Produsage – a brief response

I find it very interesting that Bruns attempts to conceptualise some of the practices of participation made more accessible by networked technologies, in particular the fact that participants can self-nominate, and choose at what level to participate. This seems to me the core challenge this field launches to methods of legitimizing culture and production through established forms of authority.

Nevertheless, there are two aspects of his work that I would like to criticise:

1. A narrow way of making theory?

I find it quite frustrating that Bruns limits the range of his conceptualization to such a narrow field. In the introduction to Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation, Bruns mentions economic and legal frameworks, and democratic society itself, but also expresses his intention to theorize and establish an analytical framework. Although I appreciate that a researcher is entitled to establish the boundaries of her or his own field of enquiry, this feels like a missed opportunity to link this academic conceptualization with a wider set of concerns.

I have recently come across a project for a book that, I think, complements Bruns work with a deeper analysis of the economical and political ramifications of what he describes as produsage. It is by Adam Arvidsson and Nicolai Peitersen and it is called Ethical Economy. The book itself is being edited through a wiki, which means we can all self-elect to contribute. Moreover, Bruns makes hardly any mention of the self-organised structures and political principles that have emerged in collaborative networked practices, particularly the free and open source software movement – e.g. rough consensus.

Rough Consensus at work - Critical Practice and guests working on the budget guidelines for Open Organizations

Rough Consensus at work - Critical Practice and guests working on the budget guidelines for Open Organizations at a ResourceCamp, part of Disclosure, Gasworks, 2008

2. Generalization

Bruns attempts to build a generalised discourse applicable to all forms of collaborations and participations. In my limited experience, particularly as a member of Critical Practice, the possible permutations of merged production and usage – to use Bruns’ terms – are varied and complex. Bruns uses expressions like Necessary Preconditions to define dynamics that, in my experience, are not as ubiquitous as it sounds in these texts. Many of Bruns’ descriptions apply only temporarily to only a handful of collaborative ‘communities’. Power struggles are as common as probabilistic or meritocratic dynamics, and hierarchical systems are woven with collaborative structures.

A large number of people – including the members of Critical Practice – have been contributing for several years to defining the best practices for Open Organizations. I feel that this is an important aspect of produsage that also needs to be mentioned.

One last note: collaborative practices also have gate-keepers, and some artists have delighted in highlighting these invisible processes. Here is an example:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Produsage – a brief response

  1. liligrana says:

    I am sure we will agree on the fact that social behavior is difficult to change, the inertia of how we have done things in the past is strong and sticky. The paradigm of Produsage is a newborn child, immature if you want, we have not yet seen it evolve or grow, what we see is that it grounds itself in a total new situation: the web has millions of eyes watching others. Eventually this might make a radical difference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s