[iDC] Immaterial Labor and life beyond utility

Michel Bauwens michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 11:21:53 UTC 2007


Hi Paul, see my comments below.

On 8/16/07, Paul B. Hartzog <paulbhartzog at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> thx, Michel, very interesting.
>
> I have a lot of issues with the "experience economy" of which I will
> only mention a few.
>
> First, it doesn't solve anything.  It is perfectly reasonable to
> imagine/predict a hegemonic social system that 1) tells us what
> experiences to value, and 2) commodifies and sells us those
> experiences, and 3) prevents alternate modes of production of those
> experiences from getting off the ground.



You are right that the concept of experience economy can be used in many
different ways, including uncritical and system-confirming ways; but I also
think the concept is  general enough and useful to show people that
being/experiencing is better/more fullfilling than having and that material
richness can be replaced by immaterial wealth.

Here are some interesting links to other conceptions of wealth:


   1. Wealth Typology <http://p2pfoundation.net/Wealth_Typology> (2,562
   bytes)
   2. Levels of Wealth <http://p2pfoundation.net/Levels_of_Wealth> (241
   bytes)
   Wealth Acknowledgment
Systems<http://p2pfoundation.net/Wealth_Acknowledgment_Systems>(6,037
bytes)




Second, this is the whole problem with using a word like "economy" in
> this context.  If the economy is a structure wherein wants and needs
> are satisfied by commodification and distribution, then the object of
> that structure, i.e. atoms or bits or experiences, is irrelevant.  We
> need to move beyond economy. (Granted this is a very narrow usage of
> the word).



Again I agree, and I  am always stressing the difference between the
monetary  exchange and the  ethical exchange that takes place for example in
web 2.0 participative platforms. But if we are looser with our semantics,
which is a strategy that I prefer as it allows us to appropriate and subvert
meanings, then economy can be used as a synomym for all kinds of exchanges,
reciprocal and non-reciprocal, think for example how 'adam arviddson is very
productively using the concept of the ethical economy

The need to move beyond economy is also indicated in the perennial
> misunderstanding of "abundance" and "scarcity."  Abundance and
> scarcity do not exist.  What I mean by this is that abundance and
> scarcity are descriptions of the relationship between the user and the
> environment.  If we use very little coal per moment, then we live in
> abundance relative to the total amount that exists.  If we use very
> much coal per moment, then we live in a scarcity relation.  Those
> relations are fluid and constructed.


I do not agree that the terms are entirely socially constructed, which I
think is a postmodern conceit. Instead, we can differentiate between  the
subjective and  objective  aspects of abundance vs. scarcity.

see for example the objective approach here

   1. Abundance vs.
Scarcity<http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_vs._Scarcity>(18,908
bytes)

and the subjective approach here

   1. Abundance vs. Scarcity
Mentality<http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_vs._Scarcity_Mentality>(3,993
bytes


In the last paragraphs of my contribution, I specifically mention
sufficiency, which is exactly the kind of relation you mention. Through
sufficiency, we apply subjective abundance to objective scarcity, in order
to create subjective abundance.

"Through collective, networked community-based self-management, allow an
understanding of what would optimize the well-being of all life in the
ecosystem, balancing all interests and appreciating natural constraints, to
decide what is needed.Agree to produce only, but generously, what is needed,
accepting and addressing all costs of production. Collectively, distribute
what is needed to those who need it."
(http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/07/28.html)


Lessig's point (ad infinitum) is that scarcities can be constructed by
> those who wish to maintain their power.   Abundances, too, can be
> created, such as public wifi to create an abundance of access.  The
> abundance/scarcity relation is a function of the user's scale relative
> to the environment.  Herman Daly noted that for an astronaut, scale is
> absolute; every act must be monitored.  The sustainability solution is
> to match use to environment.


Exactly the point of that thought capsule.

Finally, I have difficulty seeing how living in abundance teaches us
> to be better able to come to terms with living in scarcity.  Beyond
> the fact that immaterial abundance is parasitic on material scarcity
> (servers are made of atoms and emit heat), we are temporal beings and
> it is essential to our being that our fundamental scarcity is our very
> lifespans, i.e. time.



Though digital  immaterial abundance cost resources,  it has dramatically
different multiplier effects, which  is why it makes a lot of sense that we
would pay much more attention to achieve sufficiency in rival physical
resources with privatized and short enjoyment time, and keep investing in
technologies that multiply the possibility of creating and sustaining the
non-digital kind of immaterial abundance. Digital networking has the
potential to expand the local immaterial wealth of kinship groups, to a much
wider environment of affinity groups. My hope is that, if peak oil does
destroy material globalization, we can keep cultural globalization. See
Franz Nahrada's Global Villages initiative for precisely such a practical
vision, which combines localization and global connectivity.  Similarly, it
makes sense for society to invest in education, which creates near infinite
creativity.

If you would come to live in Thailand with my extended family, you would
understand pragmatically much better, how it is possible to replace material
scarcity, with a much richer immaterial environment of love and caring, but
I'm afraid I can't explain it theoretically. It would be my contention that
it is precisely the immaterial poverty of the western world, and the similar
processes that capitalism induces worldwide, that lay the basis for an
infinite material quest, which is a poor substitute for true wealth.

Michel

Excellent points to ponder though, and a good group to ponder them with....
> :-)
>
> -Paul
>
> On 8/16/07, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The last paragraph of this little thought capsule takes a positive view
> of
> > the experience economy, as a bridge for a necessary transition from a
> > subjectivity based on 'having' to one based on 'being'.
> >
> >
> > The Experience Economy as a bridge between scarcity and abundance:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We live in a political economy that has it exactly backwards.
> >
> > We believe that our natural world is infinite, and therefore that we can
> > have an economic system based on infinite growth. But since the material
> > world is finite, it is based on pseudo-abundance.
> >
> > And then we believe that we should introduce artificial scarcities in
> the
> > world of immaterial production, impeding the free flow of culture and
> social
> > innovation, which is based on free cooperation, by creating the obstacle
> of
> > permissions and intellectual property rents protected by the state.
> >
> > What we need instead is a political economy based on a true notion of
> > scarcity in the material realm, and a realization of abundance in the
> > immaterial realm. Complex innovation needs creative and autonomous
> workers
> > that are not impeded in their ability to share and learn from each
> other.
> >
> > In the world of immaterial production, of software, text and design, the
> > costs of reproduction are marginal and therefore we see emerging in it
> > non-reciprocal peer production, where people voluntary engage in the
> direct
> > creation of use value, profiting from the resulting commons in a general
> > way, but without specific reciprocity.
> >
> > In the world of material production, where we have scarcity, and costs
> have
> > to be recouped, such non-reciprocity is not possible, and therefore we
> need
> > modes of neutral exchange such as the markets, or other modes of
> > reciprocity.
> >
> > In the sphere of immaterial production, humanity is learning the laws of
> > abundance, because non-rival goods win in value through sharing. In this
> > world, we are evolving towards non-proprietary licences, participatory
> modes
> > of production, and commons-oriented property forms. Positive forms of
> > affinity based retribalization are emerging.
> >
> > But in the world of scarce material goods, a series of scarcity crises
> are
> > brewing, global warming being just one of them, that is creating the
> > emergence of negative forms of competitive tribalizaition.
> >
> > The logic of abundance has the potential of leading us to a
> reorganization
> > of our world to a level of higher complexity, moved principally by the
> peer
> > to peer logic.
> >
> > The logic of scarcity has the potential of leading us to generalized
> wars
> > for resources, to a descent to a lower form of complexity, a new dark
> age as
> > was the case after the disintegration of the Roman Empire.
> >
> > So the challenge is to use the emergent logic of abundance, and inject
> it
> > into the world of scarcity.
> >
> > Is that a realistic possibility?
> >
> > In the immaterial world of abundance, sharing is non-problematic, and
> the
> > further emergence and expansion of non-reciprocal modes of production
> will
> > be very likely. "Together we know everything", is a rather achievable
> ideal.
> >
> > In the material world of scarcity, abundance is translated into three
> key
> > concepts that can change human consciousness and therefore economic
> > practices. The notion of 'together we have everything' seems not quite
> > achievable, we therefore need transitional concepts.
> >
> > The first concept is the distribution of everything. This means that
> instead
> > of abundance, we have a slicing up of physical resources and the
> physical
> > means of production, so that individuals can freely engage and act. This
> > means an economy that moves towards a vision of peer-informed market
> modes
> > such as fair trade (a market mechanism subjected to peer arbitrage of
> > producers and consumers seen as partners), social entrepreneurship
> (using
> > profit for conscious social progress). Objective tendencies towards
> > miniaturization of the physical means of production makes this a
> distinct
> > possibility: desktop manufacturing enables individual designers; rapid
> > manufacturing and tooling are diminishing the advantages of scale of
> > industrial production, and so do personal fabricators. Social lending
> > creates a distribution of financial capital; and the direct social
> > production of money through software is not far away from being realized
> in
> > various parts of the world (see the work of Bernard Lietaer); If indeed
> > scarcity will create more expensive energy and raw material, a
> > re-localisation of production is likely, and peer-informed modes of
> > production will be enabled to a much greater extent.
> >
> > The second concept is sustainability. Since an infinite growth system
> cannot
> > last indefinitely, we need to move to new market concepts as described
> by
> > the throught schools of natural capitalism (David Korten, Paul Hawken,
> Hazel
> > Henderson), capitalism 3.0 (Peter Barnes' proposal to use trust as
> property
> > forms because they impose the preservation of capital), cradle to cradle
> > design and production processes so that no waste is generated. We need
> to
> > move to a steady-state economy (Herman Daly), which is not necessarily
> > static, but where greater output from nature, is dependent on our
> ability to
> > regenerate the same resources.
> >  The third concept is that of sufficiency. Abundance has not just an
> > objective side, it has a subjective side as well. In the material
> economy,
> > infinite growth needs to be replaced by sufficiency, a realization that
> > status and human happiness can no longer be dependent on infinite
> material
> > accumulation and overconsumption, but will become dependent on
> immaterial
> > accumulation and growth. Having enough so that we can pursue meaning and
> > status through our identity as creative and collaborative individuals,
> > recognized in our various peer communities.
> >
> > And this is where the experience economy comes in! It is the agent of
> that
> > shift, from a need to have, towards the higher needs to be and to
> > experience. Only a rich experience economy can avoid a culture of
> > frustration and sacrifice, and the repressions and unhappiness that such
> > could entail. This experience economy however, will not just be created
> by
> > commercial franchises, but there will also be the direct social
> production
> > of cultural value. Businesses and peer communities, enabled and
> empowered by
> > a partner state, will have to create a rich tapestry of immaterial
> value,
> > and the thicker the surrounding immaterial value, the lighter our
> attachment
> > to mere having will be.
> >
> >
> > On 8/16/07, Paul B. Hartzog <paulbhartzog at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/13/07, Vasilis Kostakis < kostakis.b at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To begin with, Paul claims ,amongst others, that "the authentic life
> is
> > > > always a subversion, a resistance, a revolution, against some
> attempt by
> > > > someone else to bind it, to bound it, to define it, to constrain
> it…"
> > > > whereas afterwards he states that "to live authentically means to
> create
> > in
> > > > each moment something that cannot be taken and used for other
> purposes
> > > > because it is necessarily invisible to those who would attempt such
> a
> > > > theft". To be honest I cannot follow this syllogism as I find it a
> bit
> > of
> > > > oxymoron. More specifically, supposing that authentic life is a
> > revolution
> > > > against some attempt to bind it, we simultaneously accept that
> authentic
> > is
> > > > visible to its opponents or in other words to its exploiters.
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing out my little cul-de-sac :-)  I was thinking that
> > > the word "attempt" helped to clarify, but on review it seems it didn't
> > > help much.  Off the top of my head, a weak example might aid:
> > >
> > > Imagine a narrative in which "they" have designs to steal your book of
> > > Aristotle, because they perceive that it is the source of your power
> > > to resist their Machiavellian schemes.  What is "invisible" to them is
> > > that it is your experience of the substance of Aristotle and not the
> > > possession of the commodity Aristotle that is the source of your inner
> > > strength.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Furthermore, Paul's final conclusion, which I find brilliant, is
> that
> > "the
> > > > really interesting and revolutionary things going on in the world
> are
> > > > invisible to those who would oppose them".  Therefore, I believe
> that
> > the
> > > > really revolutionary things are visible to their opponents, who,
> > however,
> > > > fail to spot and feel the real essence of them - resembling humans
> > despite
> > > > that they can see the flower and even smell it, they are incapable
> of
> > taking
> > > > real advantage of it: humans can only cut (by "killing") it, while
> bees
> > > > succeed in channelling bliss from it.  In that case both bees and
> humans
> > can
> > > > see the flower (it is not invisible) , but, to put it in Paul's
> terms,
> > the
> > > > true substance of the experience -the authentic- belongs entirely to
> > bees,
> > > > and the superficial one to humans.
> > >
> > > Thank you.  Much of the work I have been involved with (futurist work)
> > > has been for corporate clients.  I have had deep discussions with my
> > > colleagues as to the possibility that we are fore-warning our enemies
> > > by teaching them about the economic importance of open-source, or
> > > cooperation, etc.  These are troubling possibilities.
> > >
> > > What is fascinating however is that by and large they truly seem to be
> > > incapable of "seeing" the essence of recent changes in production.
> > > The music industry literally cannot understand the reality of digital
> > > sharing; they (so far) only see it as epiphenomenal to their
> > > established (industrial era)  economic processes.  It is an
> > > aberration, a parasite; it could not stand on its own (they say).
> > >
> > > I will be giving a talk in November at De Montfort about
> > > Oort-Cloud.org (an endeavor by myself and Richard Adler) and "Social
> > > Publishing" in general (
> > http://www.oort-cloud.org/?q=node/2 or
> > >
> > http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/02/social_publishing.php
> > ).
> > > The notion of social publishing receives the same treatment from
> > > traditional publishing that music file sharing received from the music
> > > industry:  almost complete blindness.  It is the same treatment that
> > > wikipedia receives from traditional encyclopedists (knowledge
> > > elitists).
> > >
> > > I have yet to find a good metaphor for this, so I am asking for all of
> > > your help.  A good example from history, of a new process that was
> > > ignored and/or downplayed by the establishment ("It'll blow over" or
> > > "It's a fad") would suffice.
> > >
> > > much thx,
> > > -Paul
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > http://www.PaulBHartzog.org
> > > http://www.panarchy.com
> > > PaulBHartzog at PaulBHartzog.org
> > > PaulBHartzog at panarchy.com
> > > PHartzog at umich.edu
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
> > >                  --Muriel Rukeyser
> > >
> > > See differently, then you will act differently.
> > >                  --Paul B. Hartzog
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> > (distributedcreativity.org)
> > > iDC at mailman.thing.net
> > > https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> > >
> > > List Archive:
> > > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> > >
> > > iDC Photo Stream:
> > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
> > >
> > > RSS feed:
> > > http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
> > >
> > > iDC Chat on Facebook:
> > > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
> > >
> > > Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> > alternatives.
> >
> > Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> > http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
> >
> > Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499;
> > interview at
> > http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html;
> > video interview, at
> >
> http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
> >
> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
> > http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm
> > _______________________________________________
> > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> > (distributedcreativity.org)
> > iDC at mailman.thing.net
> > https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> >
> > List Archive:
> > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> >
> > iDC Photo Stream:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
> >
> > RSS feed:
> > http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
> >
> > iDC Chat on Facebook:
> > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
> >
> > Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
> >
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.PaulBHartzog.org
> http://www.panarchy.com
> PaulBHartzog at PaulBHartzog.org
> PaulBHartzog at panarchy.com
> PHartzog at umich.edu
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
>                  --Muriel Rukeyser
>
> See differently, then you will act differently.
>                  --Paul B. Hartzog
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
> distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>



-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html;
video interview, at
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20070817/b9e030bd/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the iDC mailing list