Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COM
MICHAEL LYNCH
Immaterial Labour
Biopolitical Power
UNDER THE INSTRUCTION OF DR. BRIAN BROWN, THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO
Hear the call of independ-
ence: “waged labour and
direct subjugation (to
organization) no longer
constitute the principal
form of contractual rela-
tionship between capi-
talist and worker. A poly-
morphous self-employed
autonomous work has
emerged as a dominant
form...”(Lazarrato 138)
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
Unlike the mass worker, where “the mass worker had been conceptualized
and had become a reality just when it’s period of existence was in fact about
to end,” (Negri 75) the socialized worker has acknowledged their presence and
potential in the midst of evolution: “We have gone beyond Marx, and the social-
ized worker has become a reality... we... experience the actuality of the concept”
(Negri 84). Rather than wait for capital to further impose it’s force on the Web
2.0, socialized workers must rise to the occasion, and use their collective force to
re-appropriate power, diminish the control of capitalism and better the quality
of life. I have witnessed capitalist tradition in the lives of my parents and grand-
parents and even in today’s Web 2.0. It’s presence must be seen as a barrier to
economic evolution. In a world where $700 billion has been given to feed and
repair the errors of capitalism, rather than use that money to train individuals for
the future they’ll occupy, and better a way of life that has not been changed for
over a century, I make it my goal to make known the presence of capitalism in the
Web 2.0 and the steps we must take to get rid of it. I emphasize that, as Antonio
Negri boldly states, “destruction is as important as innovation” (Negri 79). To make
this clear, I shall explore the exploitation of a socialized worker in regards to the
freelancing professional and several websites that both help and hinder their
work process. I shall complement my observations with examples that I find to be
successful and productive, outside of the capitalist model. By noting the features
and implications of websites that do and do not represent the Web 2.0 initia-
tive, I hope to inspire my readers to interpret websites with a new lens, one that
can distinguish the limitations of capitalism and the rising force of the collective
intelligence. Ultimately, I want for them to use that intelligence in changing the
wage relationship and on a broader magnitude, to better the quality of life for all
of humanity.
A BRIEF HISTORY
“Men are much more likely to discover easier and readier methods of at-
taining any object, when the whole attention of their minds is directed
towards a single object” (Smith 6)
I will begin by describing the history of the industrial worker, the division of
labour and the cycles of struggle that have taken place in the last century. In the
early nineteen hundreds there began a series of economic transitions and three
major cycles of struggle for the working class. As Negri points out, the cycles of
struggle represent a shift in thought where ”an adequate theory of value can be
reconstructed,” where the worker evidently had “an important element of class
consciousness” (Negri 76-77). Understanding the past two struggles will help
frame the struggle workers face today.
The first struggle was a result of industrialization and the factory that trans-
formed professionals into mass workers. Professionals, considered masters of
their craft, were made obsolete as capitalists absorbed them into the factory con-
fines and effectively deskilled them by divorcing the product they made with the
manufacturing process itself. Success was found in “decomposing the working
class power by destroying the technical base of the professional worker’s power
and cutting them off from the growing mass of industrial labour” (Dyer-Withe-
ford, 73). Workers no longer needed to be professionals, but only required the
knowledge to perform simplified and repetitive tasks. The new born mass worker
became confined to the factory, which “spatially concentrate[d] huge quanti-
ties of de-qualified labour subjected to the brutality of continuous automated
machine pacing” (Dyer-Witheford, 73). As Frederich Engels puts it, “the victory
of machine-work over hand-work... was won” (Engels 41) and consequently, “the
population reduced to the two opposing elements, workers and capitalists” (En-
gels 50). At this point in time, “the mass worker fights not to uphold the dignity
of a trade, but to make capital pay for lives vanishingly meaninglessly down the
assembly line” (Dyer-Witheford 73).
Hardt and Negri have illustrated this idea very well using the term ‘Biopoliti-
cal power’: “In the biopolitical context capital might be said to subsume not just
the labor but society as a whole or, really, social life itself, since life is both what is
put to work in biopolitical production and what is produced” (Hardt & Negri 142).
To better demonstrate this, a more thorough definition of immaterial labour – the
work made by the socialized worker – is in order. It is important to understand
both the disadvantages immaterial labour faces and also the advantages it ben-
efits from the Web 2.0.
THE BURDEN OF THE SOCIALIZED WORKER
The burden being described should be understood as all of the social as-
pects that contribute towards a product or service, most notably for digital free-
lancers, the requirement of communication. To put it clearly, “jobs now require
cooperation and collective coordination... the subjects of that production must
be capable of communication – they must be active participants within a work
team... The subject becomes a simple relayer of codification and decodification,
whose messages must be clear and free of ambiguity” (Lazarrato 134). In sum, the
socializer worker produces multiple social relationships, and “only if it succeeds in
this production does it’s activity have an economic value” (Lazarrato 137). Com-
munication then, is an imperative asset for the socializer worker. But that is not
all the socializer worker must excel in. The socialized worker must posses intel-
lectual skills, manual skills, and entrepreneurial skills to compete in “the basin
of immaterial labour” (Lazarrato 136). As these skills extend outside any sort of
factory, “it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish leisure time from work
time. In a sense, life becomes inseparable from work” (Lazarrato 137) - and this is
the burden a socialized worker must face and challenge; we must recognize the
effect immaterial labour can have and the ways in which it is wrongfully being
subsumed by the wage relation.
Recall, “...work has become diffused throughout the entire society... it is car-
ried on both within and outside the factory” (Negri 77) and the diffuse factory
“represents a massive operation... which facilitates coordination and integration
over the entire surface of the earth” (Negri 77). Within this system the socialized
worker forms ‘cooperative networks’ whereby “...it is by virtue of the high degree
of cooperation that this person is productive” (Negri 79).
But just as there is a heavy burden placed on the socialized worker, there
is also a new advantage that allows them to cope with such difficulty: the so-
cialized worker is his or her own boss (Negri 81). Scientific management is now
largely something of the past mainly because “the productivity of biopolitcal
power, and specifically the creativity involved in biopolitical production, requires
the freedom of the producers to organize their own time” (Hardt and Negri, 147).
Independence has allowed “information workers [to]... better able navigate inter-
mittent employment” for “they are largely self taught... self motivated, and [pos-
ses] very individualized skills” (Brophy 629). Negri optimistically declares, “revo-
lutionary theory and the utopian appeal are not only possible but present and
increasingly effective” (Negri 83). This idea of revolution can be realized in Marx’s
autonomist theory: understanding that the labourer is free to be independent.
Acknowledging autonomy is key to succeeding as a socialized worker.
After all, much like the professional worker and the mass worker, the socialized
worker too faces their own capitalist conflict.
Michel Foucault, in his studies on the subject and power, makes known that
“what we need is a new economy of power relations” (Foucault 328). To do this,
he argues, we must “bring to light power relations, locate their position, find out
their point of application and the methods used” (Foucault 329). The problem
is that “power relations are rooted in the whole network of the social” (Foucault
345). I aim to seek out such problems faced by the socialized worker so that we
may integrate new power relations. Specifically, the problems I will refer to are
those referring to the digital freelancer and are pertaining to capitalist interven-
tion in the Web 2.0.
To make this idea more clear, I wish to explain a real life scenario in which I
have witnessed the opportunity to exploit a freelancer and lessen the credibility
of the profession all together.
I should be clear that this type of work involves writing code. There is very
little creativity in this type of work (depending on the instruction given) and for
the most part, it is often considered objective, material labour because of the
strict limitations coding languages possess. As treasurer for WashTech, Margaret
Bartley notes, technical skill has gone from being an asset of a scientist to the
mere academic achievements of a routine technician (Brophy 629). If this work is
to be considered so objective, there should not be any difference in rates being
offered. It is obvious then that the results given from my Craigslist ad describe a
major difference in thought.
One must realize that this objective work does involve a type of subjective,
immaterial labour, something that perhaps the Canadians I encountered and my-
self understood more so than the offshore companies. This kind of work involves
communication (primarily email and phone calls), organization, outside research,
and various forms of problem solving (social, cultural and technical). Additionally,
the worker must endure temporal poverty made necessary by the nature of the
job. The difference in thought then is that the offshore companies view the end
product as the total service, whereas those with the higher rate recognize the
process - the immaterial labour - as part of the product. This is presumably what
the higher rate takes into account and rightfully so. To make things worse, defin-
ing the totality of the service being offered by a digital freelancer extends to a
much larger capacity and is much harder to regulate on websites such as
getafreelancer.com.
Tim O’Reilly writes of new design patterns and business models in the Web
2.0, first stating the trend seen in the dot come bubble of 2005: what the success
of all surviving companies had in common was this kind of turning point (O’Reilly
1). He emphasizes that the Web 2.0 is often misunderstood and that some people
understand it to be a mere “marketing buzz word.” Instead, he describes it as “a
set of principles and practices” where “many ideas radiate out from the Web 2.0
core” (O’Reilly 4). He gives one example of the success in Google over Netscape.
While Netscape built a business model based on “the web as a platform”, Google
had “no scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing
or sale, just usage” (O’Reilly 4). Consequently, Google’s business model helped
prove that “the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism
of the data it helps to manage” (O’Reilly). We must understand that indeed “Mi-
crosoft has successfully played the platform card” but ultimately, “Windows repre-
sents the pinnacle of proprietary control via software API’s” (O’Reilly). As one edi-
torial noted, “Microsoft’s business model depends on everyone upgrading their
computing environment every two to three years. Google’s depends on everyone
exploring what’s new in their computing environment every day” (O’Reilly 12).
Simply put, the Web 2.0 has no room for platform computing.
O’Reilly also learns from Google the power of Chris Anderson’s long tail, “the
collective of the small sites that make up the bulk of the web’s content” (O’Reilly).
Essentially, the long tail argument states that smaller, less popular products can
become, collectively, more popular then the most popular products themselves.
Google used this methodology to acknowledge the company’s power held in the
usage it received; the amount of websites it could aggregate and the amount of
users that used their system to get to those websites.
In an age of customization, people seek to find new products that will help
individualize and distinguish them apart from others. Amazon.com, the original
inspiration behind the long tail argument, has a feature enabling users to view
related products that the user might be interested in. This is a complex data man-
agement system that collects personal information; online behaviour is recorded
and used to accurately display products of interest.
Realize that the Web 2.0 has forced capitalism to re-evaluate the working
class made up of socialized workers and has developed a system of capital based
on user behaviour and content. The socialized worker benefits from these new
business models because they are given power to help dictate the market: “user
contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era” (O’Reilly). In
addition to the advantages found to having Web 2.0 business models, socialized
workers are able to use these companies to better their own work. Part of this
process involves taking advantage of the blogosphere.
BLOGGING
O’Reilly writes about how blogs on the Web 2.0 are successful. Part of their
success can be seen in RSS, the permalink and trackbacks. RSS allows users to
subscribe to content and receive notifications of when that content is updated
(desktop applications are available to collect and view subscribed content). Per-
malinks and trackbacks “turned webblogs from an ease-of-publishing phenom-
enon into a conversational mess of overlapping communities,” and essentially
created the two-way link (O’Reilly 8).
These kinds of features have proved that a bloggers true success is “pay-
ing attention to other bloggers” as that will “magnify their visibility and power”
(O’Reilly 9). The more a blogger interacts with other users and blogs (using per-
malinks and trackbacks and commenting on other blogs), the more attraction
they will generate towards their own blog. An active participant is a successful
blogger. As Adam Smith remarked, “man has almost constant occasion for the
help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence
only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self love in his fa-
vour... the charity of well disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole
fund of his subsistence” (Smith12). Cooperation becomes a necessity. O’Reilly
maintains this idea by saying that “users pursuing their own selfish interests build
collective value as an automatic byproduct” (O’Reilly). Web 2.0 is the grounds for
cooperation and we must realize that cooperation is in the best interest of every-
one, independently and collectively.
The ways in which we should use the Web 2.0, that is, the best ways we are to
communicate and collaborate to employ new power relations, is best best under-
stood using Hardt and Negri’s idea of ‘the multitude.’
THE MULTITUDE
“...all forms of labor are today socially productive, they produce com-
mon, and share too a common potential to resist the domination of cap-
ital... Think of it as equal opportunity of resistance”
(Hardt and Negri Multitude, 107)
Hardt and Negri explain that there is a distinction between calling a popula-
tion ‘the people’ and calling them ‘the multitude’: as the people is one, the multi-
tude, by contrast, suggests plurality. The multitude is a term implying a collective
of individuals who negate their differences and work together to refuse the rule
of capital and ultimately, to rule themselves (Hardt & Negri Multitude, 106). As
we have learned, “capital wants to make the multitude an organic unity, just as
a state wants to make it into a people” (Hardt & Negri Multitude, 111). We must
acknowledge this distinction as Hardt and Negri declare that only ‘the multitude’
can achieve true democracy (Hardt & Negri Multitude, 100). We must use the idea
of the multitude to save our individuality. We must, on common ground, fight for
better working conditions, and more so, a better social life.
I will reiterate that the struggles of the past must be acknowledged to un-
derstand the present struggle found in the socialized worker: similarly to how
how mass workers needed to be industrialized, “today labor and society have to
informationalize, become intelligent, become communicative and become af-
fective” (Hardt & Negri Multitude, 109). Just as in the industrial era, “the essential
role of the capitalist in the production process... is to provide cooperation... bring
workers together in the factory, give them the tools to work together, furnish a
plan to cooperate, and enforce their cooperation” (Hardt & Negri 140). The social-
ized worker is autonomous working outside of the factory but communication
and cooperation remain vital to success. We have gone from the professional
to the mass worker, and have evolved into a socialized worker in which capital-
ism attempts to bind to the wage relation using biopolitical power and subsume
individuality under the production process. The struggle involves removing capi-
talist business models from the web and employing a set of new power relations
– relations that acknowledge the immaterial labour done by socialized workers. I
have explained the problem of deregulation as seen on getafreelancer.com and
how blogs are gradually using the Web 2.0 as a means of removing capitalism
and implementing a new economic model that encourages participation, con-
tributions toward public discourse, and overall a genuine ROI. These practices
that involve data management applications and distribution of information can
change the wage relation. Let us realize the faults in traditional capitalist tech-
niques, the independence of the socialized worker and the ways in which we can
better the quality of life.
WORKS CITED
Brophy, Enda. System Error: Labour Precarity and Collective Organizing at Micro-
soft. Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 31, 2006.
Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of
Empire.
New York: Penguin Press, 2004.
O’Reilly, Tim. What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. Retrieved August 20, 2009.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.
html
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations. “On the
Division of Labour.” London: Metheuns & Co., 1776.
Weeks, Kathi. Ephemera. “Life Within and Against Work: Affective Labor, Feminist
Critique, and Post-Fordist Politics.” 2007.