Commons Science

To develop our argument, we have divided the text in three parts.
In the first part, we explore the historical origins of the condition of science as a public good. In the second part we show the problems in making analogous the conditions of commons science and open science, which is equivalent to saying that the demands of the open access and open data movements are necessary but not sufficient.
The third section argues that the condition of common good is not reached when the good is for everyone but when it is, among all, that which provides the conditions for the common good, to meet the requirements of the third sector, along with the private and the public. Science understood as a commons would not be public but open science or extramural science yet not merchantilized. Neither would it be formal science, as usual, but capable of including the dimension of citizenship in the design and evaluation of projects and their outcomes. It would not be the same science as always but now in a democratic or postmodern version. Science is not a commons as a result of being more functional, open or militant, but for being the fruit of the implementation of contrastive, collective and recursive cognitive practices. The commons would then be a historically differentiated way of producing knowledge, community and commitment. Thus, in the third part, more than science as a commons, we will discuss commons as a science.

This paper explores the ways in which a theorization of heritage as a commons complicates the relation of heritage and identity. The paper analyzes how cultural heritage management and theorizations connect with the “old” vernacular commons in rural Europe, communist ideologies, Hardin’s and Ostrom’s theories, and finally with Hardt and Negri’s ideas. Can heritage managers and scholars work as mediators between the global flows of value and local communities, promoting redistributive policies and identity building capacities in the face of overarching commodification processes? How can the notion of a “shared” heritage be mobilized by local communities to implement politics of redistribution and rethinking of ownership against an alienated “world heritage” that frames itself as a globally “shared” common heritage of humanity? What are the consequences of treating heritage as a commons for identity politics?