Expanding from the discussion of Howard Rheingold’s gift economy, I wanted to explore Jean Baudrillard’s interpretation of the ideal space compared to the current, at the time, reality of human interaction and social economy.
Like the gift economy I discussed earlier, the assessment of values beyond monetary worth was a topic that enlightened me to judgements and interpretations that I make intrinsically without knowing the reasoning behind it. Learning that financial worth is not the only possible method for determining value put into words what I and most people assume is instinct.
We make decisions on the basis of symbolic exchange every day without realizing it within the gift economy of Rheingold. As he determines in the gift economy discussion, as we develop relationships our actions towards others determine the symbolic values of our intangible ‘goods’: advice, emotional support, and other non-physical gifts. Jean Baudrillard combines the gift economy approach with physical objects, removing them from the conventional methods for determining value such as monetary cost or resources required to make the item.
By combining the two value metrics, we are finally able to find a scale on which we can potentially determine equitable value between tangible and intangible exchanges. For example, a person would consider the social equity of a friend via Rheingold’s gift economy and translate the friend’s request for borrowing the car onto the same scale as the social equity using Baudrillard’s symbolic exchange theory. Both physical and non-physical acts convey messages of emotions and give value to relationships within the symbolic exchange theory.
Although we already make these assessments daily, I find we’re often taught to not place value on what someone does or doesn’t do for us. Additionally, we’re expected to not place value on gifts given to us. These value metrics presented by Rheingold and Baudrillard offer a more reasonable approach, in my mind. We continue to make value assessments on a metric of some sort, so why not choose one that rewards contributions to relationships and community through social equity (Rheingold) and that also rewards a gift’s value for the sentiment and thought behind it rather than the cost or usefulness of it (Baudrillard). Since we’re going to make a value assessment regardless, it seems reasonable to utilize the ideals presented by these authors in order to fairly equate the intentions behind the actions, especially in a virtual space where obfuscation and deception can be so easily accomplished.
Through a normal exchange or use value, motivations are not considered and that scale can reward actions that come at the expense of others in the community. When comparing that value to a symbolic value, the metric that truly evaluates the entirety of the situation, including hidden considerations such as community impact is the symbolic exchange value. It seems logical that we would continue to apply this metric as we would the gift economy in the virtual space as we already do in the physical space.
Live Life Virtually 