cross posted to 8040
I’m reading a paper copy of Hardt’s, Affective Labor, and one of the passages that stuck out at me was on page 94-5, where he says, “Today, as general social knowledge becomes ever more a direct force of production, we increasingly think like computers, and the interactive model of communication technologies becomes more and more central to our laboring activities.”
Then, in the footnotes, he cites Peter Drucker. He gives Druker credit for understanding the significance of immaterial production, but then he slams Drucker for not knowing that “knowledge is not given but produced” (95). At first, I didn’t quite get that.
I thought back to a couple days ago when Sacha commented on my blog and shared some links with me. She shared her knowledge with me. So what’s the distinction between giving and producing? Well, then, finally…, I was like, Duh.
She could have used that time to produce something for pay, but she didn’t. She performed an affective act of production that was an example of immaterial labor.
Ok, see, this is what I love about blogging. It’s not just, here is what I know about something, or a “push,” and if I understand these terms accurately, there is an affective turn when people post and comment back and forth.
In one of her earlier posts, Sacha wrote about surrounding yourself with exceptional people and how important that is in her life. I totally get that. It’s affective. Blogging is one way that high energy can manifest. I just love the knowledge sharing, or to take Hardt’s point, knowledge producing.
Because there is no immediate for-pay economic transaction with blogging, some people can think it’s just a time drain or an outward egomaniacal move in identity formation. But, here’s the thing: Blogging is an affective transaction that may have long-term effects we can’t readily measure.
Hardt even says, “What affective labor produces are social networks, forms of community, biopower” (96). That is so true. I think anyone that is not plugged into blogging is missing an electron or two. But, maybe that is just an example of me thinking like a computer!
Hardt’s main point is, “although affective labor has never been entirely outside of capitalist production, the processes of economic postmodernization that have been in course for the past 25 years have positioned affective labor in a role that is not only directly productive of capital but at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy of laboring forms.” Hardt even acknowledges that “the fact that affective labor produces value in some sense is new” (97). So what does he mean? Here he continues, and says “What are new, on the other hand, are the extent to which this affective immaterial labor is now directly productive of capital and the extent to which it has become generalized through wide sectors of the economy” (97). But, why is that important? Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as providing an example of the fact that in some situations we now pay more for affective labor. For example, some banks now charge people more to make a transaction with a real live teller. That is an example of an affective transaction that is ‘now directly productive of capital.’ But, this idea doesn’t seem that new. Ok, well, the essay was written in 1999. What was new back then…LOL…seems obvious today.
I think where things really get moving are when Hardt talks about the biopolitical context of affective labor. He says, “the production of affects, subjectivities, and forms of life present an enormous potential for autonomous circuits of valorization, and perhaps for liberation” (100). Ok, so if I turn back to the subject of academic blogging–in some sense, we’re forming these networks of valorization and that is where we have the potential to become a powerful social network. For an example of this, just look at the effects political bloggers have had on the news media and politicians. I think our academic colleagues sometimes get tired of academic bloggers blogvangelizing, but still. I think there is a potential here. I mean, look at Collin’s post, Communificationalized to see what he and crew are doing with CCC Online. That grew out of blogging and will have a big effect on the network, and making the products of academic labor more available is an example of affective labor. Heck, I think what Derek posted about yesterday, Syracuse’s Community Day is a reflection of his valuing the affective labor of his colleagues. Check out this year’s program, or even last year’s. Totally cool.
But, our capitalist economy is roaring strong, and the power of the dollar still trumps everything else in most situations. If I circle back to Sacha’s point, change happens when we more frequently surround ourselves with exceptional people, it’s that momentum is needed in the economic valuing of affective labor, which hinges on people, action and environment. We have to do more things in the network to affect more change. Hmm..ok, this is where I understand more what the Creative Commons movement is trying to do. Ok, I’ll stop for now. I need to work on other projects, but if this sparks something for you, please comment.