Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy
Introduction
Since the 1980s, Pierre Bourdieu's influence in sociology has increased markedly, including on the study of consumption and economic life (Sallaz & Zavisca, 2007). Bourdieu's formulation of multiple types of capital (economic, cultural and social) and their role in producing and reproducing durable inequality has been highly productive in a variety of contexts. However, while scholars have examined practices of distinction, the structure of particular fields, and the role of specific capitals in social reproduction, there has been less attention to economic exchanges at a micro, interactional level (King, 2000). In this paper, we use a Bourdieusian approach to study new kinds of exchanges in the “sharing economy” and the ways in which distinction and inequality operate within them. To do this, we extend Bourdieu by bringing in conceptual tools from relational economic sociology. This literature, pioneered by Zelizer, 2005b, Zelizer, 2010, Zelizer, 2012, emphasizes the importance of meaning, the role of culture in structuring economic activity, and the idea that economic exchanges require ongoing interpersonal negotiations. We use relational analysis to study how people deploy, convert, and use their capital. In particular, we show how cultural capital is used to establish superior position in the context of various types of exchanges. Thus, our contribution is an investigation into how Bourdieusian inequality is reproduced via interpersonal relations in the context of exchange.
Our approach involves the introduction of two concepts from relational economic sociology – circuits of commerce and good matches. Zelizer defines the former as “a structure combining its own economic activities, media, accounting systems, interpersonal relations, boundaries, and meanings,” that appear “in a wide variety of social circumstances and cannot simply be reduced to firms, markets, or networks.” While circuits can exist in all contexts, the concept has mostly been used outside of formal economies, such as the new organizations studied in this paper. To date, the circuits literature has had little to say about class inequality, however, it seems likely that classed systems of power shape circuit formation, functioning, and viability. A second contribution of this paper is to explicitly consider how structural inequality, as represented by distributions of multiple forms of capital, affects the operation of circuits. More specifically, we ask: what is the relationship between cultural power—as exercised through distinguishing practices—and the robust development and functioning of circuits?
To answer that question, we focus on a rapidly growing class of circuits that goes by the name of the sharing economy.1 Sharing initiatives include peer-to-peer lodging and transportation services, time banks, goods exchanges and other forms of collaboration (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). We examine four cases from the sharing economy: a time bank, a food swap, a makerspace and an open-access educational initiative. We believe the sharing economy is ideal for exploring the operation of inequality in circuits, in part because many of these exchange sites explicitly seek to break down traditional relationships of power. In addition, because they are relatively new, our research sites lack taken-for-granted understandings of the exchanges they facilitate. Participants offer competing ideas and visions of what is valuable and worthy of exchange, and who is worthy of being included in exchanges. These interactions allow us to see how distinction, a key mechanism for the reproduction of inequality, is relationally produced and reproduced. To do so we use Zelizer's concept of relational matching (Zelizer, 2010, Zelizer, 2012) to analyze participants’ ability to make exchanges in the face of these competing understandings. Successful sharing economy initiatives depend on creating the conditions for large numbers of matches to occur, thereby achieving robust transactional networks.
Our findings suggest a phenomenon that we call the paradox of openness and distinction. Virtually all exchange sites and digital platforms within the sharing economy explicitly advocate for open access and equality of opportunity, if not fairness and even economic egalitarianism. We find this discourse among our respondents as well as the sites’ own mission statements and self-descriptions. However, at the same time, we find considerable evidence of distinguishing practices. These displays of class power in turn undermine the successful formation and reproduction of circuits. For certain types of circuits—particularly those with less market-driven principles of exchange—high levels of inequality and displays of distinction make it hard to establish robust circuits by inhibiting the formation of matches. In the circuits that are characterized by more distinguishing practices we observe a lower volume of trading. In fact, the two most “relational” sites (the time bank and the food swap) fail to produce the types of matches that generate robust trading economies. To understand why this might be the case, we turn now to a discussion of the relational and structural (Bourdieusian) perspectives.
Section snippets
Complicating the good match: matching with distinction
For Bourdieu, relationships of inequality are produced and reproduced within specific fields. The concept of the field provides an analytic framework for understanding relationships between producers and consumers, competitions for various types of capital, and the possibilities available to actors in a bounded context (Bourdieu, 1984, Bourdieu and Johnson, 1993). Fields are governed by sets of rules, values, and forms of capital (dominant vs. subordinate), and are populated by actors with
Methods and data
We have chosen four research sites that meet the criteria for circuits discussed by Zelizer. They are also all part of an emergent sector that is called the sharing economy. The time bank, which is a form of local money, is a type of circuit frequently discussed by Zelizer. It has clear membership, a set of well-articulated practice and participation norms, a fixed exchange ratio and transparent accounting systems. The food swap is also a circuit of commerce, as it attempts to define the
The cases
We turn now to discuss the four cases with an emphasis on the distinguishing practices we observed in all of them. While all four sites display some level of class distinction, there are also major differences among them in both how much distinction we observed and the forms it took. Furthermore, cultural capital and class distinction are not the only processes of exclusion that we found: the sites are also stratified by race and gender. All four of the sharing platforms are spaces where
Discussion: distinction, matching and the functioning of circuits
Our cases provide considerable evidence of what we have called the paradox of openness and distinction. All four sites embrace and prominently articulate an ethic of accessibility, openness, and equal opportunity for all. Craftworks and Wintrepreneur both aim to be communities of equals in which people learn from and support each other. The food swap and the time bank go further, and have structured their exchanges according to a logic of equality. In none of the four is there formally
Conclusion
Overall, our findings suggest the difficulty of constructing egalitarian circuits. At the beginning of this paper, we identified two criteria for success: robust trading activity and adherence to organizational mission. We find that each of the sites succeeds at one or the other, but all four have difficulty achieving both. The time bank and the food swap are characterized by a low volume of trades and have had the most difficulty reproducing themselves. On the other hand, both remained true to
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the MacArthur Foundation as part of the Connected Learning Research Network, under sub-award #2011-2618. The authors would like to thank Robert Wengronowitz, Alison Wawrzynek, Nathan Schwan, Léa Oriol and Elizabeth Jiang for research assistance. They are especially indebted to Emilie Dubois, who did a good deal of the research and original analysis for the time bank case.
References (28)
The Sharing Economy: Friend or Foe?
(2015)Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste
(1984)- et al.
The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature
(1993) - et al.
Democracy and capitalism: Property community and the contradictions of modern social thought
(1987) - et al.
An emerging eco-habitus: The reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers
Journal of Consumer Culture
(2014) Enabling creative chaos: The organization behind the burning man event
(2009)The maker movement
Innovations
(2012)- et al.
New cultures of connection in a Boston Time Bank
Laughing saints and righteous heroes: Emotional rhythms in social movement groups
(2010)The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled
Gender & Society
(2010)