I just discovered the ideas of Michael Cartier - he’s kinda like Gilles Deleuze + Manuel De Landa - but more concrete and understandable. At least that’s how his translator, Jon Husband of  Wirearchy Site, makes him sound. What I am fascinated about is how Michael speaks of ruptures as opportunities for cultural shifts. 

Cartier proposes 4 different scenarios for the 21st Century: consumerist, (renewed) participative democracy, environmentally conscious, and oligarchic soft fascism (security state). Here’s more graphs that explains these scenarios. These are great starting points for discussing where one sees their company, themselves, and their community. 

Here are screenshots of the 4 scenarios from the video. 

In speaking about their methods, they say that they are attempting to

“reconstitute the logic of a system in which we will live, shaping it into a portfolio of trends. It analyzes our society using a model which integrates at the same time technological, economic and societal developments, based on a range of readings which support an analysis of the flow of trends according to three vectors in time” Read more about the 

I love it!

The video focuses on the information mediating tools that have spanned our history, leading up to what they call, Internet 2.look to the figure below (pulled from their wesbite, not the video):

A comment on the abundancy of information: The video shows two screen shots where the narrator says that a digital society is not based on the economics of scarcity, but rather an economics of abundance.

While the reality of this may be true - because digital products inherently have unlimited iterations without quality degradation which radically changes the industrial model of the fixed production line and stable categories of consumer and producer- I contend that this is not a reality that that media and corporate information industries live in.  Scenario #1 addresses this reality.

I would love to engage in a more explicit and nuanced discussion about the role of information. It seems to me that Cartier and Husband’s video  renders information as a inherently valuable resource - one where information is now abundant - being created by me, you, and you, and all of us! woohoo!! But Dan Schiller has argued that if we want to apply a political economy approach to information, we have to treat it as a commodity instead of a resource.

“The only way we can analyze the political economy of information is to treat information as a tangible commodity, not as a resource.  A resource is something that inherently has value.  Information itself is not inherently valuable.  It is the social reorganization around information that makes it valuable.” pg 9. Schiller, Dan. How to Think About Information. 2006.

Schiller’s theoretical angle on information as a commodity (a focus on the exchange value as opposed to the use value), allows us to see how industries that are invested in controlling digital artifacts react to the new economics of abundance in a  digital society. It is precisely because there is a new social and cultural organization around information as an abundant resource, that marketers are now selling scarcity. They actually HAVE to market the idea that there is a finite limit of their digital product.

As a result, marketers now are engaged in selling authenticity, which is the central argument of Gilmore et. al’s book, Authenticity: What Consumer Really Want. Because there are sooooo many copies of products now, buyers are trying to figure out where is the “real” product. So this could range from me searching for the “real” version of Lady Gaga’s Telephone or some mashed-up version, or me searching for the a “real” Slap Chop to some wannabe slap chopper. 

Are you ready for the 21st century from Benoit Massé on Vimeo.

Reading and wathching all this just makes me want to SCREAM  - I’m flushed with excitement! I love these kind of videos that capture 1000 years of history in 3 min. There’s something  so satisfying about watching such high quality generalizations and overviews. I think in academia we get so much into the specifics of things and we’re penalized for making general statement in fear of being being an essentialist - it’s the tricky boundaries of academia that require one to back up whatever they say. I am a fan of Jon Husband’s and Michael Cartier’s generalizations! Oh and I am a fan of the designer, Benoit Masse.

Check out ConstellationsW &  Jon Husband’s Wirearchy Site. I need to spend a day just dissecting all the intellectual goodies on both of these sites. Hey Jon, you’re a great translator! If every French thinker has you as their translator, then maybe they would be more understandable! Deleuze needed you!

And here’s the best part about what I found on ConstellationsW -  Husband and Cartier provide a list of writers who have inspired their writing with annotations! You guys ROCK!

Thanks to Linda Stone for tweeting about this beautiful video!