Description

The above are based on the proceedings of the Paying Attention conference:

"The European Science Foundation conference, ‘Paying Attention: Digital Media Cultures and Intergenerational Responsibility’ (www.payingattention.org), was convened by Professor Jonathan Dovey and the authors, Digital Cultures Research Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol, in September 2010 to gather the input and insights of creative practitioners exploring critical and alternative uses of new media forms and technologies."

"This issue sets itself two interrelated tasks in response to the scope and implications of these interrelated positions concerning attention, consciousness, culture, economics and politics. Firstly, it interrogates the notion of attention as it is elaborated in approaches to the attention economy and to media as forms of attention capture. The essays by three leading contributors to thinking in and around these themes, Bernard Stiegler, Tiziana Terranova, and Jonathan Beller, have such an interrogation as their principal task. They develop different, overlapping and sometimes contrasting perspectives on how a critical reposing of the question of attention might reframe its purchase on the central themes of the relation between interiority and exteriority, minds and media, economics and culture. The interview with Michel Bauwens, and the essays by Ben Roberts and Sy Taffel, are also working toward this end in that they identify various limitations and exclusions of the predominant articulation of the attention economy and move toward alternative, more productive, ethical or socially just formulations.

The second task of this issue is pursued in the essays of Tania Bucher, Martin Thayne, Rolien Hoyng and the three contributions to the additional section of the issue. These three – from Ruth Catlow, Constance Fleuriot and Bjarke Liboriussen – represent less scholarly but no less acute strategic inquiries into the thinking and re-making of what Stiegler calls attentional technics. Together, these contributions address particular instantiations of media forms, design practices and phenomena – from Facebook and Second Life to pervasive media design and Istanbul’s digitally mediated City of European Culture project – as a way of exploring and critically inflecting the implementation of the attention economy. This second mode moves from material phenomena to theoretical analysis and critique, while the first goes the other way. As we have argued, however, the necessity of the traffic between them is a central tenet of how we endeavour to pay attention to contemporary digital technoculture in this issue.

Stiegler’s essay, ‘Relational Ecology and the Digital Pharmakon’, is placed first to indicate the formative role of Stiegler’s philosophy of technology in the germination of the critical discussion on what it means to ‘pay attention’. From its beginning, his project was dedicated to the ‘urgent’ task (as he noted in the preface to Technics and Time 1: The Fault of Epimetheus, 1998) of developing a new critique of contemporary technoculture, capable of making a difference at this specific epoch of what could be called the ‘digital transition’. This critique, which has been progressively elaborated in a number of books and book series, proceeds from a rigorous philosophical redefinition of the human as always composed with its technical milieu. As discussed above, human being is ‘essentially’ inessential, a contingent, metastable (at best) mix of this artefactual exteriority, one which possesses its own dynamic composed with that of the human (for now at least). With an interiority that imagines and anticipates itself and its future on the basis of the memories available to it from out of the past – thanks to what Foucault called ‘the archive’ and Heidegger ‘facticity’ – the human makes exterior forms that mediate this experience and inflect its becoming other. ‘The media’ have become, consequently, a central focus of Stiegler’s critique of contemporary technoculture and, in particular, of the monopolisation by commercial interests of the forms and channels through which interior experience becomes the (material) stuff of the collective cultural dynamic.

In the essay presented here, Stiegler argues for the importance of approaching attention – that activity of consciousness (interiority) before the exterior world – from this perspective in order to comprehend the stakes of expansion of the attention economy. Drawing on Gilbert Simondon, D. W. Winnicott and others, he argues that attention must be thought of as an intrinsically social as well as individual psychic act. Attention is not a passive or automatic perceptual process, but one that is trained, learnt, and culturally and historically – and therefore, technically – conditioned. Stiegler reviews Western philosophy and cultural and social history to identify the central part played by the grammatising technics of graphical, writing and more recently audiovisual media in conditioning the ‘attentional forms’ through which the West became the global, globalising power that today confronts us with a range of crises signalling our possible ‘end’. If, today, ‘attentional’ techniques and technics tend to be replaced by industrially mass produced ‘attentional technologies’ that are designed to generate one particular kind of attention – to consumption – this is by no means a fait accompli. Stiegler insists on the pharmacological character of the technical provision of our contemporary ‘relational ecology’. This is precisely the point and the possibility of paying attention to attention: to reanimate the potential for a less poisonous adoption of the widely recognised potential of digital audiovisual culture in order to re-form (that is, re-mediate) culture, sociality, economy and ecology today.

Tiziana Terranova offers a more specific critique of the contradictory assumptions subtending the notion of the attention economy before developing an alternative account of the ‘social brain’. Her argument is not dissimilar in intent to Stiegler’s turn toward a Simondonian reposing of attention as the mediated relation between individual and collective. Her ‘Attention, Economy and the Brain’ identifies the economic logic operative in the ‘discovery’ of the attention economy by Goldhaber and others as the solution to the problem of informational abundance in the mass mediated (and then digitally saturated) technoculture of late modernity. Attention becomes the new scarce resource which the economic must manage, utilise, exchange, distribute and speculate upon. Terranova interrogates the dovetailing of this economic revaluation of the mental activity of producers and consumers with a biopolitical (Jonathan Crary, after Foucault) and neurological (Catherine Malabou, N. Katherine Hayles) redefinition and institutional reforming of labour, leisure, education and cultural production in general. In the second part of the essay, she evokes the necessity of thinking the ‘social brain’ by drawing on Stiegler and Lazzarato’s recent mobilisation of nineteenth-century French sociologist Gabriel Tarde’s critique of the social and cultural damage wrought by industrialisation’s deskilling of the labour force and the separation of work from the continuity of social and cultural life. Tarde’s proposition concerning the brain’s ‘labour of attention’ is developed as a means of thinking the always social, outward, communicative dimension of the brain’s activity, its constant, iterative incorporation of the exterior in its working out of existence. The social nature of this attentional labour realises value. The drive which animates the proponents of attention economics, namely, to capture, quantify, predict and monetise the attention paid by individual brains, fails to comprehend this disjunction between the economic calculation of the value of attention and the role of attention in the very production of the values of the culture upon which the economy feeds.

In ‘Wagers Within the Image: Rise of Visuality, Transformation of Labour, Aesthetic Regimes’, Jonathan Beller continues and extends his mobilisation of the Marxist traditions of political economic and Kulturkritik in a polemical account of the contemporary tendency of global capitalist technoculture. Building on his critical account of attention economy rhetoric in The Cinematic Mode of Production (2006) and earlier work discussed above, Beller develops a materialist critique of cognitive capitalism and its economy built on visuality, spectacle and the mobilisation of the ‘sensuous labour’ of the worker-consumer. If the Soviet avant-garde filmmakers such as Eisenstein and Vertov had theorised and experimented with the potential of cinema to engineer a new ‘soul’ for the modern worker-citizen, industrial capitalism had already begun the development of the proto-consumer supporting the ongoing expansion of capitalism outward geographically as well as across all aspects of lived experience through its industrial production of routine experience, spectacle and leisure time. This development becomes fully manifest in the contemporary passage toward a fully globalised, digital mediated realtime, which Beller is at pains to argue is strictly correlative to the unprecedented impoverishment and oppression of the majority of the world’s population and the exhaustion of its natural resources. Insisting on the complicity of all mediated cultural production in this destructive dynamic – including scholarship in the age of the ‘digital humanities’ where cultural capital accumulation threatens the value and viability of critical thought – Beller explores the possibilities for responding to or resisting the pervasive ‘reconfiguration of subjectivity’ as capitalist commodity. His conclusion is that critical theory might do well to pay attention to how those excluded (in deed and in thought) from the immaterial virtual citizenry of the digital future try to make something of and with the digital media designed not for their benefit. Attention to what Beller calls an ‘aesthetics of survival’ being developed at the limit of what can be represented today might re-open speculation on questions of the just, the common, and the care of all beings, older questions needing to be remembered and re-posed in light of the virtualising logistics of globalisation.

In his interview with Sam Kinsley, Michel Bauwens, co-founder of the P2P Foundation, argues that peer-to-peer production represents a pathway toward the all-too-evidently necessary reinvention of the industrial capitalist economic model. Peer-to-peer is already a legitimate description of how the ‘knowledge workers’ of cognitive capitalism work, even if their labour takes place in proprietary enterprises and is consequently alienated from them in its product’s entry into marketing, distribution and intellectual property regimes. In Bauwens’ words, ‘the commons creates value and the market captures that value’. He considers historical precedents for the increasingly apparent tension between the collective and cultural values of peer-to-peer and the capitalist economic system, in, for example, the transition from the late Roman empire to the feudal system, and from the feudal to the early capitalist one. He approaches the contemporary ‘crisis’ moment from a hopeful perspective, looking at these past moments as instances of a kind of becoming-out-of-phase of the sociocultural with the economic-legal regimes which presaged an overturning of the status quo. Bauwens surveys different positions within the peer-to-peer movement – such as that of Yochai Benkler, the Oekonux group and Dmytri Kleiner – concerning the means and logic of a ‘prefigurative politics’ promoting or provoking this overturning. Responding to a question about how the attention economy notion figures in this account of the possible passage to a P2P economy and culture, Bauwens states that while there is enormous investment in the commodification of attention (along with everything else capable of being thought of as ‘valuable’ today), there is no reason to think that ‘capitalism has won’ because of the success of a platform such as Facebook. Related to his thought of how today we live across or between two phases of cultural and economic (re)production (and echoing here Stiegler’s pharmacological approach), Bauwens argues that we are both ‘de-commodifying and commodifying today’, and that there is both potential and danger in this situation. The Occupy movement represents for Bauwens a genuinely novel form of mass political action (along with the Pirate Party and the Indignados movements), one that operates in the disjunction between the mainstream media and the networking, peer-to-peer potential of digital network media. These movements more or less consciously adopt an open source, peer-to-peer approach to political intervention, and represent a prefiguration of the ‘new society’.

In ‘Escaping Attention: Digital Media Hardware, Materiality and Ecological Cost’ Sy Taffel argues that the rhetoric of the ‘immaterial’ character of the digital technologies of the attention economy elide very material concerns. Like Beller’s insistence on paying attention to the majority of the global population routinely forgotten in discussions of contemporary global technoculture, Taffel makes explicit the social and ecological implications of the materiality of digital technological production from resourcing, manufacture and energy use, to distribution and consumption, through to disposal and recycling. Drawing on an ecological conception of media and materiality developed through Gregory Bateson’s critical revision of the cybernetic tradition and Felix Guattari’s ecophilosophy, and combining the Marxist materialist analysis of industrial production with a sense of the global expansion of alienation in the era of what Stiegler calls hyper-consumption, Taffel explores several case studies which highlight the problematic forgetting of materiality in contemporary debates about technoculture. These include the exploitative sourcing of rare earth materials (typified by the notorious trade in ‘Coltan’ tantalum from the war-torn region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo), the exploitative just-in-time manufacturing processes of the latest consumer electronics in various parts of the world (with Apple’s Chinese contractor, Foxconn, a recent high profile case), and the exploitative e-waste and recycling practices that have evolved with little effective regulation or oversight. These serve to remove from view the terrible wastage of consumer gadgets by those who can afford them and extract what industry is prepared to salvage from them on condition that the costs are kept as low as possible. The ecological and human costs (in health and social well-being) are borne by the distant populations dependent on the revenues from the highly dangerous labour of dismantling these gadgets. Taffel makes us consider the consequences of these material entailments of the virtual, realtime digital technosphere and offers a way of bringing these two aspects of global technoculture into a critically conceivable and ethically more productive relation.

Ben Roberts examines the free, libre and open source software movement (FLOSS) as his contribution to the reevaluation of attention economy in this issue. ‘Attention-seeking: Technics, Publics and Software Individuation’ resonates with the essays by Stiegler and Terranova in identifying the limitations of Goldhaber’s economic valuation of attention along the lines of Marx’s account of exchange value as the reductive translation and insertion into a narrow capitalist economic order of something phenomenally and socially more complex. Roberts then examines some influential formulations of open source and collaborative software production that promote alternative models of attentional forms and their development. Christopher Kelty’s Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software (2008) receives the most attention for the way it insists on the collective dimension of open software, a move which responds to the more individualistic (and politically naïve) celebration of autonomous ‘creative labour’ in Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks (2006). Kelty’s notion of software production as a ‘recursive’ contribution to the open source community’s shared discursive becoming is scrutinised by Roberts. Its ambivalent indebtedness to a Habermasian notion of the public sphere is identified as its problematic basis – the problem being that software production tends to be treated as a lingua franca for an ideal and ideally unified single internet public. This is where Roberts turns to Gilbert Simondon’s philosophy of technology to point the way toward an account of FLOSS’ potential to critically and creatively shape the formation of digital attentional forms. This account would need to understand software development as a process of individuation between individuals and their collectives, one always composed with the dynamic of technical individuation in which software developers are themselves part of the individuation of software ‘individuals’. Software production would be in this account both less and more than a recursive contribution to a public debate about the future of ‘the’ internet, and its potential to reform the milieu of attentional technics could be better assessed from this perspective.

Taina Bucher, in her article ‘A Technicity of Attention: How Software “Makes Sense”’ offers a sceptical response to the neurological turn in the humanities Bucher mobilises an understanding of ‘technicity’ to critically examine the internalisation of control as ‘governmentality’ (pace Foucault) that underpins the specific human-machine assemblages of attention harnessing located in Facebook. Through a detailed reading of the specific affordances of some core protocols of Facebook, in code and the practices they engender, Bucher examines the techno-social structure of the attention apparatuses of Facebook. These algorithms operate within a form of technicity, which Bucher takes to be a ‘coconstitutive milieu of relations between the human and their technical supports’ (Crogan and Kennedy, 2009: 109). OpenSocial, OpenGraph and GraphRank are examined as particular articulations of power, realised in relation between code and subject, as the algorithms automate the ‘sense making’ processes of what content is ‘relevant’ to a particular user. Bucher thus identifies this marshalling of what is visible, and also invisible, in Facebook as a locus of attention as a form of ‘governmentality’, which she takes to be the rationalities underlying the techniques for directing human behavior (Foucault, 2008). For Bucher, then, attention is managed by Facebook to propagate a certain social order of continued participation.

In ‘Friends Like Mine: The Production of Socialised Subjectivity in the Attention Economy’, Martin Thayne approaches Facebook through the lens of political economy. He interrogates the emerging interrelationship between capital, labour, subjectivity and affect which has become increasingly synonymous with a number of online social networking technologies and practices. In this regard, Thayne analyses the ‘Like’ button as a designed, socio-technological interaction which captures the emotive connections and engagements produced amongst the multitude of Facebook users. The extraordinary, speculative, financial value of such sites are ‘based’ on how such elements serve its advertising architecture, which utilises the information contributed by users (including ‘liked’ pages) to deliver more relevant and targeted marketing. Through an exploration of the collaborative and socialised modes of subjectivity which emerge from the use of the ‘Like’ button and similar tools, Thayne suggests that proprietary online social networks are central to the commercial subsumption of forms of life itself. This account draws on work which aligns the biopolitical production of knowledge, desire, attention and sociality with modes of immaterial labour. Presented here, then, is a critique of those mechanisms of bio- and what Stiegler would call psycho-power which permeate Facebook. This critique examines how specific functions, protocols and applications may embody the productive power of SNS technology in the context of configuring attention and controlling social interactions.

Rolien Hoyng in ‘Popping Up and Fading Out: Participatory Networks and Istanbul’s Creative City Project’ analyses the networks constructed as both a part and result of Istanbul European Capital of Culture 2010. Considered as an assemblage, Hoyng argues that Istanbul as a Capital of Culture functioned both as an attention directing apparatus, with the compulsion of ‘interactivity’ as participation, and also as a focal point for resistance. Hoyng’s essay focuses on socio-technical forms of governance that targeted Istanbul’s transformation into a ‘creative city’ and, in particular, on discourses and practices of ‘networking’. For Hoyng, the apparatuses of networking are what Stiegler calls ‘psychotechnologies’ that both condition and delimit our knowledge, know-how (savoir-faire) and our capabilities to care, including ‘taking care’ of ourselves and our city (here, Istanbul). Drawing on extensive empirical evidence derived from fieldwork, Hoyng critically examines the specific practices of networking that stitched together the groups from which power over the ‘creative city’ process was exercised and also provided a means for resistance. New relations of care among urban populations capable of defying regimes of psychopower are unlikely to emerge, according to her, from displays of otherness through information systems. For Hoyng, these kinds of relation require the cultivation of a multiplicity of attentional forms that mediate care, memory, and dialogue and that accommodate different sets of skills.

In the additional section of this issue, artist and arts activist Ruth Catlow, architectural design researcher Bjarke Liboriussen and Pervasive Media researcher and educator Constance Fleuriot consider significant attentional forms and practices in the recent and emerging digital media milieu. Liboriussen’s ‘poster’ considers the lessons to be learnt from the Second Life ‘bubble’s’ intertwined utopianisms of its now exhausted virtual property speculation and its promotion of a virtual architectural design experience. The wider implications of the technicity of ‘virtual worlds’ are explored in this thoughtful contribution. Ruth Catlow of Furtherfield online art community discusses We Won’t Fly for Art (2009), a collaborative media art project she undertook with co-founder Mark Garrett to encourage participants in the international contemporary art community to pay attention to the ecological implications of their default acceptance of the regime of jetsetting around the international exhibition circuit. The project encouraged 26 people to sign up and participate in a collaborative reflection on the complicity of international art with global capitalism, something that is shared by the Furtherfield’s ‘Media Art Ecologies’ programme ¬– of which this work was part. In ‘Avoiding Vapour Trails in the Virtual Cloud’, Constance Fleuriot gives an account of research workshops she conducted at the Digital Cultures Research Centre with pervasive media designers in order to develop both a language and an ethical perspective – an ethically inflected design language – on pervasive media development practice. Pervasive media is rapidly moving from the experimental to the commercial development stage and soon will be a major form of attentional technics. Using Stiegler’s call for a reinvestment in Kant’s notion of enlightenment as the entry into ‘majority’ of all, Fleuriot characterises the workshops she conducted as dedicated to developing a wider critical and ethical engagement of the designers in what they are doing (Stiegler, 2010)." (http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/463/482)

Excerpt

From the lead essay and editorial introduction by Patrick Crogan and Samuel Kinsley:

"How are the ways we understand subjective experience—not least cognitively—being modulated by political economic rationales? And how might artists, cultural theorists, social scientists and radical philosophers learn to respond—analytically, creatively, methodologically and politically—to the commodification of human capacities of attention? This theme issue of Culture Machine explores these interlinked questions as a way of building upon and opening out contemporary research concerning the economisation of cognitive capacities. Drawing on and extending work produced for a 2010 European Science Foundation-funded conference, also entitled Paying Attention,1 this special issue proposes a contemporary critical re-focussing on the politics, ethics and aesthetics of the ‘attention economy’, a notion developed in the 1990s by scholars such as Jonathan Beller, Michael Goldhaber and Georg Franck. This notion – and the related conceptualisations such as of ‘experience design’, the competition for ‘eyeballs’, ‘click-throughs’ and so on – animates contemporary digital media production, advertising and the online, multitasking, near-pervasive media milieu in which they develop.

If an economy is the means and rationale through which a given society commodifies and exchanges scarce resources, then the ‘attention economy’, following Marazzi (2008), defines human attention as a scarce but quantifiable commodity. According to Goldhaber (1997) and subsequent critics, this is the techno-cultural milieu in which contemporary Western societies operate and in which the ‘web-native’ generation lives. In the industrial age the role played by the forms of media in coordinating consumption with the needs of production was identified and critiqued by prominent members of the Frankfurt School. As Bernard Stiegler (amongst others) argues in the wake of Kulturkritik, in the digital era the function and impact of the ‘programme industries’ attains a new level of influence and penetration with profound potential to transform the enabling dynamics of social, cultural and political relations, negotiations, and identity formation. In Taking Care of Youth and the Generations, Stiegler (2010) announces a battle for criticality that must be fought – or, rather, re-commenced – against the mainstream adoption of digital technology’s potential visible in notions like the attention economy. In response to this call, this special issue will both experiment with the concepts, sensibilities and methods necessary to attend to the attention economy and attempt to understand how substantive examples reveal the contemporary bio-political reality of the commodification of our cognitive capacities.

Understanding processes of commodification, regulation and subjectivation of and through capacities for attention requires that we explicitly conceptualise the relation between bodies, cognition, economy and culture. This is precisely the point from which the articles in this special issue launch their various critical engagements. There are accordingly contributions by Michel Bauwens, Jonathan Beller, Bernard Stiegler and Tiziana Terranova. Together, they unpack and question the notions of economy and attention and the assumptions and implications of their combination. Political economic, philosophical and critical theoretical perspectives informing critical and activist responses to the predominant global mobilisation of attention are laid out and put into dialogue in and between these texts. A series of essays from an interdisciplinary range of scholars deepens this critical interrogation. These extend and elaborate on this dialogue, focussing on particular thematic, and (inter)disciplinary issues and drawing on specific digital media case studies, including: social networking; the urban governance of communal identity; and the inattention paid to the material provision of the devices and facilities of ‘immaterial labour’. This issue also offers an additional section containing discussion, position statements and provocation from more practice-oriented contributors. It is a central tenet of this issue’s theoretical agenda that critical and creative responses to the forms of digital mediation of attention must be composed, in dialogue, and must also mutually inflect each other’s development.

In this editorial we contextualise the interrogation of the notion of attention as it is mobilised in approaches to the attention economy. In the next section we offer a genealogical reading of the discourse of attention and its economies as the theoretical milieu from which this issue of Culture Machine proceeds. We bring together what we see as some of the key conceptual and discursive waypoints via which the critique represented in this issue can be navigated. To sketch the shape of the critique presented by this issue as a whole and to introduce the substantive arguments therein, in the concluding section of this editorial we offer a thematic outline of the insightful and provocative articles that make up this issue.

Attending to Attention

There have been several articulations of the commodification of the human capacity for attention and the political economic rationales for reconstituting capitalism in the locus of the body. It would be a mistake to lionise an originator or moment of inception of this set of ideas, but one might look to a range of progenitors: from (post) Marxian such as Debord’s (1992) critique of the Society of the Spectacle and Adorno and Horkheimer’s (1997) critique of the ‘Culture Industry’; Edward Bernays’ (1947) psychoanalytically inspired development of public relations as a means of ‘engineering’ attention, as well as Foucault’s (2008, 2010, 2011) discussion of biopolitics and the ‘techniques of the self’. As digital technologies arrived in the popular consciousness, in the late 1990s, multiple appeals were made to a ‘digital’, ‘information’ or ‘network’ economy (for example: Barbrook, 1999; Castells, 1996; Tapscott, 1996) that undergird arguments concerning an attention economy. In recent literature, a number of scholars have attended to attention variously as: an intellectual crisis brought about by the internet (Carr, 2010); an issue rooted in the industrial production of moving images (Crary, 1992, 2001); as well as a pedagogical concern with regard to how young people come to know and care for their society and the world (Stiegler, 2010) but also with regard to how we collectively negotiate truth through network technologies (for example: Rheingold, 2012).

In this introduction we identify four particular, yet related, ways of thinking about how attention is commodified, quantified and trained. First, the attention economy has been theorised as the inversion of the ‘information economy’, in which information is plentiful and attention is the scarce resource. Second, post-Marxist critics have identified ‘cognitive capitalism’, the enrolment of human cognitive capacities as ‘immaterial labour’ par excellence, as the foundation for an attention economy. Third, several continental philosophers have identified the cerebral and neural as an object or site of politics, with a neural conception of attention becoming, particularly for Stiegler, a key issue. Finally, the internet, as a mediator of contemporary intellectual and social activities, has been identified by popular commentators as a threat to our mental capacities, devaluing them, and thus posing a risk to our ability to contribute to society. They are by no means exhaustive, but it is betwixt and between these various understandings of an attention economy that the discussions within this issue are accordingly positioned.

The scarcity of attention

The abundance of information, or ‘content’ (that enigmatic abstraction of message from medium), ever more available to us via an increasing range of media devices, services and systems, sets our ability to attend to that information as a scarcity. In 1971 Herbert Simon articulated the issue in terms of ‘information overload’:

[T]he wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. (Simon, 1971: 40)

Several evocations of an attention economy were formed at the end of the last century, including: Beller (1994), Davenport and Beck (2001), Franck (1999) and Goldhaber (1997). The latter three offer normatively positive readings of this emergence, while Beller (discussed further below) proposed the need for a recalibrated critical practice based on a Marxist cultural and political economic framework. The paradigm of the commodity adopted in the latter formulations invites the assumption that attention has no degree: that one either pays attention or does not. Thus, as the capacity for attention by a finite audience, a society, is dispersed across a broadening range of media, those media command ever decreasing ‘segments’ of that market. This is the premise for Michael Goldhaber’s (1997) argument that ‘the economy of attention – not information – is the natural economy of cyberspace’:

[O]urs is not truly an information economy. By definition, economics is the study of how a society uses its scarce resources. […] We are drowning in information, yet constantly increasing our generation of it. […] There is something else that moves through the Net, flowing in the opposite direction from information, namely attention. (Goldhaber, 1997)

Attention as a commodity, for Goldhaber, endures: it is not a momentary circumstance but something that has prolonged effects. Thus when attention is garnered it builds a potential for further attention in the future: ‘obtaining attention is obtaining a kind of enduring wealth, a form of wealth that puts you in a preferred position to get anything this new economy offers’. The commodity of attention is accordingly a form of property. For Goldhaber, attention as ‘property’ leads to the rise of immaterial labour, and the lessening of the money economy in favour of some form of ‘attention transaction’. This ill-defined concept and the unsubstantiated claim that ‘disappearance of the involvement of capital will be equally the case for attention-getting objects of just about any sort’ demonstrates the limits to the proposition of a totalising attention economy (Goldhaber, 1997). Where Goldhaber’s analysis rings true is in predictions that we would increasingly place import upon online social networks and the diverse means by which they are accessed – for example: blogs, email, Facebook, instant messaging, Twitter.

An understanding of the deluge of media forms as the constitution of attention scarcity in the mainstream media sector has significant ramifications in the context of education and pedagogy. This is the central thesis of Georg Franck’s (1998, 1999) articulation of an attention economy founded upon the ‘socialisation of prominence’ and the ‘decline of material wealth’. Suppliers technically reproduce media content while the audience ‘pay’ through live attention to each copy:

Only through this asymmetry is it possible to collect such masses of donated attention, which is what makes a medium attractive for those appearing in it and which allows the media their lavishness in conferring the modern peerage of prominence. (Franck, 1999)

The difference between money and attention for Franck is that in addition to an apparent exchange value attention has the corollary value of identity. Attention cannot be accumulated in the same ways as money but, Franck argues, it can be calculated through ‘esteem’. This is accordingly the foundation of the attention economy within the academy (unsettlingly close to the model for the British Research Assessment Exercise). The aim of education, for Franck, is the acquisition and application of knowledge; it is a form of capitalized attention that constitutes a ‘mental capitalism’. Indeed, in his 2010 conference presentation, Franck argued that this has much earlier origins; that, in fact, the enterprise of science has always been a continuing production of knowledge value. Thus the attention economy is a further development of the industrialisation of a ‘knowledge society’ (Franck, 2010). It is therefore nothing less than the self-consciousness we can afford that depends on an income of attention. Franck argues that the power of science can be explained as the attempt to gain cultural leadership in the formation of an industry dedicated to knowledge production. Thus, in a ‘knowledge economy’, the wealth of attention can be wielded as a capital.

The thesis presented by Goldhaber and Franck can be read as a restatement of the idea that a media ecosystem delivers attention to advertisers and therefore to consumption (Dovey, 2011). Thus, attention is rendered equal to time. The advertising metrics of cost-per-click-through or cost-per-thousand-viewers holds and the context or nature of the attention rendered is ignored: as long as the quantifiable metric is achieved the cost remains the same (Dovey, 2011). As Franck attempts to argue, with the increased competition for our attention and the suggested decline of the traditional mass media monopolies, the quality of attention paid becomes a concern. Like Goldhaber and Franck, Thomas Davenport and John Beck (2001) argue that there is a transition underway from time as labour to time as attention:

Certainly something to which people allot a good deal of time in practice can receive minimal attention. […] Conversely, a huge amount of effective attention can be given to something in a small amount of time. (2001: 28)

Attention is implicitly figured in all of these accounts as a largely rational, and entirely conscious, capacity. As Davenport and Beck suggest: ‘Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness, we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act’ (Davenport and Beck, 2001: 20). An attention economy is therefore not considered problematic because the strong causal link implied, the rational choice of the economic subject, maintains a semblance of freedom. However, once that causality is problematised a range of issues opens up concerning the commodification of cognition as such." (http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/463/482)

Towards a Critique of the Attention Economy

Description

Contents

Excerpt

Navigation menu