Postmodern Theory and Internet George Ritzer

and interactions.

13

 Independent thought is also neutered through software 

programs that dominate website and telephone communications. As one study 

of these developments concludes, ‘the net effect on the intellectual content’ of 

information economy activities ‘is surely negative’ (ibid.: 25).

From a Marxist perspective, these developments are perfectly rational—capital,  

after all, is compelled to seek profits (through the realization of surplus 

values) by using machines (including ICTs) to manage the division of labour 

in all facets of the production process. This, historically, has implied the 

elaboration of hierarchical tendencies, involving the development of all kinds 

of specializations. While this process is cyclical, in that the early stages of an 

industry may entail a period of relative autonomy and creativity for skilled 

and creative workers, the competitive and systemic dynamics driving market 

economies repeatedly compel corporations to systematize and codify these 

labour inputs (Huws and Dahlmann, 2009).

14

 Over the longue durée, therefore, 

ICTs extend existing divisions between those who conceptualize and those  

who execute (Braverman, 1974; Huws, 2003; Ramioul, 2007).

15

This pattern is well underway in the computer software industry where Taylorist 

principles have been applied in the production of code as component tasks are 

divided among teams of programmers. Not only is this taking place in private 

companies such as Microsoft, but fragments of open-source software are being 

developed by disparately located individuals. One of the best known examples 

of the latter is Linux.       

With Linux software, the transparency of its underlying code enables a vast 

pool of mostly unpaid workers to assess, improve and evolve it. Their suggested 

revisions are sent to an assembly node where control is exercised over what (if 

anything) is modified. For logistical and economic reasons, one individual and 

his colleagues monitor this complex division of labour—Linus Torvalds and the 

Linux Mark Institute. According to Chopra and Dexter, in the case of Linux,

…the disciplining of labour power is an intricate affair—a delicate 

mix of cooperation and cooptation. Open source shows such a 

mixture in its co-optation of the utopian spirit of a free software 

model, as workers have already bought into the ideology of 

open source or free software production…While the education 

and flexibility of open source programmers make it harder for 

capitalists to control the labour force, control does exist. (Chopra 

and Dexter, 2005: 10)

Digital prosumption and alienation ………………………………………………………… Edward Comor

http://openfile.org.uk/archive/gil-leung-things-are-circulating/

11/18 

---

Yet the source code or ‘kernel’ of Linux is available to anyone with a copying 

device. There are no legal restrictions blocking individuals from selling it to 

others (although this is an unlikely event since it is freely available). Interests 

can, however, profit from Linux by building and selling services stemming 

from it (e.g. Redhat). However, because Torvalds formally owns the original 

code/kernel, new service vendors generally are compelled to cooperate with 

him in ways that retain and enhance his dominant position.

16

Through such examples

17

 and, more importantly, in keeping with the 

historical dynamics outlined in this paper, we arrive at the following 

conclusion: prosumption, as an increasingly important component of the 

capitalist production process, employs workers/consumers as mostly unpaid 

but, in some cases, creative tools. This fact demonstrates why questions 

concerning prosumption’s implications for alienation are complex; clearly, 

both product- and process-alienation are commonplace but the precise  

nature of the prosumer’s labour varies to such a degree that prosumption,  

as an exploitative relationship, can also fulfill the essential drive to create.

The implications of prosumption

Because, at first blush, the prosumer appears to be aware and in control of 

her productive and consumptive activities, she appears to be a prospectively 

transcendent figure. The seemingly free and autonomous prosumer has  

not, however, forsaken predominant structures and relations, for how 

could she if private property and contract relations remain entrenched 

institutions, both online and off? Moreover, the prosumer’s dependency 

on the corporations that own, design and run the essential infrastructures 

through which people work and consume leaves little room for genuinely 

autonomous development. For the overwhelming majority—even those 

who possess the knowledge to write code and create software—the layers 

of complex expertise required to re-structure (let alone re-build) the 

means through which digital prosumption is practiced are (almost) beyond 

comprehension.

18

Like the owner whose capital facilitates an ersatz humanity, we might 

speculate that the prosumer—often ambiguously located in terms of her 

class position—also may use technology to (paradoxically) distance herself 

from her essence. For others, probably the minority who have the financial 

and intellectual means to pursue their creative potentials, some forms of 

prosumption may be as liberating as Toffler anticipated. For these fortunate 

individuals digital technologies could help them transcend the status of most: 

Digital prosumption and alienation ………………………………………………………… Edward Comor

http://openfile.org.uk/archive/gil-leung-things-are-circulating/

12/18 

---