In The public and Its Problems Chapters 4 and 5, Dewey’s idea of the public is inextricably connected with ideas of community, communication, shared beliefs and symbols, and democracy. He states, however, that due to the globalizing effects of modern technology “there are too many publics and too much of public concern for our existing resources to cope with” and laments the fact that technology has expanded the scope of the public to an extent that it is too fragmented and no longer coherent and so, in effect, non-existent. He seems to believe that a significant level of commonality of thought and scientific education is required for a public to be “genuine and effective“ when he states that science “absorbed and distributed” could be “the instrumentality of that common understanding and thorough communication which is the precondition of the existence of a genuine and effective public” and thus without which, according to Dewey, there is no public.

I would argue, however, to alter or expand Dewey’s definition of the public in a few very salient ways. First of all, the public must include not just those who share a collective culture of ideas and knowledge based in science but also those who might have a shared interest in the common resource or other concern under consideration regardless of whether or not they share our culture, scientific knowledge, beliefs and values simply because the outcome affects them as well. Dewey recognizes the global consequences of so many of our actions today when he states, “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences” however he seems to fall short of acknowledging that shared interest alone is enough to conjoin us into a coherent public. Again, as Dewey himself pointed out we can no longer see ourselves as separate from others all across the globe when he states, “the consolidation of peoples in enclosed, nominally independent, national states has its counterpart in the fact that their acts affect groups and individuals in other states all over the world.” This consideration and inclusion of all those who will be impacted as well as those who disagree or do not share our collective culture is necessary in order to avoid what John Stuart Mill called the “tyranny of the majority” or a condition in which the political majority oppresses the political minority. A thriving culture needs diversity and dissenters in order to grow and change and make social progress. It is only through diversity and differences that a public can be self-reflective. So, to me, diversity of people, knowledge, ideas and opinions does not preclude the idea of a coherent, “genuine and effective” public.

Second, in my opinion the definition of the public should be expanded to encompass all life forms who share the common resource, not just humans, since, as modern ecology has proven repeatedly, all life is interdependent though a web of connections. When you remove one species from an ecosystem (or introduce a new one) it causes a whole cascade of often unforeseen downstream consequences that can and often are disastrous for the environment that all life depends on for our survival. So the interests of the whales, or the spotted owls, etc… should not and cannot be forgotten if we want to survive and thrive into the future. Admittedly, those other life forms cannot speak for themselves and represent their own interests, which is why a strong environmental ethic and advocacy movement is necessary to speak for them. This view is to me just an extension of the Confucian model as described in “Climate, Collective Action and Individual Ethical Obligations” by Marion Hourdequin when she states, “Confucian philosophy does not understand the individual as an isolated, rational actor. Instead, the Confucian self is defined relationally. Persons are constituted by and through their relations with others.”  In this case, I would argue those “others” should include other species as well as other human beings. 

Third I would say that we need to expand the definition of the public to include those not born yet, as in the tradition of some Native American cultures who weighed every decision with the impact it would have on their ancestors seven generations into the future. I realize that my definition is a very tall order and would require a major paradigm shift but, again, this is what is required according to the Confucian model as described by Hourdequin:

On the Confucian model, although coercion may keep people out of trouble, it cannot accomplish thoroughgoing social change, involving the transformation of minds as well as actions. Thus, reform achieved primarily through coercion will be both shallow and unstable. In order to solve a collective action problem, it is not just incentives for individually rational agents that need to change. Policy is not enough: what is also crucial is moral change in individuals. Changing institutions without changing people will not resolve tensions between the individual and the collective good.

Thus “the commons” is not in my opinion either “a tragedy, a solution, or a site for political and social contest”, it is a unavoidable consequence of our inherent interconnectedness that we need to start seeing as such if we want to overcome the challenges that face us in our modern technological world. We can no longer look at any natural resources as being anything but a common resource if we want to have anything left to leave to our children, our grandchildren, and the seventh generation.