On Hans Magnus Enzensburger, Constituents Towards a Theory of the Media.

"A revolutionary plan should not require the manipulators to disappear; on the contrary, it must make everyone a manipulator." (Enzensburger , 20)

Enzensburger's Constituents Towards A Theory of the Media  is not a complicated piece but neither is it necessarily simple. His observation that new media in forming new connections are also forming a universal system, that electronic media has a mobilising power, that  consumers are now also producers by virtue of platforms and hardware and technology,  that every use of media presupposes manipulation are as applicable today as they were in the 1970 writing.

With the rise of personal computers, smart phones, tablets, eReaders, wearable technology ranging from watches to spectacles, media equipment is not just a means of consumption but also surveillance, of control, of command, and of production. Media equipment is a means of production as well as consumption. Combined with the rise of platforms - Facebook, Amazon, Google to name only the most obvious, the most ubiquitous of these - media is not only no longer confined to the most obvious formal formats, but with it has come the ability to consume and produce and to disrupt these formats. 

All media, Enzensburger declares, is by definition manipulative. If we set aside the visceral reactions most of us have to the connotations of manipulation we can see the truth of this. Even a piece of poetry is asking for the reader to at least see, if not accept, through the lens of the writer. More so the work of fiction (be it written or filmed), more so the newspaper article (or news broadcast) the text book, the lecture, the manifesto....Even if these were created by a machine, that machine has been programmed and carries with it the biases of the programmer. 

An egalitarianism is inherent in this  - as long as an individual has the equipment necessary, they are able to respond. To act. This ability to take action is one of the hallmarks of new media (21). 

Response, manipulation, the ability to produce - these characteristics give new media (whether by Enzensburger's 1970 definition or by our 21st century definition) the power to mobilise. The 'masses' for want of a better word are no longer simply subjected to that which is chosen by those in spaces of control and command,  but have the ability to respond and react through media. Whether it be through social media, social sharing, through independent publishing, through independent creation - the slush pile no longer silences to the same extent that it once did. Where once private or independent creation and production might have been, as Enzensburger called it in 1970, no more than license cottage industry (p22), it is now characteristic of a shift of power that permitted only a select few a voice, to one that is at least accessible to more - making everyone a manipulator. 

This surface equalisation provides for a somewhat messy, somewhat noisy space - and one that is far from apolitical. Despite pressures for producers - whether mainstream, independent, social, or otherwise - to remain within the frameworks of the socially and aesthetically irrelevant but acceptable (cat GIFS and Supernatural memes anyone?)these spaces by nature present a dynamic relationship between consumers, producers, and platform providers with the boundaries between each of these blurring more and more on a daily basis. 

There may not be, Enzensburger states early in the article, no Marxist theory for the media - that does not leave it without philosophical boundary or framework. Even if that framework is in a constant state of flux as the individual's role within their relationship with media continues to evolve. 

On Post-Work Imaginaries Srnicek & Williams

Taken from their book, Inventing The Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work, Post-Work Imaginaries outlines Srnicek and Williams vision of what a post-work society could look like. These ideas are necessarily idealistic, grounded in contemporary reality, and demand a shift in political equilibrium (Srnicek & Williams, 55). 

They argue that society must accept if not embrace full automation, reduce the working week without reducing pay, provide a universal basic income, and diminish if not abolish the work ethic. Indeed, some of these ideas, utopian or not, seem to be in the spotlight as globally we operate in a society informed by Covid-19 responses, the economic impact of the pandemic and of quarantines. 

Full automation they claim "...would aim to liberate humanity from the drudgery of work while simultaneously producing increasing amounts of wealth" (55).  While most of us see automation in terms of decreased employment, decreased incomes, increased problems, and increased profit for the capitalist, Srnicek and Williams argue that resisting automation requires us to choose between freedom and abundance. Automation necessitates, they argue, higher wages (automation is not a viable option when labour is cheap), organisational change, and reskilling.  While the ideal is full automation, it's unlikely to be achievable for several reasons: machines are notoriously bad at completing creative tasks, the cost of the machines required offers a lower profit margin so makes it less interesting to the capitalist (even though this can be countered by full automation), and the moral status we give to certain roles, such as care work.  Therefore, since labour cannot be fully or immediately eliminated the demand for full automation simply aims to reduce necessary labour as much as possible (58).

Reducing the working week is the second demand and one that has to some extent been realised in some places and recently Prime Minister Jacinda Adern spoke of a four-day working week being a possible solution to economic constraints faced by some small businesses post Lockdown 2020. The idea is not new and Srnicek and Williams mention both Lafargue and Keynes pointing to three hour  working days and a shortened week being at the centre of Marx's post-capitalist vision (58).  Reducing the working week -ideally with a three day weekend - is not just good for worker health (both physical and mental) or environmentally advantageous, they argue, it is a political demand that shifts (some) power to the worker. Potentially it can bring recognition to unofficial, unpaid labour by bringing attention to it, and increase productivity.  

Alongside a reduced working week, they call for Universal Basic Income (UBI).  Such an income must, by definition, provide sufficient base come on which to live, must be paid to everyone without condition, and must be a supplement to the welfare state, not a replacement thereof. Again, by making work voluntary and not coerced, power shifts back toward the worker, allowing a flexibility of timetable and activity.  Equally, a UBI would regulate to some extent the values attributed to work, shifting the focus from profit (61). Wages would compensate the nature of a role and not the potential profitability - which may not be of immediate interest to the private capitalist but would certainly be of interest to the worker. UBI would also recognise roles such as care work - often dominated by women - that has traditionally been ignored when defining and recognizing labour. 

The first three 'demands' however rest on the concept of diminishing the work ethic. Work ethic is considered a high value trait from every perspective except that of remuneration. Instead it is exploited to ensure capitalist interests are expanded and profits grown. Only when work ethic is reduced can full automation, reduced working week, and a UBI become the foundation of a balanced and equitable society. 

Srnicek, Nick; Williams, Alex. Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work