free labor producing culture for the digital economy

The real not-capital is labor. —Karl Marx, Grundrisse Working in the digital media industry is not as much fun as it is made out to be. The “NetSlaves” of the eponymous Webzine are becoming increas- ingly vociferous about the shamelessly exploitative nature of the job, its punishing work rhythms, and its ruthless casualization (www.dis- obey.com/netslaves). They talk about “24–7 electronic sweatshops” and complain about the ninety-hour weeks and the “moronic management of new media companies.” In early 1999, seven of the fifteen thousand “vol- unteers” of America Online (AOL) rocked the info-loveboat by asking the Department of Labor to investigate whether AOL owes them back wages for the years of playing chathosts for free.1 They used to work long hours and love it; now they are starting to feel the pain of being burned by dig- ital media. These events point to a necessary backlash against the glamorization of digital labor, which highlights its continuities with the modern sweat- shop 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 capital- ist societies. In this essay I understand this relationship as a provision of “free labor,” a trait of the cultural economy at large, and an important, and yet undervalued, force in advanced capitalist societies. By looking at the Inter- net as a specific instance of the fundamental role played by free labor, this essay also tries to highlight the connections between the “digital economy” and what the Italian autonomists have called the “social factory.” The “social factory” describes a process whereby “work processes have shifted from the factory to society, thereby setting in motion a truly complex machine.”2 Simultaneously voluntarily given and unwaged, enjoyed and exploited, free labor on the Net includes the activity of building Web sites, modifying software packages, reading and participating in mailing lists, and building virtual spaces on MUDs and MOOs. Far from being an Tiziana Terranova Free Labor PRODUCING CULTURE FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY Social Text 63, Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2000. Copyright © 2000 by Duke University Press. 2. Terranova 4/24/00 11:22 AM Page 33 “unreal,” empty space, the Internet is animated by cultural and technical labor through and through, a continuous production of value that is com- pletely immanent to the flows of the network society at large. Support for this argument, however, is immediately complicated by the recent history of critical theory. How to speak of labor, especially cul- tural and technical labor, after the demolition job carried out by thirty years of postmodernism? The postmodern socialist feminism of Donna Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” spelled out some of the reasons behind the antipathy of 1980s critical theory for Marxist analyses of labor. Har- away explicitly rejected the humanistic tendencies of theorists who see labor as the “pre-eminently privileged category enabling the Marxist to overcome illusion and find that point of view which is necessary for changing the world.”3 Paul Gilroy similarly expressed his discontent at the inadequacy of Marxist analyses of labor to describe the culture of the descendants of slaves, who value artistic expression as “the means towards both individual self-fashioning and communal liberation.”4 If labor is “the humanizing activity that makes [white] man,” then, surely, humanizing labor does not really belong in the age of networked, posthuman intelli- gence. However, the “informatics of domination” that Haraway describes in the “Manifesto” is certainly preoccupied with the relation between cyber- netics, labor, and capital. In the fifteen years since its publication, this tri- angulation has become even more evident. The expansion of the Internet has given ideological and material support to contemporary trends toward increased flexibility of the workforce, continuous reskilling, freelance work, and the diffusion of practices such as “supplementing” (bringing supplementary work home from the conventional office).5 Advertising campaigns and business manuals suggest that the Internet is not only a site of disintermediation (embodying the famous death of the middle man, from bookshops to travel agencies to computer stores), but also the means through which a flexible, collective intelligence has come into being. This essay does not seek to offer a judgment on the “effects” of the Internet, but rather to map the way in which the Internet connects to the autonomist “social factory.” I am concerned with how the “outernet”–— the network of social, cultural, and economic relationships that criss- crosses and exceeds the Internet–—surrounds and connects the latter to larger flows of labor, culture, and power. It is fundamental to move beyond the notion that cyberspace is about escaping reality in order to understand how the reality of the Internet is deeply connected to the development of late postindustrial societies as a whole. Cultural and technical work is central to the Internet but is also a widespread activity throughout advanced capitalist societies. I argue that 34 Tiziana Terranova 2. Terranova 4/24/00 11:22 AM Page 34 such labor is not exclusive to the so-called knowledge workers, but is a pervasive feature of the postindustrial economy. The pervasiveness of such production questions the legitimacy of a fixed distinction between production and consumption, labor and culture. It also undermines Gilroy’s distinction between work as “servitude, misery and subordina- tion” and artistic expression as the means to self-fashioning and commu- nal liberation. The increasingly blurred territory between production and consumption, work and cultural expression, however, does not signal the recomposition of the alienated Marxist worker. The Internet does not automatically turn every user into an active producer, and every worker into a creative subject. The process whereby production and consumption are reconfigured within the category of free labor signals the unfolding of a different (rather than completely new) logic of value, whose operations need careful analysis.6 The Digital Economy The term digital economy has recently emerged as a way to summarize some of the processes described above. As a term, it seems to describe a formation that intersects on the one hand with the postmodern cultural economy (the media, the university, and the arts) and on the other hand with the information industry (the information and communication com- plex). Such an intersection of two different fields of production consti- tutes a challenge to a theoretical and practical engagement with the ques- tion of labor, a question that has become marginal for media studies as compared with questions of ownership (within political economy) and consumption (within cultural studies). In Richard Barbrook’s definition, the digital economy is characterized by the emergence of new technologies (computer networks) and new types of workers (the digital artisans).7 According to Barbrook, the digital economy is a mixed economy: it includes a public element (the state’s funding of the original research that produced Arpanet, the financial sup- port to academic activities that had a substantial role in shaping the cul- ture of the Internet); a market-driven element (a latecomer that tries to appropriate the digital economy by reintroducing commodification); and a gift economy element, the true expression of the cutting edge of capi- talist production that prepares its eventual overcoming into a future “anar- cho-communism”: Within the developed world, most politicians and corporate leaders believe that the future of capitalism lies in the commodification of information. . . . 35Free Labor 2. Terranova 4/24/00 11:22 AM Page 35 Yet at the “cutting-edge” of the emerging information society, money-com- modity relations play a secondary role to those created by a really existing form of anarcho-communism. For most of its users, the net is somewhere to work, play, love, learn and discuss with other people. . . . Unrestricted by physical distance, they collaborate with each other without the direct media- tion of money and politics. Unconcerned about copyright, they give and receive information without thought of payment. In the absence of states or markets to mediate social bonds, network communities are instead formed through the mutual obligations created by gifts of time and ideas.8 From a Marxist-Hegelian angle, Barbrook sees the high-tech gift economy as a process of overcoming capitalism from the inside. The high-tech gift economy is a pioneering moment that transcends both the purism of the New Left do-it-yourself culture and the neoliberalism of the free market ideologues: “money-commodity and gift relations are not just in conflict with each other, but also co-exist in symbiosis.”9 Participants in the gift economy are not reluctant to use market resources and government fund- ing to pursue a potlatch economy of free exchange. However, the potlatch and the economy ultimately remain irreconcilable, and the market econ- omy is always threatening to reprivatize the common enclaves of the gift economy. Commodification, the reimposition of a regime of property, is, in Barbrook’s opinion, the main strategy through which capitalism tries to reabsorb the anarcho-communism of the Net into its folds. I believe that Barbrook overemphasizes the autonomy of the high- tech gift economy from capitalism. The processes of exchange that char- acterize the Internet are not simply the reemergence of communism within the cutting edge of the economy, a repressed other that resurfaces just at the moment when communism seems defeated. It is important to remember that the gift economy, as part of a larger digital economy, is itself an important force within the reproduction of the labor force in late capitalism as a whole. The provision of “free labor,” as we will see later, is a fundamental moment in the creation of value in the digital economies. As will be made clear, the conditions that make free labor an important element of the digital economy are based in a difficult, experimental com- promise between the historically rooted cultural and affective desire for creative production (of the kind more commonly associated with Gilroy’s emphasis on “individual self-fashioning and communal liberation”) and the current capitalist emphasis on knowledge as the main source of value- added. The volunteers for America Online, the NetSlaves, and the amateur Web designers are not working only because capital wants them to; they are acting out a desire for affective and cultural production that is 36 Tiziana Terranova 2. Terranova 4/24/00 11:22 AM Page 36 nonetheless real just because it is socially shaped. The cultural, technical, and creative work that supports the digital economy has been made pos- sible by the development of capital beyond the early industrial and Fordist modes of production and therefore is particularly abundant in those areas where post-Fordism has been at work for a few decades. In the overdevel- oped countries, the end of the factory has spelled out the obsolescence of the old working class, but it has also produced generations of workers who have been repeatedly addressed as active consumers of meaningful com- modities. Free labor is the moment where this knowledgeable consump- tion of culture is translated into productive activities that are pleasurably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited. Management theory is also increasingly concerned with the question of knowledge work, that indefinable quality that is essential to the processes of stimulating innovation and achieving the goals of competi- tiveness. For example, Don Tapscott, in a classic example of managerial literature, The Digital Economy, describes the digital economy as a “new economy based on the networking of human intelligence.”10 Human intel- ligence provides the much needed value-added, which is essential to the economic health of the organization. Human intelligence, however, also poses a problem: it cannot be managed in quite the same way as more tra- ditional types of labor. Knowledge workers need open organizational structures to produce, because the production of knowledge is rooted in collaboration, that is, in what Barbrook defined as the “gift economy”: The concept of supervision and management is changing to team-based structures. Anyone responsible for managing knowledge workers knows they cannot be “managed” in the traditional sense. Often they have specialized knowledge and skills that cannot be matched or even understood by man- agement. A new challenge to management is first to attract and retain these assets by marketing the organization to them, and second to provide the cre- ative and open communications environment where such workers can effectively apply and enhance their knowledge.11 For Tapscott, therefore, the digital economy magically resolves the contradictions of industrial societies, such as class struggle: while in the industrial economy the “worker tried to achieve fulfillment through leisure [and] . . . was alienated from the means of production which were owned and controlled by someone else,” in the digital economy the worker achieves fulfillment through work and finds in her brain her own, unalien- ated means of production.12 Such means of production need to be culti- vated by encouraging the worker to participate in a culture of exchange, whose flows are mainly kept within the company but also need to involve an “outside,” a contact with the fast-moving world of knowledge in gen- 37Free Labor 2. Terranova 4/24/00 11:22 AM Page 37 eral. The convention, the exhibition, and the conference—the more tradi- tional ways of supporting this general exchange—are supplemented by network technologies both inside and outside the company. Although the traffic of these flows of knowledge needs to be monitored (hence the cor- porate concerns about the use of intranets), the Internet effectively func- tions as a channel through which “human intelligence” renews its capac- ity to produce. This essay looks beyond the totalizing hype of the managerial litera- ture but also beyond some of the conceptual limits of Barbrook’s work. It looks at some possible explanation for the coexistence, within the debate about the digital economy, of discourses that see it as an oppositional movement and others that see it as a functional development to new mechanisms of extraction of value. Is the end of Marxist alienation wished for by the manager guru the same thing as the gift economy heralded by leftist discourse? We can start undoing this deadlock by subtracting the label digital economy from its exclusive anchorage within advanced forms of labor (we can start then by depioneering it). This essay describes the digital econ- omy as a specific mechanism of internal “capture” of larger pools of social and cultural knowledge. The digital economy is an important area of experimentation with value and free cultural/affective labor. It is about specific forms of production (Web design, multimedia production, digital services, and so on), but is also about forms of labor we do not immedi- ately recognize as such: chat, real-life stories, mailing lists, amateur newsletters, and so on. These types of cultural and technical labor are not produced by capitalism in any direct, cause-and-effect fashion; that is, they have not developed simply as an answer to the economic needs of capital. However, they have developed in relation to the expansion of the cultural industries and are part of a process of economic experimentation with the creation of monetary value out of knowledge/culture/affect. This process is different from that described by popular, left-wing wisdom about the incorporation of authentic cultural moments: it is not, then, about the bad boys of capital moving in on underground subcul- tures/subordinate cultures and “incorporating” the fruits of their produc- tion (styles, languages, music) into the media food chain. This process is usually considered the end of a particular cultural formation, or at least the end of its “authentic” phase. After incorporation, local cultures are picked up and distributed globally, thus contributing to cultural hybridiza- tion or cultural imperialism (depending on whom you listen to). Rather than capital “incorporating” from the outside the authentic fruits of the collective imagination, it seems more reasonable to think of cultural flows as originating within a field that is always and already capi- 38 Tiziana Terranova 2. Terranova 4/24/00 11:22 AM Page 38 talism. Incorporation is not about capital descending on authentic culture but a more immanent process of channeling collective labor (even as cul- tural labor) into monetary flows and its structuration within capitalist business practices. Subcultural movements have stuffed the pockets of multinational cap- italism for decades. Nurtured by the consumption of earlier cultural moments, subcultures have provided the look, style, and sounds that sell clothes, CDs, video games, films, and advertising slots on television. This has often happened through the active participation of subcultural mem- bers in the production of cultural goods (e.g., independent labels in music, small designer shops in fashion).13 This participation is, as the word suggests, a voluntary phenomenon, although it is regularly accom- panied by cries of sellouts. The fruit of collective cultural labor has been not simply appropriated, but voluntarily channeled and controversially structured within capitalist business practices. The relation between cul- ture, the cultural industry, and labor in these movements is much more complex than the notion of incorporation suggests. In this sense, the dig- ital economy is not a new phenomenon but simply a new phase of this longer history of experimentation. Knowledge Class and Immaterial Labor In spite of the numerous, more or less disingenuous endorsements of the democratic potential of the Internet, the links between it and capitalism look a bit too tight for comfort to concerned political minds. It has been very tempting to counteract the naive technological utopianism by point- ing out how computer networks are the material and ideological heart of informated capital. The Internet advertised on television and portrayed by print media seems not just the latest incarnation of capital’s inexhaustible search for new markets, but also a full consensus-creating machine, which socializes the mass of proletarianized knowledge workers into the econ- omy of continuous innovation.14 After all, if we do not get on-line soon, the hype suggests, we will become obsolete, unnecessary, disposable. If we do, we are promised, we will become part of the “hive mind,” the imma- terial economy of networked, intelligent subjects in charge of speeding up the rhythms of capital’s “incessant waves of branching innovations.”15 Multimedia artists, writers, journalists, software programmers, graphic designers, and activists together with small and large companies are at the core of this project. For some they are its cultural elite, for others a new form of proletarianized labor.16 Accordingly, the digital workers are described as resisting or supporting the project of capital, often in direct If the population of Internet users is largely made up of “knowledge workers,” then it matters whether these are seen as the owners of elitist cultural and economic power or the avant- ga