Throughout readings, we recognize that the concept of commons should be redefined by overcoming Hardin’s misleading fable based on a standard economic narrative, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” First, the fable imposes an either/or choice – either privatization or government intervention – on us. However, as noted in readings, a “tragedy” is not inevitable; rather, “a socially managed commons can be entirely sustainable over long periods of time (Bollier).” In a word, there is a third way we can choose. Second, when it comes to knowledge commons, there is a distinct feature within it compared to traditional commons. Knowledge commons, such as information, scientific discoveries, and creative works, is relatively non-subtractive; this means that one’s use of knowledge commons does not reduce others’ opportunities for the commons. Knowledge (and Cultural) commons do not belong to the logic of scarcity, i.e., the central principle of the free-market myth.

In today’s digital age, with the combination of new technologies and knowledge commons, there have been many attempts to build a new form of inquiry structure. One of them was an open-access platform for scholarly societies, especially within the scientific community. Initially, the motivation behind this movement was economic because, since many academic communities have handed over their journal publishing to private companies, the subscription fee has increased dramatically, which has been a burden for many communities. Also, people in scholarly societies realized that escaping the free-market myth would benefit everyone regarding research and knowledge, namely the principle of “the more, the merrier.”

However, the new technologies enabling us to build networked environments for the knowledge commons could be another barrier for others in two dimensions: (1) Technological advances could restrict information choices and the free flow of ideas (Kranich). Also, (2) digitized information is just a pie in the sky for the marginalized groups who can’t afford the new technologies. Therefore, what we need for knowledge commons available for everyone is democratic governance structures based on communal consensus and openness. In this sense, knowledge commons is not merely a new technical term, but it must be an intellectual obligation.   

Q1) Can we put Academy back to polis?

According to Arendt, the establishment of Plato’s Academy outside of the polis after the trial and death of Socrates indicates the actual break between philosophy and politics (thought/action & theory/practice). This break has been lying within the tradition of Western thought. With the concept of knowledge commons, can we recover the democratic inquiry structure for the participation of the broader publics? Can we overcome the intellectual and cultural incommensurability among the publics with democratic governance?

Q2) Is it possible to share the ownership of the knowledge(cultural) commons between communities, participants, and institutions without discouraging individuals’ creativity and productivity?

Q.3) Is individuals’ benevolence – an act of generosity & “giving it away” – enough to secure and maintain the knowledge(cultural) commons?

In readings, authors argue that a more equitable balance should exist between the market and the commons. However, economic power based on the free-market narrative has invaded and destroyed the political realm. In this context, can we rely on the ethical practices of individuals? Isn’t it too naïve?