facebook, the transumer and liquid capitalism
During this “great recession” capitalism might become lighter and more liquid while older and more solidified traditions wash away in the flux of unstable markets (potentially an economic “reboot,” similar to Schumpeter’s notion of capitalism as “creative destruction”). Zygmunt Bauman’s “liquidity” thesis about our late-modern world becoming more fluid seems relevant in light of the “transumer” and “virtual commodities”, both having received recent attention.
The transumer (video) is, in part, one who encounters “stuff” temporarily as opposed to accumulating it permanently. Zipcar, Netflix and others mentioned articulate that for many, especially the young and/or wealthy, the physical amassing of “stuff” is unwanted and instead have begun to rent items people once accumulated. “Stuff”, for many, is decreasingly allowed to solidify on our shelves and in our attics, instead flowing in a more liquid and nimble sense through consumers’ lives.
Another article discusses the rise of “virtual goods” -digital commodities such as gifts on Facebook or weapons on World of Warcraft. Again, the trend is towards “lighter” exchange as opposed to the solid and heavier exchange of physical goods. Microsoft was Bauman’s example of “light capitalism”, producing light products such as software, which is, opposed to heavier items such as automobiles, more changeable and disposable. The proliferation of virtual goods also exemplifies this trend.
Going further, one might wonder if we are seeing a further lightening towards a “weightless capitalism”. Facebook is valued at $10billion because it merely created a template that is editable by its users. While not completely weightless (because Facebook still needs to maintain servers that host the site and the offices of its programmers), the site approaches a sort of weightless capitalism because it outsources the heavy labor to its users. The site is liquid in that it is not solid and fixed, but rather open to, indeed, dependent on, user input. Because consumers of Facebook (i.e., us) are also producing content and value for the site, we are “prosumers” (producers of that which we consume). Is it the case that “weightless capitalism” is “prosumer capitalism”, and Facebook the paradigmatic case? ~nathan
By nathan jurgenson
In light of the current “great recession” one might argue that capitalism needs to become lighter and more liquid while old solidified traditions wash away in the flux of unstable markets (potentially a “reboot” of the economy, ala Schumpeter’s notion of capitalism as “creative destruction”). Zygmund Bauman’s “liquidity” thesis about our late-modern world becoming more fluid seems relevant in light of two recent New York Times articles highlighting the “transumer” and “virtual commodities”.
The transumer is one who encounters “stuff” temporarily as opposed to accumulating it permanently. ZipCar, Netflix and others mentioned in the article articulate that for many, especially younger folks, the physical amassing of “stuff” is unwanted and instead have begun to rent items people one once accumulated. “Stuff”, for many, is decreasingly allowed to solidify on our shelves or in our attics, but is instead flowing in a more liquid and nimble sense through consumers’ lives.
Another article discusses the rise of virtual goods, that is, digital commodities such as… Again, the trend is towards “lighter” exchange as opposed to the solid and heavier exchange of physical goods. Microsoft was Bauman’s example of “light capitalism”, producing light products (software, as opposed to automobiles, is more changeable and disposable), and the proliferation of virtual goods also exemplifies this trend.
Going further, one might wonder if we are seeing a further lightening, towards a “weightless capitalism”. Facebook is valued in the billions of dollars because it merely created a template that is editable by its users. While not completely weightless (because Facebook still needs to maintain servers that host the site and the offices of its programmers), the site approaches a sort of weightless capitalism because it outsources the heavy labor to its users. The site is liquid in that it is not solid and fixed, but rather open to, indeed, dependent on, user input. Because consumers of Facebook (i.e., us) are also producing content and value for the site, we are “prosumers” (producers of that which we consume). Therefore it might be the case that “weightless capitalism” is “prosumer capitalism”, and Facebook the paradigmatic case. ~nathan
“Facebook is valued at $10billion because it merely created a template that is editable by its users.”
This is actually pretty astounding when one considers that each and every function of Facebook can and is performed via other technologies; if Facebook disappeared entirely tomorrow, its users could still share photos with one another, write messages to one another, and exchange other information very easily.
So what about it is so appealing? That it’s all organized in a single, easy-to-navigate, place? I can see that. It also allows for people to connect with friends of friends, which is exciting and/or scary. In any case, its creators have certainly tapped into this ‘virtual goods’ trend that you speak of. I, for one, am a proud pack-rat and enjoy sifting through my attic on a lazy Sunday.
“It also allows for people to connect with friends of friends…”
…or rather, connect with friends of friends without leaving their homes. Of course, people can and do connect with friends of friends every day without ever turning on a computer.
Your post has me thinking about the ownership of media, too, without the actual medium (i.e. buying a movie on iTunes instead of on a disk).
I wonder how much of this has to do with an–until recently–increasing premium on space. While McMansions bloom in the ‘burbs, urban housing can be limiting in the amount of space for heavy items and the cost to house the heavy items. I recently read about a parking space in Boston that sold for $300,000.
Thanks for an interesting post!
Keri
(Disclosure: member of Netflix and Zipcar.)
One Facebook and value: Is their capacity to monetise behaviour, relationships and desires as expressed through content considered ‘light’? Materially, it’s terrabytes of data daily. Labour wise, it’s thousands of hours of aggregation, moderation, analysis and packaging for sale. I’m new to this theory and am genuinely curious. To whittle down to jst an editable template seem to missing a big part of what it does in terms of its own generative capital and economy?