Response to Benkler: Five Prominent Points of Discussion How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
Yochai Benkler presents arguments that echo those of the late implications of newer media theory. At the pinnacle of his argument is the diversification of the locust of power within the transactions among users of communication technology and it’s resulting economy. The changes in the distribution of power have transitioned from predominantly market and proprietary advantages to production by individuals and large group efforts among them. The transfer of power from “one” to “many”, motivates individuals to become more involved with the exchange of information. The particulars of the exchanges are theorized to produce, as Benkler and many feel to be, “a more critical and self-reflective culture” (2006,p.2). Social production and the increase of nonmarket production is said to be highly associated with the Internet. This is because of the influx of networks and production that are sustained by cheap processors linked together and capable of high computation (Benkler, 2006, p.3).
Benkler expressed that there are three observations emerging on behalf of the new democratized information production system. He mentions the (a.) influx of nonproprietary strategies being very important to productivity. This increases the likelihood for the fusion of traditionally less prioritized components of capitalistic economy as permeating the evolving market value system. He stresses education, arts, sciences, political debate and theological disputation among the ideologies that have become more illusive within the transactions of information exchange. (b.)The coordinating effects of networked users stresses the availability of access and usage to copious amounts of people, verses controlled access present in the past. The diffusion of the exchanges has resulted in a wide span of (c.) cooperative work and peer production of information; Thus, the broadening of knowledge and enrichment of culture.
Internet usage is the epitome of user driven innovations. In chapter 3 of Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks, the author hones in on examples of peer production and sharing. At the heart of each example is the notion of asymmetrical allotment of power; Democratized usage, resulting in users of network systems allowed to be creators or abolitionists of content and exchangeable information. Benkler stresses the importance of open-source software and the sharing of production power to enrich the capacity of culture to share their knowledge freely with one another. He weighs to issues of the eager yet cautious transition from economy prided on capitalism to one that incorporates tweaks to accommodate open contribution and consumption (2006, p. 2-5). He talks about Amazon, Wikipedia, Second Life, Open Directory Project and Slashdot as just a few, but popular examples of the successes of many users being allowed power to interact with the information technology environment.
Benkler feels that the impact of the information exchange economy influences the culture in two very obvious ways. He explains that culture becomes more transparent and malleable. I interpreted this upon his usage of a folk culture analogous to the pre industrial era as a transgression towards a more uninhibited culture, one that thrives on interaction and broadening of views and values. The openness resulting in what Benkler mentions as “more self-reflective and critical”, of the cultures that people are within (2006, p.10).
As International interactions among cultural norms and practices increases, the observation of cultures external to one’s own equates to the contemplation of a variety of ways of doing things. The exposure to diversified cultural practices optimizes a weighing of morals and the status quo. Benkler does not support technological determinism as much as he feels that the value that human agency places on the organizations, communities and external structures to the human itself is “for better or worse” carried out by humanity. Benkler’s argument screams that today’s human agency allots power to the user because of the braided usage style. “User”-no longer meaning strictly consumer of goods, but producer as well and more importantly sustainer and official as well (2006, p. 13-14).
