Knowledge Commons by Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design

ОБОБЩЕСТВЛЕНИЕ ЗНАНИЯ

ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ДОСТОЯНИЕ: КАК УПРАВЛЯТЬ ЭКОСИСТЕМОЙ?

ИНСТИТУТ STRELKA

2015

KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

INSTITUTE

COMMUNITY ECOSYSTEM: SHARING KNOWLEDGE TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF POWER

ОБОБЩЕСТВЛЕНИЕ ЗНАНИЯ Развитие информационных технологий и сетевого общества постепенно привело к появлению новых способов передачи знания. Переход от институциализированной структуры знания к сетевой сказывается не только на том, как мы учимся и обучаем, но особенно на том, как мы познаем и действуем — и приводит к трансформации властных отношений. На фоне демократизации гражданских процессов и повышения уровня свободы в обществе, существует реальная опасность того, что властные структуры начнут использовать новые технологии для «закручивания гаек» в социальной, экономической и политической сферах. Данный проект исследует потенциал общин (the commons) в качестве будущего мощного инструмента организации власти. Происхождение концепции общин относится к исторической эре, когда сельскохозяйственные земли находились в общественном пользовании. Сохранив историческую отсылку как к ресурсам, так к социальным договоренностям, которые обеспечивали их устойчивое использование и потребление, в цифровую эпоху общины приобрели новое значение. Современные общины регулируют отношения по поводу информации — ресурса, который может как производиться, так и потребляться технически оснащенными сообществами. Развитие концепции знания как общественного блага позволяет создавать новые источники экономического потенциала. Этот процесс значительно дестабилизирует существующий капиталистический уклад. В России общины могут оказывать серьезное воздействие на экономическое устройство, поскольку передача данных и обмен информацией в обход государственного контроля становятся одним из ключевых объединяющих факторов в российском обществе. Данный проект исследует возможность создания необычного союза между новым, технологически совершенным сетевым знанием и общечеловеческим ресурсом, известным еще с аничности, — природной средой. Сетевое сообщество, объединенное экоактивизмом, показано в борьбе с деструктивными практиками современной политики и методами экономического развития. В конечном итоге, сама природа интегрируется в информационную сеть, тем самым поднимая вопрос о границах и возможностях технологической коммуникации и будущего взаимодействия человека и окружающей среды. — Николас Мур и Изабела Чихоньска, кураторы проекта

KNOWLEDGE COMMONS Information technology and networked society are changing the ways in which we communicate knowledge. The transition from institutional knowledge structures to network knowledge structures changes not only our means of teaching and learning, but also fundamentally changes the ways in which we know and act; we are living through a transition of power relations. Although there is great potential for increased democratization and freedom due to these new relations, there is equally great danger of established powers using new technologies and means to maintain their control of social, economic, and political processes. This project investigates the potential of the commons as a social and economic infrastructure for organizing the future of power. The concept of the commons originates in resource-sharing models of agricultural societies. A reference to both the resource itself and the social agreements that enable its sustainable consumption, the commons has taken on a new meaning with the rise of information as a resource that can be both consumed and produced by technologically enabled communities. The development of knowledge commons is generating new realms of economic potential, a process which destabilizes the established capitalist order. In Russia, however, the commons may be most disruptive as a political instrument, as communities organize themselves around the transmission of information beyond the controls of government. This project proposes an intriguing connection between the new, technologically enabled knowledge network, and the ancient common resource, the natural environment. A networked community based on ecological activism is shown in a fight against the destructive practices of contemporary politics and economic development. Eventually, nature itself is integrated into the network of information, raising questions of the limits and possibilities of technological communication and the future of human and environmental interaction. â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Nicholas Moore and Izabela Cichonska, tutors

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

Over the centuries our knowledge and culture assets were enclosed by governments and corporate structures. We are transitioning to a new system, in which knowledge and culture are shared within knowledge commons, outside and beyond the control of state and corporate interests.

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

Definition of the Trend The existing global economy can be described as the economy of scarcity, and it is far from the ideal of sustainability. The experts anticipate that a next step in global social evolution is the era of collaborative commons.

DEFINITION OF THE TREND

Resource scarcity and resource distribution are perennial issues of economics. Capitalism proposes to manage all types of resources as private property; among other things, this has increasing living standards worldwide over the past two centuries. On the other hand, the capitalist paradigm has severe limitations, and the existing global economy can be described as an economy of scarcity. Furthermore, it is far is far from the ideal of sustainability. To solve problems of resource distribution, and the long-term sustainability of our way of life, many experts suggest that the next step in global socio-economic evolution is the rise of the collaborative commons. The term ‘commons’ comes from the land ownership system of Medieval England, where a common was the part of feudal land, which could be used collectively; it was literally common land. Currently the commons means any resource which is managed and consumed conjointly by a group of people.1 Elinor Ostrom’s research proves that the commons is a sustainable way to manage natural resources, without resorting to the expropriation of resources. Capitalism struggles to minimize marginal cost2. Jeremy Rifkin explains that the rise of the collaborative commons is due to new technologies and software, which approaches a marginal cost of zero. Renewable energy technologies, energy sharing, smart-grids, 3D printing, open online education, the decentralization of finance, legal contracts and governance through Blockchain applications — this is an incomplete list of innovations that employ the notion of commons. In turn, this is bringing us to a new economic system, where consumers, producers, and means of production are integrated.

his group of T people forms the community that governs the common resource.

The margin cost is the cost of producing additional units of product.

Digital technologies have given affordable opportunities for creating and sharing knowledge resources to millions of people. Critiсs highlight that private capital — with the support of state power — still controls the majority of knowledge and cultural resources, using patents and copyright legislation. Why might that be a problem, and how it can be solved? 6

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

Global Development In the modern world almost every aspect of knowledge and cultural assets existence has been commodified or has been permeated with market relations, but this capitalistic system is not perfect.

The western system of intellectual property was created to serve corporate and state needs, and almost every aspect of creating knowledge and cultural assets has been permeated with capitalist relations. We can observe the enclosure of intellectual assets, caused by the tightening of intellectual property regulations all over the world. Practice shows that copyright and patents often protect not the rights of the author, but the income of the publisher (ie, corporation). Ninety-five percent of patents are not and will never be used, so these tools are not efficient enough. Transitioning to commons can change this rigid system by pooling intellectual resources and making them accessible. This would mean transitioning to a new system, in which knowledge and culture are shared within knowledge commons, outside and beyond the control of state and corporate interests.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

Knowledge commons types and cases; commons require investments or collective donations.

Commons are coming with introducing new values and solutions. The formula ‘access is valued over ownership’ can be a slogan of knowledge commons: if we can exploit a resource conjointly with equal outcomes, we don’t need to own it. However, a knowledge commons is not necessarily the public domain, and the community that owns the knowledge commons is able to restrict access. Experts claim that open-access knowledge commons is a particular case: ‘the knowledge commons is not synonymous with open access, although the content and the community network of the open-access movement, [...], are types of commons’.3

Understanding Knowledge as a Commons by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom.

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

The Russian Condition The primary Russian issues in terms of knowledge commons are governmental enclosure of knowledge, and weak, atomised civil society.

Russia has its own unique history of collective property. The USSR was conceived as a utopian republic based on the communistic ideas of collaborative labor and collective property. However, by the beginning of 1930s it was revealed that Soviet system was not designed for providing equal rights, and that all resources and production means belonged to the state. During those 70 years, there was almost no possibility of legal, non-governmental ownership of resources. The global trend was defined as transitioning from state and corporate control of knowledge and cultural resources to their control through commons. In Russia, most knowledge resources are controlled by state power, not by private business. This affects the process of producing and circulating knowledge in general, and explains the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s restrictive and authoritarian policy regarding knowledge and information. In Russia, creating 9

THE RUSSIAN CONDITION

and developing knowledge commons can be an efficient tool for exposing state propaganda and building certainty through the distribution of facts.4 Another Russian issue is relatively low social capital.5 Public opinion surveys show low involvement in social activities: the majority of Russians (81%) are not involved in any initiative or organization, and non-profit organization credibility is also very low. This is an obstacle for commons development, as maintaining common resources often requires a strong social network. The key source of social capital is the involvement of individuals in collective actions; having membership of an online community that manages knowledge commons can be a first step.6 Creating knowledge commons can also contribute to creating commons based on tangible resources, and in particular natural resources. Now, independent knowledge commons are being used to protect the environment. Greenpeace in Russia has already examined changes in Moscow’s green areas with trees using satellite images, and the results of their investigations are being used to engage urban inhabitants and encourage them to take part in civil activities. Another example is recyclemap.ru, a collaborative database of recycling collection points.

or instance, MeF morial is a social non-governmental movement, the aim of which is collecting, storing, and proliferating evidences of political repression in the USSR. It is also involved in protecting human rights.

he Oxford T dictionary says that social capital is “the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively”.

I f members of online communities can create, aggregate and share knowledge, it can be a scenario for emerging specific knowledge commons like Harbraharbr in information technologies, and Open Street Map in open-access mapping.

The environment has been abused by Russian industry and government projects in the past, and now it is generally ignored by people and institutions, who feel little responsibility for protecting it. Using knowledge commons, Russian activists can reconnect the notion of commons to land, and can also activate powerful social forces to protect Russia’s rich nature resources.

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

Knowledge commons development in Russia generally follows global trends. Many successful knowledge commons in Russia were built on sharing free content, which is illegal in many countries. True Russian knowledge commons are usually related to local political, social, and environmental issues.

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

Russian Trajectories Commons in Russia are developing as an alternative system of knowledge resource control, which is able to compensate for the disadvantages of state regulation.

To project future trajectories of the knowledge commons in Russia, we must keep in mind three main features of commons development here. Firstly, in Russia knowledge commons often appear when the state institution fails to satisfy people’s needs, as when patient-driven knowledge commons help to overcome the shortcomings of the state medical institutions. Secondly, the knowledge commons in Russia is developing as an alternative, non-state system of knowledge and cultural resource control, which is able to overcome official disinformation and governmental abuse. For instance, the “Russian Ebola” project was started as an attempt to draw attention to ‘sudden’ deaths in police stations, and therefore to the problem of police abuse.

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

Finally, Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s low social capital complicates development for various civil initiatives, including local communities, professional unions, and non-profit organizations. Affordable digital technologies, which allow communication and knowledge sharing with almost zero marginal costs, may help to reduce social atomization. Given these conditions, we can consider several types of trajectory:

POLITICAL OPPOSITION Russian opposition members use a wide range of knowledge resources in attempts to achieve their political goals, and this strategy is likely to continue into the future. Independently produced knowledge is used to uncover state disinformation. Furthermore, the opposition creates knowledge commons as tools for overcoming restrictions on political activities and for creating alternative political institutions.

URBAN ENVIRONMENT RENOVATIONS Today in many Russian cities there are active local communities that invest their time and effort to improve the urban environment.7 Knowledge commons here can be created for the collaboration of professionals and local activists: experts in urbanism and landscape will provide activists with professional knowledge, and activists can contribute the labor which will produce results on the ground.

SOVIET HERITAGE The knowledge commons will also help preserve Soviet heritage. The USSR created a system of public culture infrastructure, including houses of culture, the education system and public libraries. These were usually used by 13

I zhevsk, Rostov, and Perm are cities with successful urban grassroots renovations.

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

Local-specific functions of knowledge commons in Russia are related to dealing with the consequences of governmental regulations.

local communities or employees of certain enterprises. Today in Russia there is still no single strategy on how to deal with this heritage. Some houses of culture have already been successfully transformed into local community centers, where citizens can meet, communicate, and take part in common activities.8 By transforming such cultural resources to commons, we can protect them from disappearing, and return them to the public domain. Public libraries, which are state property, could also be transferred to ownership by commons, to keep them from losing their vitality and value to society.

il Cultural Center Z is an example of how a renovated house of culture can stimulate creative activities and the enlargement of social capital, and as a result improve the quality of the urban environment.

A relevant example of conflicts between governmental and local community interests was movement for protecting of forest in Himky during 2007-2010.

STRUGGLING FOR ENVIRONMENT Finally, the commons can be used in the struggle for the environment. Urban ecological issues cause conflicts between the state and local communities, and more conflicts are likely in the future, as different interests compete to exploit or enjoy the resources of nature.9 Environmentalist knowledge commons will be used in two ways: to disseminate ideas about sustainable lifestyles and to reveal the truth about environmental issues. For example, Green Hunter provides people with information about environmently friendly goods and services in Moscow. Knowledge commons can provide eco-activists with tools

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

for reducing state control, not only in terms of environmental knowledge but also of environmental action. For instance, creating new devices like SensorLog, which is a tool for analyzing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and can be used for pollution tracking. It can also broadcast information to activists who can foster social change in the city.

THE FUTURE SETTLEMENT

The Future Settlement The knowledge commons will lead to ecological activists empowerment, and as a result, to managing cultural, natural, and urban assets as a commons.

We anticipate the future empowerment of the eco-movement as it builds its knowledge resources, and as it expands its influence on urban space. Creating and developing knowledge commons inside the Russian eco-movement has been ongoing since 1990, and it will continue further, despite difficulties. We believe the urban future will be mostly defined by three interrelated factors: development of technologies, efforts to keep ecological balance, and social changes. By 2065, the global shift to renewable energy sources and energy network distribution will have a significant influence on Russia. Nevertheless, the state wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t support the development of new energy technologies, but non-governmental institutions will invest in alternative sources of power. New energy sources wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t cover all the national needs, yet there will be enough for independent cooperatives 16

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

and small communities. A commons distributed electricity system will provide energy to the urban infrastructure, including the network of street lighting. The ‘Internet of things’ and new bio-technologies will advance information transmission, so mixed networking of natural and artificial elements will appear. Ecological data gathering and analysis will be as important as financial or traffic data analysis. Sensor systems and drone monitoring will track the urban environment constantly. Waste and its recycling will be the cause of many social debates and dilemmas. Falling costs of research facilities and of genetic modifications will provide independent scientists and eco-activists with new opportunities for implementing collaborative projects. Thus scientific commons will be created: open laboratories, public spaces to communicate and collaborate, fab labs, experimental farms and greenhouses, education centers, and other infrastructure. In our future vision, we imagine one of Moscow’s last ‘green wedges’, a buffer zone producing clean air for the city. This territory is the Elk Island reserve, which is under threat of destruction. It will be one of the first places where the people will use a knowledge commons as a political resource to achieve their environmentalist goals. Worried about the environmental situation in Elk Island, activists organize numerous elements that implement the joint management of knowledge and information. After unsuccessful protests against new road construction (in defense of the protected forest) they will use a special device to watch and collect data about the environment. In the year 2030, they will involve animals such as rodents and birds in this monitoring process. By 2040 there will be an open outdoor laboratory for ecosystem management and a public gene bank. After another decade, there will be devices for direct interaction with the ecosystem — bio-computers that read the signals from mycelium. By 2055, the usual elements of an urban environment, such as buildings, communications, and transport, will have active interaction with nature. In 2065, devices 17

THE FUTURE SETTLEMENT

Human and animal networks in a new ecological commons.

for communication with animals will make understanding nature possible. Later, thanks to the collective management of knowledge, the inhabitants of this settlement will be able to embed their activities in ecosystem processes and engage in hunting and gathering, without breaking the fragile balance. Eco-thinking managed by knowledge commons will shape the lives of entire communities.

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS

THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS DIRECTORS David Erixon, Anastasia Smirnova TUTOR Nicholas Moore STUDENTS Evgeniia Erdakova, sociologist, Novosibirsk; Marat Nevlitov, architect, Saransk, Russia EXTERNAL EXPERTS Polina Kolozaridi, sociologist, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Alexander Tsygankov, project coordinator, Greenpeace Russia; Philipp Kats, architect

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARD, A., SÖDERQVIST, J. (2002) Netocracy: The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism, London: Pearson Education.

Urban commons have radical potential – it’s not just about community gardens, (2015), London: Guardian.

HARDT, M., NEGRI, A. (2009) Commonwealth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. HARVEY, D. (2008) The Right to the City, New Left Review. HESS, C.; OSTROM, E. (2007) Understanding Knowledge as a Commons - From Theory to Practice, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. HYDE, L. (2010) THE ENCLOSURE OF CULTURE, [unpublished, available online http:// www.lewishyde.com/publications/essays]. KLEIN, N. (1999) No Logo, Knopf Canada and Picador. NOMINI, D. (2007) The Global Idea of ‘The Commons’, New York, NY: Berghahn Books. OSTROM, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press. OSTROM, E. (2009) “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems”. Science 325 (5939): 419–422. RIFKIN, J. (2014) The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism, Palgrave Macmillan.