<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Hello everyone,</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.57cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">this is a late
contribution to the very interesting debate between Roberto and
Martin on abundance, free culture, information exceptionalism, and
the essence of things. I am responding to Roberto's call for others
to jump in to break the deadlock. I found myself strangely in the
middle, agreeing with Roberto on some issues and with Martin on
others.
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I share Martin's
reservations about free culture. As long as we have not found a way
to pay for the labour of cultural workers while all the rest of
economic activity maintains the status quo this is a dangerous road
to travel (I wont't go into this any further as this is another issue). I side with Roberto on the difference between digital and
material things and their implications for human behaviour. And I
find myself sitting on the fence when it comes to the economic
implications of this difference. For sure it is important to make a
distinction between the material and the digital side of the
information economy (see Patrick's clarification on the two sides of
cyberspace on 4.1.2011)</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Roberto writes
(1.1.2011):</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">'I assert that
the differences between the agricultural, industrial and information
modes are of primary importance. These differences arise from the
very nature of the goods involved in each mode, and the differences
propagate to the level of social relations, including the thinking of
people involved in the production of such goods....'<br>'In short,
you cannot ignore the nature of the different goods themselves
(living, non-living material, non-material) when considering what
kind of social relations are appropriate for particular
goods...'<br>'The point is you cannot ignore the nature of the
different types of goods, because their nature often determines or
significantly influences the way the goods can be produced and the
social relations that arise out of such production modes.'</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Martin responds
(1.1.2011)</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">'I find it
reductionistic, simplistic and in denial of the material base. It
relies upon the export of the costs - the externalities - of that
production, and is as such very close to neoliberal thinking...'<br>'In
political philosophy terms I consider the primary and deterministic
view on "production process" and "thing in question"
somewhere between crude marxism (as I said earlier, but this is
probably an idiosyncratic<br>error, since I don't really know much
about marxism) and neoliberalism: void of social relations around it
and disregarding externalities. At any rate: the shaping of social
relations have been subjected to the essence of a thing - so if we
can generate a list of essential shareability properties, then all we
need is a computer to calculate degrees of sharing? No need for
politics, no need for dialogue: the thing determines. What a horrible
vision and logical conclusion.'</p><p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">'I do not want to
envisage a world in which the essential properties of a thing
determine whether it is shareable or not. It sounds so mechanic and
reductionistic.'</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.57cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">In a response to
Michel Martin (same day a bit later) explains further:</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">'Therefore, in
some situation, for argument's sake, it might also be more easy to
share a car than it is to share a poem digitally. It all depends on
access and configuration of society.'</p><p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br></p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Let's start with
this last quote. I would question this statement. Can you give an
example to make this claim work? Provided someone has access to a
digital device (computer, mobile etc.) and access to the internet it
will always be easier to share a poem than to share a car. And if
access to digital technology and to digital networks doesn't exist
there is no point discussing this.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.51cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Sharing the poem
digitally is easier than sharing a car because the sharer of the poem
can keep the poem, whereas the sharer of the car has to give away the
car. The sharing of a poem is obviously a form of communication and
social interaction with respect to the message and the meaning of the
poem, but the act of sharing does not rely on any social interaction
at all. It is a one-way street. Under normal circumstances nobody
would negotiate with a possible sharer whether to send the poem or
not. They just do it. In contrast car sharing needs social
interaction and those who engage with car sharing, say within a
household on a long term basis, have probably all experienced how this
can bring about social conflicts.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.51cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">This is the
difference: If material and biological things (cars and mangos) are
being shared they do not just get multiplied. Sharing a car means not
having access to the car all the time, sharing a mango with someone
else means that both can only eat half of the mango. This form of
sharing usually involves the notion of sacrifice and most
anthropologists would argue that it is precisely this sacrifice that
produces an intensification of social relationships, a strengthening
of social ties.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">The sharing of
digital 'things' does not involve any sacrifice. Digital things just
get multiplied. So if we share a poem digitally we do share it in an
abstract way, we share the meaning of the poem, we share our taste in
poetry and literature, but we do not share the file.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">For this reason
one could argue that the term sharing is in fact very problematic,
even misleading, for digital 'things'. It seems that sharing, like
stealing, has entered the language of digital practises due to mere
ideological reasons. Both terms are used to justify new forms of
social practices morally. Sharing is good, stealing is bad. But copying
is neither good nor bad, neither sharing nor stealing, it is just copying, multiplying.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.51cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">A very sad
example of the social implications of digital sharing can found in a
story published by the Telegraph a few days ago.
(<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8241015/Facebook-friends-mock-suicide-of-woman-who-posted-goodbye-message.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8241015/Facebook-friends-mock-suicide-of-woman-who-posted-goodbye-message.html</a>).
A 42 year old woman in the UK posted a message on facebook to her
1048 friends on Christmas day, announcing that she will commit
suicide and that she has just swallowed the pills. Her message was
widely discussed in her network and led to 148 responses where her
'friends' discussed the statement and the former breakdown of this
women's relationship. But nobody bothered to call her, call the
police, or go over to her place, even though many of her friends
discussing her post lived very local. So she died. It's a story we
probably won't find in Clay Shirky's next book appraising the
positive implications for social media on human relationships. I am
mentioning this story cause I don't think it is far fetched to assume
that this woman would still be alive had she 'shared' her intentions
not on a digital network, but with somebody in a 'real' encounter.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;"> As stated above,
the sharing of material and biological things is harder to do
compared to the sharing of digital things, but because it is harder
is has different implications for the quality of social interactions.
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.51cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">With respect to
'sharing' in the digital realm and its implications for social
interaction I would distinguish between two form of 'sharing', which
draws on a distinction by Bruno Latour, between intermediaries and
mediators. Intermediaries transport messages (content, code, meaning)
without transforming them. Mediators transform, translate, distort,
and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry. So
the sharing as intermediary refers to a pure dissemination of content
(e.g. file-'sharing'), whereas the sharing as mediator refers to, say
mailing lists, blogs etc. This form of 'sharing' is exchange and/or
collaboration. The first form of digital 'sharing' is about
distribution, the latter about exchange, creation and production, and
obviously this form of sharing has always existed; it is not at all
specific to the digital age. Sharing as distribution has another
social quality than sharing as creation and collaboration. It is a
lower form of social interaction and produces less communication,
weaker ties, less room for conflicts etc.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.57cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">In my view it
does make sense to carve out different qualities of sharing, as these
qualities are closely connected to the material and digital worlds in
which they exist as social practices. If this is true it does also
make sense to analytically distinguish between the properties of
digital and material things and consequently to claim that these properties
determine or at least facilitate rather specific forms and qualities
of social relationships. I concede that this might be simplistic and mechanic but it helps in terms of
understanding differences which in my view are important ones. This surely is neither a crude marxist nor a
neo-liberal position. It is plainly a position usually associated
with technological determinism. As most people would put Marx in the
camp of technological determinism, one could call this position a
Marxist, or alternatively one associated with McLuhan or with
actor-network theory, among many others one could refer to.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.51cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">It is certainly
not a neo-liberal position as it does not make any statements with
respect to the realm of economics. My point really is that we have to
be careful to distinguish between technological and economic
determinism.</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.51cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">For the latter
things do indeed get much more complicated due to the material
externalities of 'digital' things and due to the different forms of
digital sharing (distributing and creating). Roberto does make a
connection between different properties of things (biological,
material, digital) and different modes of production. Even though I
do not agree at all with the claim of biological abundance in the
21<sup>st</sup> century world we live in, I find this connection
rather interesting.
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 7.06cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Is it neo-liberal
per se to speak about an informational mode of production and to
distinguish this mode from an industrial or an agricultural mode of
production? I have my doubts. It would only be a neoliberal position
if the material externalities of digital production and distribution
would be denied, which nobody does. What makes this debate so
complicated is that it is still impossible to evaluate in any way the
relevance of (and the impact for) these material externatities for
this digital mode of production.</p><p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">best wishes,</p><p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">andreas<br></p><p style="margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br></p>
<div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}</style>