[ox-en] Some notes on value..
- From: Adam Arvidsson <arvidsson hum.ku.dk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:07:15 +0100
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
This came out of a discussion with Bob Jessop in Lancaster a couple=20=20
of weeks ago.. I'd like to share and would be happy for comments-=20=20
it's all tentative.
Adam
---
BRANDS, ETHICAL CAPITAL AND THE ETHICAL ECONOMY
Brands can be understood to embody a third important form of capital=20=20
in the knowledge economy, along with material capital and knowledge=20=20
capital. Like knowledge capital (IPs) they work to establish a=20=20
monopoly rent from a resource that is essentially socially produced.=20=20
Unlike IPs this resource mainly consists in accumulated affect and=20=20
sociality. (The value of a brand depends on a mass of people=20=20
maintaining a relatively stable pattern of affectivity around it, a=20=20
brand is in this sense something a kin to, almost , a loosely knitted=20=20
community, or maybe a community of weak ties) This way brands are a=20=20
form of ethical capital: they build on the ability and desire of free=20=20
(that is not entirely commanded) actors to create community, in the=20=20
absence of given hierarchies or monetary obligations (cf.=20=20
Aristoteles=92 etikos).
Brands thus establish a third circuit of value (M-C-M=92) that is=20=20
central to informational capitalism. The first, material, circuit of=20=20
value is the classic one described by Marx, value is extracted by=20=20
submitting commanded labor to discipline. In this situation the means=20=20
of production are monopolized by capital and labor time can work as=20=20
an (approximate) measure that allows the systematic abstraction of=20=20
concrete labor into abstract value. The second circuit is that of=20=20
knowledge capital. This builds in part on the direct command over=20=20
salaried labor and the =91classic=92 abstraction of surplus value. To an=20=
=20
increasing extent however it builds on the ability to appropriate=20=20
socially produced resources that are not directly =91owned=92 by capital=20=
=20
and that, consequently cannot be directly commanded. This can be the=20=20
results of state sponsored investments in research and development,=20=20
it can be the synergic productivity of social interaction among=20=20
knowledge workers, research institutions and knowledge intensive=20=20
firms (learning regions, creative cities) and increasingly it is a=20=20
matter of the direct appropriation of knowledge and innovation=20=20
generated in the everyday interaction among ordinary consumers (user-=20
led innovation systems, crowdsourcing, etc.). Brands constitute a=20=20
third circuit that appropriates and commodifies the ethical practice=20=20
of ordinary consumers: their ability and desire to build community.=20=20
This ethical practice is itself the dialectical result of the=20=20
(virtual) completion of the capitalist subsumption of the social.=20=20
That process has produced two important outcomes. First, the=20=20
diffusion of consumer goods, media culture and ultimately networked=20=20
ICTs has greatly enhanced the ability of ordinary people to produce a=20=20
symbolic and affective =96 ethical- framework for life. What Marx has=20=20
called =91General Intellect=92 has thus come at the disposition of=20=20
everybody, as mass intellectuality. Second, the subsumption of the=20=20
social has shattered traditional life forms and generated a=20=20
widespread isolation and alienation. Networked ICTs enable people to=20=20
overcome this condition by generating new forms of sociality. Indeed=20=20
as new media scholars like Danah Boyd and Jean Luis Prada (among=20=20
others) have argued it is mainly the desire for sociality that=20=20
motivates the use of social media.[1] The source of brand value is=20=20
thus the immanent ethical productivity of the social, its new and=20=20
empowered ability and desire to produce community.
But how is the value of this ethical productivity established. This=20=20
question is important not only in order to understand how the=20=20
information economy works today, but also in order to understand the=20=20
future potential of the free social productivity that capital=20=20
increasingly relies on. We clearly have a new mode of production,=20=20
what I call an ethical mode of production, manifested in important=20=20
phenomena like brand value, Open Source Software, peer to peer etc. I=20=20
call this mode of production =91ethical=92 for two reasons: One it is=20=20
mainly based on the desire to construct community (and be recognized=20=20
by that community). Two, its valuable outcomes consist in forms of=20=20
community that can maintain (however temporary) forms of order in a=20=20
complex environment. The valuable contribution of Linux is not=20=20
primary a result of the labor time invested by its participating=20=20
programmers, but of the social organization of those efforts into a=20=20
productive community able to generate a complex outcome. So in the=20=20
ethical mode of production the creation of use value (wealth) no=20=20
longer depends directly on the investment of labor time, instead it=20=20
depends on the ability to create community.
Today such instances of an ethical mode of production are subaltern=20=20
to, if not directly subsumed by the capitalist economy. The question=20=20
is whether this ethical mode of production constitute itself as an=20=20
ethical economy: that is a world economy in the Marxian sense able to=20=20
trade (in some way) the produce of one particular productive network=20=20
with that of another and in that way establish an objective price=20=20
that reflects the socially necessary amount of community construction=20=20
(affect!?) deployed in its production. Can the ethical economy=20=20
develop its own value form? To begin to answer that question we must=20=20
investigate its existing =91value form=92. A good place to begin is to=20=
=20
look at the brand, the actually existing value form of the ethical=20=20
economy.
Brands have a double nature. On the one hand they are commodities,=20=20
objects with certain monetary values that are traded (mainly) on=20=20
financial markets. On the other hand they are a form of ethical=20=20
capital. Their ethical values consist in the investments of mass=20=20
affect that they have been able to accumulate. This is what the=20=20
managerial literature calls =91brand equity=92 (the capacity of a brand=20=
=20
to generate value) and it is what is understood to underpin monetary=20=20
brand values. This ethical value is also what brand valuation=20=20
companies try to estimate in order to produce a legitimation for the=20=20
financial values of brands. So, in the self-understanding of=20=20
contemporary capitalism, the monetary value of brands are based on=20=20
their ethical values, their ability to accumulate mass affect.
What creates these ethical values? They are not the direct results of=20=20
investments in labor time. You can work as much as you want on your=20=20
music and style, that, in itself will not make you a rock star.=20=20
Rather, suddenly something happens and then, you=92ve made it. What=20=20
determines your value are the quality and quantity of affect=20=20
(attention) that you have been able to accumulate. The relation=20=20
between the productive time invested in a project and the mass affect=20=20
that it is able to attract is non-linear, or viral, to use a popular=20=20
marketing term.[2] Models could be found in contemporary mathematical=20=20
theories of network dynamics, and perhaps in Gabriel Tarde=92s theories=20=
=20
of the role of public sentiment.[3] Indeed, the logical relation=20=20
between value and labor is rather the reverse of that usually=20=20
associated with the capitalist economy. Once you have a sufficiently=20=20
attractive brand, you will attract an abundance of free labor as well=20=20
as other resources. Linux has no problems recruiting new programmers:=20=20
people want to work for them for free; people pay to use brands in=20=20
their everyday life and thus freely co-produce their ethical value=20=20
through their constructive consumer practices. On financial markets,=20=20
capital flows to the most attractive brands. More means more in this=20=20
case, if you have accumulated a significant stock of ethical capital,=20=20
people will freely give you their time and further attention, or, on=20=20
financial markets, their capital.
The logic behind ethical capital is political rather than economic.=20=20
Or better it pertains to what Weber saw as the charismatic,=20=20
irrational side of politics. If you, or your brand, can mobilize the=20=20
affective energies of the polis, its members will freely put their=20=20
resources at your disposition. (Fight for your cause; work for you;=20=20
vote for you; give to you of their hospitality- indeed, as Weber=20=20
claimed, peaceful charismatic leaders mainly live off donations from=20=20
the community that they have created[4]). The source of this valuable=20=20
charisma is, as in Weber=92s classic analysis, the ability to create=20=20
community. (By contrast the economic logic of value would be based on=20=20
the ability to command labor (as in the oikos) and thus measure its=20=20
contribution in terms of labor time.) The predominance of brand=20=20
value, reputation, =91ethical capital=92, corporate ethics and similar=20=
=20
entities as elements to the immeasurable intangible values that are=20=20
increasingly important to contemporary capitalism is an empirical=20=20
indication of the fact that this political logic of value is becoming=20=20
increasingly influential in informational capitalism.
Today such political values can only be translated into one abstract=20=20
equivalent, monetary exchange value. The question is however, can=20=20
such political values be made tradable in other ways; and how, in=20=20
that case, would such a system look like?
One point of departure could be Brennan & Pettit=92s idea of an=20=20
=91economy of esteem=92. Coming from a background of academic economics,=20=
=20
they show how that discipline has continuously devalued the=20=20
importance of honor and esteem (central to its precursors like Smith=20=20
and Hume) in favor of a monetary economy of commodities. Yet, they=20=20
argue the economy of esteem is still at work as a powerful force in=20=20
everyday life, in particular within academia (from which most of=20=20
their examples derive). The point of the =91economy of esteem=92 is that=20=
=20
esteem is a scarce good conferred on an actor by the public in=20=20
relation to his or her performance in some area. This means that even=20=20
though the actor might be motivated to perform well in an area in the=20=20
prospect of achieving esteem, performance is never directly exchanged=20=20
for esteem. There are two reasons for this. One, because esteem is=20=20
subjectively and voluntarily conferred at the actor in question:=20=20
there is no point at which he or she (or they) can righteously claim=20=20
esteem from the public. And, two, because doing so, claiming esteem,=20=20
goes against the principle that the charismatic actor must appear not=20=20
to act directly in order to increase his or her charisma. A brand=20=20
like Nike can acquire esteem if it donates an empty building wall in=20=20
Berlin for young people to express themselves on. It will loose=20=20
esteem in so far as the strategic intentions behind this =91gift=92=20=20
become apparent and talked about. So esteem should not, as Brennan&=20=20
Pettit do, be understood as something that is directly exchanged for=20=20
performance. [5] Since the relation between esteem and performance is=20=20
not subject to rational calculation- it is rather an unpredictable,=20=20
non-linear relation, there is no possibility for any rational=20=20
exchange. Rather the relation between esteem and performance should=20=20
be understood along the lines of a gift economy. If I give this=20=20
performance to the community, I can expect to receive roughly that=20=20
amount of esteem. But there is no legitimate way I can complain, take=20=20
action or withdraw my performance if I receive less esteem than I had=20=20
expected. But can esteem in one community be exchanged for esteem in=20=20
another?
Traditional systems of honor and esteem have worked in close-knit=20=20
communities. Scaling them towards the contemporary information=20=20
economy will necessarily entail making esteem transferable between=20=20
different communities with different value standards. What is needed=20=20
to accomplish this is a general medium of exchange, which like=20=20
monetary exchange value can guarantee the transferability to values.=20=20
Such a medium would be different from traditional currencies however:
The amount of esteem an actor can acquire thus has a non-linear=20=20
relation to his or her measurable performance. This is mainly because=20=20
esteem is a multifaceted affective quality that originates in=20=20
subjective judgment that cannot be entirely rationalized: it is an=20=20
irrational quality in the Weberian sense of that term. So any=20=20
objective measure of esteem- the first precondition for making it=20=20
tradable- could not depart from some common measurable standard (like=20=20
labor time)- but would had to consist in an aggregation of a=20=20
multitude of subjective judgments. It would be a sort of bottom-up=20=20
currency, where values are defined by the continuous input of public=20=20
ratings.
Two factors speak for the possibility for the emergence of such=20=20
general media of exchange of esteem. One factor is the increasing=20=20
transparency and visibility of social action. The flip-side to=20=20
increasing surveillance is in this sense the possibility for a new=20=20
ethics: everything you do will be potentially visible to everyone.=20=20
One=92s public person could thus form a common point of reference that=20=
=20
unites estimates of esteem from different communities. Personality=20=20
becomes a generalized medium of communication. The second factor is=20=20
the socialization of the means of organization in networked ICTs. The=20=20
establishment of representative money from the Sumer and onwards has=20=20
been contingent on the administrative capacity of the state apparatus=20=20
controlling the money supply. Now such administrative capacity is at=20=20
the hands of virtually everyone, and consequently we already see the=20=20
emergence of alternative currencies like LETS or Open Money. Some of=20=20
these currencies could be esteem-based. Indeed the world=92s second=20=20
largest currency, air-miles, already is.[6] Essentially air-miles is=20=20
a measure of the affective appreciation that an airline has of you as=20=20
loyal customer, and they can be traded for a wide range of gifts:=20=20
free trips, upgrades, car rentals etc. (Again air-miles do not have=20=20
an objective exchange value, strictly speaking, since their relation=20=20
to possible gifts is subjectively and variably determined by the=20=20
airline itself. Relationship should rather be understood as that of a=20=20
stable gift economy. I give my loyalty to the airline. I can=20=20
reasonably expect the airline to give me a certain kind of gifts in=20=20
return.) Slashdot Karma is another one, quantifying the esteem you=20=20
have accumulated by contributing to various blogs, by systematically=20=20
integrating a multitude of subjective ratings of your performance.
With the likely proliferation of such alternative currencies two=20=20
scenarios are possible. One, a new common standard of value emerges.=20=20
One platform or tool for calculating esteem becomes hegemonic, on=20=20
that platform a number of generally accepted values emerge. The=20=20
likelihood of the emergence of such a new common value system is=20=20
supported by what seems to be a common value-structure among the=20=20
knowledge workers who are the primary users of ICTs: a combination of=20=20
post-materialistic ideas of self-realization, a quest for=20=20
atuthenticity and sustainability with a planetary environmental=20=20
consciousness.[7] Indeed a number of alternative currencies that=20=20
measure esteem in terms of precisely these values are emerging, like=20=20
the The Interra Project, sponsored by VISA founder Dee Hock: "a=20=20
payment card and transaction platform, that rewards customers for=20=20
purchasing from locally owned and sustainable businesses, donates=20=20
automatically to community organizations and facilitates connections=20=20
to like minded members in a self organizing manner." One would thus=20=20
acquire esteem points in relation to one=92s performance in relation to=20=
=20
these common values. Such esteem-points would make one the recipient=20=20
of different kinds of gifts.
Alternatively a plurality of such currencies might proliferate.=20=20
However the socialization of ICTs and common standards will make them=20=20
easily convertible. As Paul Hartzog imagines the scenario in his =91The=20=
=20
future of money=92 :
So, here=92s a scenario for the future. You go to a rock concert, and=20=20
you=92ve never seen the opening band before. You like their music, so=20=20
you get on your mobile device (PDA, cell phone, etc.) and hit the=20=20
band=92s "mobile commerce" exchange. Your software negotiates with=20=20
their software to determine what currencies they accept and what=20=20
currencies your various bank accounts carry, including automatically=20=20
getting you the best currency exchange rate at that instant. The=20=20
system discovers that because they are opening for a major musician=20=20
who has his own currency based on his popularity, the opening band=20=20
has agreed to accept the headliner=92s currency for the duration of the=20=
=20
show for people who are actually at the concert. You verify that you=20=20
are there using some kind of brokered authentication (GPS or a ticket=20=20
number); the two systems complete the transaction for you, and you=20=20
have access to the music.
At any rate such esteem-based currencies can develop alongside the=20=20
monetary economy. For example:
My activity as a blogger earns me esteem. That esteem is converted=20=20
into a quantification pf my ethical standing. On the basis of the=20=20
quantification I receive particular forms of gifts (discounts, access=20=20
to certain services etc). Alternatively it is converted into a=20=20
currency that I trade for certain kinds of goods.
A service allows workers, consumers, subcontractors and other kinds=20=20
of =91stakeholders=92 all along the value chain to rate the performance=20=
=20
of a brand according to their ability to live up to their own=20=20
corporate values (or some other standard). Swiping my cellphone over=20=20
a branded product I get an index of its ethical value. That index=20=20
will affect my decision to purchase the product, or what I want to=20=20
pay for it.
I subscribe to a service that calculates the environmental impact and=20=20
sustainability of my consumption patterns. according to the index=20=20
thus produced I receive certain kinds of discounts or access to=20=20
certain services or goods.
In any case such quantifications of esteem will serve to rationalize=20=20
the ethical economy that we can already see emerging, both in the=20=20
ethical value logic behind intangibles., and increasingly popular=20=20
blended value strategies like Ethical Consumerism and Socially=20=20
Responsible Investment. Indeed the implementation of such systematic=20=20
alternative value standards will give business and other actors a=20=20
stronger incentive to adapt to an emerging ethical economy, or which=20=20
is the same thing, to begin to act politically, with the polis in mind.
In capitalist societies value is embodied in money: we work (ideal-=20
typically) in order to get paid. In many non capitalist societies=20=20
value is rather embodied in public displays of honour, standing,=20=20
hierarchy- ethical standing. Such societies generally use what Turner=20=20
calls =91concrete media of circulation=92 (as opposed to money as an=20=20
abstract medium of circulation) such as public rituals, to=20=20
communicate and embody value. Most such value-conferring rituals=20=20
unfold in societies that have elaborate and relatively static social=20=20
structures. This is clearly not the case for the information society=20=20
where structure is dissolving into flexible networks. On the other=20=20
hand, there are examples, like the Baining of Papaua New Guinea, that=20=20
have little in terms of an elaborate social structure, but still=20=20
largely envision value as ethically embodied.[8] Among the Baining,=20=20
the embodiment of value occurs through a continuous giving of gifts,=20=20
a practice so common that it is part of virtually every social=20=20
encounter. Now social media could work as platforms for such a=20=20
continuous embodiment of ethical value, enabling some sort of ranking=20=20
(conferral of esteem in a quantifiable way) mechanism become an=20=20
integral part of most social interactions.
[1] Prada.J.M. =91Web 2.0 as a new context for artistic practices=92=20=20
Paper presented at !st Inclusiva-net meeting, Medialab, Prado,=20=20
Madrid, 2007 (posted to IDC-list, 22/12, 2007), Boyd, D. =91Identity=20=20
production in a networked culture: Why youth heart MySpace=92, http://=20
www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html, accessed 5/2-08.
[2] Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point. How Little Things Make a Big=20=20
Difference, New York; Brown & co, 2002.
[3] Barabasi. A. L. Linked: The New Science of Networks, Cambridge=20=20
(MA);Perseus Publishing, 2002. , Tarde, G. Psychologie =E9conomique,=20=20
Paris, Alcan, 1902.
[4] Weberm M. =91The sociology of charismatic authority=92, eds. Gerth,=20=
=20
H.H. & Mills, C.W. From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology, London;=20=20
Routledge, 1948, p. 247.
[5] Brennan, G. & Pettit, P. The Economy of Esteem, Oxford; Oxford=20=20
University Press, 2004, p. 72.
[6] The air-miles in circulation in 2002 were worth more than $ 500=20=20
billion, making air-miles second only to the dollar in terms of value-=20
in-circulation, see =91Air-miles threaten dollars dominance=92 BBCNews,=20=
=20
22/5, 2002 (available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/=20
1966290.stm accessed 26/1-2008).
[7] Ray, P. & Anderson, S. The Cultural Creatives. How 50 Million=20=20
People are Changing the World, New York; The Rivers Press, 2000.
[8] Turner, T. & Fajans, J, =91Where the Action Is: An Anthropological=20=
=20
Perspective on =93Activity Theory=94=92 with Ethnographic Implications=92,=
=20=20
unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago, 1988, as cited in=20=20
Graeber, D. Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value, New York,=20=20
Palgrave, 2001, pp. 69, ff.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de