í Assignments

Subcultures or subcultural movements are largely identity based or community based – their function is to create a shared communal space outside of the conventional or mainstream society. (I can’t remember where in the reading I spotted it but the triumvirate of “knowledge/culture/affect” stood out to me. It’s a good way to break down what makes a subcultural movement a shared experience or process.) Community can be a way to party with others who are into the same cultural products and experiences as you or community can function as a way to survive and organize against the dominant paradigm of the society you find yourself within. Community in my opinion has never been solely or explicitly identifiable as a physical-spatial place or region, it can exist digitally, and pre-internet has existed via older media and technologies, through print culture or via the telephone. I, myself am a member of several subcultures, some which are identity based in an intrinsic way and some which are relative to the cultural affects I enjoy.

Breaking down the word, subculture – the prefix sub literally means below or beneath. The word itself implies a binary relationship, an unequal or an offset power dichotomy. Maybe it’s useful to think of a subculture as something that cleaved off of the main culture or dominant culture. It’s not as hegemonically demonstrative but it possesses vitality and gathers it adherents in a powerful counteraction to the dominant mode. That said, I think that subcultures tend to be romanticized from within as well as from without. There is a particular kind of idealization of a movement or community of likeminded individuals that replicates (or perhaps just is and has always been) a form of commodification akin to the process of commodification that is the life force of capitalism. I think it’s human to want or desire a fixed symbol – we live in an unfixed world – and by extension, the internet is even more amorphous and unsteady than the actualities we have been dealing with for centuries before it’s creation.

The main idea is that all current cultures sub or dominant exist within a capitalist framework. Terranova gets that, and clears up any misgivings that even the most savvy Marxist or lefty political enthusiasts almost organically assign to a reading of the digital economy as appropriating the labor of various networked subcultural protagonists.

Drudging up the knowledge/culture/affect triumvirate again, is key here because Terranova gets that what is being offered and also commodified is an extension of human intelligence – which is not just facts or mind focused, its feelings focused. Terranova talks about this in the beginning of her essay, as the reflexive consumption/production action. The commodification of feelings, sensation of belonging, conformity of appearance, anything that communicates membership, ownership, and authenticity is what is being produced, willingly by members of subcultures via products or ephemera that is a part of capital. There is already consumption going on – but now in the networked age, it’s not easily or neatly identifiable as just consumption, it’s also a labor being performed as it offers something in response or through utilizing the consumable.

I’m not sure if I’m the only one that had difficulty with this reading, but I am going to take a stab at what I believe is the point that Terranova is trying to make. She basically believes that subcultural movements have helped capitalism become what it is. My understanding of subcultures is that it is a type of movement that aims to fight against exploitation that results from capitalism. I think Terranova is trying to explain subcultures as being “sellouts” because instead of acting in the interest of the community, they inevitably succumb to capitalism. Terranova believes that capitalism is so entrenched in our society that it is almost impossible to have subculture and capitalism act independently. In order for these subcultures to thrive, they must give up some of their principals and do things that benefit the capitalist, which in turn benefits the subculture.
The example Terranova uses in her argument is small designer shops in fashion, which she says have been “voluntarily channeled and controversially structured within capitalist business practices.” From the reading, the example I thought of was the controversy that has surrounded African American hair for decades. Madam CJ Walker became a self-made millionaire by developing and marketing hair products for black women. Her success was in the “hot comb” which gave African Americans straight, soft hair which was more culturally acceptable at the time. Currently, there is a “natural hair movement” among the black community that encourages women to embrace their natural hair. As a result there has been a rise in hair shampoos, conditioners, etc. designed for “natural hair”. It seems that despite the subcultural movement, capitalism will always press forward and find a way to exploit these movements, and they succeed because the subcultures fight hard for their cause, and so they are unable to see how their cause still serves the capitalist.

Terranova explains that is not that capitalism is swooping down on subcultures to exploit their efforts for profit, rather that once a subculture that has been incorporated, it is at the end of it’s creative cultural development. Though the subculture was originally volunteered into the creative commons, once it is mainstream it is no longer an organic development by the persons who initially created it and is at this point a product adopted by mass culture that is marketed and sold. The best way to understand what Terranova means by saying that such movements are not appropriated by capital from the outside it that culture cannot be created in a vacuum, therefore since capital exists and culture exists (or once it is created) it should be understood that all creative culture is created in the realm of capital. Though just because a subculture is created and capital exists, this in no way guarantees that all culture will be incorporated into the mainstream of capital, rather that everything created has the potential to be incorporated because the platform exists for exposure of culture to lead to the path of capital. In other words, capital practices can adopt a subculture but a subculture does not exist in a world without capital.

Subcultures sustain and grow on the idea of Terranova’s definition of digital economy in which social and cultural knowledge is pooled and shared, in effect its own type of labor not for monetary gains but personal interest in sharing and the growth of cultural industry. However, as this collective knowledge (the subculture) is shared and developed it has the potential to turn into a monetary value and then adopted into the mainstream culture and then turned into forms of capital. Once a subculture, or element of a subculture, is incorporated into the mainstream the element is no longer part of its original cultural development and has transformed into a new phase of culture. Terranova believes that this last mainstream phase of collective labor is not so much “selling out” as it is a transformation because of cultural experimentation, a new element of our digital history.

My take on this rather complexly worded and laid out style of this reading, Terranova seems to basically be saying that, these unique aspects of our cultural heritage seem to always find a way of meeting capitalism and eventually commodification, in its inspirational expressions of our creative work.  I understand that to mean that, as we go about our lives, doing the things that we do online and off, it is essentially our collective nature to interpret that which we are familiar with in new ways and forms, then eventually, presenting it to others…where at some point, it moves completely from the privately held to the public traded.  As an example of this, I look back to my own culture.  I can clearly recognize the patterns of appropriation of cultural forms into the collective identity by listening to the contemporary musical expressions or by looking at the world of beauty & fashion.

The Black, or African-American culture has greatly influenced our collective identity.  Popular music of today, has in its roots, that of Jazz, Blues, Gospel – all forms that were distinctly unique to the culture by which they were produced.  And now, the so-called “Hip-Hop” culture, has become a socially acceptable way of self expression collectively.  Whereas once, the Afro was seen as a negative and distinct cultural characteristic, it is now another cultural appropriation into the collective beauty standard. Or how about the bold, graphic patterns and colors inspired by/influenced from Africa that we see in magazines and on the runways.  Therefore, it is but a matter of time that this same phenomena would occur in our online/Internet collective identity.  The more that we authentically share of ourselves in a myriad of ways, those currents begin to flow from the depths and emerge to influence the surface.

I believe that Terranova characterizes the relationship of subcultural movements to capitalism as one big global conglomerate which as she described “local cultures are picked up and distributed globally, thus contributing to cultural hybridization or cultural imperialism” In other words, subcultural movements, though may have their own interests that operate in the existing social order, it is for the most part an incorporated operation that through labor, is all about financial gain through capitalist business systems. As a result, while social movements are conceived as coming together to form action, there is still conflict when capitalist are allowed to come from the outside to break through the system’s compatibility boundaries.

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that subcultural movements would “sell-out” and lose all focus to the purpose of the movement to begin with, in order to sell products or services.  Big businesses are having their pockets stuffed and persuaded to showcase the subcultural member’s products and goods, while changing the cultural labor.  Free labor is being produced in subcultural movements as the case in a digital society.

In the article by Terranova, Free “Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy.”Social text 18.2 (2000): 33-58.she explains that: “These events point to a necessary backlash against the glamorization of digital labor, which highlights its continuities with the modern sweatshop and points to the increasing degradation of knowledge work. Yet the question of labor in a “digital economy” is not so easily dismissed as an innovative development of the familiar logic of capitalist exploitation. The NetSlaves are not simply a typical form of labor on the Internet; they also embody a complex relation to labor that is widespread in late capitalist societies”.

Therefore, what Terranova means is; its not fitting for subcultural movements to incorporate with capitalist ventures due to the fact that such movements are being taken advantage of by way of “selling their souls to the devil” while trying to move their system up, yet paying the cost through capitalist return.

Due by midnight Tuesday, October 20th (350-400 words).

In her article “Free Labor,” Tiziana Terranova (2015:52-53) argues, “[s]ubcultural movements have stuffed the pockets of multinational capitalism for decades.” How does Terranova characterize the relationship of subcultural movements to capitalism? Using an example (either from Terranova’s essay or your own) explain what you think Terranova means when she argues that such movements are not appropriated by capital from the outside.

Crowdsourcing’s biggest benefit is the ability to receive better quality results. Several people offer their best ideas, skills, and support and you can choose among them what best fits your needs. Crowdsourcing allows you to select the best result from best entries, as opposed to receiving the best entry from a single provider. Results can be delivered much quicker than traditional methods, since crowdsourcing is a form of freelancing. Crowdsourcing is definitely a form of discounted labor, which has grown in grown over the past ten years. Some can say that crowdsourcing, in some ways, has led to an open source for certain technologies. The Google App store for example is open source and crowdsources most of its apps. Crowdsourcing can also be found at Wikipedia, which is probably the best known example of that.

Reality TV show contestants are another example of the cheapened or discounted form of labor created from the rise of digital media. These contestants show up and get paid little to know money to provide entertainment to the masses. Most of the time these are young people who are in these reality shows. These young people look at this as an opportunity to be on tv and in some cases a bigger exposure in the entertainment industry. Historically, there have been a few people who have transitioned to be more than just reality show contestants and now with reality shows focusing on more than just contests we are seeing these reality tv shows that provide an income to people that has never been seen before.

Taylorism was thought of by Frederick Winslow Taylor in his book The Principles of Scientific Management. Frederick Taylor believed that decisions should have more precise procedures. These procedures could not be developed until the individual at work was carefully studied. Taylorism dealt with the following general approaches. There is to be a standard method for performing each and every job. Certain workers would be selected for certain jobs based on their abilities to perform the job, meaning that they would be chosen for the job based upon if they had the required skills necessary for the job. Training would be provided to each person who was hired for the job. The training would be centered around how to perform the job that they were hired for. The work day would be planned for each employee ahead of time. This way they could eliminate most of the interruptions that occur from not having the day planned out. If an employee out performed other employees, such as increased productivity or output, they would be given a wage incentive, such as a raise or a bonus.
Taylorism was supposed to make the workforce better by providing a scientific approach to business management and process improvement. Also, it taught people about the importance of compensation for performance, which would give bonuses or raises for people performing better than others. Managers began to study the tasks required for everyone’s job and not just their own. The right person for the right job is important and training that person to perform that job correctly was equally important.

Glad I learned about Taylorism last semester in my Labor, Technology and the Changing Workplace course.

Cheaper discounted work from users and participants is a great point that Ross makes regarding cheap labor, and reasons due to other forms of media.  I will use the Reality TV show contestant for example; while we watch these shows whether we want to admit it or not, we are using them as a form of entertainment.  Contestants and participants of reality show television are exploited in a way that their lives are exposed and used to depict real life actions as a way to gain exposure and fame.  These contestants and participants are often used as a cheapened and discounted form of labor by the media to be use for entertainment purposes in order to bring business such as advertisements to the media forum for capital gain.

According to readwrite.com; the definition of Attention Economy is a marketplace where consumers agree to receive services in exchange for their attention.

This means that as a consumer, I am willing to pay attention to ads for products and services if I can be heard through blogs, feeds and posts.  The sad truth is that this is an “attention economy” where information is written and posted online and the writer has no rights to the content anymore because it is owned by the company for which is distributing the data.  Therefore, my definition of Ross’ “attention economy” is how authors are all out trying to be heard and attract attention while submitting their work to big business, but are not recognized and or compensated appropriately.  In addition; work is not protected and is vulnerable to the Capitalist to produce the author’s work as if it belonged to them.

Readwrite.com also explains: News feeds illustrate the point well, since they ask for consumers attention in exchange for the opportunity to show them advertising. Search engines also show ads (asking for consumers attention) in exchange for helping users find answers online (a service provided for free in exchange for that attention).

A key point is that The Attention Economy is about the consumer having choice – they get to choose where their attention is ‘spent’. Another key ingredient in the attention game is relevancy. As long as the consumer sees relevant content, he/she is going to stick around – and that creates more opportunities to sell.