An attempt to relate to broader socio-economic conditions, i.e. three socio-historical contexts:

1. Capitalism as a political economy dominated by mediated abstractions
2. Capitalist society as hierarchical order
3. Alienation as a pervasive norm

Criticism of Toffler's Practopia: focus is on the individual (freedom) and exchange of (prosumed) commodities = a neoliberal capitalist market. ("Indeed, what Toffler idealizes is a system in which disparities persist, at least in terms of differing capabilities to prosume needed or desired commodities." (p.311))

Interesting to compare to current 'Big Data' discussions: "Three years later, Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol argued that information technologies provide the potential for ‘objective’ knowledge to become the basis for public policy rather than ‘ideology’ (Bell and Kristol, 1965). Bell’s subsequent book, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (Bell, 1973), advanced these arguments in its prediction that quantitative developments concerning knowledge-based activities will have qualitative implications, including the arrival of a more ‘rational’ world order." (p.311)

Argues that prosumption now is more consensual participating. Prosumption is now enacted in arenas where market economy is the broadest level of interface, regulating creativity, individuality, property and propriety. Also, as a way to incorporate increasingly more cynical consumers in "fun, creative and often ego-enhancing endeavors".

Mediated abstractions: On a concrete level the price system is a logical necessity. On an abstract, the price system becomes a conceptual norm. Equally, prosumption can be analyzed on both levels - in the mundane as a liberating and empowering practice and socio-economically as re-commodification and focus on exchange values.

Hierarchical order: ICT:s as supporting coordination/standardization of resources (material and immaterial) transnationally. Software is orchestrating practices. Rationalization -> speedier and more stressful. Immaterial labor does not de-power corporations and/or states. Interesting to compare social bonding values in gifting to prosumption and "prosumption’s exploitation of ‘the productive value of social cooperation, communication, and affect … represents a closing of the economic and ontological gap between consumption and production’" In many ways, this shows how gift economies are valid as analytical concepts, but how they can be subsequently incorporated.

What kind of creativity and autonomy are we talking about? A process of prosumption is always followed by re-commodification, management and exploitation.

Alienation:

"a condition of living in capitalist society. Usually it is not consciously experienced. Instead, it is often expressed through depression, aggression and self-destructive behaviors"  (p.318)

Conceptualizing user concerns and intentions as communal is (commonly) a rhetorical ploy.

"Not only are things and services now typically idolized, generally speaking, the higher the exchange value (something’s value in relation to other things, i.e. what it can be sold for), the more fantastic is the use value (something’s value in satisfying wants or needs)." (p.319)

The "rationalization of labor activities, codifying of the knowledge that is produced and, eventually, the subsuming of workplace creativity" is entangled in both mediation and consciousness. Thus a free and autonomous prosumer is impossible. Neoliberal exhange (value) demands the repression of any social aspects of interaction. Social media is used in a larger attempt to re-incorporate social values into exchange, but on a superficial level, without the 'regard' (more personal brand to corporate brand communication).

Comor makes a dichotomous distinction between use value and exchange value. However, there are certainly other values that can add analytical traction to sharing analyses (e.g. social bonding value, aestethic value). About motivations for prosumption:

"As such, Web 2.0 and other prosumption activities are, in fact, elaborations of existing norms. But more than this, to quote Tapscott and Williams, ‘people get big thrills from hacking a product, making something unique, showing it to their friends, and having other people adopt their ideas’ (Tapscott and Williams, 2006: 129). But why?

According to Zygmunt Bauman, in our consumerist culture, when the alienated are ‘empowered’ with ICTs, unprecedented opportunities emerge for people to seek a sense of self-worth by marketing themselves to others (as if they are genuinely autonomous, valued members of their communities). In other words, the online prosumer may well be motivated to take part as a way of promoting and selling himself to others as yet another commodity.

[...] The system and technologies that humanity has created – and, indeed, the central role of acquisition and commodity consumption in this social order – remain primary indices of normal social relations and a successful life." (p.320f)

Interesting bit on 'hegemony':

"Unlike some students of cultural studies who relate hegemony to ideology, discourse or symbolism (Lash, 2007), according to a neo-Gramscian approach, hegemony is a process in which class rule takes place through structured processes and mediations that explicitly (but never exclusively) facilitate control. From this perspective, hegemonic rule is rooted in the material conditions from which such consensual relations are elaborated; lived conditions that frame intellectual and organizational capacities." (p.321)

Conclusion:

"The fantastic prosumer is indeed a fantasy (at least in the context of capitalist relations and mediations); one originally cast by Toffler, largely unchallenged by activists, and now widely promoted by self-serving marketers and other interests. It is a fantasy that taps into our cultural predilections for empowering technologies and, indeed, self-realization. Prosumption developments also are elaborating a hegemonic order in which the individual and collectivity internalize mostly commodified constructs. These developments now stand largely unchallenged in part because many of those who are most exploited are prosumption’s primary participants; reproducing, in effect, their own possessive individualism and alienation." (p.323)

Christian Fuchs gives an introduction on continued the importance of Marx(ism) today. He points to the false outdatedness of Marx and refutes a number of common critiques against Marx(ism).

Vincent Mosco: 'labour' (and ICTs) as a blind spot in communication research. A transnational scope in research of labour and labour resistance. Marx has returned, but which Marx?

• Marx - the political economist (most used)
• The cultural theorist
• The journalist (works on India and China still worth reading today)
• The Grundrisse (knowledge labour)

The key question is not: What will be the next new thing? Rather: Will knowledge, information and communication workers of the world unite?

Worker agency: how are workers responding to 'challenges' (e.g. trade union convergence and social movement unionism)

Hegemonic view: labour is just a 'dependent variable'

Convergence: technological, corporate, labour process, trade union

Mosco emphasizes the importance of the trade union (in defeating lock-outs through financing; using skills to build new networks/ditribute info; enviromental activism; supporting progressive social work; global framework agreements; uniting divisions within unions)

China: Foxconn uses 'interns' (ordered by their schools) earning about 188 dollars/month for assembling top compay electronics.

Academic labour (what are WE doing with this information?) - will we wall ourselves off as an aristocracy of knowledge labour?

• more: convergence, internationalism, social movmeent unionism
• variety:

Occupy movement as a role model (and the role of trade unions within Occupy)

Graham Murdock: from each according to their vulnerability, to each according to their greed

Towards the commodification of everything - the death of the commons

Enclosure of (cultural) commons - selling intellectual property,

Commons:

1. Spaces - material and imaginative
2. Resources - common pool resources considered essential for weel-being
3. Relations - managed access and use
4. Rights - guarantees of equal entitlements

vs the process of Enclosure

The industrial contradiction: physical concentration of workforce + the spread of 'general intelligence' = the condititons for mass mobilisation

Producing consumption:

• production produces consumption both objectively and subjectively
• commodities veils the social character of labour

Commodities as fetishes (fetishes = a) origins are obscured and b) they are magical and promise to intervene in your personal life)

A process of detachment in relation to commodities:

Separation (Dept stores); Display (Theatres); Flow-managed choice (super-market); Integration (the mall, multi-channel tv); prosumption (is it exploitation - a structural assymetrical exchange)

Example 1: Open source footwear

Example 2: Modding

The digital contradiction: networking + digital intelligence = new mobilisations

Occupy movement: a reappropriation of (physical) space; a struggle for the access to resources.

We see:

• the expansion of the digital gift economies (reciprocity and vernacular production)
• revivification of public cultural institutions - from place to space; event to gateway; the democratisation of expertise

The (three-way) struggle for the digital commons: GIFTS - COMMODITIES - PUBLIC GOODS

 

Just had a paper about speed of music media accepted to Transformations Journal of Media & Culture. Tentative abstract below.

This paper examines speed in relation to music media. It compares values and common practices surrounding two specific cultural artifacts/media: the cassette tape and the digital playlist. The aim is to explore if and how our understanding of a now marginalized medium and its surrounding practices can co-inform our understanding of digital media objects (and its surrounding practices). Comparisons are made in relation to a theoretical framework of values; appropriated from gift-giving research, where values are grouped into use values, exchange values and social bonding values. The current focus on technical development and use values is tightly connected to increasing speed. It is thus hypothesized that a remediation of social bonding values is specifically important in helping users slow down both the creation and consumption of meaningful experiences in the hyper-abundant cultural media object range of today.

Update Aug 30: the paper is now live on the site. [link].

 

The role of social media in the recent revolutions (in lack of a better word) has been heavily debated. My takeaway from all the buzz is that a lot of people seem to agree that social media have, more or less, coordinating capabilities. This coordination seemed to have manifested itself by (or limited itself to):

• helping to coordinate bodies (it did not do all coordination) in a collocated physical space (in effect, a huge flashmob)
• informing people (mainly people very far from the physical space) about the activities in that physical space

Of course, this leaves out a lot. What social media did not do:

• alleviate social injustices
• distribute monetary, ecological, technical etc. resources
• change the balance between export, import and production
• and, well, a lot more...you get the idea...

Maybe I am being a bit unfair/categorical here, but as I see it, social media has yet to prove its potential for revolution in terms of a sustainable future after the 'delivery of freedom'. The question remains: if/how/for whom social media can coordinate a sustainable future?

As you, the reader, may have noticed, I have a certain interest in the concepts we use to envelope our ideas. Lately (and sometimes not so lately) it would seem that many of the dichotomous concepts I am involved with are being combined into one. That is, one concept that holds elements of both of the previous ones. A few typical examples could be:

• producer v. consumer -> produser (Bruns), prosumer (Toffler et.c)
• egoistic v. altruistic -> selfish altruism (Fairnington), impure altruism (Andreoni), disriminating altruism (Hardin)
• private v. public -> semi-publics, semi-private
• gift-economy v. market-economy -> economy of regard (Offer), economy of the free (Anderson), hi-tech gift economy (Barbrook)
• counter-culture v. consumer culture -> empowered consumer (Wind, Davies), alternative consumption (Heath & Potter)

There are, of course, lots more of examples. I guess my (vague) point is that the process may reveal or obscure (or perhaps something inbetween ;)) aspects of the underlying phenomena and that it is important to critically consider what these aspects may be. As Robert Benchley aptly put: "There may be said to be two classes of people in the world; those who constantly divide the people of the world into two classes, and those who do not".

This is a (slightly modified) wordcloud based on most of my academic writings so far. As an excercise it is both narcissistic, a bit embarassing (to find out how "streamlined" you are) and good learning. Good to see that there is some research and analysis in there too! ;)

Naturally, library and information science (LIS) has a sustained interest in how people search for information. Indeed,there is a wealth of theories on so called information behaviour (IB). However, many IB theories were conceived in relation to very focused information seeking, where a specific "information need" could be filled with specific information nuggets. While serendipity - the "fortuitous accident" of finding something by chance - has also been a part of IB it seems to be an unruly beast when it comes to research on IB. Neverhteless, it is a form of IB that has become highlighted in the age of social media. One common feature of the social network services of today (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) is that information is pushed or fed to us without us having a specific information need or a specific search query. We find out things all the time without actively searching for it. Further, the information we receive is social by nature (or has social metadata attached to it). So perhaps it is conceivable to talk about social information behaviour (SIB) as an emerging, but prevalent model here. If so, I would suggest that SIB has an inherent tension between social serendipity and social disruption. A simple hypothetical example: because social media can reveal previously obscured network connections, I find out that two friends of mine, whom I thought didn't know each other, are actually very close friends. Now, this can be a great thing, enriching my social network(s). But, it is also easy to imagine how it could be socially disruptive and significantly alter my information sharing behaviour and interpersonal relationship(s). Just from this example I think that research into the experience of SIB as the tension between social serendipity and social disruption could be an interesing thing to pursue.

As Internet researchers we examine conversations, connections, contexts and cultures that are maintained between humans via new media.  In this process, we often make use of concepts that pre-fix media or the social-technical activities enabled by them. While "new" is one such conceptualization it is by many scholars seen as a vague neologism (Fornäs, 2008). Attempts to overcome the ambiguity of "new" media have been made by advocating alternative concepts that nuance and clarify the "new" in "new media" (Flew, 2008; Gitelman & Pingree, 2003; Hirst & Harrison, 2008; Lax, 2009; Wessels, 2010). Indeed, "the growing trend of distinguishing between terminologies of media ­ digital, new, networked ­ has arguably been a consequence of separating different modes of engagement, production and consumption in new media cultures" (Fuery, 2009, p. 71). Some examples from the history of Internet research are "digital sensations" (Hillis, 1999), "networked identities" (Ryberg & Larsen, 2008), "computer-mediated communication" (Rice & Love, 1987; Siegel, et al., 1986) and "online presence" (Chen & Yen, 2004). More recent examples include "participatory culture", "networked publics", "digital media" and "online worlds" (from the 2010 AoIR conference). The central argument of this paper is that there is much to be gained from considering these concepts as analytical dimensions. That is, by (1) considering the opposites of these widely used concepts and (2) avoiding treating them as dichotomies, we hope to open up a space of inquiry (i.e. an analytical dimension) inbetween these conceptual poles. As such, the paper agrees with Morris and Ogan (1996), in that, in the context of ICT:s, it is important to provide taxonomies and categorizations that does not impose an overly-rigid structure.  However, we also believe that there is reason to clarify our use of these concepts as Internet researchers. To illustrate this idea within the restricted space of this short paper, we will review a select number of common concepts, namely: participatory; digital; networked; interactive; online and ubiquitous.

Read more at: Cyberstudies Journal

This short review was compiled for the course "New New Media and Information Retrieval".

Google Reader is a web-based RSS-reader, which aggregates feeds from chosen web-sites and blogs. As such, it does a pretty good job although it has often been criticized for being slow. Besides following feeds it also allows the user to follow people and their shared "highlights" from their feeds. You can also add notes to posts. It's got the recognizable Google feel, interface and settings.

iGoogle is a personalized startpage supposed to bring together everything you're interested in - weather, online auctions, news, social media sites, mail, chat, notebooks, photos, sports etc. It is also customizable in terms of widgets, where users can design their own specialized widgets to share with others.

Netvibes is a very similar, but tab-based, "personal dashboard". It supports similar categories as iGoogle (calendars, podcasts, to-do lists and so on).

Pageflakes, again, does pretty much what iGoogle and Netvibes does. It is organized around "flakes", which is just a different way of saying module or widget. These flakes can also be made public in so called Pagecasts.

All of these (iGoogle, Netvibes, Pageflakes) give me a really 1997 feel, where "personalized portals" were the big thing (e.g. Excite, Lycos, Yahoo). They looked pretty much the same as iGoogle, Netvibes and Pageflakes. Personally I have tried these services several times since 1997, because they theoretically seem so useful. In practice however, they have never grown on me.

Evernote is a system for collecting multimedial notes. It is available as a mobile app as well as a desktop app. Online synchronization over the platforms is a key feature. The basic idea is to be supportive of note-taking in whichever form it may take (a sketch, a to-do-list, a recipe, a photo, a location, a tweet, a document). Everything can of course be tagged and annotated for simplified organization and retrieval. I have, so far, only tried the free version (there is a "premium" version as well, which you pay for) so I can't make any comparisons between the offers. From what I have read though it is largely a question of more disk space and no ads.

Springpad is a service similar to Evernote, where anything you encounter should be "capturable". You can add stuff as notes, tasks or by type (e.g. books, products, books, movies, bookmarks). On the mobile app you can also scan barcodes and make entries that way. From what I've noticed so far it is a bit US-centric in terms of products and places.

Momento is one of my favourite apps at the moment. It is a diary application for the iPhone, which also pulls in your online activity from, for example, Twitter, Facebook, flickr, YouTube and Last.fm. Because it is a diary app it is focused around the "day" as its main organizing principle. This is, IMHO, quite unique and gives the app a much better integration with human memory. For me it has almost become addictive to write a short entry whenever I have a moment to spare. Momento has a very nice tagging feature which allows for geolocations, people, events, ratings and of course user-defined tags. The app also touches nicely upon the tension between the public and the private. Momento is designed as a personal diary app, which means that it is not synched online with any public storage or display. It is a diary for your own private use mainly. In a time where "the public is the default" I find this quite, well, reassuring.

Many new media theorists have turned to “the gift economy” in order to understand Internet-based social-technical prosumption (e.g. file-sharing, blogging, co-creative music composition) - myself included. This is of course a reasonable endeavour as gift-giving has always been concerned with the co-evolution of social and personal identities, relationships and norms through the circulation of goods or services.

However, gift-giving perspectives have also had difficulties facing (post-)modern societal conditions. Today, "the gift" is often thought of as occasion-centric and more or less grounded in individual sovereignty, property ownership, obligation and the commercialization of our calendar (i.e. time). However, this view ignores alternative (critical) models of gift-giving and how they could be useful to the study of new media cultures or digital economies. One conclusion is that definitions thus far have been trapped (or re-trapped) in models still depending very much on market logic. However, the current condition is arguably more of a balance between consumption (or prosumption), individuation and technicity. Generally speaking, technicity refers to "the ways in which human subjectivity is shaped and lived through specific technological forms" (Kennedy & Dovey)   Thus, a new potential route for the research of gift-giving in hypermediated contexts lies in the examination of the technicity of gift-giving and an elaborated view on value-creation.

The limitations of previous gift-giving conceptualizations points to (at least) three important critical objections:

1.  Focus is on economic value (needs an elaborated view of the possible types of value creation)
2.  No theoretical concepts to account for technology (needs a model that includes the role of mediating technologies)
3.  No critical view of the social structure of gift-giving (needs to acknowledge potential social (in)justices)

An example of an elaboration of a value typology is to consider use-value (the practical value), exchange value (economic value) and social bonding value (its value in terms of its impact on social relationships) ( Godbout & Caillé ) . French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, identifies a similar typology: use value (economic value), truth value (cognitive activity) and beauty value (aesthetic activity) ( Terranova ). In all, this suggests a different focus on how the gift works in, between and around human subjects. In the words of Dilnot (1993), we can approach a gift as a supplement that functions as “a vital switch point or mediator between embodied consciousness, that is, the sense of ourselves, and, in actuality, the indifferent world.” (p. 57). Even Schwartz claims that “to accept a gift is to accept (at least in part) an identity and to reject a gift is to reject a definition of oneself” (Schwartz, 1967, p. 3). Yet another account, from Diprose (2002) - in an interesting book that connects the corporeal phenomenology to generosity - suggests that “what is constituted through the gift is the social identity of each in relation to the other” (p. 6).

Apart from an expansion of the value typology, current models of the gift also lack the theoretical concepts to deal with how mediating technology fits in. This is where the technicity of gift-giving comes in – that is, the way in which mediating technologies co-evolve with individuation (i.e. the shaping of the subject in relation to levels of the collective). Social mediating technologies make social processes and structures more visible (it reveals them) and thus open to both an exploit and a revitalization of everyday gift-giving.

Finally, models of gift-giving are often blind to the structural asymmetry of ‘gifting outcomes’. That is, the gifts of some tends to be remembered, rewarded and recognized at the expense of others being forgotten, obscured or diminished. This social injustice is likely well connected to the prior focus on economic value and to the technicity of gift-giving.