Imagining a commons-based approach to the development of culture

The very structure of open source development encourages the connection of previously disconnected projects, rather than the new creation of large-scale singular projects. What you end up with is a very functional and complete open source operating system, but one that lacks usability for a large part of the market. And this is due to challenges inherent to commons-based software development.

Alex Kozak starts this interesting contribution by pointing out the inherent weakness of free software to succeed in bringing user-friendly software to the market.

He then asks the important question: Can Free culture succeed where free software does not?

Alex Kozak:

“Imagine now a commons-based approach to the development of culture. The programmers of open source are replaced with remixers, file sharers, musicians, film makers, and instead of producing software they are producing songs, comics, movies, art, etc. Instead of large teams of producers assembled by a for-profit institution, producers arrange themselves around common interests, passions, and goals. Are the products of these teams going to be afflicted by the same access problems that open source software often is?

I don’t think it will be, because culture is much less goal-directed than software. Software is designed for specific tasks and functions. The accessibility of applications are necessarily evaluated in terms of how well they conforms to a user’s expectations of what that program does. Culture, on the other hand, is not as goal-directed, and people’s interaction with culture is a much more unpredictable and opaque than software. There is no design accessibility problem when consuming culture in the same way that there is with certain open source programs. Meaning can be given to culture, which is the opposite of how we interact with software- we often have to adjust ourselves to the constraints of particular software.

We owe a great deal to the open source community, and they will always serve as a model for the bigger and better commons-based institutions to come. What we ought to do is learn from their challenges, and help them overcome them whenever we can.”

In a different entry, the same author addresses in more depth the conditions for success for the commons:

What is the relationship between this notion of a digital commons and institutions?

I will focus here only on what my experience has taught me. It is part of the identity of my generation to create and share content on large social networks, organize events online, and share with each other our favorite music and movies, sometimes legally and sometimes not. This behavior has lead to an unconscious dedication to the culture of sharing, something essential to the development of institutions informed by the commons.

I would like to talk about what I have observed to be the conditions for creating a successful commons. I believe that new approaches to developing “real-world” commons, those based around land, water, etc., can be greatly informed by the development of “content” commons, like scientific research, music, art, etc. In a content commons, no physical commons exists- it only exists as a collection of attitudes that people have towards content. “Real-world” commons depend on these attitudes as well, only directed at physical things. Some of the conditions for creating any kind of commons are therefore psychological.

There are two necessary psychological conditions for a thriving commons: 1) the widespread agreement that a commons is desirable, and 2) the will to make valuable contributions to the commons.

After it is established that a commons is more desirable than a some other organizational system, it is often a coordination problem to transition to and then maintain that commons. The best example here is Wikipedia- it should be obvious that a knowledge-commons system like Wikipedia is theoretically sound and extremely useful to have, satisfying the first condition. But what it also requires for success are substantial contributions from knowledgeable people, and the tacit agreement that Wikipedia is the place to contribute. We must remember that a commons only works well if it enjoys continual support by a core community of contributors, and a part of that is getting potential contributors to coordinate in the same common space.

So what do we need to do to inspire commons-creating behavior? As we saw, you must first convince people that having a commons in a particular area is desirable. That’s the easy part. The hard part is getting people and institutions to materially contribute in substantial ways. I believe that capitalist ideals and market forces are desirable and beneficial in many domains, and that the rational-choice decision model is an adequate model for understanding human action. What we need to do is figure out a way to solve the coordination problem of developing a commons. We need to figure out how to convince people and new institutions that, for example, forfeiting the potential market value of their property for the benefit of a commons will be ultimately more valuable to them.

Rather than simply rejecting the model of profit-driven institutions, we must be willing to explain and advocate for developing commons on the right terms. Commons-based institutions must structure themselves in such a way that allows them to compete with traditional business models, rather than relying only on contributors that prefer a commons-based institution out of principle. The ultimate goal is that not only will new institutions prefer a commons-based approach, but they will be able to develop a commons without substantial sacrifice.

Why is it that IBM and Sun utilize the open source software development community, but many scientific communities remain closed for all but the most well-funded academics? It is because the value of a commons needs to be put in terms appropriate to the institution. In the case of academic journals, open publications have not reached the necessary level of prestige. Until open journals are able to compete in the prestige-economy, the value of that scientific commons will not be fully realized.

We must learn to pinpoint these weaknesses in commons-based institutions and deal with them on the appropriate terms, rather than forcing an ideological shift in how a contributor perceives the value of their work. If I am a scientist doing groundbreaking medical research, you must convince me that it is in my interest to publish my big research paper in an open journal, rather than the closed-format journal. You must speak to me on terms I can immediately identify with, such as receiving more constructive feedback or getting my research more attention, instead of trying to convince me on ideological terms.

The most important strategy in developing a commons should be to convince potential participants of its value, not to convince participants that the commons is ideologically desirable.

One important thing to remember is that a commons is more likely to fail if it is imposed on unwilling participants. You can insert your own historical example here. A commons must develop from the bottom up with willing and enthusiastic participants. And if we want to inspire enthusiastic participation and contribution, we must solve this fundamental creation problem by explaining the value of contribution in the appropriate terms.

The good news is that we know its possible for commons to develop around new enterprises. The programming community has been able to create a vibrant software commons, and we should be looking to their example for how so many talented people were motivated to spend their time and expertise developing free software. I recently read that open source businesses, which make money primarily by providing support for particular open source software, are doing poorly right now, because open source software is getting so good that it requires less and less support. This is a very good sign, in my opinion, since the idea of a working digital commons has been proven possible, and is positive evidence that we can motivate the creation of new commons where appropriate. We only need to recognize the obstacles in our way, and be willing to talk about the importance of a commons on terms specific to the domain in question, rather than relying on ideological arguments in every case.”

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.