{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","title":"DIGITAL LABOR THE INTERNET AS PLAYGROUND AND FACTORY","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780415896948","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","id":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","uuid":"a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","title":"DIGITAL LABOR THE INTERNET AS PLAYGROUND AND FACTORY","normalized_title":"digitallabortheinternetasplaygroundandfactory","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780415896948","isbns":["9780415896948","9780415896955","9780203145791"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":267,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/DIGITAL%20LABOR%20THE%20INTERNET%20AS%20PLAYGROUND%20AND%20FACTORY","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/a31b1606-7526-4f42-a12d-1edcb41ff0e7/search"},"page":{"printed_page":113,"pdf_page":120,"physical_index":120,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"f4236adb61eb7c11f303993261bd54741d007d7f16ea30ad3fb18af6c1fc8e0b"},"chapter":"DIGITAL LABOR","content":"From the science of nanotechnology to the nanodesign of artificial atoms for what has been trademarked “programmable matter,\" the aim, as Parisi sees it, is “to neutralize the distinction between the physical composition of materials—atoms, photons, protons, electrons—and their properties, such as color, shape, smoothness, brightness, and so on,\"such that “material can change their substance instantaneously like the design and debugging of software\" (Parisi 2012: 38). Parisi sums up by proposing that,\n\nby entering the realm ofpure potentials—of color, shape, roughness, electricity,vectoriality, etc., programmable matter promises an architecture of instantaneous realization of potentialities. ... At work here no longer is control intended as the calculation of the future by means of prediction, or the calculation of the unknown through pre-set probabilities. The disappearance of bio-physical contingencies instead is directly proportional to the nano-programming of uncertainties as the inclusion of fuzzy states in the design of thought and extension. (Parisi 2012: 39)1\n\nI have quoted at length from one of Parisi's essays to situate my discussion of measure, as she situates her discussions of calculation and computation, in relationship to technoscientific development (Parisi 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Nanotechnological development also is meant to frame my return to an earlier moment of engagement with labor, affect, and measurein a 2007 publication that I coauthored with Greg Goldberg, Rachel Schiff, Aaron Weeks, and Craig Willse titled “Notes Toward a Theory of Affect-Itself.\"We drew on George Caffentzis's disagreement with Hardt and Negri's claim that the value of immaterial or affective labor is immeasurable. Arguing instead that capitalism “imposes an extremely quantified form of life on its constituents,\" Caffentzis warned against claims of immeasurability, proposing that capitalists have sought and still do seek a way to measure what at first seems immeasurable. Caffentzis not only argued that exploitation still was measureable in terms of laborers' production of surplus value, but he also proposed that those who would resist capitalism must have quantitative capacity to match the quantitative capacity at the service of capitalism.2\n\nWhile taken with Caffentzis's interest in measure and capitalism's quantitative capacity, we felt that the question of the measurability or immeasurability of affective labor had to be posed differently than in terms of laborers’ productive time, since affective labor as Paolo Virno (2004), among others, would have it, goes even beyond the labor of communicative and cognitive capacities in a knowledge societyorinformation society, beyond what Marx called the labor of a general intelligence to the laboring ofaffect in a biopolitical society where affect refers to\n\nThe Digital, Labor,and Measure beyondBiopolitics\n\n113","previous_page":null,"next_page":null}