[iDC] How does social media educate?

Michel Bauwens michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 9 22:31:27 EST 2007

Hi Ulises,

Thanks for this very well done synthesis and your own take on it.

I would like to add two comments.

First of all, when you superpose the commodity and the gift.

In my own research, I have concluded that the dynamic of peer production of
the common, is not a gift economy as understood by Mauss, but a form of
non-reciprocal exchange, without direct creation of social bonds between
individual persons (but it shares with the gift economy the processes of
gifting and sharing). Alan Page Fiske's relational model is very useful to
see the differences.

Second, why would the commodity always trump the gift. The platform enablers
are using the value created by peer producers through aggregation, but so
are peer producers using them. That they have already imposed the new model
of generalized gratuity is already a fundamental advance. I refer to a
French book which analyses how gratuity has always coincided with important
social advances. Why not keep the situation open, as both processes being
important and interpenetrated, not deciding in advance that peer producers
have already lost?

At the same time, I would also challenge that we are using the master's
house. I'd follow both the theory of Andrew Feenberg, and the concrete
analysis of the evolution of the internet (when the wizards stay up late) to
argue, that this is not the master's house, but rather the combined product
of 3 forces, the state, the private sector and civil society, with the
values of the latter have been a key factor, forcing an adaptation of the
others. So rather, I would argue that this technology is a social
compromise, containing a good dose of values which were antithetical to the
corporate ethos. I'm sympathetic to the view of the Italian autonomists,
that history is not just the advance of capital and the passive reaction of
the people, but rather the advance/innovation of the people, and the
adaptation by the powers that be (and more interesting is an integral
approach, holding both as true).


On 2/10/07, Ulises <arsalaan1-idc at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Reading the insightful interventions from Trebor, Michael, Ryan and danah
> jumped-started my brain today.
> Trebor considers the ethics of participation in social media by focusing
> on the revenue sharing practices of some Web 2.0 companies. According to
> him, the framework of capitalism makes it difficult for networked
> participation to amount to an authentic challenge to the status quo.
> Michael, on the other hand, suggests that this challenge is possible if we
> focus on the ethics of the choice between participation in authentically
> open peer-to-peer networks versus participation in market-driven,
> corporate-sponsored 'faux open' networks.
> I know I run the risk of misinterpreting their positions by reducing them
> to such an extent, but in any event, the exchange reminded me of a recent
> piece by Jonathan Lethem in Harper's:
> The Ecstasy of Influence
> http://www.harpers.org/TheEcstasyOfInfluence.html
> It's about the dynamics of plagiarism or 'quotation' in the construction
> of art. After reading Trebor and Michael, I realized that social media
> objects (say a YouTube video or a del.icio.us tag), like works of art,
> exist simultaneously in two economies: a market economy and a gift economy.
> According to Lethem, "The cardinal difference between gift and commodity
> exchange is that a gift establishes a feeling-bond between two people,
> whereas the sale of a commodity leaves no necessary connection." Like works
> of art, social media objects establish both kinds of connections
> simultaneously (I think this is what danah is also hinting at, in her
> lady-like way ;-)  when she talks about the need for new 'social scripts' to
> deal with the tensions in these new social architectures). A social media
> object is at once a gift from which peers in a network can derive value,
> pleasure, etc., and a commodity from which companies can derive revenue.
> This tension is inherent in social media, and we gain little by looking at
> social media exclusively from the perspective of a gift or a commodity.
> However, most of us do live in advanced capitalist societies, so it is not
> surprising that when push comes to shove, the commodity will trump the gift.
> MySpace will end up in the hands of Murdoch; YouTube and del.icio.us in
> the hands of Yahoo! Sure, authentic alternatives can emerge, but most of
> them tend to be co-opted sooner or later, and those that don't still have to
> operate within a capitalist framework.
> Furthermore, we need to acknowledge that what allows the commodity to
> trump the gift is a built-in affordance in social media. This was succinctly
> and hilariously summed up in a recent Colbert Report segment about the
> practice of corporations such as Microsoft taking advantage of the
> 'openness' of open content initiatives such as Wikipedia to create favorable
> buzz about their products. Colbert says: "Open source software is like free
> trade, and the invisible hand of the market has the mouse now!"
> http://www.tv.com/the-colbert-report/barry-lando/episode/955739/summary.html
> (Microsoft was paying Wikipedia contributors to portray Vista in a good
> light). Ironically, the cards are stacked so that 'openness' can be best
> exploited by the 'free' market. At least for the moment.
> Lee Bollinger put it in more academic (but less funny) terms than Colbert.
> In a recent conference about media reform, he was talking about the barrier
> to public discourse that new media such as YouTube represent for those
> without broadband: "We are certainly left with a fundamental problem:
> commitment to robust, open, and free speech, but with an overlay of economic
> effects which create disparities of access and therefore not a full rich
> marketplace of ideas."
> http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2007/02/09/News/Cronkite.Lauds.New.Crop.Of.Journalists-2709584.shtml
> >
> So Web 2.0 is a platform that supposedly guarantees all these wonderful
> opportunities for participation and change, but we can only apply it if we
> buy into a whole set of assumptions about who should have access to it, how
> profit should be derived from its use, how it should be distributed, etc. It
> is a gift and a commodity. As Trebor points out: "Corporate platforms for
> socializing are of course also spaces where activism and much interesting
> artistic practice are situated today." But given the propensity for the
> commodity to trump the gift, he concludes: "We should just give up looking
> to the web for autonomous spaces, perhaps. The best you can get today is
> hybrid capitalism." The emergence of social movements that offer 'radical'
> alternatives while perpetuating the status quo isn't anything new, as Ryan
> points out in his analysis of the politics of waste.
> So should we give up and let the market leads us where it may? Not at all!
> And this is where I want to go back to issue of education. I believe it's
> possible to formulate a 'literacy' of networked participation. People need
> to develop the critical skills necessary to differentiate between open and
> proprietary platforms, and be aware of the repercussions of what happens
> when the former mutates into the latter. People need to be able to
> articulate the benefits of contributing to a gift economy, and develop the
> technological skills to be able to do so. People need to be able to
> determine when it's appropriate to use corporate platforms to disseminate a
> message, and how to maximize its effect. People need to question how
> networked participation is changing the relationship with their immediate
> surroundings, delivering a 'hyperlocal' version of their environment where
> things that are not nodes in the network are simply invisible. And so on.
> Can education help people recognize the advantages of contributing to an
> alternative gift economy instead of buying into the limited/short-term
> openness of corporate Web 2.0? Sure it can! Can the educational
> applications of social media contribute to this revolution? Of course! But
> let's maintain a healthy skepticism about the limits of the technology and
> the scale of the change. Radical educators (think Freire) have had success
> in the past, but always at a small scale. I think the greatest disservice we
> can do to our cause is to fantasize that social media will explode the scale
> this time. The problem with using the master's tools to bring down the
> master's house is that the house they erect in its place will probably look
> a lot like the old one. That's something Freire had to realize before he
> could formulate an alternative pedagogy of the oppressed. If Freire was
> alive today, what do you think he'd say of the educational affordances of
> MySpace? Would he be posting video manifestos on YouTube? Or would he be
> arguing that the digital divide is nothing more than a reincarnation of the
> White Man's Burden?
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
> distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/

The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
video interview, at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20070210/9771a55d/attachment.htm

More information about the iDC mailing list