Participation is therefore paradoxical: the majority of political, economic, cultural and social actors invite us to join in, but they take no responsibility for its ultimate end. In contrast to the emancipatory principles which are claimed, the participatory register is too often based on a sort of instrumentalization— one which involves nothing less than the shaping of socio-economic power relations, to the detriment of citizens and workers both nationally and internationally.
Living in Project Mode
More generally, these platforms raise questions about the displacement of social structures in which the project becomes central. Every moment of life is governed by a project. From an early age, one has to build a life project. Students, the unemployed, academics, retirees, politicians—all must base their lives and work around the constant renewal of projects. Managers define several diferent project models: project companies, project portfolios, project teams, and so on (Asquin et al. 2005). Mainstream media is full of articles encouraging us to develop our economic life, our entrepreneurial life, and our personal life in ‘project mode’. There are a vast number of books like Charles Smith’s (2017), full of tips for succeeding in these new approaches. The challenge is to overcome all possible barriers to achieving one’s goal, facing down constant challenges. ‘Project planning’ is defined by its unique, non-renewable nature. It involves the experiential dimension discussed above. Success depends on one’s ability to master these unforeseeable events and to monitor a range of environmental constraints, all in a determined, ‘irreversible’ period of time. Moreover, this conception of life in project mode correlates to a dynamic aim of progress and increased action on the part of citizens.
Paradoxically, the individualization which ‘project’ mode brings with it is necessarily accompanied by forms of collaboration and sharing. Crowdfunding platforms valorize this project mode, and are saturated with this ideology—a genuine instance of social engineering, based on the short term, the permanent fragmentation of individual social spaces, the multiplication and diversification of skills, and permanent competition. In their own way, they track broader transformations in social structure. For this reason, as the proponents of the most retrograde social reforms claim, ‘pedagogy’ is necessary. Any contradiction can supposedly be dissolved with some ‘educational’ efort. As we have seen throughout this book, we are far from Foucault’s disciplinary society: these platforms illustrate and contribute to the development of suggestions whose nature is, in reality, that of a command. These platforms seem to reject any obligation, and deploy discursive strategies where we can observe a shift towards forms of suggestion which should be followed—but without guaranteeing success for any users who comply. They participate in processes of normalization which, once accepted and naturalized, are no longer questioned. Criticising them becomes all the more complex as there is no longer any obligation—an argument used systematically by the platforms whenever criticism is raised. Lastly, crowdfunding’s use of brief, short-term modalities of action denies any form of long-term commitment.
General Conclusion
103