Jensen Core Response 4

    Since we're talking about economic and industrial matters in this week's materials, I wanted to offer my opinion on the theory of a post-scarcity society, as I believe it ties into many of the industrial critiques present in the week's readings. For those who are unfamiliar, the theory of a post-scarcity society (or a society of abundance) revolves around formulating a society in which basic needs and goods can be produced with minimal labor and most individual desires can be accommodated, allowing the population to focus their labor efforts in other areas such as the arts or sciences. Sounds rather utopian, right? That's because it is--it's an entirely hypothetical economic system which discounts many fundamentals of (human) nature.

    I know, I know... It's always risky to go against the all-powerful Marx, but I'm willing to take the plunge. I favor the more realistic model based upon an economy of scarcity, which has pretty much been around since early humans were fighting over herds of cows. The idea revolves around there being a finite number of resources for society to consume, resulting in competition and regulation. Rather than go into the nitty-gritty of the economic and philosophical debates between the two theories, I will instead showcase how the television industry exemplifies the economy of scarcity through the examples brought up in the articles.

    Caldwell's article highlights various changes and pursuits which network companies made in order to profit off of (and survive) the advent of the digital age. In many ways, I found the 2004 article rather prophetic regarding contemporary television powerhouses such as Disney and Netflix. Caldwell focuses on five "textualities" which showcase how television changed to adapt to the visual age, including areas such as repurposing, converging, and stunting their programs. How does this tie into a scarcity economy, you may ask? While it may seem that artistic and entertainment industries have an abundance of creativity from which to mine their shows from, their primary revenue system was actually quite limited--viewership. Broadcast companies were competing constantly for viewership percentages, as a higher share in the market would ensure higher profits. Therefore, with the widespread adoption of the internet, broadcast companies expanded to break out of the scarcity deadlock which they found themselves in by expanding intertextually into internet spaces. This resulted in widespread horizontal integration in the broadcasting/entertainment industry, as the pool from which to achieve viewership expanded greatly. Yet, the pool was still not infinite, and as seen today with companies such as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu who are deadlocked in their competition for subscriptions in a similar way broadcasting companies used to be. 

    Next, Jenkins' article mentions a rather interesting idea regarding the the transfer and development of information and knowledge: "convergence is taking place within the same appliances... within the same franchise... within the same company." Here, Jenkins is referring to how the companies which own media franchises also own the (digital) spaces where communities form to expand upon the franchises. It forms a closed loop of knowledge production, where knowledge on the subject can rarely leave the confines of the overarching company's ownership. Not speak too broadly here, but closed loops of knowledge have been occurring throughout human history. The very construction of language can often form barriers between the transfer of knowledge, as certain ideas cannot accurately be translated. So, perhaps, even the idea of Knowledge could be considered a scarce resource if it is either constantly recirculated within these systems or unobtainable due to certain barriers. Whoa, alright, I'll calm down now...

    Finally, the Holt article discusses the vertical integration of both Hollywood and television companies and the legislature which allowed this to occur. Here we come to the concept of political lobbying--or, simply put, paying to get your way. One obviously scarce source present in our (democratic) world is votes, specifically those of representatives in positions of power. Companies will lobby in favor of legislature which benefits their business as competitively as labor unions and other similar organizations will lobby in the opposite direction. The constant push and pull between the two, sometimes in favor of one or the other, once again creates a closed, cyclical loop from which the limited number of (various types of) resources are exchanged. 

    Now, I'm sure some people may have some strong feelings against my opinions, and that's okay! I realize I glaze over/don't mention some important economic/social/philosophical topics. But, hey, it's just a blog post, you know?