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?

When it comes to knowledge infrastructure, such as schools, texts, academic programs, conferences, and digital tools, I have been an end-user but have never paid careful attention to them before. In short, they have been invisible to me, even though I have always been using and surrounded by them all the time. Therefore, I must rethink and reposition myself, from a user to a participant, to understand and answer the questions: 1) What are my personal knowledge infrastructures? Where are they? 2) How are they functioning? and 3) How can I actively and critically engage with knowledge infrastructure? 

If I could define knowledge infrastructure as an entity that produces, collects, accumulates, maintains, and transfers knowledge between people, generation to generation, then its shape has been dramatically transformed through history: Groups of Individuals – Academia/Schools – Religious institutions/Church – Government/Public school system – Private corporations – Digital form of information. This means that knowledge infrastructures have been changing and interacting with social/political/cultural demands.

As a user of knowledge infrastructures, I have experienced old ones (school, texts, printouts, email, online journals, and online bookstores) and have been struggling with using new ones (coding programs, the CUNY system, online classes). However, in terms of actual usage, it is not easy for me to draw a sharp line between the old and new ones, since they are always overlapping and involving each other, even in a class. For example, one of my classes this semester is an online class, so I use Microsoft Teams; but I read a physical textbook that was delivered from Amazon.com. Plus, I must be familiar with Python, a coding language, to do my assignments every week in Google Colab. My knowledge infrastructure, in this respect, is seamlessly woven together. Even Amazon’s supply chains should be included in the list.

This embeddedness of infrastructure also sways its user’s position. I could function as a part of the infrastructure simply by paying tuition, buying goods, or working as a TA or RA at the institutions; these activities would help the infrastructure secure its maintenance and strengthen its influence. The problem is that, regardless of my intention, I could be fortifying corporations’ dominant influences on knowledge infrastructures as well; what makes the problem worse is that I cannot avoid using this system because there are no available alternatives. Whenever I use CUNY’s system as a student, I automatically become a consumer of Microsoft products. The strategy of corporations is transplanting their system, which is another infrastructure, into knowledge infrastructure and monopolizing it, and this forces users to adjust their habitual practice to the monopolized system. Corporations do not have to monopolize knowledge itself, but they invisibly support users/participants by generously offering their system.

This trend will never disappear if academic communities limit their role in producing knowledge and only seek efficiency for it. Also, we cannot just deny and refuse the existing knowledge infrastructure. Doing so could be a ‘one step forward, two steps backward’ mistake. Instead, in this connection, I think Alan Liu’s argument of being a lightly-antifoundationalist should be a possible lead to the problem: “it is precisely the ability to treat infrastructure not as a foundation, a given, but instead as a tactical medium that opens the possibility of critical infrastructure studies as a mode of cultural studies.”