In his work “De la division du
travail social” first published in 1878, french sociologist Emile Durkheim has
identified that the increase of work division and specialization of individuals
has led the society to shift from what he describes as traditional society to
modern society. In the traditional society, people are express solidarity with
their peers because of the traditional, cultural, ideological and normative similitude
(mechanical solidarity) between them whereas in modern society, solidarity
would fall from the management of interdependence between individuals (organic
solidarity)[i].
After having read Benkler and Nissembaum’s theory on commons-based peer
production, I believe that the rising of such type of production can lead to a
redefinition of Durkheim’s work and even suggest a shift back to some sort of
mechanical solidarity.
Benkler and Nissembaum have
identified four different clusters of associations between virtues and
characteristics of commons-based peer production.
Cluster
I: Autonomy, Independence, Liberation
Cluster
II: Creativity, Productivity, Industry
Cluster
III: Benevolence, Charity, Generosity, Altruism
Cluster
IV: Sociability, Camaraderie, Friendship, Cooperation, Civic Virtue
They
also describe the peer production process to be exempt of hierarchical setting
which would allow all protagonists to participate freely to the evolution of a
project by sharing their thoughts and expertise.[ii] Wikipedia would be an example of choice to
depict the commons-based peer production. This web encyclopedia has gathered
thousands of collaborators that were wailing to share their knowledge. In the
Wikipedia setting, these subject matter experts do need recognition by their
peers that their knowledge is actually valuable, and this fact points out the
importance of the reference to society to exist. This apparent auto-regulation
of peer production organizations does have a strong similitude with Adam
Smith’s proposed model of the “invisible hand” to explain regulation of
markets.[iii]
But this time, replacing individualism by independence, altruism and
cooperation (clusters I, III and IV). Durkheim’s definition of organic
solidarity within the modern society also had a very strong link to
interdependence between individuals. His vision of modern society is that
individuals can only collaborate under contract where the need, extent of
support and duration of collaboration is clearly defined.[iv] Such model could not be valid for all the
examples that are used by Benkler and Nissembaum (Wikipedia, SET, Clickworkers)
as peer production is triggered from volunteer collaboration of individuals.
The term collaboration is of paramount importance in this module as it encloses
the ICT and individuals given that ICTs are now the medium through which
collaboration is made possible partially because of the ease of assembly they
offer.
The collaboration of individuals
in peer production is quite similar to what we have seen about TANs. In
previous modules, we have seen the importance of TANs as possible alternative
source of governance and how they can have a strong impact in their field of
interest. TANs have brought together people with a same interest and a specific
knowledge with regards to this interest. This networking of individuals is not
made possible by interdependence but rather through the combination of
similitude of interest. This type of network would therefore be more likely to
meet Durkheim’s definition of traditional society and mechanical solidarity
stated in the introduction.
Durkheim’s research has led him
to believe that the stronger the interdependence is, the more solidarity there
will be between individuals. The objective itself is therefore less important
as the individual is only asked to perform his attributed task in a flawless,
timely manner. In commons-based peer production, the attention is put on the
finality of the common effort as the individual does not receive any
retribution besides the finalized common accomplishment. Solidarity in such
settings takes its roots in the shared objective rather than in
interdependence.
It is clear that the interaction
and collaboration between individuals involved in commons-based peer production
does not go hand in hand with Durkheim’s vision of the modern society. ICTs
have allowed the appearance of a form on knowledge altruism thus showing a
potential ideology shift from “information is power” to “information is common
good”.
The most interesting thing about
commons-based peer production is the opportunity that we have to see this
evolve. I believe it is impossible for such organization to evolve without any
sense of hierarchical structure. As peer production efforts get bigger and
bigger, Anderson’s statement that “more is different” [v]will
just make even more sense and steering in direction of an original common goal
will be a great challenge. Shirky said: “whatever
method helps coordinate group action will spread, no matter how inefficient
they are, as long as they are better than nothing”.[vi] Can this lack of efficiency become peer
production’s sword of Damocles?
Ludovic Moulin
[i] Durkheim E., De la division
du travail social, 1893, e-book numerized on 15.02.2002 by the University of
Chicoutimi, accessible via http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Durkheim_emile/division_du_travail/division_travail_1.pdf
[ii]
Benkler Y., H. Nissenbaum, Commons-based
Peer Production and Virtue, Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 14, No 4,
2006, pp 394-419
[iii]
Rothschild E., Adam Smith and the
Invisible Hand, The American Economic Review, 1994, pp 319-422
[iv]
Durkheim E., De la division du travail social, 1893, e-book numerized on
15.02.2002 by the University of Chicoutimi, accessible via http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Durkheim_emile/division_du_travail/division_travail_1.pdf
[v]
Shirky C., Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations,
New York, Penguin Press, pp 109-142
[vi]
Shirky C., Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations,
New York, Penguin Press, pp 109-142
