If communication is the key to knowledge work, then why do people communicate like this:
We present immaterial labour 2.0 as an ambivalent modality of both biopower and biopolitical production, and as an exemplar of the paradigm shift underway in our interface with popular culture, media, and information and communication technology.
I had to stop and translate it word for word. Let’s assume that ‘immaterial labour 2.0’ means something: let’s call it ‘working with web 2.0 tools’. Ok, I’ve translated jargon into other jargon, but I do at least understand the second lot. So:
We present working with web 2.0 tools as an ambivalent modality of both biopower and biopolitical production … etc
I’m going to assume that ‘ambivalent modality’ means ‘a form that’s hard to pin down’. It may not, but let’s go with that for now:
We present working with web 2.0 tools as a form of both biopower and biopolitical production that is hard to pin down… etc
But what is ‘biopower’? Or ‘biopolitical production’? It’s no surprise that a quick google uncovers Foucault. Wikipedia, bless it, says this:
Biopower was a term originally coined by French philosopher Michel Foucault to refer to the practice of modern states and their regulation of their subjects through “an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations.”
Ok… leaving aside that it’s defined as the increase in techniques and not the techniques themselves, we now have:
We present working with web 2.0 tools as a form of both the explosion of techniques for controlling people and biopolitical production that is hard to pin down, and … etc
The first and simplest definition of ‘biopolitical’ in Wikipedia is ‘the style of government that regulates populations through biopower (the application and impact of political power on all aspects of human life)’.
So this gives us:
We present working with web 2.0 tools as a form of control and subjugation of people by governments and other bodies that is hard to pin down, and as an exemplar of the paradigm shift underway in our interface with popular culture, media, and information and communication technology.
Actually that’s interesting!. Web 2.0 tools aren’t nice and friendly; they are the very stuff of Orwellian supervision? Mmmm. Much the conclusion of Wiki vs Word (my previous post): the main differences is the audit trail which is the very stuff of accountability. But why use the word ‘exemplar’ when you could say ‘example’?
We present working with web 2.0 tools as a form of control that is hard to pin down, and as an example of the sea change in how we use popular culture, media, and information and communication technology and how they affect us.
In other words: Big Brother is LinkedIn
No kidding. This is moderately interesting, expecially in the context of the work-place. It has also taken me 45 minutes to translate a single paragraph and, of course, other meanings can be constructed.
Am I going to read the whole thing? Maybe I will, now I know what it’s about. But why write like that? It’s off-putting and it hides stuff which, on this occasion at any rate, is really interesting.
Anyway, here it is, for what it’s worth:
Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: MySpace and Social Networks
Mark Coté and Jennifer Pybus
PS – I still have no idea what the verb ‘to immaterial’ means.
You must be logged in to post a comment.