Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:13:49 -0500 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: Robin Hoods of Cyberspace: A Philosopher Examines the Difference To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
This article from NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/technology/04HACKER.html
Robin Hoods of Cyberspace: A Philosopher Examines the Difference Between Good and Bad Hackers
March 4, 2001
Reviewed by STEVEN JOHNSON
It can sometimes seem as if the number of people who have speculated on the social implications of Linux, the free computer operating system collectively engineered by thousands of programmers worldwide, exceeds the number of people who have actually used Linux itself. Ever since the open-source software movement entered into the public consciousness in the late 90's, we've been awash in prophesies about the end of the Windows era and the birth of a less proprietary digital age. Together, the emergence of open-source software and the related Napster music file sharing sysem constitute the most significant technological development since the arrival of the World Wide Web.
Up to now, most ruminations on the impact of open-source software have limited their view to the computer desktop itself: does the stability of the Linux platform prove that open software development models are intrinsically more stable than the proprietary ones used by Microsoft? Is there an economic model that can support the development of free software?
These are important questions, but they don't do ustice to the most remarkable fact about the open-source movement: at the very epicenter of New Economy capitalism, something that looks a great deal like a wired version of communism has prospered beyond anyone's wildest imagination. While private companies are free to sell ''flavors'' of Linux, and to sell technical support, no one owns Linux proper. It belongs to the people. If the Web served as a launching pad for the Xtreme capitalism heralded in magazines like Fast Company and Wired, the launching pad itself was partly built by freely contributed collective labor.
Itself something of a collaborative project, ''The Hacker Ethic: And the Spirit of the Information Age'' begins with the premise that the programmers behind the open-source movement (called ''hackers'' throughout the book) represent a ''spiritual challenge to our time.'' As Pekka Himanen writes in his preface, ''the hacker ethic is a new work ethic that challenges the attitude toward work that has held us in its thrall for so long, the Protestant work ethic, as explicated in Max Weber's classic 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.' ''
''The Hacker Ethic'' begins with a breezy prologue from the legendary programmer behind the Linux revolution, Linus Torvalds, centered on what he calls ''Linus's Law.'' (His theory: people are motivated by ''survival,'' ''social life'' and ''entertainment.'') Himanen, a philosopher of technology who teaches at the University of Helsinki and at the University of California, Berkeley, then resents a longer essay -- the bulk of the book, really -- on the core attributes of the hacker ethic, contrasting them with Weber's work and that of his modern disciples. The techno-sociologist Manuel Castells arrives in the closing pages to deliver a somewhat freeze-dried rendition of his grand theory on the difference between today's ''network society'' and the industrial systems of yore.
Because Torvalds's contributions are so slender, and because Castells has presented his ideas elsewhere, ''The Hacker Ethic'' needs to be judged primarily on the substance of Himanen's argument: that the values associated with the open-source movement present a significant challenge to the Protestant ethic. While Himanen's text relies on almost no primary research in terms of interviewing programmers, his survey of the core components of the hacker ethic (which he calls the nethic) is as comprehensive and instructive as any to date. Unlike the dutiful labor of Weber's Protestant ethic, the nethic embraces flexible hours, creativity and a passion for one's work. The nethic also disdains monetary reward for one's achievements, preferring what the open-sourcers call Egoboo -- the respect of one's peers. While Himanen can present a strained image of hacker sainthood, he makes a persuasive case that the nethic stands in direct opposition to the Weberian tradition.
But that opposition raises two questions. First, is the Protestant work ethic still a useful category in modern industrialized societies? Weber's theory had little room for today's frenzied leisure-time consumption. (Sunday was a day of rest -- not the day for PlayStation 2 and Old Navy.) We may be programming our TiVo's with time-management skills that would have made the efficiency expert Frederick Taylor proud, but surely there's a difference between using those techniques to tape episodes of ''Temptation Island'' and using them for crop rotation. The dominant culture may still be clinging to older, Weberian notions of labor-as-duty, but it certainly spends a great deal of energy persuading us to kick back and live a little on the weekend. Himanen avoids dealing with the prominence of today's consumer society by wishing it away with the old ''false consciousness'' dismissals: ''Only when work uses up all energy and people are too tired to enjoy the pursuit of their passions are they ready to be reduced to the passively receptive state suited for television.'' In other words, that feeling you have of actually enjoying ''Seinfeld'' reruns -- that's just an illusion.
But even if you accept Himanen's most optimistic scenario -- a band of impassioned hackers challenging the oppressive establishment -- the question remains: What does it mean for the rest of us? Can the playful, work-for-art's-sake nethic be transferred to the analog world? For anyone who is excited about the promise of the open-source revolution, that may well be the most provocative question of all, and Himanen has meager answers for it. ''The hacker open model,'' he writes, ''could be transformed into a social model -- call it the open-resource model -- in which someone announces: I have an idea, I can contribute this much to it, please join me! . . . For example, I could announce on the Net that I would be willing, once in a while, to help some elderly person take care of things. I can announce that kids can come and play at our house after school.''
This is a nice idea, but hardly a radical break from, say, a real-world bulletin board at a community center. Himanen has a powerful grasp on that strangely intoxicating contradiction that is open-source, but when it comes to potential extensions of that model, he falls short. You can't help being let down to find that a mainstream adoption of the hacker ethic might only make it easier to find a baby sitter for the kids.
Steven Johnson is the co-founder of Feedmag.com and the author of ''Interface Culture.'' His next book, ''Emergence,'' will be published in September.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------\
Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the most authoritative news coverage on the Web, updated throughout the day.
Become a member today! It's free!
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/