Keywords

1 Introduction

The ‘commons’ or ‘common-pool resources’ [23] or ‘commons-based peer production’ [4] designate goods that are collectively used and produced. There are many kinds of commons, from natural common-pool resources (fishing grounds, irrigation canals etc.) to common productive assets and digital goods, such as open-source software. These diverse common goods are shared and administered in participatory ways by the communities which generate or use them (see [23]: 90–102, [3]).

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, several attempts to counter socio-political exclusion, the hollowing out of democracy and environmental degradation have explored diverse patterns of commoning, that is, collaborative ways of living which enact democratic ideals [2, 6]. Posing a historical alternative to neoliberalism and state socialism, the commons could guide the reconstruction of social goods and relations across a variety of fields, organizing shared resources ‘through the direct participation of citizens’ ([17]: 69–80).

Education assumes particular significance in this regard, as it can provide a catalyst for new social construction and subjective change in the direction of deeper democracy and ecology. Indeed, there is now growing research in schools of ‘educational commons’ in which teaching and learning are shaped by the educational community on terms of equal freedom and participation [9, 14, 20, 21, 25]. From a critical perspective, educational commons advance struggles against inequalities and exclusions, confronting neoliberal logics which reduce education to a private commodity and turn it into a means of manufacturing docile, indebted and ‘entrepreneurial’ subjects that pursue ‘lifelong learning’ and the accumulation of credentials ([21]: 3, 5, see also [19]: 41–43).

The commons in education can animate critical and emancipatory attempts to transform our relationship to teaching, learning and research ([21]: 3). Education would become a collective good which is created, governed and enjoyed in common by all parties of the educational community. The co-determination of learning would occur on a footing of equality, nurturing openness, fairness, equal freedom, creativity and ecological sustainability. The pedagogical common breaks thus with the competitive ethos of the market and the top-down direction of the state, disrupting also the conventional divides between teachers and students through a process of common inquiry and learning that is inventive, continuous and critical ([7]: 81, [1]: 68–69).

This chapter offers a summary account of three case studies conducted in Greece by the research team of Aristotle University, in 2021–2023, in the context of the Horizon 2020 research project SMOOTH ‘Educational Commons and Active Social Inclusion.’ The studies considered practices of commoning in diverse educational settings from the perspective of their transformative effects and their contribution to the democratic empowerment of young students in the classroom and beyond. In two cases, in the private institutions of the School of Nature (kindergarten) and the Big Bang School (elementary school) in Thessaloniki, activities of educational commons were experimentally pursued by the researcher and the staff as part of the research project. At the other site, the informal Solidarity School Mesopotamia in Moschato, Athens, the case study combined observation of existing practices with limited intervention through focus groups and interviews.

Despite the critical divergences of the educational contexts and our research methods, which are reflected in their analysis in this chapter, the studies laid out in the following corroborate our main research thesis: the enactment of educational commons, however limited and constrained, addresses inequalities and can instil radical democratic habits in young students. Beyond this broad finding, the three studies pivot around different aspects and dynamics of educational commoning, which the present chapter sets out to highlight and critically discuss.

The Solidarity School is an informal tutoring or supplementary tuition school, which has been established by the grassroots citizens’ movement Mesopotamia in the municipality Moschato-Tavros in south Athens. One of its main objectives is to support students for the courses they attend in public schools and to prepare them for public school and university entrance exams. This attachment foists constraints on education, vesting the school with a hybrid character: typically informal, but substantially geared to formal public education, transmitting the knowledge contained in public school textbooks. Yet, and this is the thrust of the argument put forward here, the commons-based organization and the alter-political nature of the school put a crucial twist on educational practice. This yields considerable transformative effects which are reflected markedly in the ambiance of teaching and learning. The School nourishes a culture of equal freedom, solidarity and civic engagement which refashions the hegemonic habitus of consumerist individualism, passivity and submission to socio-political hierarchies. The chapter argues thus that there is room for educational commons and democratic transformation even in structures which remain tailored to formal schooling but refigure educational hierarchies and modes of governance, infusing education with an alternative democratic ethos of solidarity and grassroots self-organization.

The case study ‘House in the Forest’ was carried out with twenty-two children, aged from four and half to six years old, at the School of Nature, which is a private kindergarten school located in the suburbs of Thessaloniki, northern Greece. The ‘Council for the Upgrade of the Humanity’ was the case study undertaken at the Big Bang School, which is a private elementary school based likewise in the suburbs of Thessaloniki. Fifteen children, aged twelve, participated in the research activities at the premises of the school. The two studies, in which the methodology of sociocracy proved to be a good practice fostering educational commons, further developed core insights of relevant research [21, 25, 26]. The role of teachers as ‘companions’ promoted children’s autonomy, while collective decision-making with consent educated young people in peer governance, cultivating collective consciousness and building a sense of equal power. However, the structures of private education in the two schools do not unsettle profit-driven logics in education and fail to set a stage for broader struggles for inclusive education, while the official curriculum set by the public Ministry of Education sets further bounds on autonomous commoning in education.

2 Solidarity School Mesopotamia

As stated in the poster that celebrates the ten years of its operation in 2022, the Mesopotamia Solidarity School explicitly construes education as a ‘common good’ («κοινό αγαθό» in Greek) grounded in participation, creativity, collectivity, democracy and solidarity.Footnote 1

This section will illuminate educational commons and alter-political agency in the Mesopotamia Solidarity School. It will set out from the self-presentation of the community itself but will draw mainly on the fieldwork carried out by the author on the premises of the Solidarity School from September 2022 till March 2023.

The permanent activities of the grassroots collective in the district of Moschato, Athens, comprise a Solidarity Time Bank (set up in 2011), the Solidarity Basket supplying families in need with foodstuffs (since 2014), the Cinema Club (since 2015), and the Solidarity School (since 2013). Throughout the year, Mesopotamia organizes a variety of cultural events and socio-political interventions fostering democracy, equality and inclusion, such as friendly basketball games against racism (23/12/2022), talks and open discussions on patriarchy, gender violence and LGBTQ rights (1/12/2019), book fairs, bazaars and music concerts (13/11/2022). For its resources, Mesopotamia relies exclusively on voluntary work and the donations of its friends.

As explained in its on-line self-presentationFootnote 2 and the information leaflet (2022), in Mesopotamia there are no permanent members and no board of directors. Decisions are taken consensually, without voting, in popular assemblies where people participate on equal terms. They consider all different positions in order to reach a decision which reflects the consensus of all people present in the assemblies. There are four regular assemblies: a weekly assembly in which weekly events are decided, a monthly assembly in which they collectively deliberate on proposals for actions, interventions and essays/press releases οn current affairs, and the Solidarity School assembly, held every three months with the participation of teachers, parents and custodians, and students of all ages.

The Solidarity School is an action realized through the voluntary contributions of qualified teachers. It is addressed to young students and people of any age. The school was launched in 2013. Since then, it has offered courses to hundreds of students, many of whom have acquired foreign language certificates or entered university. The school was created in the ‘society of crisis,’ driven by the need for ‘a continuous upgrading of people’s knowledge’ and qualifications at a time when access to education is subject to intensifying class exclusions and the public educational system is dismantled. Hence, this structure forms an integral part of the Mesopotamia Time Bank and its broader solidarity network.Footnote 3

Courses include supplementary tuition for high school students, preparation for the university entrance exams, foreign languages, courses of Greek language for migrants, occasional seminars and labs, such as a theatre lab, and a comics course. Τuition covers almost all subjects of the public school curriculum, from ancient and modern Greek to maths, chemistry and biology. The school proclaims that it is committed to a socially sensitive, inclusionary education. It makes decisions collectively and its everyday operations rely on ‘work groups’ (teaching, secretariat, house maintenance) in which parents and adult students are also involved. Next steps and extrovert activities are proposed and decided in the quarterly mixed assemblies by teachers, parents and students alike (information leaflet, 2022).

Τuition is free of charge. New members enrol at the premises of Mesopotamia. They register both with the school and the Time Bank, declaring the services (technical aid, education etc.) they can contribute. Adult students and parents select also the work group in which they can take part (information leaflet, 2022). Αccording to the statistics provided by a core member (M., personal communication), in February 2023 the courses taught in Mesopotamia amounted to 60, involving 40 teachers and 282 students.

Taking it at face value, this self-description highlights both the alter-political practice of the ‘citizens’ movement’ in the district of Moschato, and how this effectively constitutes a pedagogical common.

‘Alter-politics’ is used here in the sense intended by the anthropologist Ghassan [16]. It pertains to new modes of politics which have been pursued by grassroots movements and civic associations since the 1990s. Democratic ‘alter-politics’ departs both from top-down, centralized logics of political activity and from typical patterns of activism that are bent on protest and demands from the state, or they are locked up in insularity, or they step forward as a vanguard. Democratic politics and contestation are refigured thus in ways that advance diversity, openness, assembly-based democracy, attention to process, horizontality, prefiguration, visionary pragmatism, work in everyday life to meet social needs, networking and action beyond closed identities [11, 15, 16].

What marks off contemporary democratic alter-politics is the conjunction of new social construction with opposition to capitalism, patriarchy and all forms of domination ([15]: 4–7, 73–4, 223–233). This is precisely the kind of politics practiced by Mesopotamia, which contests diverse forms of domination and exploitation, from racism to hetero-patriarchy, neoliberal enclosures and statist, top-down rule. Opposition is paired with a politics of proposition that configures new social relations and assembly-based models of organization which are non-hierarchical and non-vanguardist, prefiguring thus the egalitarian democratic world this alter-politics envisions. In the case of Mesopotamia, the politics of prefiguration constructs a political, cultural and educational space which is governed by open general assemblies and an ethics of solidarity and inclusion. The solidarity, assembly-based democracy, self-empowerment and self-education marking Mesopotamia draw the outlines of a vision which is partly realized in everyday practice. The following discussion will examine how Mesopotamia’s alter-politics frames its educational commons.

The Solidarity School engages in learning and teaching as a freely shared good. All parties involved -students, guardians and teachers- manage in common the educational process on terms of equality, freedom, openness, pluralism and solidarity. The philosophy and the modus operandi of the school challenge both the profit-oriented logic of private tuition and the hierarchical governance of public education. Yet, if we construe commons not merely as an alternative within neoliberal regimes but as innovative orientations which would profoundly reshape societies, the question raised about the Solidarity School is whether it helps to induce wider transformation ([21]: 3, 5). Although, by its constitution, the School opposes enclosures along class, race, nation and gender lines, offering tuition as a common good open to all, learning is substantially defined by the public-school curriculum and state language exams. These are governed by neoliberal priorities and logics -the individual accumulation of qualifications, the training of flexible and competitive employees or ‘entrepreneurs’ for neoliberal markets. Under these conditions, to what extent could an in/formal structure such as the Solidarity School effectively cultivate an ethos of commoning and radical democratic subjectivity? A sceptic could counter that such educational commons contribute mainly to the free reproduction of labour for neoliberal societies.

To fathom the actual impact of the hybrid or liminal commons performed by the Mesopotamia Solidarity School research needs to delve deeper in the everyday relations, the practices and the subjectivities configured in this social space. This was precisely the objective of the fieldwork carried out with the community of Mesopotamia -core members, teachers and students. From September 2022 till March 2023, the author (Alexandros Kioupkiolis) visited the premises of the School on multiple occasions (21 visits), participated in 5 on-line assemblies, interviewed 16 members, held 2 focus group and carried out participant observation in 11 courses, 12 assemblies, 2 cultural events and 1 seminar.

The findings illuminate and complicate the picture, without giving the lie to this initial account. What transpired from the interviews and participant observation is that democratic alter-politics imbues the educational activities of the Solidarity School, reshapes social interaction in the classroom by generating an ambiance of horizontal democracy and solidarity, and leaves an imprint on both teachers and students. While attachment to formal schooling diminishes the scope for experiment and undercuts the drive for collective participation, the alter-political orientation of the community brings about considerable subjective and relational displacements.

2.1 The Ambiance of Educational Commons

In attending different courses at the Solidarity School, from mathematics for the 1st grade lyceum class (high school, 15–16 years old) to ancient Greek, 3d grade lyceum (high school, 17–18 years old) and English proficiency classes, one typically witnesses a blend of rigorous teaching with a laidback, sociable and informal atmosphere. Despite the age gap and the differentiation of roles, there is no sense of strict hierarchy, disciplinarity, severity or pressure. Students and teachers appear to collaborate on friendly terms in a convivial, at times humorous and joyful mood.

To illustrate, take Athina who teaches ancient Greek language for the 3d lyceum class. She starts the course (on 4 February 2023, at Mesopotamia, on-site observation) smiling and laughing. Four underage students and an adult are present in a small room. She asks one of them why there are no hand-written notes in his grammar book, and the student responds in a humorous mood: ‘I care for Oikonomou’s [the author] grammar book in the same way religious people care for the Bible. I don’t deface it in order to preserve the integrity of the book.’ The class, including the teacher, bursts into laughter. Later on, they come across the active verb  ‘αἱρῶ’, and Athina asks the students about its meaning. One of them raises his hand but hesitates as he may be wrong. Athina responds: ‘Say it, even if it is wrong, what’s the big deal?’ The grammar course goes on in the same easy-going and amiable vein for almost an hour.

Teachers, parents and young students typically attest to the good vibes reverberating in the Solidarity School. Ιn the quarterly general assembly of the School, held at a Saturday afternoon on 10 December 2022 at the Cultural Center of Moschato and attended by fifty to sixty members, Kostas takes the floor to state: ‘my daughter…comes back home happy and smiley [from Mesopotamia]. From the public school, she comes back tired.’ Αnna, a newcomer teaching mathematics and physics, adds: ‘I am also impressed at how kids…treat Mesopotamia as a company of friends, with a lot of love.’

Fanis (interview, 9 February 2023) sums up the overall feeling springing from the space:

I really enjoy the everyday dynamics of the space…The space is dynamic, we are not a model...It is unpredictable. Everyday processes are decisive, substantially…The transformations of the space and of people who participated are impressive.

According to Thibaud [30], the ambiance of a situation or a place is the feeling, the affective tonality which colours a situation or a place by conferring on them a certain characteristic appearance and sense. It is indistinguishably a sense of the self and the world, a diffuse, non-localisable and infra-conscious sense which imprints its mark on our deeds and everyday gestures ([30]: 146). We make atmospheres by establishing the conditions which make possible the appearance of an atmosphere or phenomenon ([5]: 2, 3). Ambiances or atmospheres communicate then a particular feeling to participating subjects. ‘A solemn atmosphere has the tendency to make my mood serious, a cold atmosphere causes me to shudder’ ([5]: 2).

The feeling of reciprocity, the lack of rigid hierarchies and disciplines, the friendly, jokey or even cheerful intercourse between teachers and students, the concern with meaningful learning which infuses courses at the Solidarity School is thus an effect of conditions prevailing in the broader space of Mesopotamia: solidarity, acting together for the common good, collective decision-making in open assemblies, the absence of bosses and directors, citizens’ political activism in defence of democracy.

The two focus groups the author held with eight students in a class of Proficiency in English and a third-year lyceum class (final high-school class) shed more light on this effect. The first conversation took place on 10 February 2023 (students A–D) and the second on 4 March 2023 (students E–H). Seven of the students were underage, and one was nineteen years old. The collective interviews were a culmination of the fieldwork. The author had attended their classes several times to familiarize himself with them and had already spent five months carrying out participant observation. The first noticeable finding bears precisely on the particular ambience of the School.

Student A: They [teachers] are friendlier than in private tuition centres and the school.

Student C: They create a friendly environment, and they are more willing to assist us.

Digging further into relationships and their ‘sense’ of the space, students foregrounded democracy, freedom, feeling at ease, intimacy, collaboration and understanding.

Student A: It is more democratic here, we don’t have the hierarchy that exists at school, the head of the school…because at school we get grades... Here the style is looser…

Student B: It is more relaxed and freer.

Student E: There is a more pleasant ambience, and this makes the class better. While we keep face, intimacy makes the class more efficient. Without breaking everything apart.

Student H: Teamwork prevails, there is a dialogue between teacher and students, whereas often at school this is not the case.

Several interviews with Mesopotamia members and teachers elaborated on the socio-political intent which is reflected in this ambience. Among others, Fanis, who played a key role in founding the School, spells out the political rationale underlying it:

I believe in education as a privileged part of social transformation, if people come [to Mesopotamia] for education, this is much better than doing political theory, if we want to say that we intervene in society and we are open (interview, 9 February 2023).

2.2 Commoning in and Out of This World

The ‘formal’ dimension of education at the Solidarity School forces constraints on the kind of educational commons it realizes. The levelling effect of the formal curriculum was a commonplace remark in the interviews with teachers, and it crops up immediately in a casual observation of courses (Aspasia, interview, 11 February 2023; Dinos, interview, 3 September 2022). Hence, teachers voice doubts over whether young students are conscious of the ‘difference’ of Mesopotamia as an alternative socio-political space, or they just look on the School as an institution of supplementary tuition which is free of charge (Nikos, interview, 24 October 2022; Adriana, interview, 5 December 2022).

The educational commons staged by the Solidarity School remains thus at a remove from a full-fledged mode of commoning in which the entire community of learners, teachers and guardians would freely co-construct the learning subjects and practices by co-managing the school on a basis of equality. The broader contents and objectives of schooling are predefined insofar as they conform to the formal curriculum, while the actual participation of young students and many teachers in the co-management of the school is low.

But this very limitation aims at reversing inequalities and exclusions in present-day society. By providing free and high-quality supplementary tuition for the public high school, for university entrance exams and foreign language certificates, the School effectively assists students from lower income classes and diverse national-cultural backgrounds in overcoming class barriers and gaining access to higher education, scientific learning, professional skills and formal qualifications.

Aspasia dwells on how the incumbent neoliberal government (2019–2023) pushes young students from lower strata to drop out of education and to turn to job training. Against such elitist policies which narrow down mental horizons and professional prospects for working class youth, Mesopotamia sets out to defend general public education and encourages youth to ‘dream freely’ for their future (interview, 11 February 2023). Hence, the Solidarity School is committed to extending solidarity and fuelling collective empowerment in this world. But, in the vein of democratic alter-politics ([15]: 8), the School is in this world without being of this world, nurturing radical democratic values and visions of commoning beyond it.

Challenging the hegemonic culture and the inequalities of neoliberal capitalism, Mesopotamia and the School foster solidarity, reciprocity, conviviality, equality across class, race, nation and gender lines, the levelling of rigid hierarchies, care for others and the world at large. Young students feel freer in the classroom itself, in their intercourse with each other and their teachers. The atmosphere of companionship, solidarity and conviviality bolsters youth from strained family backgrounds, who find at the School a safe space in which they feel at ease and mutually supported (Athina, 11 February 2023, Dinos, 3 September 2022).

Moreover, young students enjoy real opportunities for participation in decision-making, mainly in the quarterly general assembly of the school, which are typically scant or absent in most public and private schools alike. Without forcing its participatory politics on young students, the School supplies this actual space for their participation. It also strives to amplify the real input of youth in other, subtler and ‘light’ ways, such as the distribution of questionnaires in which students give their feedback on the educational process and other potential issues by responding to both structured and open questions.

Finally, teachers endeavour to transform teaching into a participatory process even when the subject matter is predetermined by the public-school curriculum. Kostis’ essay-writing class for the 3d grade of lyceum (final year of high school) illuminates this. He proposes different topics of discussion to the students who pick out one or two. They engage then in a free, open and collective discussion before putting their thoughts on a paper (observation on-site, 5 December 2022). The extra-curricular courses offered at the Solidarity School make ampler room for the participatory co-construction of learning and teaching, which commons the educational practice itself. Teachers seize on this opportunity, and Mesopotamia members insist on the importance of teaching free courses outside the public-school syllabus.

2.3 Smooth Commons and Transformation

The transformative effect of free democratic education is notable at the Solidarity School, despite the burdens of formal schooling. Solidarity, reciprocity, equal freedom beyond fixed hierarchies, learning as a good-in-itself are instilled in young students through the atmosphere of the space, their awareness of its difference, and the interventions of teachers in the ‘fractures’ of the courses, sensitizing students to issues of racism, exclusion, gender inequality, new enclosures, environmental degradation and the crisis of democracy.

Sotiris fleshes out the political effect of the ambience, which is hard to quantify.

Q: How do you promote solidarity here?

Sotiris: Through the multiple interventions…The processes contribute: assemblies, actions, the rallies outside.

Q: Does the educational process contribute, as well?

Sotiris: To a small extent…. I teach courses for students to sit exams. I give hints, but I need to cover the syllabus. In other, looser courses, such as drawing, there is discussion (interview, 15 November 2022).

‘I give hints…’ Political education in the classroom is light and ‘interstitial,’ avoiding catechism of any sort. Teachers use ‘fractures’ in the curriculum, by commenting for instance on the texts of ancient Greek literature, to raise consciousness about inequalities and exclusions.

As a result, the smooth character of educational commons is heightened at the Solidarity School—‘smooth’ not only in the sense that it lowers barriers, combatting exclusions and diluting rigid disciplines. Τhe deeper educational influence on subjectivity, inclining young people towards a radical democratic habitus, are also brought about in a smooth, unobtrusive manner, respectful of individual autonomy. This cultural shift is induced through the ambience of the School, the democratic and solidary relations between students, teachers and parents/guardians, and the teachers’ socio-political interventions in the ‘fractures’ noted by Sotiris and Fontas, and illuminated in the focus groups.

The two focus groups with the students (10 February 2023, students A–D, 4 March 2023, students E–H) spotlighted the political efficacy of such smooth and hybrid commons. The groups disclosed how their attendance at the School has left an imprint on them, even if they do not regularly take part in assemblies or other events at Mesopotamia.

Q: When you leave this space will it leave an imprint on you….?

Student A: I want to become a volunteer teacher, too.

Student F: For sure we will be nostalgic, we had a nice time, and a proper class … We have developed certain moral values ... Respect…

Student D: Humanity.

Student H: Team spirit.

Student F: Collaboration, freedom of speech.

Student E: Critical thought.

Student G: Diligence, organization.

Student H: We expand our horizons…I mean that, many times, during courses we get further information that helps us, it is up-to-date and relevant for our career…

Student E: That will give us a more rounded picture of life out there.

2.4 Conclusion

The crucial takeaway from this ethnographic inquiry into a nonformal school of educational commons which teaches, however, the formal public-school curriculum, is that the ‘alter-political’ organization and philosophy of the school gives rise to a distinctive ambience which enhances the quality of formal education while smoothly ingraining in students an empowering, egalitarian and democratic habitus. Establishing structures of democratic self-governance, cultivating relations of reciprocity, inclusion and solidarity, and eroding rigid hierarchies in education can be effectively conducive to both a heightened quality of formal tuition and the formation of empowered democratic citizenship.

3 House in the Forest and Council for the Upgrade of Humanity

The case study ‘House in the Forest’ was realized in the School of Nature, a private kindergarten school located in the suburbs of Thessaloniki. Twenty-two children, aged from four and half to six years old, took part in the study. In the class, one kindergarten teacher and one teacher of ‘side support’ participated along with the researcher. The activities were held on a weekly basis, once per week for two to three hours. The main sites of the activities were the school class, the premises of the school and the forest nearby. Children, teachers and the researcher worked together with the school community, the parents and the local society to construct a house in the nearby forest that would host their common activities.

The case study ‘Council for the Upgrade of the Humanity’ was conducted at the Big Bang School, a private elementary school based likewise in the suburbs of Thessaloniki. Fifteen children, aged twelve, partook in the case study. In the class, one teacher regularly supported the study. Occasionally, more teachers -such as the theatre teacher or the music teacher- turned up and collaborated with the researcher. The activities occurred on a weekly basis, and their main sites were the school class and the premises of the school. Students set up the ‘Council for the Upgrade of Humanity,’ a team of experts whose role was to come up with solutions to major problems of humanity. To better organise themselves, they divided the class into three teams focussed on different topics (environment, energy, human rights), and they started meeting up and working to address the specific problems of their field.

3.1 Objectives and Methodologies

In the School of Nature study, the collective construction of the House in the Forest aimed at supporting children in learning and experiencing peer-governance to become autonomous and collective beings aware of diversity and interdependence.

In the Big Bang School study, the Council was designed to enable children to engage in learning activities without the assistance of the teacher(s), to work as autonomous beings and self-organized groups, to experience peer-governance by self-organizing their council meetings, making decisions together and putting their words into practice. At the School of Nature, the methodologies adopted were participatory learning, and learning from nature and in nature; project learning; peer and autonomous learning; active listening; reflection; class assemblies; community engagement and celebration of multilingualism; active research (interviews with experts); extrovert action and cooperation with other schools and experts. At the Big Bang School, the methodologies consisted in participatory and peer learning; project learning; active listening; reflection, and active research (at the school).

In addition, the Sociocratic Circle Method [8, 12, 27, 28] was used in both case studies as a methodology for facilitating communication in circles, for making collective decisions with consent and for holding open elections to allocate roles. In both school contexts, the methodologies were pursued through the school councils. Both schools had already experimented with councils in their classes. However, there was a need to empower these councils for the specific case studies we undertook. Hence, the researcher, Dr Naya Tselepi, who is a certified expert, trainer and facilitator in Sociocracy, introduced the Sociocratic Circle Method (SCM), in line with the logics and the practices of the educational commons. Through the SCM, children developed skills for peer governance, defined rules, rights, and obligations, and reached decisions with consent.

3.2 SCM Activities

To establish the basic structure needed for a council of the commons, the ‘circle,’ children in both case studies were asked from the outset to create a circle, to look each other in the eyes, to turn their bodies towards the speaking person. The facilitator provided a safe space and time for each child to be heard. She respected the right not to speak and promoted respect and active listening to others. At the same time, children experimented by addressing an entire group, waiting for their turn and actively listening to each other. A facilitating instrument employed at the beginning was the totem, or ‘magic stick,’ as it was called in both classes. Among the toddlers, most of the time the facilitation was carried out by the researcher and the teacher. The students at the primary school experimented themselves with facilitation and voted for their own facilitators.

Decision making through consent was pursued through the SCM process of ‘shaping consent’ which was coordinated by the certified facilitator. This process cannot be fleshed out here in detail. In sum, it includes all voices in the final proposal that the facilitator makes to the circle members. To reply to this proposal the options are: ‘like’, ‘dislike’ and ‘so and so,’ which are usually expressed with thumbs. Given the circumstances and the children’s needs, the researcher/facilitator introduced a more corporal mode of expressing reactions by raising hands.

‘Open election,’ another process of the SCM, was employed to allocate roles in both case studies. Its basic principle is that all members vote openly for the most suitable person for a role, justifying their choices with positive arguments. The final decision is also facilitated and reached through consent. This process helps to disclose hidden talents and encourages introverted people to participate in collective action. Within a common task, the invisible becomes visible.

3.3 Main Results/Findings

Children as commoners. Children in the School of Nature were keenly interested in the circle with the ‘magic stick’/totem, a tool introduced by the researcher, in the context of the SCM, to improve communication in circles [10]. The totem seemed to have helped children wait for their turn, focus more on the person who speaks, and feel safe enough to expose themselves by addressing the group. A child noted: ‘I liked it [the ‘magic stick’] because everyone was silent.’ Most children seemed to also enjoy doing things collectively, such as clearing forest paths. A child remarked: ‘I liked it because we all worked together.’ During these activities, adults -teachers and the researcher- avoided heavy interference, carving out a space for children to express themselves freely and to configure the process on their own terms.

At the Big Bang School, what attracted the attention of children was again the experience of the ‘magic stick.’ This seems to have fostered actively listening, ‘reigning in’ their impulse to speak over the others and sustaining meaningful communication. At the same time, the free choice of ‘clubs,’ that is of group activities around specific topics, fostered teamwork. Many children who had learned to play an instrument in the ‘music club’ usually played together in school breaks and wanted to attend the Music High School as a group. This convergence and collective activity strengthened relations among them. Relations were also cultivated by the teacher, who encouraged children’s choices in a discreet way. He helped them set up a ‘music corner’ in the class and accompanied them with his own musical instrument. The teacher acted thus as a ‘companion’ in educational commons, providing children with the space to express themselves freely and to define their process while assisting them in a subtle way.

Commoning practices. Peer Governance, decision-making in common, shared rules, rights, obligations and the collective distribution of roles were key components in the practices of educational commons enacted in both school contexts. Children in both case studies had honed such skills through the patterns of governance and community life already realized in school and through the SCM methodology [22, 24, 31].

Community life and collaboration in the School of Nature class were encouraged throughout the case study through the following activities:

  • the definition of the common goals for the ‘House in the Forest’ that were also signed by all children;

  • the creation of three inter-related teams for the preparatory tasks in the forest: to clear the forest paths, to construct the main table for work and eating, to build an open WC;

  • the cο-creation of ‘the rules’, ‘the treasures’ of the forest and of all steps in the process of constructing the House.

Children in the School of Nature class were also empowered as commoners, active users, and co-creators of educational commons by performing the role of ‘social agents’ who participated in school and local social life. They partook in activities of the school, such as the festivals of multilingualism that were held outdoors, in the school yard. During these events, the children, together with their teachers and supportive staff of the school, had to prepare collectively the lunch of the day. When the preparation was complete, and before the common lunch, they gathered in the open-air theatre and shared knowledge and games. The celebration culminated in the lunch at common tables, accompanied by teachers and some parents, and ended with the cleaning up of the place.

Children along with the adults co-managed thus the practices of their everyday life in a manner of openness, equality, co-activity, plurality and sustainability, engaging in a practice of commoning which builds a ‘common’ habitus. Moreover, the children of the case study actively shared their knowledge and their structures of consensual decision-making with other classes of the school and with another school in the vicinity. This extrovert dissemination of knowledge was also addressed to parents and families.

Children and adults practiced also peer governance through various processes based on the SCM. Decision-making by consent contributed to listening to all voices and integrating them in the final decision. As a result, children endorsed the outcome and they committed themselves to the tasks it defined. At the Big Bang School, in particular, children discovered and promoted their own priorities, enhancing active inclusion. The words of a child who explains the process of changing the colour of the team’s T-shirt illustrate this effect:

Ch2 [a member of the team] didn’t like the color of the shirts we had decided before; they were red and she hated red, and we tried to get her to consent and we did, and we changed the color to blue so that we all consent.

‘Open election’ for the different roles attributed to toddlers contributed also considerably to shifting their arguments from purely sentimental ones—‘I vote for my friend’- to arguments based on rational justification—‘I vote somebody who is capable of doing the work described.’ For children in the primary school, this procedure helped even the most introverted individuals to take on roles, to assume responsibility for carrying out their tasks, to trust others and to actively involve themselves in collective activities. Children also ‘openly’ voted for their facilitators, who appeared to be very happy and committed to their roles.

Community and the common goods. Children in the case studies actively shared their knowledge with other actors in the ‘local’ context where they were embedded: other school classes, other schools in the vicinity, their families and other actors that could relate to the project. Parents keenly participated in the process by sharing their own knowledge, skills and materials with the children in the class. All participants were invited to freely consent to their participation in the class initiatives. Supportive staff of the school and experts from outside have also been asked to contribute their knowledge for the construction of the ‘House in the Forest.’ Sharing knowledge through presentations, theatrical plays and games was critical for children to be able to grasp the knowledge provided (‘the rules of the forest’ etc.) as well as the concepts and practices of the ‘community of sharing’. Students, educators, parents and local society formed a ‘community’ that could govern itself and construct the ‘House in the Forest.’

Αn important aspect to note here is that this community was not defined exclusively or primarily in geographical, place-based terms. School children come from a variety of places, from different neighborhoods of Thessaloniki city, nearby villages and other localities. Hence, a new community was set up, whose members were linked together through the common good they collectively manage: the ‘House in the Forest.’

At the Big Bang School, the ‘Council for the Upgrade of Humanity’ that the class established aimed at sharing the solutions considered and the methodology used with the other school students. Hence, at the end of the school year, they made an open presentation in the school yard, and they discussed collectively their solutions and other alternatives. Later on, they harvested other students’ views on whether they want to set up their own class or their school council. At the end of the event, the class children shared homemade snacks that they prepared with their families.

Feedbacks from students. When kindergarten children were asked what they liked more about the ‘Council of the Forest’ they responded in various ways, including drawings. The teacher helped them verbalize parts of them:

I see and listen… To listen when others talk to me and not to pop up… To listen to the view of the others and others to listen to mine… When I listen to the other, I learn more…

Moreover, this class made a valuable gift to the researcher: a booklet with drawings, words and snapshots from the work and their collaboration. One child wrote:

I drew the council of the forest. We were discussing and deciding how to build a house. There was a need to cooperate. Not everyone would do what they want. We were voicing our opinion and making the right decisions.

Another one noted: ‘I learnt the circle…to listen and not to interrupt the others.’

At the primary school, children seemed to be content with the fact that they could make a case for their choice, influencing their classmates, trusting each other and confidently performing their roles. In the focus group, some children argued thus:

Question: Can you pick out a moment that you liked a lot, or not at all?

Ch3: I liked it when we did the ‘Council.’

Question: Which part of it?

Ch3: Most, and especially when we were to choose somebody to take the minutes or be a facilitator, because you realized that we were all influencing everyone’s opinion.

Question: How did you feel in those roles you took on?

Ch1:… we know that, for example, Ch2 is the facilitator, she knows, and we trust her.

Question: How do you, Ch2, feel?

Ch2: I feel the same, that everyone who has a role, this suits them and there will be trust.

3.4 Overview

Drawing on the participatory observations of the researcher, the focus groups held with the children, the evaluation games, the reflection processes and teachers’ feedback, the transformations experienced by children in both school environments could be summarized as follows:

  • their self-confidence in voicing their ideas has been strengthened,

  • their ability to speak in groups and in public, and to make presentations has improved,

  • their respect for and acceptance of others’ views has been enhanced,

  • the inclusion of all voices has been fostered,

  • dialogue between children and within groups has improved,

  • argument and debate have been cultivated,

  • the ability of the team to self-regulate has grown,

  • the ability of the team to decide with consent was enhanced or consolidated,

  • active participation in assuming roles and responsibilities has increased,

  • practices of cooperation were established,

  • understanding and the sharing of resources (materials, goods, knowledge etc.) were promoted,

Particularly among the younger children of the School of Nature,

  • toddlers’ meta-gnostic skills in listening, oral communication, the expression of ideas and feelings, negotiation, and cooperation seemed to have developed,

  • their understanding of rules as key to the smooth operation of a team was solidified,

  • the extrovert dissemination of knowledge and active engagement with the school community (other classes, families and experts) became habitual.

The Sociocratic Circle Method considerably contributed to these transformative effects. The SCM supported and facilitated the class councils in both school contexts, boosting the development of children’s skills for peer governance: the definition of binding rules, collective decision-making and shared responsibility in various tasks [22, 24, 31]. More specifically,

  • children had a safe space and enough time to express themselves and to actively listen by communicating in ‘circles’ under facilitation,

  • the Sociocratic ‘circle’ ensured equality, equity and the inclusion of all voices and needs: ‘all voices and needs matter,’

  • the ‘circle’ provided a comprehensive methodology for decision-making with consent rather than majority. There was no minority that could be overpowered, and all members were content with the decisions made,

  • children learned to be committed to the tasks decided; they assumed roles and were responsible for them,

  • the method provided alternative open processes, pursuing positive justification for the election of roles with consent.

3.5 Conclusion

The case studies furnished more specific insights into educational commons, illuminating key findings in relevant research [25, 26] :

  • The fact that adults (teachers, researcher etc.) avoided too much interference with children’s initiatives and acted as companions was in line with the practices of educational commons and considerably assisted children in acceding to personal and collective autonomy.

  • By dint of participating in sociocratic ‘circles’ and decision-making with consent, children were educated in peer governance and were encouraged to feel and act as equals with a robust collective consciousness and social skills.

  • The participation of children in the practices of everyday school-life, in a manner of openness, equality, equity, freedom, creativity and plurality, laid the groundwork for ingraining the practices of commoning as a common habitus.

  • Sociocracy supplied a methodology for radical change in the entire school structure and power relations. Shared power, the co-management of educational commons, is the sociocratic objective for school governance.

At the School of Nature,

  • sharing knowledge and opening up educational practices to other classes, educators, parents, experts and local society set the stage for constructing a school community which was not narrowly place-based, attesting to how education can be effectively organized on the basis of the commons,

  • the school community learned to co-manage their common good (the ‘House in the Forest’) and to govern itself under the stewardship of the teacher. Governance was transformed thus into a common good accessible to all members of the community, enacting a democracy of the commons [29].

4 Epilogue

The two case studies at the School of Nature and the Big Bang School lent credit to the original research hypothesis according to which education can be organized as commons. Furthermore, sociocracy proved to be a good practice fostering commons in education and democratizing school life.

However, both schools fall within the private sector. As a consequence, they do not challenge the profit-driven structures of the market and they fail to provide a wider site of struggle for a more equal, fair and inclusive education. Market logics and a predefined curriculum set by the public Ministry of Education are some of the walls to be overcome if educational commons are to become an effective and diffuse reality in contemporary societies. Research in educational commons can open some cracks in these walls, disclosing potential for wider change.

The Solidarity School is a considerably different animal. It embodies a liminal or hybrid mode of commοning education, located both within and beyond formal public schooling.

Τhe formal soul of the School restricts the room for free commoning through which all members of the educational community would collectively and openly form the contents and methods of learning. The ‘informal’ or grassroots militant soul operates through open assemblies, fomenting an ambiance of conviviality, solidarity, freedom and equality, which gets diffused in the classrooms and triggers smooth subjective shifts. It fosters participatory learning, it works for change through ‘fractures’ while covering the syllabus, it upholds education as an end-in-itself. It aims for inclusion, social justice and democratic public schools. Τhe formal constraints on free commoning derive from Mesopotamia’s strategic logic which combines social empowerment here and now, for people labouring in present societies, with grassroots egalitarian democracy, moral and intellectual reform, resistance and visionary aspiration.

This is a transformative strategy which is anchored in the present, in actual needs and conditions, but lays the foundations for another world. The offshoot is a distinct, alter-political commoning within and beyond the present world which is, by the same token, an agonistic commoning both internally, reflecting on its imperfections and striving to reduce them, and externally, militating against the status quo that enforces inequalities and exclusions.

The strategic logic informing Mesopotamia’s commoning is a typical instance of the composite alter-political strategy advocated by radical political thought [13, 15, 18] and adopted by contemporary social movements, from the Zapatistas to the 2011 ‘squares movements.’ In this strategic synthesis, covering social needs and empowering people in the present is wedded to the politics of opposition to neoliberal capitalism and to the visionary politics of creating, here and now, the institutions of a new world. It is the conjunction of commoning with this three-pronged strategy of visionary pragmatism which begets a distinctive figure of commoning within-and-beyond the present.

The type of commoning enacted by the Solidarity School displays a dual concern with achieving a space of grassroots democratic solidarity and acting as a vehicle for change outside the space itself. Hence the limitations and the counter-hegemonic force of this mode of educational commons. In the move from inside to outside the space, we have highlighted the importance of the ambiance -a widespread feel of solidarity, the democracy of any and all, the flattening of hierarchies, freedom, conviviality, humour- which is engendered by the community constructing the space but is transmitted outside the space by making an effective imprint on subjectivities. Through the ambience, subjective shifts are brought about in subtle, inobtrusive ways which are the outcome of personal exposure to the positive vibes of a space rather than of discipline or indoctrination.

Research in educational commons as a new perspective on emancipatory pedagogy has not yet delved into the logics of agonistic commoning within-and-beyond, and the transformative potentials of the ambience imbuing actually existing commons. The example of the Solidarity School in Mesopotamia sheds light on the significance of both, not only for future inquiries but also for democratic transformations in our times.