Decommodification of the Internet, but Not Radio
One of the conclusions made by Daniel Miller and Don Slater in their book, The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach, is that “Right now the Internet has created more decommodification that anything since early socialism” (171). Miller and
Slater correctly follow this statement by noting that the Internet has also increased levels of commodification in other areas (171) but their focus on decommodification is interesting and unique when compared to ideas presented in other readings in this class.
Miller and Slater’s argument is partially based on Trini culture. They explain that, “it is worth noting the ability to obtain things for free is seen as a national trait that is mentioned with pride in any of the joke lists that relate to the specific character of ‘being Trini’” (169-170). Also, this argument is based on the evidence that MP3 is one of the most popular search terms online for Trinis and that many Trinis use the Internet to obtain access to magazine content and to obtain software and games (170). They also note that the biggest savings was related to the reduced number of overseas phone calls required (170).
This understanding of decommodification is not dominant in Susan Douglas’s exploration of the radio. In her book, Inventing American Broadcasting, Douglas notices a wide number of elements related to the development of the radio. In its early history, Douglas suggests that radio promotion focused on the decreased costs of wireless telegraphy and that radio would decrease the power of telegraph companies (25). This story is not primarily about decommodification; it is about market competition and obtaining services at a lower cost rather than for free.
Douglas does note that some writers recognized the potential for radio users to save money. For example, with radio, one author argued that individuals who could not previously afford to attend concerts could now hear the music over their radios and that radio reduced the need to have the financial resources to obtain good seats at a concert (308). However, Douglas ultimately concludes that “In these press accounts there was no tension between corporate ambitions and individuals desires: they were really the same thing (314). While the potential for radio broadcasting to provide information content for free is mentioned, it is not framed in terms of decommodification and it is not a dominant idea in Douglas’s account.
The easiest manner to explain this phenomenon is by exploring each author’s method. Douglas is largely conducting a discourse analysis of the radio’s development. The newspapers and promotional materials she examined did not mention the decommodifying potential of radio. In contrast, Miller and Slater conducted ethnographic and survey research. Their informants mentioned the decommodifying potential of radio.
This explanation, while likely accurate, does not explain why individuals living in the early age of radio did not consider decommodification seriously and why those in the early age of the Internet chose to mention it. This might be explained by differences in technology. There are more free things that can be obtained via the Internet that can be possessed in tangible form. MP3’s obtained over the Internet are pieces of property that can be stored on ones computer or burned to a compact disc. Magazine articles can be printed out. In contrast, radio broadcasts are ephemeral. The common radio user would not have the ability to store radio recordings in a permanent form until the invention of the cassette tape (or possibly the eight track?). This may partially explain why decommodification did not play as large of a role in the conceptualization of the radio.
However, other factors recognized by Miller and Slater, such as the money saved through email communications, do not reflect a form of decommodification related to tangible property. This would seem similar to a potential use of wireless telegraphy/ telephony. With the radio, amateur operators no longer had to pay for postage just as with the Internet emailers no long have to pay for long distance phone calls. I would not attribute this to a difference between Trini culture and American culture. However, I would attribute it do a difference between culture at the beginning of the Twentieth Century and culture at the beginning of the Twenty First Century.
In the early days of radio, in the United States and Western Europe, where radio was first developed and where Douglas focuses her work, it generally was not a good idea to be associated with socialism. If the “free” aspects of radio were discussed by the press, this would likely be understood as a threat to the American way of life. I would argue that the liberalism at the turn of the century was if anything harsher than the version of neoliberalism being advocated today and that threats to property were not smiled upon. Furthermore, the ideas of communism and socialism boded for the American public in the early Twentieth Century. The revolution in Russia was very real and individuals believed that it could spread. In contrast, communism is not understood as a serious threat to the United States today, or its close neighbors such as Trinidad. Indeed, the difference between property rights and commons is today often portrayed by authors (Benkler provides an example) as that between sharing and not sharing. Tropes of communism and socialism are not required components of the discussion. Therefore, it is easier for journalists and informants to talk about ideas such as file sharing and magazine reading as decommodification today as opposed to one hundred years ago. There is little risk that one will lose her job, friends, or social standing for doing so.
Furthermore, many of the businesses and individuals involved in the promotion of radio were concerned that radio might be nationalized by the American government, and the Navy actually did take over control for a short period of time (Douglas 276). Emphasizing the decommodifying potential of radio could have encouraged greater governmental control, something no large group involved in radio outside of the Navy wanted. In contrast, government ownership of the modern Internet is not understood as a serious threat, although the concept is still debated.
The contrast between Douglas and Miller and Slater is certainly methodological. However, the larger explanation for this difference likely is due to differences of technology, culture, and business interests.