All posts by Adam Fish

Adam Fish

I am a cultural anthropologist and media studies scholar currently teaching and researching in the Sociology Department at Lancaster University, UK. I investigate media technologies, digital finance, and network activism. @mediacultures

Emerging Capitalist Economy at Burning Man

Author's girlfriend in front of humble kin-based longhouse
Author's girlfriend in front of humble kin-based longhouse

The Burning Man Decompression parties are this weekend in LA and around the country, exactly one month from the ending of BM which is usually the first weekend free from unpacking and cleaning out the playa dust from all permeable fabrics and crannies. Perhaps such a party is necessary to remind oneself of the virtuousness of the event, otherwise cynical ideas about the sheer costs and the political economy of BM begin to plague the mind. For me, this is triggered by a memory of something a cashier at Home Depot in Reno said to me. I was buying two-dozen rebar stakes to secure the giant tent I designed and sewed for my girlfriend, sister, and best friend. The cashier recognized that I was going to BM and said, “not seeing as many of you as we usually do coming through this store, seems like more and more people are joining camps instead of making their own.” When I got to BM, I began to notice how many large camps are aggregates of strangers who basically Paypal-ed for community inclusion, the production of someone else’s art project, and a varying degree of life sustaining materials. This is what I am calling, “pay to play” (P2P). An emerging tourism industry in Black Rock City. I note this not to complain but to isolate instances of capitalistic intrusion in aggressively nonmarket communities.

BM is designed to resist the atomization of capitalist society. The theme this year was Evolution and I wonder if all social organization fall prey to convenience and evolve into reflections of capitalism. The impossible dust storms, the absence of cash money or commodities, the gifting economy (not bartering, but giving), the impetus to participate and play all work to destabilize the alienation and isolation of late-capitalist society. But as a free-range and malleable event I wonder if capitalism can be kept at the gate. BM is expensive: at $300 ticket, $200 gas, $200 food/water—it is easily over a G per person. It can be done cheaper, but those who do it cheap tend to mooch and/or not have the material resources to abide by the simple principles of BM: self-reliance, gifting, and radical expressivity.

It is difficult not to size-up the costs (and therefore the class) of the large-scale, privately-funded artworks and architecture. I was appreciative of the gifts of drink, food, leisurely rest spots, and free music and trinkets but with each gift I became more conscious that I was receiving from people wealthy enough to blow $10,000 on an extraordinarily philanthropic week. One camp included several dozen people who all flew from NYC, each couple had a massive RV, an AC-bedazzled igloo, their own private outhouse, hot water shower, and chauffeured artcar. I’d like to think I am alone with this burdensome class and capitalism consciousness—a personal by-product of anthropological training—in the supposedly declassed environment but I am not. From its inception Burners have hypothesized about how and when capitalism will infect and disease this experience. Critics of BM have called it weekend warriorship for the dot.commer, others have mined the contradiction between the immense carbon footprint and BM’s ecological subculture, others have highlighted the temporality of the autonomous zone, but the most ardent argue that the sheer costs and auto-dependency make it elitist and basically vapid. I tend to see it as a place and opportunity to experiment with improved forms of kin-bonding, environmental awareness, and social spatiality so it is important that my little tribe remain autonomous and self-reliant from the pay to play crews.

Traditionally, a small coterie would go to BM and have a great time in their humble camp, upon returning more friends and family would be encouraged to go next year, the camp would grow and with it a need for a communal bank to collectively pay for shared shelter, food, water, parties, gifts, etc. As the years go by some of these camps, driven by ambitious community organizers and artists, began to advertise to strangers via social networks for spots in their camp for a fee which might be anywhere from $50 for a daily shower or a nightly ride on a mutant vehicle to over $3000 for a deluxe tent, AC-fitted RVs, prepared gourmet food, and elite taxi services. For those electing to jump into these ready-made camps preparing for BM is as easy as online shopping for a travel package. This is becoming more the tradition and less the exception. It appears to be a semi-corporate work-around of the problem of decommodification.

BM’s original voluntary culture is analogous to the nonmarket social production of community and art that we currently see proliferating in social media. People make and give for the joy of making and gifting. Yochai Benkler, a social media and business professor at Harvard, champions this nonmarket social production but also recognizes the two threats to voluntary social production as being concentration and commercialization. My worry is that strangulating control is emerging in the trend of concentrating economic power into these specific camps.

With extreme heat and tornadoes that carry dust into eyes and down throats—and no provided water, shelter, food, or garbage cans BM forces clans to be self-reliant. But how one’s self-reliance is performed codes class positionality. When the accommodations are really swanky the difficult environment of dust storms and heat waves are made so irrelevant that the individual doesn’t ever face the ego-defying challenge of living for a brief brilliant week without the trappings of post-industrial society. Self-reliance is achieved through a credit card, community is achieved through shopping affinities, radical expression is found in buying-into someone else’s art project—these individuals are interpellated by capitalism and spectators of other’s creative expression—the only two unacceptable qualities for individuals at BM. To their credit, the big camp dons do acquire enough surplus funding to provide more gifts, shelter, and fun to more people. Also, it might be that population aggregation and consolidation is an urban historical fact and the tools of capitalization (surplus banking and strategic Potlatch-like re-deployment of resources) are useful in such high urban populations. Perhaps. But the emerging tourist industry at Black Rock City also gives convenient excuses for a bevy of investors to spectate through the windows of their provided RVs.

The Theater of a Palestinian Apartheid Wall Demonstration

It’s a regular event for Israeli soldiers, Palestinian demonstrators, international activists, and foreign press alike. Every Friday at 12:00 noon 60–100 men and boys meet in the olive groves between their West Bank village of Ni’lin and the security fence—apartheid wall, West Bank barrier, whatever you want to call it—to protest the divide’s existence. A 700–kilometer long wall selectively incorporates and excludes populations and resources into and out of Israel. According to The Economist completion of the barrier will remove 1/3 of Ni’lin land.

I arrived in Tel Aviv at 3AM to continue to make a film about divided cities and territories around the world. I had just been to Nicosia, Cyprus, a city divided by the UN because of a war between Greece and Turkey over 30 years ago. An activist in Cyprus told me about this West Bank anti–wall protest.
The taxi driver at Ben Gurion Airport outside of Tel Aviv knew what I was going there to do, to video document the demonstration from the Palestinian side of the separation wall. He refused to take me, saying, “it is not even in Israel.” An hour later he had not found a rider and I had not found a driver that knew where Ni’lin was so I re–asked the driver and for an exaggerated fee and a compromise to take me only to the checkpoint he reluctantly agreed.

We rolled through the cypress forests, artichoke farms, and lemon orchards that ring Tel Aviv before easily getting through the minor checkpoint at 7AM. The driver pointed over a bluff and told me to walk over there. I hadn’t been in Israel but a few hours and was still rolling my beat–up red suitcase and shouldering a backpack. The air was cool and still, a lone, limping horse skipped down the pothole road through the town of 5,000 eating unripe figs from sick trees. Fatah posters and decrepit pictures of Arafat flapped from boarded–up shop fronts. I looked at best like a moron who lost the Holy Lands tour bus and at worst like the oppressor. With my few Arabic words I tried a conversation with a baker peppered with the English words: “demonstration,” “protest,” “wall.” From his perspective, I could have sounded like the enemies of his village or just the village idiot.

Continue reading

Celebrity Journalists and North Korean Prisoners

If you hadn’t heard of Laura Ling, the journalist sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korea, at the time of my first upload to Savage Minds about her plight you probably have now. On the eve of her sentencing, June 3, Lisa Ling, sister to Laura and multi-network television journalist, after two months of US State Department recommended silence, was on almost every major American television network advocating for her sister’s release. In my first post, I wrote about the dangers of working as a journalist for Current TV, a small cable news network with a very limited amount of institutional cultural capital it could muster in case of an emergency. On June 14th, New York Times writer Brian Stelter furthered this idea and wrote about how new media journalism is exceedingly dangerous because small start-ups don’t have the sway of large ones. His point is oddly near to my own and if SM indeed has a reader at the NYT than I am haplisa-at-vigil1py to oblige Stelter’s creativity and I’ll accept the flattery with the imitation. Today, I will continue the analysis of this crisis in the direction of looking at the relationship between individual and institutional cultural capital.

I was at the first LA vigil on May 21 before Lisa Ling’s public involvement. There were seven people on a dog path along Venice beach. One person looked like Jason Schartzman. He wasn’t. He along with all others whorshipped at Laura’s church. At the second LA vigil at a swanky restaurant in Santa Monica I had to elbow through the valet, concerned beautiful people, television personalities, and cable news reporters to get my professionally premade “Save Laura” sign. After months of silence, when these media insiders wanted the attention it was instantaneous. I won’t say that this is an instance of media producer nepotism. It is a good story for ratings; a real news issue. We should campaign for the pardon of these two unfortunate journalists. However, the media blitzkreig explains much about the cultural capital and complicity of cultures of media production.

I want to think about individual cultural capital, namely Lisa Ling’s, and her use of that capital to advocate for the release of her sister, and how it relates to institutional cultural capital, namely the advocacy powers of American television networks. The play between institutional and individual cultural capital can be understood through the structure-agency dualism within the anthropological tool of practice theory. However, practice theory usually works within calculations of oppositionality and tensions. In the classic view, individuals, particularly activists, are in an antagonistic relationship with media institutions. The case of Lisa Ling and American news networks, on the contrary, consists of individual agency and institutional structuration overlapping. In the process, entertainment and activism synchronize. Let me explain.

There was a key moment, an event, that exposes the presence and strategic deployment of cultural capital in this case. Lisa Ling is a correspondent for CNN, National Geographic Channel, and ABC’s The View. Mitch Koss, who was with Ling and Lee in North Korea, is widely known to have been the mentor of Lisa and Laura Ling, as well as Anderson Cooper. These media insiders waited months to thumb threw their address books to get the numbers of Larry King, Anderson Cooper, and Matt Lauer (Today Show). With all due compassion to Laura and Lisa, it is important to note that in a world of increasingly edutainment-geared television news programming this is a “good” story complete with evil despots, nuclear weapons, and teary-eyed family members. Even without this engaging nonfiction narrative, I would argue, Lisa Ling would be able to get on every show, and have celebrity-dense, simultaneous vigils in several American cities coordinated with her television appearances.

What if Lisa wasn’t Laura’s sister? What is Al Gore hadn’t founded Current TV and weren’t involved? Would this issue had gotten on all major networks at primetime hours had Lisa not had these contacts and been so camera-ready and photogenic? These concerns could be somewhat tempered if we consider the class and cultural capital of the people who gain full-time employment in the creative industries. It isn’t Lisa’s ease and practice on camera which makes it possible or her connections, but a mix of these issues and more that constitutes her powerful cultural capital. While Current has branded their business as entrepreneurially democratizing media production and distribution to the masses, the people who are under the benefit packages and full-time salaries of these companies are unusually well-connected through family, elite schools, or other insider and backdoor operations.

With practice theory, we often conclude that agency is structured and the higher the agent gets within spirals of power the more structuration occurs. Activism, usually associated with individual agency, quickly is structured to death and transformed into spectacle. Strangely enough in the Ling situation, the individual and institutional cultural capital synchronize. This coordination usually happens only to elites. However, usually even to them, their political intentions are stripped in the pursuit of entertainment. This is not so in this case. Through personal favors, shared political concerns, and co-benefits in the economics of spectacle, the Ling family and major news networks coordinated to publicize the reprehensible situation of these journalists.

Also at the vigil for the first time were employees of Current TV, in my next blog I am going to investigate the political and capitalistic drive behind the censorship and denial by Current TV of this issue and the failed promise of the democratization of citizen journalism and participatory culture.

A Media Anthropologist in a Commune

My girlfriend lives on a commune, or, to be more PC and less 1960s, an “intentional community” in Southern California. The social glue that links the residents are a non-denominational spirituality, inexpensive/free living, shared work, collective food production and sharing, and “community.” From what I can gather, residents share a desire to link individual with universal consciousness, connect to nature through devotional work, and uphold an emotional honesty. The more humanistic or less numinous amongst the residents say “community” is the reason they live here. For these individuals, this commune’s attractions are the shared responsibilities and personal relationships. I am here now enjoying a kale and fig salad and handpicked/squeezed orange juice from the orchard (she is the reigning queen of the organic farm here) and entertaining research ideas.

In the 1990s there were a few anthropologists working on the American commune. These studies focused on history. Examples include Don Pitzer’s cross-cultural utopianism and developmental communalism and Susan Love Brown’s ethnography of a yogic community and her accurate description of the importance of generations for the growth of New Age religiosity. Honestly, the history of the American commune doesn’t interest me as much as the future of small-scale socialism. As a media anthropologist, I want to see how this bricks-and-mortar intentional community relates to the taste and affinity cultures online. How to create analogies that move between this commune and digital socialism?

Skeptics of social media like Andrew Keen and Neil Postman agree that there is a fundamental and substantive difference between real and virtual communities. Something profoundly human is lost in the virtualization of relationships. Personally, I tend to see social media as augmenting my strong friendships, extending my informal friendships, and providing opportunities for new friendships. Regular use of social media affirms or complicates preexisting relationships, provide opportunities for the creation of new networks, while creating something perhaps unprecedented: virtual communities. These virtual communities could be seen as historical extensions of communes, political groups, audiences, fan bases, and other communities unified by analogue media. However, in some ways they might also provide for the invention of new sociality. Clay Shirkey, Henry Jenkins, and danah boyd expand on this generative thesis.

As distinct as they are materially and physically, it is difficult to textually code in a single word the differences between “real” and “virtual” communities. Cultural relativists like anthropologists are rightfully wary of “reality” and how “real” creates “unreal” communities. So “real” won’t work. What about “embodied?” Engagement with social media at a laptop isn’t the most active of corporeal engagements but it is nonetheless embodied. Will “symbolic” community work for the “virtual?” In-person engagements are mediated by fashion, language, body movements, and other symbolic forms of communication. So “embodied communities” won’t work for the “real.” The terms “mediated” or “symbolic” won’t work for the “virtual” which we know isn’t just virtual but also physical. Recourse to archaeology won’t work because virtual communities produce many tangible artifacts and a substantial infrastructure. I will use in-person to describe those person-to-person interactions in shared tangible space and online communities to describe the digital relationships knowing that this definition is leaky.

So here’s the pitch. A comparison between this commune and a virtual community could provide evidence for what are the differences between in-person and online communities. It will be necessary to locate and work with a vibrant virtual community that is networked via social media and who share a set of ideological beliefs or a division of labor. A Facebook group that interacts around political or religious ideas would work. The primary data will come from an identical questionnaire that will be filled-out by both the residents at the commune and the participants in the virtual community. The correct drafting of this instrument will be necessary to elicit evidence about what differentiates and unifies the in-person and online communities.

The most important point that unifies this intentional community and social media communities is “intentionality.” Both populations elect to be a player in the chosen community. They are not born into it by their gender or generation nor are they forced into it by circumstance and history. Intentionality is enshrined in the very title given by members of this “intentional community.” Communes, despite having ideological ideas about nature, consciousness, and social work going back to the 17th century, reflect one of the emergent qualities for the creation of new online communities. Doubters could see intentionality as the social fabric for community development as but an extension of the consumeristic mentality that prioritizes individualism and a shopping mentality taken towards social formation. Regardless of the connections between intentional community development and capitalistic interpellation, intentionality as a force for community growth is a frame through which we can observe and critique the formation of numerous cultures of affinity, competency, and taste both in-person and online.

What would be a good online community for comparison? Are there any precedents for this research?