In Remembrance of My Dear Friend Silke Helfrich, 1967-2021

It’s hard to recall exactly when my friendship and countless collaborations with Silke Helfrich began. In a strict sense, they began at the first-ever activists’ conference on the commons –  one that she organized in Mexico City in 2006 as head of the Heinrich Boell Foundation’s Mexico and Caribbean office. Silke had invited me to speak because -- even though we came from very different worlds -- we both recognized commons as effective systems for defending our shared wealth – from software to seeds to land and beyond – against capitalist enclosures.  

But our loose partnership did not really take shape until two years later, in 2008, when we both attended another early, rare gathering of activist commoners – the Elevate Festival, a four-day gathering in Graz, Austria, for indie music and political culture. In a venue literally carved out of solid rock in the 170-meter Schlossberg Hill, I heard bracing presentations about the fledgling Creative Commons project, the Science Commons and History Commons initiatives, and a mind-altering performance by remix artist D.J. Spooky interpreting Walter Benjamin’s “The Spectacle of Modernity.”

It became clear to me that this budding international subculture of commoners was a rich zone of underexplored promise – a mystery well-worth plunging head-first into. I did. Over lunch the next day at Ginko, a vegetarian restaurant, Silke and I were bubbling over with enthusiasm about “what next?” And so we began.

Over the next thirteen years, to my astonishment, we ended up working together on dozens of major and minor projects. We had no formal jobs or institutional overseers, a situation that sometimes proved precarious. But we had the freedom to do what we wanted, in the ways we wanted. And we knew we had to do this work. We somehow learned to become participant-anthropologists-activists-strategists-allies-networkers-popularizers for all things related to the commons.

Silke and I didn’t want merely to study commons as economic resources or property, in the style of traditional academics. We wanted to understand the commons as a new/old worldview that could transform the capitalist market/state system. We wanted to learn how commoning could remake the very character of politics, culture, law, ethics, and modern understandings of life itself. After experiencing decades of tepid, ineffectual results from mainstream politics, we figured, why not go for it?

And so, with an open agenda and raw curiosity (an optimistic naivete is essential to real creativity), we set out on a journey to reinvent the commons, and never looked back. A famous observation by Goethe described our rough working faith: 

Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans – that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issue from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man [sic] could have dreams would have come his way. 

Goethe memorably advised: “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.”

We didn't know that quotation at the time, but that was essentially how we worked. It was liberating. It opened open up new fields of action. I frankly wonder how my life might have evolved had I not encountered Silke as my working partner and foil, my co-investigator and reality-check. We somehow co-created each other in significant ways, or at least gave each other courage.

Raised on a farm in the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany) and educated in the social sciences and Romance languages in Leipzig, Silke’s perspectives were quite a distance from my own upbringing as a middle-class, suburban American in the 1960s. She had lived through the the GDR, the reunification of Germany, and the cruel ascent of neoliberal capitalism in Europe.

However, I had acquired a first-rate political education by working with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Hollywood producer/activist Norman Lear, and immersing myself in Washington politics and public-interest activism. Culturally, intellectually, and politically, we came from very different worlds, but we shared an elemental passion for the commons and a preternatural sense of its potential. Our differences paradoxically contributed to what I experienced as explosive creativity. 

To my absolute shock, our long, strange journey came to a disturbing end last week when I received heartbreaking news from Jacques, Silke’s partner. While attending a conference in Liechtenstein, Silke had left for a day hike in the Alps on the morning of November 10, and never returned. A search team later stated that she had had a fatal accident in “impassible terrain.”

The news has left me reeling. Speechless and numb. How could this dear friend of mine – a brilliant intellect, savvy activist, and lively, generous woman with relentless energy – no longer be a Zoom call away? How could I possibly make sense of the unfolding Commonsverse without her astute judgment and experience?  Silke’s abrupt departure has made only too clear what a towering presence she was in the world of contemporary commoning – and indeed, in the quest to envision a credible post-capitalist world.

In tribute to my dear colleague, I wish to offer some reflections on her unique personality and mix of talents. Her friendship, counsel and support over the course of fifteen years profoundly shaped how I’ve grown. Let me extend my heartfelt condolences to Clara, Paul, Jacques, Gina, Nick, Kai and family for their, and our, deep loss.

*                      *                      *

The most improbable thing may be that Silke and I lived 4,000 miles apart. She lived in Jena, Germany (and more recently in the village of Neudenau), and I lived (and still live) in Amherst, Massachusetts, a rural college town. For years, neither of us had a normal job or secure institutional support. (Since 2017, I’ve been with the Schumacher Center for a New Economics; Silke remained unaffiliated – “self-employed” – after leaving the Boell Foundation.)

Following our 2008 adventure in Graz, we knew that we had to investigate and advance the commons. Working with Massimo De Angelis and Stefan Meretz, we decided to try to convene our dream team of commons scholars and activists for a three-day retreat. We wanted to learn from Peter Linebaugh, Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis, Michel Bauwens, Wolfgang Sachs, and many others.

But how to make this happen? Once we committed, providence began to smile and nudge things in our direction. We somehow found sustainable forester and German count Hermann Hatzfeldt, who graciously offered to let us use his country residence, Crottorf Castle, built in 1550, to host our motley conclave of international commoners. I loved the conceit: commoners convening in the castle's great hall to deliberate about a different kind of future.

And so began our experiment in improvisational, low-overhead activism and culture-change. We relied on the "invisible means of support" that materializes when, as Joseph Campbell put it, you follow your bliss. At the same time, as independent actors, we were determined to steer clear of untoward ideological and institutional entanglements.

Along the way, Michael Bauwens – the founder of the Peer to Peer Foundation and a Belgian activist based in Chiang Mai, Thailand – joined Silke and me in forming the Commons Strategies Group (CSG). (Michel left CSG in 2018.) CSG was more of a name and brave aspirational statement than a real organization because, in truth, we were just a loose association of three individuals. We had no secure funding or legal standing. 

But each of us, coming from different perspectives, keenly appreciated the potential of the commons paradigm and discourse. We began to co-educate each other, trading insights and intuitions and writings. We tracked the progress of various commons projects around the world. We would meet up in Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, or wherever our speaking schedules overlapped so that we could steal time to exchange news and make sense of unfolding developments.

I sketch our unusual collaboration because it highlights Silke’s signal strength: her probing, synthesizing mind, her talent in making friends, her zeal for practical action. She got countless invitations to speak and advise, and spent many months on the road at conferences, workshops, and public talks. Through a vast personal network of commoner-friends and acquaintances, Silke learned firsthand about breaking developments in the Commonsverse before most anyone else, enriching her, and our, big-picture understanding of this seemingly marginal, offbeat world.

She was usually familiar with the hotspots of possibility out there – among Francophone commoners in Paris, Montreal, and Africa; among Syriza-affiliated commoners in Greece; and among activists in Latin American countries. She knew key commoners in Europe and spent time with activists and academics in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the World Social Forum. 

A lot of our later outreach was made possible through two seminal international conferences on the commons that we organized, in 2010 and 2013, both in cooperation with the Heinrich Boell Foundation in Berlin and especially with the support of Heike Loeschmann, Head of the International Politics Department, and President Barbara Unmüßig.

These two conferences brought together several hundred self-identified and would-be commoners around the world, unleashing enormous energies. People were empowered to have their intuitions about the commons validated. New relationships proliferated. The commons as a discourse began to grow and circulate.

In the meantime, separately, CSG hosted more than a dozen small “Deep Dives” gatherings between 2012 and 2021. These events were designed to probe timely, vexing strategic questions for which we had no ready answers. We invited key experts who could address, for example, how commoning might work constructively with state power (2016); how digital platforms might be used to spur cooperativism (2014); how various social movements might coordinate and converge (2014); and how ontological beliefs act as a hidden driver of contemporary politics (2019).

With anthropologist David Graeber, we convened a 2016 Deep Dive to explore what alternative theories of value might challenge standard economic theory, which equates price with value. Just a few months ago, in September 2021, we convened a virtual gathering of European commoner-politicians and political players to explore how mainstream policy can support commoning.

By far, Silke’s and my most challenging collaborations were our three books – the anthologies The Wealth of the Commons (2012) and Patterns of Commoning (2015), and our ambitious reconceptualization of the commons as a social system, Free, Fair and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons (2019). The Boell Foundation and Heike Loeschmann provided critical support for all three books.

The two anthologies were intended to showcase the rich diversity of contemporary commons. We wanted to show that commons are not a relic of medieval life or a backward form that strangely persists in the Global South; commons are an utterly contemporary, robust set of alternatives to the market/state system. Here again, Silke’s keen judgment, excellent education, and global web of personal friendships helped us pull the threads together.

By 2016, Silke and I realized that we had witnessed far more commoning than we could fully explain to ourselves or the public. So, with some trepidation, we set about trying to write a third book as co-authors, building on the insights of the two co-edited anthologies. We wanted to develop a grand theoretical synthesis to more accurately describe the empirical diversity of commons we had witnessed. We wanted to show that commons are not simply unowned resources, as standard economics regards them, but a dynamic, generative social form. (No 'tragedy of the commons' at all!)

Drawing inspiration from Christopher Alexander and his pattern language methodology, we sought to explain commons as a timeless social form that cannot be understood through the ontology of modern market individualism and economics. They can only be apprehended through an “OntoShift” that sees the dense relationality of commoning and dispenses with misleading binaries like individual/collective, rational/irrational, and selfish/altruistic.

This was a major breakthrough in our thinking about commons. Here again, Silke was a relentless force pushing us into unknown territory. The book that resulted, Free, Fair and Alive, was a crazy, exhilarating, and exhausting three-year sprint.

We once spent a week huddled in a friend’s house in the Berlin suburbs, talking, debating, and writing for fifteen hours each day. What are the recurrent “patterns of commoning”? What should they be called? How does this square with what we’ve seen and what Elinor Ostrom wrote? Our deliberations would yield what we eventually called the “Triad of Commoning” framework.

On another occasion, I squeezed in a few extra days following a conference in Arnhem, Netherlands, so that we could think through our fledgling idea of “relationalized property,” which we see as a hallmark of many commons. We came to realize that the realities of commoning could not be expressed through the epistemology of property rights or by the premises of market “rationality” and individualism. We needed to develop a new vocabulary that could express a different logic and ethos than economistic terms allow.

Silke’s sheer grit and determination – and faith in creative improvisation – helped us power through many obstacles, intellectually and practically. When we couldn’t raise enough money to hold a deep dive at a retreat center, she decided to host the gathering at her home. We slept in spare rooms, cooked together, and washed the dishes together.

Once, to allow Michel, me and her to reconnect as Commons Strategies Group after a long time without seeing each other, she prevailed on her friends at Oya magazine to host us in their remote German village on the North Sea. On another occasion, she cajoled a friend in Florence, Italy, to help us find a place in the Tuscan countryside where we could meet and catch up after our criss-crossing travels. As always, this led to serendipitous encounters with commoners – in this case, the Nidiaci Garden in central Florence.

And so our adventures kept unfurling. Unexpected developments and new friends somehow always materialized to push our work along.

Silke and I also spent time at each other’s homes to craft our books. At one such visit to her place, a film crew filmed us deep in discussion, which was later turned into a short promotional video for our book. It gives a nice sense of how Silke and I “thought together.”

Or check out this short video from 2010, produced by Remix the Commons, filmed right after the Berlin commons conference, in which Silke explains her feelings at that moment:  

“You get the idea that the commons are touching the hearts of people. Once that happens, it will develop like a virus. Suddenly people discover that they have a lot in common. Once someone in the water movement can sit down and talk with somebody from the free hardware movement – and realize that the commons is about something really intimate that we all share – the idea is planted like a seed and people’s ability to build relationships is only a matter of time. You start to talk about how to take our life into our own hands.”

While we often collaborated, we each steered by our own stars and pursued our own projects. I would report from my circuits of travel and reading, struggling to keep track of her crazy travel schedule and offbeat meetings. I would receive emails from her saying that she had just met with socially minded bankers in Switzerland, or was conferring with a graduate school interested in developing a commons curriculum, or had just met the most interesting Ph.D student, or was working with a team of commoner-translators (Spanish, French, Greek, Portuguese) to translate Free, Fair and Alive.

That’s another thing -- her fluency in multiple languages gave her a passport to communicate with a very broad, eclectic group of commoners worldwide.

With so much passion, talent, idealism, and energy, it is no wonder that Silke was chronically over-committed and often exhausted. She was so generous with her time and so eager to help a promising project. She would fret about her jam-packed schedule, but she never really took steps to deal with it. She couldn’t help herself. She often worked late into the night, calling me when it was midnight her time in Germany (and 6 pm on the east coast of the US). 

I realize that hiking the Alps is a different proposition than exploring modern commons, but let it be said that Silke was rarely fazed by the problem of navigating “impassible terrain.” She always plowed ahead. She would route around a problem, or jump over it, or burrow under it, or work to transform it. The depth of her commitment was amazing. Her audacious, lively mind was utterly thrilling. Her open-hearted friendship was a gift. I can hardly believe she is gone, and I will miss her terribly.

In Remembrance of My Dear Friend Silke Helfrich, 1967-2021

It’s hard to recall exactly when my friendship and countless collaborations with Silke Helfrich began. In a strict sense, they began at the first-ever activists’ conference on the commons –  one that she organized in Mexico City in 2006 as head of the Heinrich Boell Foundation’s Mexico and Caribbean office. Silke had invited me to speak because -- even though we came from very different worlds -- we both recognized commons as effective systems for defending our shared wealth – from software to seeds to land and beyond – against capitalist enclosures.  

But our loose partnership did not really take shape until two years later, in 2008, when we both attended another early, rare gathering of activist commoners – the Elevate Festival, a four-day gathering in Graz, Austria, for indie music and political culture. In a venue literally carved out of solid rock in the 170-meter Schlossberg Hill, I heard bracing presentations about the fledgling Creative Commons project, the Science Commons and History Commons initiatives, and a mind-altering performance by remix artist D.J. Spooky interpreting Walter Benjamin’s “The Spectacle of Modernity.”

It became clear to me that this budding international subculture of commoners was a rich zone of underexplored promise – a mystery well-worth plunging head-first into. I did. Over lunch the next day at Ginko, a vegetarian restaurant, Silke and I were bubbling over with enthusiasm about “what next?” And so we began.

Over the next thirteen years, to my astonishment, we ended up working together on dozens of major and minor projects. We had no formal jobs or institutional overseers, a situation that sometimes proved precarious. But we had the freedom to do what we wanted, in the ways we wanted. And we knew we had to do this work. We somehow learned to become participant-anthropologists-activists-strategists-allies-networkers-popularizers for all things related to the commons.

Silke and I didn’t want merely to study commons as economic resources or property, in the style of traditional academics. We wanted to understand the commons as a new/old worldview that could transform the capitalist market/state system. We wanted to learn how commoning could remake the very character of politics, culture, law, ethics, and modern understandings of life itself. After experiencing decades of tepid, ineffectual results from mainstream politics, we figured, why not go for it?

And so, with an open agenda and raw curiosity (an optimistic naivete is essential to real creativity), we set out on a journey to reinvent the commons, and never looked back. A famous observation by Goethe described our rough working faith: 

Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans – that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issue from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man [sic] could have dreams would have come his way. 

Goethe memorably advised: “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.”

We didn't know that quotation at the time, but that was essentially how we worked. It was liberating. It opened open up new fields of action. I frankly wonder how my life might have evolved had I not encountered Silke as my working partner and foil, my co-investigator and reality-check. We somehow co-created each other in significant ways, or at least gave each other courage.

Raised on a farm in the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany) and educated in the social sciences and Romance languages in Leipzig, Silke’s perspectives were quite a distance from my own upbringing as a middle-class, suburban American in the 1960s. She had lived through the the GDR, the reunification of Germany, and the cruel ascent of neoliberal capitalism in Europe.

However, I had acquired a first-rate political education by working with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Hollywood producer/activist Norman Lear, and immersing myself in Washington politics and public-interest activism. Culturally, intellectually, and politically, we came from very different worlds, but we shared an elemental passion for the commons and a preternatural sense of its potential. Our differences paradoxically contributed to what I experienced as explosive creativity. 

To my absolute shock, our long, strange journey came to a disturbing end last week when I received heartbreaking news from Jacques, Silke’s partner. While attending a conference in Liechtenstein, Silke had left for a day hike in the Alps on the morning of November 10, and never returned. A search team later stated that she had had a fatal accident in “impassible terrain.”

The news has left me reeling. Speechless and numb. How could this dear friend of mine – a brilliant intellect, savvy activist, and lively, generous woman with relentless energy – no longer be a Zoom call away? How could I possibly make sense of the unfolding Commonsverse without her astute judgment and experience?  Silke’s abrupt departure has made only too clear what a towering presence she was in the world of contemporary commoning – and indeed, in the quest to envision a credible post-capitalist world.

In tribute to my dear colleague, I wish to offer some reflections on her unique personality and mix of talents. Her friendship, counsel and support over the course of fifteen years profoundly shaped how I’ve grown. Let me extend my heartfelt condolences to Clara, Paul, Jacques, Gina, Nick, Kai and family for their, and our, deep loss.

*                      *                      *

The most improbable thing may be that Silke and I lived 4,000 miles apart. She lived in Jena, Germany (and more recently in the village of Neudenau), and I lived (and still live) in Amherst, Massachusetts, a rural college town. For years, neither of us had a normal job or secure institutional support. (Since 2017, I’ve been with the Schumacher Center for a New Economics; Silke remained unaffiliated – “self-employed” – after leaving the Boell Foundation.)

Following our 2008 adventure in Graz, we knew that we had to investigate and advance the commons. Working with Massimo De Angelis and Stefan Meretz, we decided to try to convene our dream team of commons scholars and activists for a three-day retreat. We wanted to learn from Peter Linebaugh, Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis, Michel Bauwens, Wolfgang Sachs, and many others.

But how to make this happen? Once we committed, providence began to smile and nudge things in our direction. We somehow found sustainable forester and German count Hermann Hatzfeldt, who graciously offered to let us use his country residence, Crottorf Castle, built in 1550, to host our motley conclave of international commoners. I loved the conceit: commoners convening in the castle's great hall to deliberate about a different kind of future.

And so began our experiment in improvisational, low-overhead activism and culture-change. We relied on the "invisible means of support" that materializes when, as Joseph Campbell put it, you follow your bliss. At the same time, as independent actors, we were determined to steer clear of untoward ideological and institutional entanglements.

Along the way, Michael Bauwens – the founder of the Peer to Peer Foundation and a Belgian activist based in Chiang Mai, Thailand – joined Silke and me in forming the Commons Strategies Group (CSG). (Michel left CSG in 2018.) CSG was more of a name and brave aspirational statement than a real organization because, in truth, we were just a loose association of three individuals. We had no secure funding or legal standing. 

But each of us, coming from different perspectives, keenly appreciated the potential of the commons paradigm and discourse. We began to co-educate each other, trading insights and intuitions and writings. We tracked the progress of various commons projects around the world. We would meet up in Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, or wherever our speaking schedules overlapped so that we could steal time to exchange news and make sense of unfolding developments.

I sketch our unusual collaboration because it highlights Silke’s signal strength: her probing, synthesizing mind, her talent in making friends, her zeal for practical action. She got countless invitations to speak and advise, and spent many months on the road at conferences, workshops, and public talks. Through a vast personal network of commoner-friends and acquaintances, Silke learned firsthand about breaking developments in the Commonsverse before most anyone else, enriching her, and our, big-picture understanding of this seemingly marginal, offbeat world.

She was usually familiar with the hotspots of possibility out there – among Francophone commoners in Paris, Montreal, and Africa; among Syriza-affiliated commoners in Greece; and among activists in Latin American countries. She knew key commoners in Europe and spent time with activists and academics in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the World Social Forum. 

A lot of our later outreach was made possible through two seminal international conferences on the commons that we organized, in 2010 and 2013, both in cooperation with the Heinrich Boell Foundation in Berlin and especially with the support of Heike Loeschmann, Head of the International Politics Department, and President Barbara Unmüßig.

These two conferences brought together several hundred self-identified and would-be commoners around the world, unleashing enormous energies. People were empowered to have their intuitions about the commons validated. New relationships proliferated. The commons as a discourse began to grow and circulate.

In the meantime, separately, CSG hosted more than a dozen small “Deep Dives” gatherings between 2012 and 2021. These events were designed to probe timely, vexing strategic questions for which we had no ready answers. We invited key experts who could address, for example, how commoning might work constructively with state power (2016); how digital platforms might be used to spur cooperativism (2014); how various social movements might coordinate and converge (2014); and how ontological beliefs act as a hidden driver of contemporary politics (2019).

With anthropologist David Graeber, we convened a 2016 Deep Dive to explore what alternative theories of value might challenge standard economic theory, which equates price with value. Just a few months ago, in September 2021, we convened a virtual gathering of European commoner-politicians and political players to explore how mainstream policy can support commoning.

By far, Silke’s and my most challenging collaborations were our three books – the anthologies The Wealth of the Commons (2012) and Patterns of Commoning (2015), and our ambitious reconceptualization of the commons as a social system, Free, Fair and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons (2019). The Boell Foundation and Heike Loeschmann provided critical support for all three books.

The two anthologies were intended to showcase the rich diversity of contemporary commons. We wanted to show that commons are not a relic of medieval life or a backward form that strangely persists in the Global South; commons are an utterly contemporary, robust set of alternatives to the market/state system. Here again, Silke’s keen judgment, excellent education, and global web of personal friendships helped us pull the threads together.

By 2016, Silke and I realized that we had witnessed far more commoning than we could fully explain to ourselves or the public. So, with some trepidation, we set about trying to write a third book as co-authors, building on the insights of the two co-edited anthologies. We wanted to develop a grand theoretical synthesis to more accurately describe the empirical diversity of commons we had witnessed. We wanted to show that commons are not simply unowned resources, as standard economics regards them, but a dynamic, generative social form. (No 'tragedy of the commons' at all!)

Drawing inspiration from Christopher Alexander and his pattern language methodology, we sought to explain commons as a timeless social form that cannot be understood through the ontology of modern market individualism and economics. They can only be apprehended through an “OntoShift” that sees the dense relationality of commoning and dispenses with misleading binaries like individual/collective, rational/irrational, and selfish/altruistic.

This was a major breakthrough in our thinking about commons. Here again, Silke was a relentless force pushing us into unknown territory. The book that resulted, Free, Fair and Alive, was a crazy, exhilarating, and exhausting three-year sprint.

We once spent a week huddled in a friend’s house in the Berlin suburbs, talking, debating, and writing for fifteen hours each day. What are the recurrent “patterns of commoning”? What should they be called? How does this square with what we’ve seen and what Elinor Ostrom wrote? Our deliberations would yield what we eventually called the “Triad of Commoning” framework.

On another occasion, I squeezed in a few extra days following a conference in Arnhem, Netherlands, so that we could think through our fledgling idea of “relationalized property,” which we see as a hallmark of many commons. We came to realize that the realities of commoning could not be expressed through the epistemology of property rights or by the premises of market “rationality” and individualism. We needed to develop a new vocabulary that could express a different logic and ethos than economistic terms allow.

Silke’s sheer grit and determination – and faith in creative improvisation – helped us power through many obstacles, intellectually and practically. When we couldn’t raise enough money to hold a deep dive at a retreat center, she decided to host the gathering at her home. We slept in spare rooms, cooked together, and washed the dishes together.

Once, to allow Michel, me and her to reconnect as Commons Strategies Group after a long time without seeing each other, she prevailed on her friends at Oya magazine to host us in their remote German village on the North Sea. On another occasion, she cajoled a friend in Florence, Italy, to help us find a place in the Tuscan countryside where we could meet and catch up after our criss-crossing travels. As always, this led to serendipitous encounters with commoners – in this case, the Nidiaci Garden in central Florence.

And so our adventures kept unfurling. Unexpected developments and new friends somehow always materialized to push our work along.

Silke and I also spent time at each other’s homes to craft our books. At one such visit to her place, a film crew filmed us deep in discussion, which was later turned into a short promotional video for our book. It gives a nice sense of how Silke and I “thought together.”

Or check out this short video from 2010, produced by Remix the Commons, filmed right after the Berlin commons conference, in which Silke explains her feelings at that moment:  

“You get the idea that the commons are touching the hearts of people. Once that happens, it will develop like a virus. Suddenly people discover that they have a lot in common. Once someone in the water movement can sit down and talk with somebody from the free hardware movement – and realize that the commons is about something really intimate that we all share – the idea is planted like a seed and people’s ability to build relationships is only a matter of time. You start to talk about how to take our life into our own hands.”

While we often collaborated, we each steered by our own stars and pursued our own projects. I would report from my circuits of travel and reading, struggling to keep track of her crazy travel schedule and offbeat meetings. I would receive emails from her saying that she had just met with socially minded bankers in Switzerland, or was conferring with a graduate school interested in developing a commons curriculum, or had just met the most interesting Ph.D student, or was working with a team of commoner-translators (Spanish, French, Greek, Portuguese) to translate Free, Fair and Alive.

That’s another thing -- her fluency in multiple languages gave her a passport to communicate with a very broad, eclectic group of commoners worldwide.

With so much passion, talent, idealism, and energy, it is no wonder that Silke was chronically over-committed and often exhausted. She was so generous with her time and so eager to help a promising project. She would fret about her jam-packed schedule, but she never really took steps to deal with it. She couldn’t help herself. She often worked late into the night, calling me when it was midnight her time in Germany (and 6 pm on the east coast of the US). 

I realize that hiking the Alps is a different proposition than exploring modern commons, but let it be said that Silke was rarely fazed by the problem of navigating “impassible terrain.” She always plowed ahead. She would route around a problem, or jump over it, or burrow under it, or work to transform it. The depth of her commitment was amazing. Her audacious, lively mind was utterly thrilling. Her open-hearted friendship was a gift. I can hardly believe she is gone, and I will miss her terribly.

Equity Research Symposium

All are welcome to a webinar symposium presented by the Tufts Research Group on Equity in Health, Wealth, and Civic Engagement on Friday, November 19, 2021 from 10:00 am to noon ET. Register here

Agenda

(10-11:15) Presentations of current research, moderated by Shikhar Shrestha:

  • Jennifer Allen, ScD, MPH, Parents’ Willingness to Vaccinate Children for COVID-19: Conspiracy Theories, Information Sources, and Perceived Responsibility.
  • Eden Shaveet, BA, Marissa Gallegos, BS, Catie Urquhart, Web-Based Health Information Seeking Methods and Time Since Provider Engagement: Reflections on Access Equity.
  • Wenhui Feng, PhD, Ideology and health behavior.
  • Megan Mueller, PhD, Equity and the “pet effect”: Complexities in understanding how pets support health outcomes.

(11:15-noon) Panel discussion: Examining our Definition of Equity

What is implicit conception of “equity” is represented on the website, with its data-visualization tool? How should people think about equity?

  • Peter Levine, PhD, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Tufts Johnathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life (moderator)
  • Lionel McPherson, PhD Tufts Department of Philosophy
  • Felipe Dias, PhD, Tufts Department of Sociology
  • Elizabeth Setren, PhD, Tufts Department of Economics 

(The graphic above is a sample result from the tool on the homepage.)

Society is corrupt? Found a new college!

I have all kinds of (unoriginal) doubts about the new venture called University of Austin. The promise to create a novel financial model sounds empty until they actually describe it. (Since more than 3,500 US colleges and universities compete today, I would guess that great ideas for saving money have already been tried.) At least in Bari Weiss’ version, the case for a new university rests on a damning portrait of the existing ones that doesn’t match what I observe. And, as someone who values freedom of expression and robust debate, I don’t see a serious effort to grapple with the challenges to freedom, such as directives by donors and foundations, state regulations, the decline of tenure, and shrinking liberal arts enrollments. (Liberal arts courses are the most natural homes of vibrant debate.)

On the other hand, there is nothing more traditional than a group of Americans issuing a jeremiad against their doomed and corrupt society and founding a new college as a solution. That describes Calvinist pilgrims, Jeffersonian democrats, Catholic immigrants, Midwestern progressives, formerly enslaved people, Mormons in Utah, boosters of new Western states, sixties idealists, fundamentalist revivalists, and more.

If anything, it is disappointing that the rate of founding new colleges and universities has slowed so much. Many of the new ones appear to be conventional branch-campuses of existing state systems–important for meeting demand but not necessarily innovations.

Fig 1, shows that the total number of colleges and universities rose rapidly from 1918 to 1998 but peaked around 2013 and has fallen since.

Data from Thomas D. Snyder, 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 (to 1970) and NCES Digest of Education Statistics, 2019 (NCES 2021-009) after that date

That graph does not adjust for population growth. If we value choice and innovation, we might like to see more colleges and universities per capita, which would mean fewer people per existing colleges (shown in my second graph).

The nineteenth century actually exhibited a worsening of this measure, because population growth outpaced even the rapid formation of new institutions. Much of the 20th century saw improvement, although the number of new institutions could not quite keep up with the Baby Boom in the 1960s. Of late, we have seen more people per college.

Same data as fig. 1, with population adjustments by author

The total number of colleges and universities that are open in a given year doesn’t quite indicate the rate of foundings, because older institutions go out of business. Tewksbury (1932) estimated that four out of five antebellum colleges failed. I can’t find continuous data on new foundings for US history as a whole, but the third graph indicates a rapid increase in that measure from 1820-1860.

Data from Snyder, table 27

I would place University of Austin in that tradition. I am not enthusiastic about their diagnosis or plan, but I think it’s appropriate for disaffected people to start new institutions so that we (and they) can find out what their ideas would really mean in practice. That is how we got the array of colleges and universities that we see today, from Oberlin College to Liberty University, from UCF (with 66k students) to Deep Springs College (with fewer than 30), from Notre Dame to Naropa University in Boulder, CO. I’ve mentioned some outliers, but the overall trend is increasing similarity or “institutional isomorphism.” I’m for innovations that mix things up.

See also: the Harper’s letter is fatally vague; the ROI for philosophy; rationales for private research universitiesthe weirdness of the higher ed marketplacewhat kind of a good is education?; a way forward for high culture etc.

Enjoy the Flight

You can’t track swans across the sky. No trace.
The air they’ve passed as clean as what they breathe.
This is because they never cling nor hoard,
Just stretch their necks and feet and beat their wings.
Or so it was said in a treasured verse:
Words uttered and echoed and inked and taught.
Yes, but what of those other travelers?
The ones who have stowed their treasures aboard?
The carpeted cabin is dimmed and hushed.
The engines that thrum and gently shake them
Churn and burn and scrawl a long vaporous line,
Orbiting the orb where swans swim in breeze.

(Weimar, Germany, Nov. 5-6)

New Civics-related Lessons for Teaching the Holocaust Now Available

Good morning friends. This Holocaust Education Week here in Florida, we are please to share with you a new set of stand alone lessons that connect civics concepts and ideas to aspects of the Holocaust. These lessons are for middle and high school students and cover a wide spectrum. Please note that a free Florida Citizen log in may be required.

What was the Holocaust?

In this lesson, students will understand the key concepts about how and why the Holocaust happened. Students will view a detailed timeline through a series of short video clips and analyze how the Nazis persecuted and murdered Jews as well as other people targeted during the Holocaust (1933 -1945).

Civil Disobedience

In this lesson, students will be introduced to the concept of civil disobedience through direct instruction and methods of classification regarding types of resistance. The students will then examine multiple primary sources of Jewish and non-Jewish resistance during the Holocaust. Students will then classify the type of resistance presented in the primary source scenarios.

Comparing Preambles

This lesson focuses on how leaders shape the goals and purposes of government as established by the preambles to their constitutions. In this lesson students will compare the Wimar Republic and the United States preambles to important foundational documents. They will complete this by using primary text excerpts and other visual resources. Through analysis and application students are able to see the goals and intentions of these governments.

Declaring Independence

In this lesson, students will shape arguments about Israel and its connection to independence on the international stage using the seven reasons outlined in the Israel Declaration of Establishment. Students will outline the relationship between Israel and the United States. This lesson will support student understanding as to why newly independent nations seek such recognition including trade opportunities, diplomatic relations, and military protection.

Due Process

This lesson will consider what it means to apply due process to a scenario based on a true event. They will be given multiple scenarios from former Nazi guards and their role in the Holocaust. Students will then apply the requirements of due process to each scenario.

Loss of Natural Rights

In this lesson, students will learn about how the Nazi regime used various social, political and legal tools to exclude Jews from society. Students will view seven scenarios in Nazi Germany that depict a loss of rights. Each scenario will include several artifacts such as images, data, or text, that the students will use to determine which rights are being denied.

Nazi Propaganda

In this lesson, students will define propaganda and how propaganda is used to support a government’s agenda. Students will apply critical reading and thinking skills to various media presentations through analysis of the techniques commonly used in Nazi propaganda. Students will analyze how Nazis used propaganda to indoctrinate and manipulate the German people.

Preventing Genocide

In this lesson students will apply their knowledge of the rule of law and forms of government by comparing two forms of government (autocracy and representative democracy) and their impact of the rule of law comparing Nazi Germany to the United States government. This will be completed by using a student friendly reading and then constructing a two column comparison chart.

Rule of Law & Forms of Government

In this lesson students will apply their knowledge of the rule of law and forms of government by comparing two forms of government (autocracy and representative democracy) and their impact of the rule of law comparing Nazi Germany to the United States government. This will be completed by using a student friendly reading and then construct a two column comparison chart.

Wagner-Rogers Bill

In this lesson students will apply their knowledge of the legislative process by examining a proposed bill from Congress regarding refugee quotas at the start of World War II. Students will complete a close read activity using a primary source document (Wagner-Rogers Bill) to determine the author’s purpose. Through this lesson they will be able to connect how the United States attempted to respond to the Jewish refugee crisis.

You can find all of these lessons over at Florida Citizen.

Teaching the Bonus March with the Hoover Library!

Good afternoon, friends! Did you miss yesterday’s webinar with the Hoover Presidential Library and Museum? It’s now available online! Click here to view it.

Join Elizabeth Dinschel, Archivist and Education Specialist from the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum for her session: The Bonus March: How to Teach History with a Civics Lesson

In 1932, World War I veterans boarded freight trains from Portland, Oregon, to Washington, DC, to lobby Congress for early payment of a bonus that was scheduled to be paid in 1945. On July 28th, 1932, the police, and later the military, put down a riot made up of nearly 60,000 Bonus Marchers. This webinar will show how to blend primary sources, historic narrative, and civics into an inquiry arc using the Bonus March. 

Don’t forget to sign up for our next webinar with the Truman Library to discuss Truman and the Steel Crisis!

the ROI for philosophy

In Monday’s Washington Post, Jon Marcus writes that “one of the most basic measures of student success” is whether a degree in a particular subject “will provide [graduates] with the gainful employment they need to make it worth the price.” As an example of a bad outcome, he notes that “a philosophy degree from Oberlin costs $142,220 and graduates two years later make $18,154, on average.”

This fact comes from a study by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREO), which “conclude[s] that more than a quarter of programs — including most of those in art, music, philosophy, religion and psychology — leave students financially worse off than if they’d never enrolled.” I’ll raise a few methodological questions later, but first–how should we think about the values at stake here?

Preston Cooper of FREO writes:

This isn’t to say that lower-earning majors are worthless. Society needs artists and musicians. But low incomes for these majors signal a supply-demand mismatch. Universities are producing too many art majors and too few engineering majors relative to the number of jobs available in each of these fields. As a result, employers bid up the wages of engineers while surplus artists flood the labor market. The answer is not to eliminate low-earning majors nationwide, but to reduce their scale.

Many (not all) art majors want to be artists, and if artists’ earnings are very low, that suggests a problem. One solution would be to reduce the number of art majors. Another would be to expand society’s demand for artists (which doesn’t necessarily imply government funding for arts, although that could be one strategy). A third response is to expect artists to tolerate low pay–as we have long done. Which solution we prefer depends on how important we think art is for the society as a whole.

Liberal arts majors are different. Few philosophy majors, for instance, ever enter the job market for philosophy. They end up as lawyers, k-12 educators, business people, founders of LinkedIn–and of course, the proverbial taxi drivers who can quote Kant. The purely economic question is not whether we are producing too many historians, philosophers, and literary critics, but whether a liberal arts education has sufficient value in the general job market.

If philosophy majors get good jobs, that is because employers value clear writing and good reading skills, or because completing a liberal arts degree signals “cultural capital” and membership in an elite.

If, on the other hand, the data show that fields like history and philosophy produce low wages, that suggests two significant problems. First, if majoring in these disciplines is financially costly, they will be luxury goods that only wealthy families can afford–which is bad for the disciplines and unfair to young people of other backgrounds. Second, if we assign most of the society’s work of historical and philosophical inquiry and art criticism (etc.), to professors of those subjects, and if the number of jobs for professors is affected by the number of majors in their disciplines, then these social functions will be limited. We won’t get a very impressive culture under those circumstances.

We need philosophical inquiry, historical depth, cross-cultural understanding, and aesthetic excellence. Those ideals would not, by themselves, justify liberal arts majors that turn out to be costly for individuals. After all, there are other ways for a society to inquire into philosophical questions than to educate a very small number of undergraduates as philosophy majors. I am especially interested in strengthening the liberal arts outside of academia. (See a way forward for high culture.) We could consider organizing undergraduate education in ways that did not depend on majors. However, as long as we are not actually implementing any alternative strategy for producing excellent forms of culture, then poor financial returns to liberal arts majors would be a problem.

But is the empirical finding correct? The lifetime returns for a philosophy degree vary enormously by institution. According to the FREO study, majoring in philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania would net you a handsome $1,250,711 over your lifetime, but a philosophy degree from Loyola University Chicago would cost you $419,352 compared to not having a degree at all. From those two examples, one might hypothesize that philosophy pays at highly prestigious institutions, but if that’s a trend, it admits much variation. Philosophy majors from Illinois State do pretty well (ROI = $197,864), while graduates of the excellent NYU department are $259,265 worse off for having obtained a BA. This looks like noise.

One solution would be to combine the people with a given major from all universities. Apparently, 80% of philosophy & religious studies programs have negative returns if you remove financial aid and assume that students must pay the whole cost. But with a variance among philosophy programs of nearly $1.7 million–from very profitable to very costly–I am somewhat skeptical about the meaning of this aggregate statistic.

Also, the FREO study assumes (with some grounding in previous research) that 80% of the benefit of a graduate degree over a BA is attributable to the graduate degree. But it could be that majors in subjects like philosophy help students to obtain valuable professional degrees next. If that is true, the study underestimates their economic returns.

In any case, the economic question is not the only one to consider. To me, the really important question is how our society as a whole addresses ethical, interpretative, aesthetic, and conceptual matters. Offering liberal arts majors and using the revenue to fund scholarship in those disciplines is only one model. It may be a flawed one. But if it is flawed, we need better ways to accomplish the task.

See also: rationales for private research universities; the weirdness of the higher ed marketplace; David Brooks/Pierre Bourdieu; what kind of a good is education?

a simulation to teach civic theory and practice

My book entitled What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life will be released in April 2022. It summarizes the concepts and ideas that I believe are most useful for people who want to improve their communities and the world. It is based on many years of teaching undergraduates and advanced graduate students and seasoned practitioners, while studying and promoting civic education in K-12 schools.

Obviously, my list of concepts and how I think about them are completely debatable. But what if we wanted to teach many people some set of such concepts without explaining them all (as in a book or a series of lectures)? Could we teach these ideas experientially, so that students consulted manageable bites of theory as they worked together on civic problems? And could we make the learning scalable, so that students could experience it in many schools, colleges, and community settings?

I am thinking about an online simulation along these lines. …

The setting would be a fictional community–maybe a smallish US city with a declining industrial base and a diverse population. (Other versions could be built with different settings). Players could consult summary statistics about this community at any time, such as its unemployment rate, the ratio of arrests by race, or the number of people using its main park. Those statistics would be affected by the players’ choices and behavior–as well as by random factors beyond their control.

Each player would simulate a fictional character who would have personal characteristics, values, and goals; various roles (e.g., a parent of a child in the public schools; the mayor of the city); some money; and the ability to make menu-driven choices at any moment. These choices would sometimes be affected by other players’ actions. Examples might be expanding or contracting one’s own business, voting for various candidates in a mayoral election, or attending a protest, among others.

There would also be organizations: governmental agencies (such as the school board), private associations, and media platforms.* Players would have roles in these organizations, such as a member, a leader, or a subscriber. They would be able to start new associations and media platforms. Governmental agencies would be able to create new agencies under certain circumstances.

Each organization would be able to make choices, such as how to allocate its resources and govern its assets. It would have rules for making these choices, for determining who belongs and holds various roles, and for changing its own rules. For instance, the members of the school board might be elected, they might make decisions regarding the schools by majority vote, but only the city government could change these rules. Meanwhile, a private association might be structured so that anyone could join and might simply be a space for conversation, with hardly any rules.

Players would not be able to communicate with each other at will. True, in a real city, it might be possible for anyone to get any official’s email address and contact that person. But a senior official is unlikely to give a random person much attention–if any. To simulate the friction and inequality of communication in the real world, players would only be able to contact others through organizations, and each organization would have rules for interaction. For instance, members of the school board would be able to message each other freely. When they were together in a group chat, their messages would be open for anyone to read (simulating a public meeting). They could message all parents on a one-way basis. And they could maintain a message board where parents could post comments for them to read. A protest group or a newspaper would have different rules for communication. This means that if you wanted to influence the mayor, you might have to join an association in which the mayor is active, or persuade the newspaper to cover your issue and hope that the mayor reads messages from the newspaper.

The game would start with characters already holding memberships in organizations, and organizations already having rules. Characters might even have drafts of messages ready to send that would start the business of the community. (For instance, the editor of the newspaper would have almost everyone as a subscriber and would have a draft message ready to send to solicit news tips.) Once the game got underway, characters would begin to change their status in many ways and communicate with each other. As a result of all their choices, the community’s statistics would gradually shift.

Finally, each player would have a student page for work outside the game, such as short written assignments that could be graded. Here the student would also see links to accessible summaries of concepts relevant to current events in the game. For instance, if your character is dealing with a good (such as green space or public safety), you would see a link to a wiki-like entry on types of goods, drawn from Elinor Ostrom, that could inform your behavior and give you material to write about. If your character faces a conflict, you would see a short reading on negotiation. If your character is involved in a protest, you would see an entry on social movements.

I can also imagine a hybrid version, with face-to-face meetings of characters plus “meta-discussion” of issues that arise in the game occurring during class time.

*The organizations would not include for-profit firms or markets. My instinct is that fully simulating an economy would make the game too complex, even though the economy is certainly relevant. The focus would be civil society and the state, with the market somewhat to the side. However, individuals and organizations would have economic choices to make, and some characters would have disproportionate economic influence as business owners or investors. Getting them to make helpful individual choices would often be an important strategy for shifting the community’s outcomes.

Shaun Chamberlin on David Fleming’s Vision of Post-Capitalist Life

Shaun Chamberlin, a British author and activist, has long been involved with the Transition movement; with climate change activism; and with a titanic effort to popularize the work of his former mentor, David Fleming. On my latest episode of Frontiers of Commoning, Episode #20, I speak with Chamberlin about these issues as well as the fragility of capitalism and our post-capitalist future.

Chamberlin is arguably the leading authority on David Fleming’s work. Fleming was a British polymath, political economist, and cultural historian involved with the Green Party, Transition movement, and climate activism, who unexpectedly died in 2010.

He left behind an unpublished manuscript that he had been working on for 20 years, which few people had read. It fell to Shaun Chamberlin, Fleming’s long-time colleague, to turn the manuscript into Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It. The book was published in 2016 and promptly showered with awards and acclaim.

Lean Logic consists of some 600 pages of “dictionary entries,” or mini-essays, on such topics as “Climate Change,” “Reciprocity and Community,” “Debt,” and “Systems Thinking” as well as “Religion,” “Death,” “Presence,” and “Play."

Some entries are several pages; others are just a paragraph or two. Readers can pore through the entries in any sequence they find interesting, but in whatever order they are read, taken together they offer a brilliant perspective on the problems of contemporary capitalism, the vulnerabilities facing human civilization, and how a post-capitalist world will likely evolve. Especially intriguing are Fleming’s speculations into how cooperative culture will surge as modern capitalist structures and markets fall apart.

The publication of Lean Logic spurred a wide public interest in Fleming’s ideas, perhaps because he addresses topics that are very much on people’s minds, but not often approached with frank realism and subtlety.

The book’s success was helped along by a shorter companion volume that Chamberlin prepared, Surviving the Future: Culture, Carnival, and Capital in the Aftermath of the Market Economy. This book is a more conventionally structured book of essays that distills the best of Lean Logic but edits the text into a “linear read,” meant to be read straight through, from front-to-back.

The entry on “Death” gives a sense of how Fleming’s method and depth.

Death. The means by which an ‘ecosystem keeps itself alive, selects its fittest, controls its scale, gives peace to the tormented, enables young life, and accumulates a grammar of inherited meaning as generations change places….The large-scale system, relying on its size and technology, and making an enemy of death which should be its friend, joins a battle which it cannot win.”

An entry on “Carnival” explains how “the making and sustaining of community requires deep presence and empowerment, with three key properties” – a “radical break” from the everyday; the elevation of the “animal spirit at the heart of the tamed, domesticated citizen”; and a “sacrifice-and-succession” process to affirm the ability of a community to survive and even be immortal, despite the death of community members.

In other words, Lean Logic offers a lot to reflect on. If you'd like to dip into David Fleming's world and check out his sensibilities, visit the Lean Logic website at https://leanlogic.online.online.

Over the past decade, Shaun Chamberlin, while promoting Fleming’s writings, has pursued his own set of system-change initiatives. He leads a course, “Surviving the Future,” through Sterling College in Vermont. And with a friend, Mark Boyle, he recently launched “The Happy Pig,” a “free pub, bunkhouse and community space” where people can connect and enjoy each other’s company.  Chamberlin shares his research and writing at his website Dark Optimism.

My podcast interview with Shaun can be found here.