To digital workers.
Changing eras
We know much less than we think we do. Thought is slow and our rationality is limited. It is difficult for us to be our own contemporaries and understand our current situation. Yet we need only look up from our keyboards to see all the upheavals we are experiencing. There have been others, no doubt, and every era has its malaise, but it is not quite the same every time. For example, we have moved from guilt neurosis to the depression of heightened individualism, which nevertheless indicates progress in our autonomy, in which digital technology has played a role, but we must admit that dematerialization, constant connectivity, and the speed of communication have a disorienting effect, plunging us into a completely different world, which can be quite unsettling.
Not everything is going well, no, and we have not yet experienced all the adverse effects, but the unease is largely ideological, stemming from our inability to make sense of it, in addition to real difficulties in adapting to this new ecosystem. Admittedly, the feeling of loss is not only that of our bearings and our old models, it is also the very real loss of our social protections, which is painfully exacerbating our precariousness, as well as the failure to take into account new production conditions, but this maladjustment is clearly the result of an insufficient understanding of the transformations underway. It must be said that the changes we are experiencing are so significant that they can be compared to the dawn of the Neolithic era or the invention of writing, but at a considerably faster pace. Old ideologies have become completely obsolete. We know this, but they still dominate, as do the institutions in place, which are proving just as ill-suited to the conditions of the immaterial economy.
Not only do we have to endure this maladjustment, which causes a great deal of suffering and destruction of skills, but we also have to iron out the kinks of a hard learning curve where all the excesses and initial illusions are confronted with reality. It could be said that we are at the worst possible moment, in the midst of a crisis, when a new era is slow to emerge and is populated by monsters (conspiracy theorists, technophobes, and mystics). It could also be said that we are at the most crucial moment, in the eye of the storm, when our voices and actions can have the greatest impact and determine the future.
The age of information, ecology, and human development
Things can be presented in many ways, from the perspective of the producer or the consumer, emphasizing financialization, communications, market globalization, new technologies, the immaterial, the virtual, real time... What matters is how we bring everything together, what we focus on and how we organize our representation of the changes underway. Any name is imperfect and largely conventional, if not political (knowledge becomes power, decisions for the future). It is therefore for its operational nature that I prefer to describe the era ahead of us as “the era of information, ecology and human development,” as it is diametrically opposed to the era of energy, productivism, and simple “labor power” (characterizing wage capitalism).
What is interesting is to understand how inseparable these three aspects are. Without globalized networks, environmental awareness would be much more difficult and climate conferences would be almost impossible. Above all, without information technology, there can be no ecological regulation, only a futile opposition to industry as a whole. Finally, the dematerialization of the economy provides a way out of productivism, which is decisive. On the one hand, computerization values education, raises the level of “employability,” democratizes intellectual work, and requires investment in human development, which has become a priority and the true purpose of the economy, a far cry from what has been done until now.
On the other hand, human development is the other side of ecology, its subjective side, that of quality of life and the development of autonomy, the objective side being that of systemic risks, the depletion of reserves and the accumulation of pollution. Some reject human development, defined by Amartya Sen as the development of individual capabilities and autonomy, simply because it contains the word “development,” which they fear may be misused, as has been the case with “sustainable development.” Even more absurdly, some reject the fact that it is too human, to the detriment of the rest of life, even though we are connected to it and our quality of life depends on it. This does not prevent human development from being necessary for both ecological and productive reasons.
If we must speak of an era of “information” rather than communication or knowledge, it is not to refer to newspapers but to information theory, to bits of information and their transmissible characteristics, which are therefore independent of any material medium. The world of information, which is the world of the mind and thought, has completely different laws from the physical world of matter and space. This is where the break comes from, the complete change in logic from the immaterial economy to human development and quality of life, linking ecological concerns and training needs. It should be noted that information is opposed to energy in the same way that the improbable is opposed to the probable, that non-linear phenomena are opposed to linear, proportional, progressive, and measurable forces, and that the qualitative is opposed to the quantitative. The information age is not just about more communication or even more technology; it is a complete change in logic, in the world, in temporality, where we are moving, among other things, from a civilization of pain to a civilization of breakdown, and from forced labor to chosen work, or even work as a passion, but also much more precarious, if not even more alienating when there is a contradiction between old ways of doing things and new realities...
This is a time when our representations, our practices, and our relationships are changing, profoundly transforming individuals, the economy, and work. Unfortunately, as we have said, our rationality is very limited in the face of such an anthropological rupture. Ideologies are resistant; they are a heavy inertia that is difficult to fight against. Yet it is precisely in ideology that a total (re)conversion to new questions is needed, not a return to old answers!
The future language of humanity
Emphasizing the material differences between information and energy does not mean reducing everything to that and denying the cognitive dimension of information, but simply placing ourselves at a more general level, beyond the knowledge economy, which represents only one particular aspect of it, with automation being clearly differentiated. There is no doubt, however, that digital technology represents a new cognitive stage, a new stage in the evolution of language after speech, writing, printing, etc. This is not to say that there will be a collective intelligence that will emerge on its own, as has been announced with a little too much haste. This collective intelligence has yet to be built, and we are experiencing its failures, but it is indeed a new stage in our learning, a new stage for the memory of information as well as for dematerialization. Language, writing, printing, and computing are simply taking over from genetics and natural selection, but rather than blindly focusing on what remains in common with genetics, as memeticists do, we should instead emphasize what is so different!
Indeed, this becoming language cannot be reduced to communication or mass effects. it is not just the same thing as before in greater quantity; it is our world itself that is being profoundly transformed on both sides of language: that of enunciation and relationship to others (dialogue, sincerity), and that of the statement and information (truth, relevance). This virtualization is very real, this dematerialization is very material, just as the effect of discourse and institutions is very real. Far from making us lose our humanity, it is the valorization of what is most human in us, language, which constitutes us as speaking beings and separates us from animality. The unease stems from our fatal inability and our categories, which are indeed obsolete, but this is absolutely not the obsolescence of man. On the contrary, when subjectivity is now mobilized in its intimacy and we call upon its autonomy, increasingly sought after in its higher functions, increasingly attentive to ecological issues, increasingly in the world of the mind. This is not to claim that this does not raise new questions and countless problems, nor that the symbolic world floats beyond space and time when it must take care of our world and confront its ignorance. By exposing our stupidity, we condemn ourselves to at least improve!
Errare humanum est
The work of all “symbol manipulators” highlights the symbolic dimension and the “linguistic turn” of the economy, raising hopes for a cognitive leap forward, but one that must always integrate error, which is absolutely essential. Idealized forms of humanism are dangerous because they exclude from humanity those who do not measure up to this ideal, but above all because they miss the essence of man and his freedom, which is precisely his ability to make mistakes and correct them. We can defend a humanism that is not normative but based on human error, on human freedom as a great disruptor and star seeker. This is something that computer scientists should be sensitive to, because there is no doubt that the primary object of computer science is error. The time spent on design and algorithms is negligible compared to that spent on error correction (programmer bugs or user input errors). More generally, life, information, organization, and negentropy are not possible without error correction (redundancy) and reproduction. It is not a bad thing to be a little more aware of this, as we are of our limited rationality (not only on the user side), because it is only by being aware of our errors that we can correct them, not by deluding ourselves about our wonderful intelligence, which is all too often flawed. More generally, error and noise, which are part of our everyday reality, should be better taken into account by organizations in order to overcome them and not overwhelm individuals, whose all-too-human errors should be forgiven...
Knowledge workers
It is in the workplace that digital technology is causing the most upheaval and coming up against the most serious structural inadequacies. It is work that is becoming immaterial, more so than the goods produced, with problem solving replacing labor and no longer able to be measured in terms of working time, due to its non-linear productivity, nor individualized in collective production, where productivity is largely global. One of the well-known consequences is extreme job insecurity, for which current protections are completely inadequate and which calls for a guaranteed income for all, well beyond what remains of unemployment insurance. Another consequence is that workers are called upon to be autonomous (in terms of their skills and abilities) and to commit to results (target-based contracts), which requires the status of self-employed worker rather than that of subordinate employee. Indeed, workers can now own their own work tools in the form of PCs, which are general problem solvers, and this changes everything. The positive side is illustrated by the treatment of IT workers at major global leaders (Microsoft, Google), while the negative side is better known: stress, precariousness, downgrading, inappropriate procedures, mistrust, misunderstanding, and ultimately the destruction of skills and lives by the thousands... Institutions for self-employment, primarily a guaranteed income, would be a true “liberation from work,” exploiting the full potential of the digital economy while moving away from wage-based productivity.
It is important to emphasize the convergence between self-employment in the digital age and the ecological necessity of moving away from capitalist and industrialist productivity with its obsession with reducing working hours to increase productivity and therefore mass consumption. While networks have enabled just-in-time production and a demand-driven economy as opposed to the old economy of supply and mass production that still dominates, this is perhaps not the most important factor, but rather the transformations of work itself. The mistake made by environmentalists is to focus too much on consumption, when it is by changing production that we can more reliably change consumption patterns and distribution channels. It is by focusing on workers and reintegrating work into life that an ecology of production can truly change the model of development in favor of human development and finally change our lives. On the other hand, the technological disruption we are struggling to cope with requires us to adapt social relations to the new productive forces (which are no longer “forces” in the strict sense). We need to combine these two requirements, which are surprisingly convergent, in order to move from a logic of competition to a logic of cooperation, human development, training, mutual assistance, and skills development.
The impresario company
Although autonomy in work is increasingly essential, humans are not companies, as the new market totalitarianism would have us believe. This totalitarianism feeds the illusion of creating a new human reduced to competition through personal development and coaching techniques. Humans were not produced for the market, they do not necessarily optimize their capital and, in any case, they do not accumulate know-how and knowledge in the same way that a company must. Humans are incomplete, they cannot be completely autonomous, they are not “legal entities”! A company must seek to optimize production and make a profit, not the individual. This is precisely why we need companies, or cooperatives, whose primary function is to organize the cooperation of skills for efficient production.
Autonomy in work does not mean that we can work alone or just for ourselves. In any case, for efficient production, it is not enough to claim to be the best. Know-how cannot replace know-how, unless we want to live in a world of false appearances that cannot be sustained for long. Since it is not the loudest voices that get the job done, we should instead value real skills. This is what a company should also be doing in the digital age: acting as an impresario, with genuine human resources management (it is not the person who must become a company, but the company that must value people). Needless to say, we are a long way from this, and it is no coincidence that there is such unease! In any case, we would no longer be concerned with appearances, spectacle, and commodification, but with connecting a skill (supply) with a need (demand), even if this comes with all the flaws of networks and their inequalities...
Project-based associations
Management theories and methods have produced many other extremist follies besides viewing the individual as a business. Contrary to popular belief, it must be said that in reality, a company is no more interested in profit than we are in happiness: as a human community, a company's objective is to achieve a concrete goal of production!
Of course, unlike individuals, as we have said, a company must seek to optimize production and make profit. However, it is a mistake to make profit the sole goal of a company, just as it would be a mistake to make happiness the monotonous object of a repetitive desire. Profit, like happiness, is the fruit of success. The real goal is always very concrete: it is to produce and make it work, it is to succeed in doing what we do with the means at our disposal. In a capitalist system, profit is the only guarantee of existence, so it must be one of the goals of a company, just as it must be the goal of building the most humane company possible, in the interests of production and producers. But the main goal must always be to make the best product possible, as this is the only guarantee of success.
In fact, companies and associations are communities with a common goal, unlike natural and family communities. We are united by a social and professional goal, we work together to make a project a success. This is undoubtedly reinforced by non-linear productivity in the intangible sector, with value being placed on results rather than time spent, but also by reinforcing the temporary nature of the teams formed (target-based contracts). This growing precariousness contributes to the prevailing unease, requiring appropriate protections, just as this social mobility must be offset by a stronger local anchorage.
Digital relocation
As we know, networks enable decentralization, which relieves pressure on central management, makes organizations more flexible, and promotes bottom-up processes (although these should not be overestimated). Paradoxically, it seems much less credible to emphasize the role of digital technology in relocation when, in everyone's eyes, globalization is the overwhelming trend. But it is precisely globalization itself that makes relocation essential, a new way of repopulating deserted areas.
The first concrete manifestation of this relocation, although rather disappointing for the moment, is the slow but inexorable development of teleworking, which makes it possible to leave the city. To make teleconferencing widespread and avoid travel, we will probably have to wait for giant screens, but an essential step in dematerialization will undoubtedly be the widespread use of 3D printers. This is the utopia of Neal Gershenfeld's silicon village and Fab Labs, where locally produced downloaded objects eliminate much of the need for transportation and serve the creativity of everyone. We're not there yet! André Gorz placed a lot of hope in these decentralized micro-factories as a way out of industrial capitalism and wage labor. Dematerialization is still in its infancy, but with the development of local currencies in particular, the malaise could turn into a real opportunity to rediscover the joy of living together.
There are plenty of reasons for unease, but the digital age is not one of crazy, destructive modernity. Digital technology is a tool for ecology, for preserving the world, for knowledge and for human emancipation. Of course, there are not only good sides, and it is not a foregone conclusion, because it depends a great deal on us to equip ourselves with the institutions of the age of information, ecology, and human development (guaranteed income, local currencies, municipal cooperatives). Unfortunately, this will not happen overnight, as it is still too innovative! We are a long way from the usual recriminations, but it is fair to say that, for the moment, we are mainly suffering the downside and that unease is growing. There are few reasons for hope in the face of security threats and the expansion of controls that would lead to the rejection of the entire digital civilization, but wherever there is a new freedom, there is a power that constrains it, a power that must be resisted, which is never easy. At all times and in all places, freedom can only be proven through action. We have the advantage that autonomy has become necessary in production and that we need digital workers to be free people...
