Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age The Spirit of Networks

CAPITALISM AND LEGITIMATION

These critiques have recently been reconceptualized as central to the transformation of capitalism. In a major recent work, Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello register and analyze the emergence of The New Spirit ofCapitalism (2005), thus building on and updating the classic work of Max Weber. While accepting Weber’s basic framework regarding the “spirit” of capitalism, they introduce two important modifications, rendering it historical and critical. The historical dimension they introduce refers to the transformations of capitalism. Concurrent with the transformations in the operation of capitalism, its spirit changes as well. Following the framework of Régulation School theory, they detect a radical break in the spirit of capitalism between Fordism and post-Fordism. The Fordist spirit was characterized by a long-term commitment between employers and employees and by the sense of building a career path within the business organization. Businesses and corporations were clearly demarcated and distinguished from one another and from the generalized market; organizations were hierarchized and centralized; workers were expected to become highly skilled in specific tasks at which they would become increasingly proficient.

In contrast, the new spirit of capitalism that emerges with post-Fordism is based on notions of flexibility, networks, and connectionism. It entails short-term and temporal relationships between employers and employees. The locus of production becomes the network rather than autonomous companies; the axis of production becomes the ad hoc project, and work involves not specialization but the ability to multitask (see also Bauman 2001; Sennet 2000, 2006).

In addition to historicizing Weber’s notion of “spirit,” Boltanski and Chiapello also offer a more radicalized reading of Weber, giving it a critical edge. With his study on capitalism, Weber has taught us that capitalism entails not only the material necessities of a particular mode of production but also the idyllic features of a spirit that makes capitalism reasonable from the points of view of individual actors (Weber 1958). Between the social structure of capitalism and the agency of actors lies the realm of meaning. The spirit of capitalism endows meaning (at first, performing one’s “Divine Calling” to the best of one’s ability in order to gain prescience about salvation and, later, rationality) to action (the endless accumulation of capital). The spirit of capitalism provides the motivation for actors to participate in the practices of capitalism and to pursue the roles assigned to them with seriousness and intent. It provides a framework within which the mundane actions involved in the reproduction of society are given (a transcendental) meaning. In turn, it also gives capitalism legitimacy and stability. The spirit of capitalism is a discourse (to use a later term) that both describes and enables capitalism.

24

Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age

In its original formulation, Weber’s framework explains a social change but not a critical (i.e., reasoned) change. The spirit of capitalism, according to Weber, facilitated a social change, but this change emanated from one sphere (religion) and shaped—by way of unintended consequences— the realities of another sphere (economics). Here is the second element in Boltanski and Chiapello’s rendition of Weber’s framework: because the spirit of capitalism is historical, it also carries with it a critical potential. By understanding the structural transformations of capitalism as juxtaposed against the substantial role of the world of ideas, Boltanski and Chiapello conceptualize the transformations of capitalism as a response to the critique of capitalism.

The critique of capitalism, they suggest, is inherent to the nature of capitalism itself: “a need for the unlimited accumulation of capital by formally peaceful means” (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, 4; emphasis mine) also requires capitalism to make itself politically legitimate. Boltanski and Chiapello see the spirit of capitalism as a form of “justification” (Boltanski and Thevenot 2006), which explains why a particular social constellation is universally beneficial. Justification means not simply a posteriori legitimation of the realities of capitalism (in the way that the notion of ideology implies) but also a priori limitations on its modus operandi. This need to provide justification for capitalism creates two conditions of possibility for critical engagement and social change: capitalism might fail in the tests of its justification (i.e., it would not live up to its own promises), and, in turn, a pressure will be created to transform it either through a demand for stricter adherence to its tests or through its wholesale transformation—that is, the creation of a new justification and, in effect, a new form of capitalism.

Capitalism_, Technology_, and the Digital Discourse

25

In other words, the spirit of capitalism can also serve as a springboard for both the critique of capitalism and for its transformation. In the hands of Boltanski and Chiapello, the spirit of capitalism becomes a mediating concept between the legitimation of the prevailing constellation of power and its curbing. It lies midway between performing a discursive servitude to capitalism and offering a springboard for its critique; between acting as an ideology that disguises particularistic interests and a justification that can potentially constrain their materialization. According to Boltanski and Chiapello, the new capitalism and its spirit were constructed within the coordinates and terms set by the artistic critique of capitalism. More specifically, they claim that the new spirit of capitalism has been constructed as a response to the artistic critique of capitalism (that which laments the alienating consequences of capitalism). The upshot of this has been a suppression of the social critique of capitalism (that which laments exploitation).

Why Study the Ideology of Techno-capitalism?

Notwithstanding their majestic analysis of its new spirit, however, Boltanski and Chiapello completely ignore the role that technology discourse plays in the legitimation of the new capitalism. Put differently, while Boltanski and Chiapello promise to examine the “ideological changes that have accompanied recent transformations in capitalism” (2005, 3), they neglect to account for the changes in the ideology of technology that have accompanied these very transformations. This book wishes to bring technology—as a central material and ideological component—into the analysis of contemporary capitalism. It takes their framework as its entry point and registers the new spirit of capitalism as it is filtered out through the discourse on network technology, or what Castells calls “the spirit of informationalism” (Castells 1996, 195–200) and what I term the “spirit of networks.”

Previous analyses have already pointed to the ideological underpinnings of contemporary technology discourse (Frank 2000; Barbrook and Cameron 1996; Best and Kellner 2000; Gere 2002; Borsook 2000; Turner 2006; Aune 2001; Mosco 2004; Wajcman 2004; Dean 2002). Such analyses tend to present contemporary technology discourse as false, utopian, or mythical. Thus, for example, Frank (2000) argues that information technology came to be “the most powerful symbolic weapon in the arsenal of market populism” (Frank 2000, 57), with the Internet specifically providing “a sort of cosmic affirmation of the principles of market populism” (Frank 2000, 79). Aune concludes that the digital discourse played a decisive role in the ideological struggle of Selling the Free Market (Aune

26

Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age

1. during the 1980s and 1990s. Such analyses assert contemporary technology discourse to be an ideology of the free market, according to which network technology is leading to “the apotheosis ofthe market—an electronic exchange within which everybody can become a free trader” (Barbrook and Cameron 1996, emphasis mine), that is, an embodied ideal of the free market (Robins and Webster 1999, 67). Likewise, in The Digital Sublime (2004), Mosco understands the digital discourse as the myth of our time. By insisting on digital technology as ushering a historical break, it “mask[s] the continuities that make the power we observe today . . . in the global market . . . very much a deepening and extension of old forms of power” (Mosco 2004, 83).

Such works analyze the digital discourse as an ideology in the Marxist sense of the term: an ideational veil that conceals material contradictions. While such approach is insightful in its own right, it also misses an aspect of the digital discourse that I like to highlight in my analysis. Rather than assessing the truth value of the claims made by the digital discourse, I endeavor to decipher the particular historical form that such discourse assumes and assess its legitimation value. Analyzing the digital discourse as a sociological unit of analysis in its own right (i.e., as a social reality in itself rather than simply a report on social reality) will give us insight into the particular form that technology discourse assumes. Such analysis will show the dual character of contemporary technology discourse, which promises both an overcoming of the alienating components of capitalism because of its integration with network technology and a naturalization and depoliticization of the continuation, and even exacerbation, of its exploitative components.

By investigating the discourse on technology this book hopes to achieve two goals: first, to register the new keywords and terms, frameworks and truisms, metaphors and models that are used to account for the new lived realities of contemporary digital capitalism, and second, to explain the hegemonic, ideological, and legitimatory dimensions of this new discursive universe. In short, this book will explain the texts and subtexts of the new techno-political order of capitalist societies. The multiple social, political, and ideological coordinates of technology make its study dynamic, contingent, and historical and require the analysis of technology’s specific constellations in a particular point of time. Hence, a study of the digital discourse highlights both the continuity and changes in the history of the discourse on technology in modernity.

With these particular theoretical and analytical lenses I hope to show the digital discourse to be not a simple description of the realities of network capitalism but rather a discourse that legitimates—through a “technologistic” framework (Webster and Robins 1999)—the new constellations of power entailed by the new stage of capitalism. At the center of this discourse, I argue, is the promise—anchored in network technology—of capitalism to enhance individual emancipation by alleviating alienation and the concurrent suppression of the promise to enhance social emancipation by alleviating exploitation, which has been a staple of the legitimation discourse on technology during Fordism.

Capitalism_, Technology_, and the Digital Discourse

27

28

Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age

Contemporary Technology Discourse

After locating in the previous chapter this research on contemporary technology discourse in its theoretical and sociological field, this chapter will attend to its empirical and methodological facets. The immateriality and vagueness of the notion of the digital discourse—the object of study in this book—demands that we first describe what it is, where it can be found, and what it looks like. The chapter then goes on to present Wired magazine as a suitable case study for the analysis of the digital discourse. Finally, the chapter discusses the methodological approach employed to analyze this case study.

The Digital Common Sense

On May 8, 2006, the BBC News channel in Britain featured a short segment on its morning newscast concerning a court verdict in the legal struggle between Apple computers and the Apple Records label. The anchor invited an expert on network technology and the digital society, Guy Kewney, the editor of the technology Web site Newswireless, to discuss what this verdict “means for the industry and the growth of music online” (BBC 2006a). Let me quote this short interview with only a few omissions. It is noteworthy that the expert’s mother tongue was evidently not English. The anchor opened by asking the expert, “Were you surprised by this verdict today?”

Expert: I am very surprised to see this verdict to come on me, because I was not expecting that . . . So a big surprise anyway.

Anchor: A big surprise, yeah, yes.

Expert: Exactly.

Anchor: With regards to the cost that’s involved, do you think now more people will be downloading online?

C H A P T E R 2

Expert: Actually, if you can go everywhere you’re going to see a lot of people downloading to the Internet and the Web site everything they want. But I think . . . eh . . . it is much better for development and . . . eh . . . to inform people what they want and to get the easy way and so faster if they are looking for.

Anchor: It does really seem to be the way the music industry’s progressing now, that people want to go onto the website and download music.

Expert: Exactly. You can go everywhere on the cyber cafe, and you can check . . . you can go easy. It is going to be an easy way for everyone to get something to the Internet.

Anchor: Guy Kewney, thanks very much indeed. (BBC 2006a)

That these few blurbs by an expert on your average morning newscast do not sound particularity outrageous, surprising, or radical is precisely the punch line of this little anecdote: due to a “casting” mishap, the interviewee was not in fact Guy Kewney the expert, but Guy Goma, an immigrant from Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, who arrived to the BBC building to be interviewed for the position of “Data Support Cleanser” in the IT department and was called in to the morning show studio by mistake. In an apology broadcasted later by the BBC, the anchor expressed what was probably a common sentiment among viewers, saying that “to his [Guy Goma’s] credit, as the interview continued he had a good stab at giving some answers” (BBC 2006b). That Guy Goma could rather easily pass as an expert on contemporary digital culture is a testament (anecdotal nonetheless) to how ubiquitous and hegemonic the discourse on network technology has become. His answers sounded reasonable because they complied with the hegemonic discourse on network technology (would any of us give different answers?). Guy Goma said what we already know; he had spoken the discourse on contemporary network technology, or the digital discourse.

TH_E DIGITA_L DISCO_URS_E

The digital discourse is a body of knowledge aimed at making sense of contemporary society. The premise of this discourse, prevalent in academic, business, political, and popular circles, is that the development and widespread deployment of network technology has ushered in a new society and a new civilization that is so revolutionary that established discourses fail to comprehend and represent it; hence the need for a new discourse. The unique characteristics of network technology are seen as paradigmatically different from previous technological systems, and hence they are seen as socially transformative. The general tone of the digital discourse toward these transformations is usually located on the spectrum between optimistic and euphoric. While problems are acknowledged, the overall movement is seen as universally progressive (with problems promised to be resolved, usually by more sophisticated technology). Thus, a digital civilization is ultimately a more benevolent civilization. The metanarrative of the digital discourse is one of revival: of the economy, of political life, of sociability, and of culture.

30

Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age

The scope and prevalence of the discourse on network technology as a major protagonist of social life is evident even in a cursory skimming through contemporary culture. Indeed, that such a superficial survey brings such a wealth of information from so many cultural spheres is perhaps the best testament to the prevalence of the discourse: it is mundane, quotidian, a matter of fact, and common sense. Let me point out just a few of the manifestations of the digital discourse in the public sphere.

The staples of digital culture—its heroes, artifacts, and institutions— have become part of the general popular culture. Bill Gates, iPod, Google, and YouTube exert influence far beyond their professional boundaries or functional value; they have become iconic of the digital era. They are no longer part of a “geek” culture or the IT professional elite but are at the heart of contemporary culture. Likewise, much of the terminology surrounding network technology—“high-tech,” “dot com,” “bugs,” “open source,” “networking,” and many more—has percolated into the general public discourse. A striking example of that is the distinction between “hardware” and “software,” which is drawn straight out of the technical terminology of computer professionals and has become a metaphor and a powerful cognitive model in a variety of spheres and discourses.

Guy Goma aside, experts specializing in the new social realm of network technology, cyberculture, and so forth have indeed flourished. These experts and self-defined gurus were sprouting on the public sphere, illuminating for the public the new technological realities and their social ramifications. A reliable indication of the popularity of the digital discourse is the proliferation of nonfiction books aimed at the general public. A list of some of the more popular titles published recently illustrates the extent to which network technology has come to dominate public discussion and has become a public matter. The list also underscores the general tone of optimism prevalent in the discourse: technology is mostly seen as a tool for emancipation and liberation, for overcoming obstacles and amending problems, and for change for the better.

The narratives of the digital discourse, which will be unfolded at length in the following chapters, have been explored in numerous popular books:

Contemporary Technology Discourse

31

• The narrative of a technologically induced revolution dominates titles such as The Evolution ofWired Life: From the Alphabet to the Soul-Catcher Chip—How Information Technologies Change Our World (Jonscher 1999).

• The idea of human emancipation and even transcendence through network technology has been explored in such books as The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Kurzweil 2005), The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (Kurzweil 2000), and The End ofMedicine: How Silicon Valley (and Naked Mice) Will Reboot Your Doctor (Kessler 2006).

• The narrative of individual empowerment vis-à-vis the state and the market has been discussed in An Army ofDavids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths (Reynolds 2006), The Power Of Many: How The Living Web Is Transforming Politics, Business, And Everyday Life (Crumlish 2004), and Me++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City (Mitchell 2004).

• The narrative of economic revitalization is captured in such titles as The Weightless World: Thriving in the Digital Age (Coyle 1999), The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More (Anderson 2006a), The Wealth ofNetworks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Benkler 2006), Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers (Scoble and Israel 2006) and The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture (Battelle 2005).

• Networks, their tremendous positive potential, and the viral spread of networks from technology to society has been explored in Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software (Johnson 2002), Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks (Buchanan 2002), Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means (Barabasi 2003), Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution (Rheingold 2002), The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture (Taylor 2003) and Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies (Oram 2001).

• The chaotic character of networks has been famously explored in Out ofControl: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World (Kelly 1995).

• Blogs and their positive effects on individual empowerment and the revitalization of civic life are explored in such titles as We’ve Got

32

Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age

Blog: How Weblogs Are Changing Our Culture (The Editors of Perseus Publishing 2002), Who Let the Blogs Out?: A Hyperconnected Peek at the World of Weblogs (Stone 2004), and Blog!: How the Newest Media Revolution is Changing Politics, Business, and Culture (Kline and Burstein 2005).

Another reliable indicator of the ubiquity of the digital discourse and its penetration into general public discussion can be glanced from the covers of Time magazine. A survey of covers of the magazine between 1980 and 2008 reveals more than forty covers featuring network technology and its human and nonhuman protagonists. (This list includes covers that refer specifically to digital technology and excludes covers that refer to technology and science in general, such as medical technology or space travel.) The significance of this survey is that network technology appears as the cover story in one of America’s most popular and influential weekly newsmagazines. In these issues, digital technology and its protagonists trump politicians and various social issues (such as school violence or sex) as the top general interest concern of the day. Three covers of special importance are those featuring Time’s “Man [and later, “Person”] of the Year.” The 1982 Man of the Year was the personal computer (PC). Andy Grove of Intel was man of the year for 1997. And the 2006 Person of the Year was “You,” that is, each and every individual user of network technology.

Wired Magazine as an Epitome of the Digital Discourse

To study the hypothetical construct of the digital discourse, I will delimit myself mostly to the analysis of a single, well-demarcated, and concrete articulation of the digital discourse that would serve as a case study: Wired magazine, one of the most consistent and crystallized articulations of the digital discourse. Published since 1993 with great success, Wired has issued more than 180 monthly issues thus far and has a current circulation of approximately seven hundred thousand (Darrell 2007). Wired grew out of, and indeed concurrently with, the dot-com bubble, the explosion of network technology and the Internet, and the emergence of the high-tech industry as a central engine in the economy and a powerful source of identity and culture. It is located, socially and geographically, at the heart of the revolution on which it purports to report: new technologies, new businesses, new people, and new media that make up the digital universe. Wired, in other words, is also part of that revolution. As the magazine’s founder puts it, Wired is “the mouthpiece of the digital revolution” (Wolf 2003, 52).

Contemporary Technology Discourse

33