Network production is presented as the condition for two trends, which are conceived as intertwined and codependent. On the one hand is the universal benevolence of a new superior smartness, which can lead—who knows?—to the development of a new life-saving drug by Eli Lilly. On the other hand is the new labor regime of loose, ad hoc, flexible employerworker relations epitomized by such projects as InnoCentive. These two trends are constructed as intertwined; that is, in order to reap the benefits of this new network rationality we must accept the more flexible, precarious, and privatized regime of employment, since both are predicated on the characteristics of the network. Network technology has the ability to make production more rational, but to do that successfully, it is implied, workers must be redefined as autonomous nodes in the network that can be flexibly mobilized to a specific project and then let go (see Figure 5.1).
To be more precise, according to the digital discourse, to achieve superior smartness we must accept flexible employment, since both are predicated on the characteristics of the network, especially on “the strength of weak ties,” identified in the article as “a central tenet of network theory” (Howe 2006). Here, the notion of “weak ties” that the article borrows from sociologist Mark Granovetter is translated quite literally and unproblematically into the realm of production relations to mean weak ties between employers and employees, or between different nodes engaged in a collaborative project, as the digital discourse would have it.<sup>5</sup>
Network Production
125