examples or exemplars of uncommoning. I wish to emphasize the need to keep room for a diversity of uncommons, including those that bear the scars of (Western) proselytism. To do so, I will draw on a collective composed of Animist and Christian Bunong who recently showed an inspirational way of defending commons while accepting to “go[…] on together in divergence” (Blaser & de la Cadena 2017).

Contribution short abstract:

This contribution provides a case study of inclusion and exclusion dynamics in an ethnic Khmu setting in Laos. It documents the bottom-up enclosure of customary commons in the context of agricultural commodification and flags several conceptual issues about un/commoning arising therefrom.

Contribution long abstract:

Drawing on extended participant observation, this contribution provides an up-close, ethnographically-grounded analysis of inclusion and exclusion dynamics in an ethnic Khmu setting in northern Laos. I begin by documenting (memories of) the customary propitiation of a local hilltop and its anthropomorphic “spirit lord” as a ritual act of commoning that fostered a sense of shared custodianship and community among local Khmu. I then trace the recent dislocation of this localized, spirit-centred commons and its associated processes of commoning in the context of expanded cash crop cultivation for international (and particularly Chinese) markets. Importantly, and as I will argue, this process of uncommoning/enclosure is driven not least by local Khmu themselves, i.e. “from below”.

In so doing, this ethnographic contribution flags several conceptual issues. Firstly, it shows how desires for exclusion, contestations of uncommoning and new perceptions of common interests may engender distortingly simplifying dichotomizations of complex realities. Secondly, it challenges the widespread (and often implicit) assumption that “indigenous peoples” (a spurious and politically sensitive trope in Laos) have an intrinsic interest and sense of obligation in preserving their customary commons/commons imaginary and associated processes of commoning. Finally, this contribution speaks to questions of dis/re-enchantment and resourcification, bringing debates on “spirited” Southeast Asian modernity into conversation with claims regarding the more-than-human-cum-“ontological” dimensions of un/commoning.

Contribution short abstract:

Inquiring into the increasing detachment of houses and kinship accompanying the boom of concrete houses in Laos, I argue that this detachment is rather welcome. This case invites us to question the persistent positive bias in kinship anthropology and to investigate processes of kinship uncommoning.

Contribution long abstract:

The boom in concrete houses across the global South is often described in a language of loss – loss of building traditions and skills, loss of sociality in favor of an increasing interest in privacy, less pooling of resources, etc. But why is it, then, that in places where local building materials are available, concrete is preferred? Perhaps, this has not only to do with this material’s modern appeal, but also with its potential to uncommon social relationships and to limit socio-economic demands.

During long-term fieldwork in upland Laos, I followed the emergence of concrete houses and noticed several incisive subsequent social changes, most notably the increasing detachment of building and dwelling from kinship. Processes of uncommoning related to houses were not presented to me as mere negative side effects but as a welcome development. However, at the same time, they point to novel forms of socio-economic exclusion.

Reconsidering the change in the social relevance of houses, I inquire into the reasons for and facets of uncommoning for persons who had lively experiences of intense commoning. This case invites us to question persistent biases in kinship anthropology, notably the ‘warm, fuzzy glow’ (Carsten 2013) emanating from concepts such as the ‘mutuality of being’ (Sahlins 2011). Indeed, despite insights on the contrary, ‘kinship and relatedness are still often depicted as definitionally positive’ (Goldfarb and Bamford 2025). The longed-for solitude behind concrete walls calls us to give ethnographic and conceptual attention to processes of kinship uncommoning.

Contribution short abstract:

This paper draws on “un/commoning” as an analytical device to explore the planning and construction of Indonesia’s new capital city and the processes of inclusion and, notably, exclusion that they generate.

Contribution long abstract:

Since the initial decision to move Indonesia’s seat of government to East Kalimantan was announced in August 2019, the new capital has been imagined as a smart, green, high-tech metropolis that is supposed to reflect national identity and prove Indonesia’s progress and commitment to environmental sustainability to the world. Joko Widodo, the former Indonesian president who was instrumental in driving the project forward, has developed a particularly strong vision of Nusantara, as an inclusive city, an open city and a city for all. Nusantara’s image as a city in which all social classes live side by side and have equal opportunities to participate in the development of this new metropolis stands in stark contrast to the criticism of the lack of public consultation and public participation which is voiced in East Kalimantan. Here, several local actors complain about exclusionary practices that have characterised planning, land acquisition and construction activities so far. Environmental organisations further express concerns as the construction of the city requires a considerable amount of natural resources and is thus likely to further extractivism in the area. In addition, the energy needs of Nusantara are to be covered by hydroelectric power plants in the hinterlands of East Kalimantan, the construction of which is already causing concerns about displacement and loss of land among the population in the upstream areas. In this paper we draw on “un/commoning” as an analytical device to explore the processes of inclusion and, notably, exclusion that the planning and construction of Nusantara generates.