[iDC] : Re: Play, Labour & Herbert Marcuse
Margaret Morse
memorse at comcast.net
Mon Oct 12 07:48:42 UTC 2009
Dear Eva, Christian and IDC,
Your particular questions about what erotics is intrigued me, Eva. At
this point, erotics is a little thought about and nearly open field
for discourse. I don't begin with "pleasure," though that is part of
it, since erotics includes attractions and repulsions that also appeal
to what Freud called the "death drive". (One of my art students once
gave me a picture of the "death drive". Your imagination fills in
here.) There is a big psychoanalytic literature on repetition that
could be helpful, re your very relevant question.
My own influences include, of course, Freud's Eros and Thanatos in
Civilization and its Discontents, Raymond Williams "structures of
feeling," film semiotics and its concerns with immersive structures ,
work on emotions and affect, recent neural research and my most
recent research on collaboration. I've just read a friends work on a
discussion group among psychotics that shows how, with immense
difficulty and unfolding over longer stretches of time, psychotics can
collaborate in creating valuable insights for each other that astonish
the psychoanalysts involved with them. Collaboration is tied into my
thinking about erotics in relation to different kinds of social
constellations and activities, including art. I have a very overdue
essay on an project involving collaborative art in an astonishing place.
Sorry I can't be expansive about my thinking on erotics in relation to
playbor. Not only is it in progress, I am madly getting ready to
leave for a symposium that Ruby Rich, Soraya Murray and I are
convening on "The Art of Collaboration" at the U of California Santa
Cruz on the 22nd or 23rd-see http://danm.ucsc.edu/web/collaboration.
I expect no one at the symposium to address erotics directly (I could
be surprised), but I have no doubt I will learn something from our
conversation there. So, I envision a slowly and intermittantly
evolving conversation about erotics coming together rather than my
outlining a field. It could be between us, from time to time, but of
course I invite the list should this topic have any resonance. My work
has always presumed we can learn from the body itself--erotics is
another path.
Playbor is actually quite complex in terms of its attractions and
repulsions. Has the "play" been adequately addressed in terms of
affect in playbor? How do our playborers feel when they are
playboring or thinking about playboring? Is there anything we can
learn from asking this question, for instance, about the motivations
involving the upcoming conference or that might clarify what is
important to address? It is interesting how much anger and near
despair drives the discourse here on playgrounds and factories--is
that worth acknowledging and unpacking? Would it help us make more
telling arguments and explanations in a larger public discourse to
know more about how playbor mobilizes feelings? None of the above are
questions I can specifically answer. I have learned to ask these
questions from playborers and this list.
All the best,
Margaret
On Oct 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Eva Michalcak wrote:
> dear margaret,
>
> many thanks for taking time to answer! actually i though only
> christian was getting involved, so i send my last mail only to him,
> i attach it below, just for the record.
>
> you talk about the erotics of playbor, and specify "not simply fun",
> and i think that is kind of what i meant, what intrigued me in the
> first place: what are these erotics? can it really be something like
> wanting to take care of someone or even a repetitive task (that
> might be percieved as meditative or calming)? what ist the pleasure
> principle christian talks about? how do you define pleasure? could
> it also be that, what we percieve as pleasurable is changing over
> the decades?
> this seems very intresting to me!
> thanks a lot, kind regards
> e.
>
> ------------------
>
> fecha 10 de octubre de 2009 15:12
> asunto Re: : Re: [iDC] Play, Labour & Herbert Marcuse
> enviado por gmail.com
>
> dear christian!
> thank you very much for taking time to answer... and what an answer!
> special thanks for the marx quote, since i myself am not a marx-
> reader.
> althoug the distinction of work and labour is intresting, i think it
> is not quite congruent with my own oservation. for example every one
> would agree that a busdriver is working, but obviously this person
> doesn't either produce anything, nor raise anything related to the
> driving in his/her imagination. same thing for a waiter or a
> nurse.... lets say all servicejobs?
> i was probably not very clear in my first mail: specificly i find
> the play-work issue intresting in connection to care-taking. there
> is a drive in us, just as in animals, to take care of ourselves (in
> the first place), our beloved or even complete strangers (when we
> "adopt" a task, like feeding the ducks in the park or something).
> and also i am wondering why we sometimes feel attracted to
> repetitive tasks (why else would somebody engage in tasks like the
> ones proposed by MTurk? they are not even services, they really turn
> people into parts of a machine(ry)).
> the games like farmville, to which i was referring (and that
> actually IS played online, via facebook: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=102452128776)
> click into some unconcious drive of ours. i am not even sure
> whether it is to exploit us (i didn't see any advertising on my
> friends screen) or really entertain us (but wouldn't it be much more
> entertaining to work in a real garden?)
> you quote marx with "giving play to his bodily and mental powers":
> it is a very noble picture of "work", but i dont see it in somebody
> selling tickets in a cinema and neither do i see it in someone
> playing farmville or tagging images as an MTurk-task.
> so why do we do it?
> hope i am not bothering you, i just really feel quite intrigued by
> these issues...
> thanks again for your time, kind regards
> eva
>
>
> 2009/10/10 Margaret Morse <memorse at comcast.net>
> Dear Christian and Eva,
> I found this getting back to basics really refreshing. Many thanks.
>
> Clearly, my example of work that is also play in my post is "work,"
> not labor. Nonetheless, I think that labor that produces surplus
> value can also be in a context of play when it produces social
> relationships (in less abstract "relations of production.") This is
> not to deny that laborers can driven to suicide when they can't
> reproduce themselves by laboring and when the social value of their
> work is near zero.
>
> You can technically make distinctions that are fuzzier in actual
> experience. (I don't think I am going to bring on more personal
> examples--it is just embarassing if it is not a strategy other
> people are using). Ditto Donna Haraway's "cyborg". Christian,
> could you please give examples of why this figure is not productive
> for you? That would help me understand your reluctance to give her
> cyborg a figurative value. I think the point is that there is
> overlap between animals, machines and humans that is very important
> and that we can't afford to ignore--and that overlap affects our
> economies and well-being, not to mention our culture. I think it is
> interesting that you don't mention her (problematic lack of) gender
> distinctions. I am NOT suggesting that we forget to make
> distinctions, rather that we make much richer and finer distinctions.
>
> Then there is the metaphorical value of the birds and the bees.
> Bees and ants in particular are a very rich point of reference for
> social organizations. We are not bees, but we can learn from
> thinking in analogies about bees. I guess that I am starving for a
> poetics, and as I mentioned, the erotics (not simply "fun"!) of
> playbor in this discussion. Not that it is entirely absent...and
> occasionally honored.
>
> I also don't share the notion that work means that we have an idea
> of exactly what we will produce rather than be surprised by it. Or
> rather maybe that is what makes work art.
>
> Best wishes,
> Margaret
>
> On Oct 10, 2009, at 4:57 AM, <Christian.Fuchs at sbg.ac.at> <Christian.Fuchs at sbg.ac.at
> > wrote:
>
>> dear eva,
>>
>> farm life seems to be a commercial game for nintendo sold for 20
>> euros. it is not advertising-financed, but financed by the money
>> the users pay for purchasing the game. so the basic surplus value
>> producers seem to be those desingers and computer scientists who
>> have created the game, not the users.
>>
>> the situation would change if farm life were transformed into a
>> free to use facebook application. because then the surplus value
>> production process in playing this game would be the same as
>> produced whenever using facebook - being sold as an audience/user
>> to third-party advertising companies (see my paper "Information and
>> Communication Technologies and Society. A Contribution to the
>> Critique of the Political Economy of the Internet" in european
>> journal of communication and an upcoming paper in the first or
>> second issue of the information society in 2010). besides that i do
>> not think that just by playing this game you directly produce
>> surplus value.
>>
>> marx and hannah arendt noted a difference between work and labour.
>> work is concrete and use-value producing, labour is abstract and
>> surplus-/exchange-value producing. there is a footnote by engels in
>> the first chapter of capital, volume 1, that clarifies this
>> difference as marx saw it (in the german edition it is footnote
>> number 16; however, in the english translations of marx you will
>> not always find a correct translation and a mixing of both terms
>> for both meanings). so work is then an anthropological constant of
>> humans/society, labour is only an aspect of dominative societies.
>> marx points that continuously out in his discussion of the
>> difference between abstract and concrete labour and use value and
>> exchange value. the anthropological constant of work and the
>> alienating character of labour can also be found much earlier in
>> his works, e.g. economic-philosophical manuscripts (1844).
>>
>> bird building a nest is a good example. marx mentioned the example
>> of the spider and the bee in order to clarify the difference
>> between animal production and human production:
>>
>> "We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively
>> human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a
>> weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the
>> construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst
>> architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises
>> his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the
>> end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed
>> in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only
>> effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he
>> also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus
>> operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this
>> subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the
>> bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole
>> operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his
>> purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by
>> the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and
>> the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to
>> his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is
>> forced to be. The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1,
>> the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of
>> that work, and 3, its instruments".
>>
>> So for Marx animals produce, but there is no work, no labour, no
>> surplus labour in the animal world, only in the human world. The
>> translation from German to English in this quotation is
>> unfortunately not fully correct, in some instances it should be
>> "work" instead of "labour" and the other way round, that is
>> confusing. in my view, creative work is a fundamental human
>> instinct, labour as surplus-value generating work is not an
>> anthropological constant, but completely alien to humans.
>>
>> I never liked in Donna Haraway's "Cyborg-Manifesto" that she tends
>> to equate animals, humans, and machines on one plane of analysis -
>> the cyborg. There are very important differences between animals,
>> humans, and machines, although they are all material systems.
>> Forgetting the differences can have far-reaching implictions. So if
>> the binarism that Haraway criticizes is diversity without unity,
>> the opposite move is unity without diversity, but the dialectical
>> figure is unity in/by diversity and diversity in/by unity.
>>
>> very interesting is marx's sentence "The less he is attracted by
>> the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and
>> the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to
>> his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is
>> forced to be" (the translation into english of that passage is not
>> very well-chosen). you find a reference to play in this quotation
>> (in both the german (Spiel) original and the english translation).
>> so actually this means: the more feeling of alienation, the less
>> play. today it is: the less feeling of alienation, the more play
>> (or play labour), the more surplus value.
>>
>> playing farm life is also reproductive labour, so based on marxist
>> feminists like maria mies and claudia von werlhoff (and others) you
>> can say that playing farm life indirectly helps producing surplus
>> value because reproductive labour reproduces labour power and
>> capital.
>>
>> farm life seems to be about building a farm (building something is
>> an old concept in computer games, think of sim city in the 1980s
>> and probably other similiar tasks much earlier), but it is embedded
>> into a high-tech computer play environment, so here aspects of
>> agricultural society meet with aspects of informational society. so
>> playing farm life in a high-tech environment could be interpreted
>> as a luddite desire for returning to an archaic life stemming from
>> a more or less conscious or subliminal experience of exploitation
>> of play labour on social networking sites. so are farm life players
>> potential new revolutionaries or fetishistic-ideological luddites
>> or both or nothing of that at all.
>>
>> thanks for stimulating these thoughts, eva.
>> cheers, christian
>>
>> Eva Michalcak schrieb:
>> > hi,
>> > my name is eva and i like to observe developpements on the web
>> for my own private pleasure.
>> > with great interest I have been following the discussions on this
>> list and now i have a question, that i would like to hear your
>> thoughts on.
>> > last night i observed my flatmate playing farmville. as far as i
>> understand, this game is about buidling up and working on a farm.
>> so there is another relation between play and work here, that is
>> neither new nor specific to the internet (i think there are tons
>> tamagochi-like care-taking games in all types of formats), but that
>> i think is very interesting, especially in relation with christians
>> post.
>> > in earlier conversations it was mentioned, how people in the usa
>> would accept mturk-tasks, to perform them while watching tv as a
>> type of "additional entertainment". in this case it seems to me the
>> activity can still be described as "work" since there is a
>> economical revard (however tiny). but what is with farmville? the
>> activity consists in task to be accomplished within a certain time,
>> there is a highscore, but somehow it looks to me as if the biggest
>> revard for this "work" is that you build something "cute"...?
>> > also ive been thinking about how we all seem to have an "instinct
>> to work" and whether that is something that has been implated in
>> our brains by a system that depends on everyones workpower or that
>> always has been there? is a lioness that is hunting doing work? or
>> a bird building a nest? i believe to have read somewhere that the
>> split of our wake hours in working-time/spare-time is an invention
>> of the 19th century (industrialization), and thinking about how
>> life must have been on the countryside some 300 years ago... it
>> kind of would not make sense.
>> > i would really love to read your thoughts on these topics.
>> > thank you and kind regards
>> > e.
>> >
>> > 2009/10/3 Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs at sbg.ac.at>
>> >
>> > Dear list members,
>> >
>> > When I first heard the conference topic, I could not make
>> much of the
>> > aspect of the Internet as playground because it reminded me
>> of computer
>> > games. While preparing my presentation for the NY conference
>> recently, I
>> > thought about the conference theme and want to share some of
>> my thoughts
>> > with you.
>> >
>> > Herbert Marcuse in "Eros and Civilization" connected Marx's
>> notions of
>> > necessary labour and surplus labour/value to the Freudian drive
>> > structure of humans and argued that necessary labour on the
>> level of
>> > drives corresponds to necessary suppression and surplus
>> labour to
>> > surplus-repression. This means that in order to exist a
>> society needs a
>> > certain amount of necessary labour (measured in hours of
>> work) and hence
>> > a certain corresponding amount of suppression of the pleasure
>> principle
>> > (also measured in hours). The exploitation of surplus value
>> (labour that
>> > is performed for free and generates profit) would mean not
>> only that
>> > workers are forced to work for free for capital to a certain
>> extent, but
>> > also that the pleasure principle (play) must be additionally
>> suppressed.
>> > Marcuse argues that the performance principle means that
>> Thanatos
>> > governs humans and society and that alienation unleashes
>> aggressive
>> > drives within humans (repressive desublimation) that result
>> in an
>> > overall violent and aggressive society. Due to the high
>> productivity
>> > reached in late-modern society, a historical alternative
>> would in
>> > principle become possible (if class relations were sublated):
>> The
>> > elimination of the repressive reality principle, the
>> reduction of
>> > necessary working time to a minimum and the maximization of
>> free time,
>> > an eroticization of society and the body, the shaping of
>> society and
>> > humans by Eros, the emergence of libidinous social relations.
>> Such a
>> > development would be a historical possibility -- but one
>> incompatible
>> > with capitalism and patriarchy.
>> >
>> > Gilles Deleuze has pointed out that in contemporary capitalism
>> > disciplines are transformed in such a way that humans
>> increasingly
>> > discipline themselves without direct external violence. He
>> terms this
>> > situation the society of (self-)control. It can for example
>> be observed
>> > in the strategies of participatory management. This method
>> promotes the
>> > use incentives and the integration of play into labour. It
>> argues that
>> > work should be fun, workers should permanently develop new
>> ideas,
>> > realize their creativity, enjoy free time within the factory,
>> etc. The
>> > boundaries between work time and spare time, labour and play,
>> become
>> > fuzzy. Work tends to acquire qualities of play, and
>> entertainment in
>> > spare time tends to become labour-like. Working time and
>> spare time
>> > become inseparable. At the same time work-related stress
>> intensifies and
>> > property relations remain unchanged.
>> >
>> > The exploitation of Internet users is an aspect of this
>> transformation.
>> > It signifies that private Internet usage, which is motivated
>> by play,
>> > entertainment, fun, and joy -- aspects of Eros -- has become
>> subsumed
>> > under labour. It produces surplus value for capital and is
>> exploited by
>> > the latter so that Internet corporations accumulate profit.
>> Play and
>> > labour are today indistinguishable. Eros has become fully
>> subsumed under
>> > the repressive reality principle. Play is largely
>> commodified, there is
>> > no longer free time or spaces that are not exploited by
>> capital. Play is
>> > today productive, surplus value generating labour that is
>> exploited by
>> > capital. All human activities and therefore also all play
>> tends under
>> > the contemporary conditions to become subsumed under and
>> exploited by
>> > capital. Play as an expression of Eros is thereby destroyed,
>> human
>> > freedom and human capacities are crippled.
>> >
>> > Non-surplus generating and non-exploitative free time seems
>> to be
>> > minimized in contemporary capitalism, free time becomes
>> productive time
>> > that is exploited by capital, consumers become producers,
>> play becomes
>> > work, work becomes play, free time becomes labour time and
>> permanent
>> > surplus repression. We live in a monstrous exploitative
>> system with
>> > almost no outside.
>> >
>> > Marcuse argued that we are at the sime time objectively
>> (productive
>> > forces) as close to socialism as never before and
>> subjectively as far
>> > away as never before. The Internet age signifies a high
>> productive
>> > society, the objective foundation of the realm of freedom,
>> but human
>> > subjectivity, its labour power, tends to be exploited to the
>> maximum by
>> > capital and resistance is only faint. The situation Marcuse
>> described
>> > can also be found today in informational, hyperindustrial,
>> financial
>> > capitalism/new imperialism.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Christian
>> >
>> > --
>> > - - -
>> > Priv.-Doz. Dr. Christian Fuchs
>> > Associate Professor
>> > Unified Theory of Information Research Group
>> > ICT&S Center
>> > University of Salzburg
>> > Sigmund Haffner Gasse 18
>> > 5020 Salzburg
>> > Austria
>> > christian.fuchs at sbg.ac.at
>> > Phone +43 662 8044 4823
>> > Personal Website: http://fuchs.uti.at
>> > Research Group: http;//www.uti.at
>> > Editor of
>> > tripleC - Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation | Open
>> Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society
>> > http://www.triple-c.at
>> > Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Internet and Society: Social Theory
>> in the Information Age. New York: Routledge.
>> > http://fuchs.uti.at/?page_id=40
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed
>> Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
>> > iDC at mailman.thing.net
>> > https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>> >
>> > List Archive:
>> > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>> >
>> > iDC Photo Stream:
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>> >
>> > RSS feed:
>> > http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>> >
>> > iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>> >
>> > Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>> (distributedcreativity.org)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>
>> List Archive:
>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>
>> iDC Photo Stream:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>
>> RSS feed:
>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>
>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>
>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20091012/4ff67a22/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the iDC
mailing list