Ourspace

Christine Harold's Our Space provides a good deal for thought. The book is a complex discussion about the necessity of constructing publics, but one that argues against thinking about these publics as existing in opposition to capitalism. Harold argues (perhaps in a Foucaultian manner) that attempting to create something new in opposition to that which currently exists is a hopeless project, and one that actually may reinforce existing power dynamics.

This changes the terms of the debate over the relationship between corporations and individuals. While some worry about, as discussed by Harold, the danger posed to websites such as MySpace by corporate interests -- that something organic will be squashed by corporate interests -- Harold sees this as a false description of the relationship between individual and corporation. First, there is no mythical time we can hark back on in which "rebels" existed free from outside influence. Second, the idea of a rebel is something that can and has been appropriated by corporate interests.

Her critique of those who would outrightly steal copyrights and attempt to redistribute them to the public is, of all her examples, in my mind the most illuminating of how this is so. The very idea of stealing something depends on an idea of ownership. Stealing reinforces claims of ownership and involves the apparatus of the state in enforcement ownership rights. The Creative Commons, and other "open source" projects attempt to work through ownership by creating a spectrum of ownership rights that allow and encourage collaboration.

The metaphor of working through or going with the flow emerges many times in this book, including in the conclusion when Harold compares football to surfing. Harold uses it in reference to culture jammers or hackers who understand the system and work within the system in order to change the system.

There is also a strong collaborative element to Harold's prescriptions. This stands in contrast to the mass media model in which the relationship between media and consumer is top-down. Of course, as Harold has noted, corporations have discovered the potential of allowing individuals cooperate in the construct of their entertainment. Again, Harold would caution against seeing this as an out and out appropriation of the individual. Nor would she take the opposite, perhaps naive, stance that it is not an appropriation of the individual. Rather, Harold seems to say that there is a good deal of potential in collaborative relationship. Further, more equal collaborative relationships are possible.

My critiques of the book are few. I think I could have benefited more from some examples of the problems associated with copyright laws. Harold discusses Disney's successful efforts to protect its copyrights over Mickey Mouse and other Disney products and also, in less detail, the efforts on the part of corporations to product their products in the digital age. I am not really sure what the public are missing out on. Free copies of Disney movies? I see how this is more important in scientific and scholarly work -- but it also seems as if there are strong collaborative norms in the sciences.

I also think that Harold could have provided a more clearer road map. I think it is a powerful suggestion to think about how to work within the system, but to what ends?