Disruptive sharing in a digital age: Rejecting neoliberalism?

Cammaerts, Bart

doi:10.1080/10304312.2011.539157

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using primary empirical research and meta-analysis we elaborate on the aspect that the variety of conducts and organizations that constitutes the sharing economy is a preceding illustration of a time to come in which peer-to-peer network becomes progressively predominant (Lucas, 2016), and the crowd substitutes the company at the heart of capitalism (Cammaerts, 2011). The adjustability and smoothness of contracting via digital platforms instead of working a day-job (Popescu Ljungholm, 2016) may be challenging (performing on demand for various platforms may be likable), but obtaining a predetermined periodic income (Madsen & Wu, 2016) assists in organizing a future, something pretty demanding when an individual's earnings vary (Ionescu, 2016) contingent on the caprices of delivery and request on a series of apps.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Media Technologies, Digital Sharing, and the Neoliberal Economy

Nica¹,

Taylor²

2017

EMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We rely on Sundararajan (2016) to prove that the sharing economy is the present stage of a constant progress of the economy and society that is influenced to some extent by digital technologies. The latter take individuals back to recognizable sharing conducts, selfemployment, and types of community-based network that survived before now: an enhanced type of something recognizable should gain boundless acceptance swiftly and have superior economic consequence than the creation of completely novel consumption practices or patterns of hiring. We develop primary empirical research for the principal case study that determines that the proficiencies of crowd-based capitalism make possible an economy that depends gradually on peer-to-peer platforms to regulate economic operations. We use meta-analysis to inspect evidence proving that rising blockchain technologies might reshape crowd-based capitalism, repositioning the crowd from being the origin of delivery to being the go-between that organizes and jointly dominates the market, but they may drive a novel phase of peer-topeer markets and digital disorder. We attempt to address these increasing aspects by elaborating on the aspect that the variety of conducts and organizations that constitutes the sharing economy is a preceding illustration of a time to come in which peer-to-peer network becomes progressively predominant, and the crowd substitutes the company at the heart of capitalism.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Media Technologies, Digital Sharing, and the Neoliberal Economy

Nica¹,

Taylor²

2017

EMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Belk and Tumbat, 2005;Rokka, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to online activities (Cammaerts, 2011;Giesler, 2006). It is impossible to distinguish the parties involved.…”

Section: Traces Of Postpostmodernism In Today Consumer Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer culture in a post-postmodern world

Covà¹

2013

Mercati E Competitività

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concepts of postmodern culture, postmodernism and postmodernity incited new perspectives and debates across many disciplines in the social sciences, humanities, and even physical sciences. Entering consumer and marketing research in the early 1990s, they stimulated questions about all marketing theory (Brown, 1999) and consumer research (Sherry, 1991; Firat and Venkatesh, 1995) that make a lasting impact on our field. Two broad marketing schools of thought emerged around the social changes characterized by the label of postmodern. The European school was heavily influenced by Maffesoli's ideas of neo-tribalism and emphasised the social links and communities made possible through consumption (Cova, 1997). In contrast, North American theorizing highlighted the increasing individualized consumer freed from traditional status markers such as class (Firat and Dholakia, 1998). Both perspectives, however, delineated how a new kind of paradoxical consumer emerged from the sociocultural ferment in the transformative shifts from modernity to postmodernity, a productive consumer, creating and communicating meanings through goods and services. This idea of the productive consumer was especially far-reaching and introduced for the first time the notion of consumers creating value as well as marketers. Indeed, sometimes this value creation could be in opposition to marketers, i.e. whenever meanings were appropriated and changed by consumers from those intended. Many new methodological approaches were introduced into consumer research to understand these processes of meaning creation; hermeneutics, phenomenology, semiotics, semiology and ethnography to name but a few of the leading ones. Thus, during the 1990's and the beginning of the 2000's, the postmodern-postmodernism EDITORIALE

show abstract

“…This paper intervenes in this debate to provide an analysis of the consequences of the focus on participation rather than outcomes of hacking. These consequences include the market appropriations of hacking processes already considered in the literature (Cammaerts, 2011;Powell, 2012) as well as a limited transformation of the processes of scientific and public interest knowledge production.…”

Section: Hacking Culture and Its Contestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also in the economic sphere, the participation and networked relationships have been claimed as foundations for a network and reputation-based economy (Benkler, 2006). This reading of hacking culture celebrates individualism, participation, and reputation within a 'new spirit' of capitalism (Barron, 2013) and neoliberal governance (Cammaerts, 2011).…”

Section: Hacking Culture and Its Contestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hacking in the public interest: Authority, legitimacy, means, and ends

Powell

2016

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cultural appropriation of ideas about hacking and opening knowledge have had significant impact on ways of developing participation in creating knowledge in the public interest. In particular, the ideal of hacking as developed through studies of free and open source (F/OS) has highlighted the value of processes of participation, including participatory governance, in relation to the value of expanded accessibility of knowledge, including knowledge commons. Yet these means and ends are often conflated. This paper employs three examples of projects where hacker-inspired perspectives on scientific knowledge contend with institutional perspectives. Each example develops differently the relationships between means and ends in relation to contests of authority and legitimacy. The paper's analysis suggests that while hacker culture's focus on authority developed in relation to participation has had great traction in business and in public interest science, this may come at the cost of a potential contribution to rethinking the value of knowledge in the public interest.

show abstract

Disruptive sharing in a digital age: Rejecting neoliberalism?

Cited by 23 publications

References 34 publications

New Media Technologies, Digital Sharing, and the Neoliberal Economy

New Media Technologies, Digital Sharing, and the Neoliberal Economy

Consumer culture in a post-postmodern world

Hacking in the public interest: Authority, legitimacy, means, and ends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About