Immaterial Labour

     Through this article Coté and Pybus’s are analyzing a new form of labour viewed with the advancement of the internet. When defining immaterial labour such as Lazzarato did, there are two ways in which to do so.  The change of the ‘information content’ of the commodity which states the “changes taking place in workers’ labour processes in big companies in the industrial and tertiary sectors, where the skills involved in direct labour are increasingly skills involving cybernetics and computer control (and horizontal and vertical communication).” (Lazzarato)  But for the purposes of Coté and Pybus’s argument, the changes in ‘cultural content’ of the commodity which “involves a series of activities that are not normally recognized as ‘work’, -- in other words, the kinds of activities involved in defining and fixing cultural and artistic standards, fashions, tastes, consumer norms, and more strategically, public opinion. The idea that immaterial labour directly produces the capital relation,--something that material labour hiddenly did--changes the phenomenology of capital.” (Lazzarato).  So based on this, immaterial workers are primarily producers of subjectivity.   They do this by examining Foucault’s notions of power, how the users are learning to immaterial labour with the development of sites like MySpace for benefit or value, and they explore the political economic shifts that are occurring with the development of such sites as MySpace. 
 

    With sites like MySpace, a new labour force, producing immaterial information and knowledge in relation to cultural and social influences, has emerged.  Individuals are able to produce material in areas of interest, in relation to cultural and social trends and tastes, to attract consumers and therefore build upon new relationships and communities.  There are benefits not only to the users, but to other producers like corporations.  The vast amount of knowledge in regards to current trends and tastes of users displayed on their site, these corporations have a so call goldmine of consumer information that can then be used to develop new target markets.  Through these sites the users are creating for themselves a ‘digital body’ that displays their cultural and social trends and tastes, which they then network within the site to build a community around these specified interests.
 

    Coté and Pybus’s explored the shifts that have occurred in order to better understand this idea of immaterial labour 2.0.  By using idea of biopower/biopolitics, in relation to both Foucault’s and Hardt’s view, we see that this is a more reasonable way to evaluate and analyze this new form of labour as, the user is using their life and body or ‘digital body’ to impact, influence, and allure other online users.  But we cannot ignore the latter ideas of power, sovereign power, but more so disciplinary power, which are still part of this new online world.  They also look at how with the development of the internet, users are learning to immaterial labour with continuous use of sites like MySpace.  This is beneficial to the user as they are learning to promote themselves in a way to produce a profit or value.  Also, Coté and Pybus’s explore the political economic shifts that are occurring with the development of such sites as MySpace. 
 

    The main issue that is influential in this article is the idea of the subjectivity produced through immaterial labour.  To define subjectivity, it “refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires” (Solomon).  The subjectivity created through immaterial labour as describe through this particular article is that users of social networks like MySpace can use the subjectivity produced to develop a network of relationships and communities. It is also important to look at how this capitalism is more apparent in our lives not only with the exchange of information and knowledge but more so the influential aspects created through immaterial labour of our relationships and personal identities. “Affective commodities (i.e. our social-networked subjectivities) are not destroyed by consumption but they are intensified, enlarged and diffused and constantly re-aggregated.  It is this final point—the dynamic, affective, networked relays—which necessitates the suffix 2.0” of immaterial labour” (Coté).  This helps to show in influential power of one’s subjectivity as the more these subjectivities are consumed the more substantial the effect of one’s relationships and personal identities become.  By looking at the affect, we can see that individuals are now becoming a tool of labour to produce and create wealth. A quote from Coté ‘Immaterial Labour 2.0: Fleshy, Affective, Embodied Technology’, helps to understand the idea of the individual becoming a tool of labour. “[I]f labor and the tool of labor are embodied in the brain, then the tool of labor, the brain, becomes the thing that today has the highest productive capacity to create wealth. But at the same time humans are "whole," the brain is part of the body, the tool is embodied not only in the brain but also in all the organs of sensation, in the entire set of "animal spirits" that animate the life of a person” (Coté).  So not only are the subjectivities that of a conscious relay of information and thoughts but also of one’s sensual experiences that influence these thoughts that are then articulated through an individual’s immaterial labour. 
 

    I think the article provides great insight to this new notion of immaterial labour which is not only intriguing but can also be confusing.  I personally have been intrigued by this notion and am curious to see where this immaterial labour created through social networking can go.  With our affective subjectivities only being intensified and enlarged with the expansion of network and development of social networking capabilities, you can only in vision more growth. Immaterial labour has become integral of contemporary capitalism that individuals now have more vast opportunities. The opportunities that can arise through this new form of labour are also intriguing as one can produce and market their subjectivities not only to profit culturally or emotionally, but also economically.  To think that one’s thoughts, opinions, values, etc., have much more value, that users will continue to pursue to continually expand and develop there subjectivities to maximize profits and values that they desire.  But when you think of how one creates subjectivity it is a sense the exploitation of another’s immaterial labour, you have to understand that exploitation and capitalistic control still exist. (Negri and Hardt) With the impacts of this new form of labour on society being so influential to the way individuals live their day to day lives we can only assume that in the future we will continue to harness this cultural economy and exploit its potential with the help and development of social networking and information technologies.
 

    What's wrong in saying that our subjectivity is determined by something, if we have discovered that, ultimately, this something was created by our subjectivity itself? (Negri and Hardt)

Resources

Coté, Mark , ‘Immaterial Labour 2.0: Fleshy, Affective, Embodied Technology’ http://www.slideshare.net/MarkCote/immaterial-labour-20-fleshy-affective-embodied-technology

Coté, Mark and Jennifer Pybus. 'Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: MySpace and Social Networks.' Ephemera. 7.1 (2007). 88-106. (online; E-Journal).

Lazzarato. http://www.generation-online.org/c/cimmateriallabour.htm

Negri and Hardt. Immaterial labour and subjectivity.  Libcom.org. (2006).  http://libcom.org/library/aufheben/aufheben-14-2006/keep-on-smiling-questions-on-immaterial-labour

Solomon, Robert C. ‘Subjectivity,’ Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.900.