This art icle was downloaded by: [ 203.217.68.251] On: 01 Sept em ber 2015, At : 14: 42 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG Information, Communication & Society Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rics20 Conceptual boundaries of sharing Jenny Kennedy a a Depart ment of Comput ing and Inf ormat ion Syst ems, Universit y of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Aust ralia Published online: 26 May 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: Jenny Kennedy (2015): Concept ual boundaries of sharing, Inf ormat ion, Communicat ion & Societ y, DOI: 10. 1080/ 1369118X. 2015. 1046894 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 1369118X. 2015. 1046894 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Information, Communication & Society, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1046894 Conceptual boundaries of sharing Jenny Kennedy* Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 (Received 30 November 2014; accepted 27 April 2015) Sharing has been subjected to continuous re-imagination and positioning throughout networked culture’s history. Recently, there has been specific emphasis on user-generated content and social media platforms. Particular social actors, such as social media platforms, attempt to cultivate an imaginary of sharing in networked culture. They do this by appropriating positive social values associated with common understandings of sharing, such as community, generosity, shared values of cooperation, and participation. While there has been a recent surge of interest in sharing, conceptual gaps remain. Though sharing is a central concept of networked culture, in this paper I show how its boundaries with other social theories of exchange have not been sufficiently established nor has the concept itself been adequately critiqued. Most significantly, this paper problematizes how sharing is implicated and positioned in studies of networked culture. I argue that a framework for a theory of sharing is needed and identify three distinct perspectives in the literature: sharing as an economy driven by social capital; sharing as a mode of scaled distribution; and sharing as a site of social intensification. It is shown how the use of the term sharing in the description of practices in networked culture is fraught with ambiguity. The paper concludes by elucidating how a focus on sharing practices can advance the field. Keywords: sharing; reciprocity; gift-giving; sharing economy; practice theory Introduction Since Malinowski’s (1922) description of the Kula Ring, conviction in the intrinsic power of exchange has shaped popular and critical imaginaries of sharing. Successive theorists have established the structuring power of sharing in social practice (Belk, 1979; Blau, 1964; Goffman, 1959; Katriel, 1987). Exchange and gift theorists, in particular, have attempted to explain how sharing rituals demonstrate social hierarchies and ideology (Homans, 1958; Hyde, 1983; Mauss, 1954). Importantly, sharing is shown to be an essential communicative practice with social consequences. Popular interest in sharing is provoked by hyperbole around economies and democracies of content production, distribution platforms, and devices (Aigrain, 2012; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013; Meikle & Young, 2012). Digitalization of cultural objects adds another layer of complexity to discourses of sharing. Cultural objects can be shared without reduction. Also, mass sharing of content, be it through peer-to-peer, social media platforms, or wikis, implicates wider spreads of parties into the network of labour exchange. However, while digital objects may be ‘limitless’, the resources to make the sharing social *Email: jenny.kennedy@unimelb.edu.au © 2015 Taylor & Francis 2 J. Kennedy Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 (specifically, immaterial or affective labour) are finite. Second, the resources to convey digital objects, such as bandwidth and server space, are also finite. This interplay of socio-technical features is often absent from accounts of sharing in networked culture. The literature on sharing is vast, yet while there has been an upsurge of interest in sharing, both critically (John, 2013a; Lingel & Naaman, 2012) and commercially (AOL, 2011; Intel, 2012), there have been few syntheses of existing discourses of everyday sharing practices. This paper provides a much needed synthesis of the literature on technologically situated sharing. In doing so, it extends the understanding of how sharing is discursively framed, in relation to other forms of exchange, and shows how the ‘turn’ towards sharing has in fact taken three distinct paths. Furthermore, this paper shows how there is slippage both in terms of how sharing is framed theoretically, in relation to gift-giving, exchange, and reciprocity, and in terms of how sharing is framed as economic, distributive, and social practice. It argues that a focus on practice can develop these distinct understandings of sharing further. Interrogations of sharing in networked culture When I began my qualitative study of sharing in 2009 (Kennedy, 2015), the critical attention and literature was relatively sparse, a gap that Andreas Wittel accurately identifies: Whilst there is a huge body of theoretical work on the gift, particularly within anthropology (Bourdieu, 1997; Godelier, 1999; Graeber, 2002; Hyde, 2007; Mauss, 1954; Sahlins, 1974) practices of sharing are surprisingly under-researched. This lack of groundbreaking conceptual work on sharing can partially be explained with a subsumption of some forms of sharing (e.g. the sharing of food) under the notion of gift exchange. It could also result from the fact that the notion of sharing means too many different things. (Wittel, 2011, pp. 4–5) As a current and rapidly growing field, sharing as a communicative model in networked culture has only recently been subjected to critical interrogation (John, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c; Stalder & Sützl, 2011; van Dijck, 2013; Wittel, 2011). The extent of such interrogations is considered below. Framing activities within networked culture as consumption behaviours, Belk (2010) critiques how sharing has been theorized in distinction from gift-giving and commodity exchange. There has been a reluctance to study sharing which Belk contributes to the subsumption of sharing into conceptual models of gift-giving or commodity exchange (indeed much of the literature he cites uses the language of each interchangeably), together with the interiority and ubiquity of sharing practices (p. 716). These reasons also present challenges for defining sharing. Belk distinguishes between conceptual boundaries through prototypes rather than ‘taxonomic definitions’ in order to counter the imprecision of existing definitions of sharing. Drawing from his own earlier work, Belk proposes mothering and family allocations of resources as the prototypes of sharing. Sharing is motivated by an extension of self and familial relationships. Furthermore, there are two directions for sharing: ‘sharing in’ and ‘sharing out’. Sharing in is a cultural process of community inclusion, whereas sharing out creates no social ties. Examples given of sharing in include sharing a drink with friends, while the example given of sharing out is car-share initiatives, both examples of sharing are also practices of resource consumption. Further indicating that the disciplinary focus of his work is on the consumption of resources, Belk overlooks the political economy of sharing in networked culture. For example, he describes the internet as a ‘consumption phenomenon’ (p. 720) and states: ‘By transcending the perspective that information is something to be owned, brought, and sold, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, Google, and many other such sites have ushered in a new era of sharing that has quickly been embraced by millions’ (p. 715). Belk omits that in ‘transcending’ the commodity exchange of information, the exchange of Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 Information, Communication & Society 3 information data and immaterial labour of sharing on such sites is itself transformed into a commodity to be exchanged. Interestingly, Belk characterizes sharing as non-reciprocal. In opposition to this, Cammaerts’ (2011) analysis of sharing in networked culture concludes that ‘all forms of digital sharing involve degrees of reciprocity’ (p. 47), though at times he conflates sharing with gift-giving. Cammaerts further argues that commodity exchange has been disrupted by gift-giving and sharing, with specific examples given of sharing code, content, and access. However these practices of sharing, discussed in more detail in the section below, become ‘enmeshed with capitalist logics’ and in fact become ‘sources of commercial exploitation’ (p. 58). In her 2013 book, The culture of connectivity van Dijck devotes a chapter on Facebook to the negotiation of sharing norms. van Dijck (2013) states, ‘sharing is often pitched against the legal term “privacy”’ (p. 46), yet, she argues, it is the norms of sharing that are being negotiated, by platforms and users alike, with privacy a condition of that negotiation. These norms reflect sharing as both the purposeful distribution of personal information, codified in the interface and algorithms, as well as the channelling of aggregated data to commercial (and government) parties. van Dijck identifies sharing as an essentially ambiguous term: ‘Whereas the term “privacy” commonly refers to the judicial realm, “sharing” involves social as well as economic norms, cultural as well as legal values’ (van Dijck, 2013, p. 46). Similarly problematizing the evolving norms of sharing ‒ albeit more sensationally ‒ Ben Agger’s book Oversharing (2012) paints a lurid image of the dangers of negotiating new norms and the consequences for privacy. For instance, Agger states concern over ‘how oversharing reflects and reproduces certain personality disorders that hinder people’s attempts to be happy’ as well as concern that ‘oversharing in 160-character texts and even shorter tweets causes public discourse to decline’, seeking instead, ‘ways to transform our pornographic public sphere, in which people bare their bodies and their innermost thoughts and desires’ (p. xii). John (2013a) traces how the term sharing emerged on social media platform interfaces between 2005 and 2007, which he argues indicates how sharing is constructed as an essential concept in mediated relationships whereby users presume knowledge of what sharing refers to though it indicates a wide range of practices. John further argues that the framing of sharing in networked culture draws upon conceptualizations of sharing practices in other spheres of social life (2013b). In Web 2.0, sharing indicates participation, drawing on perceptions on interpersonal relations. Strengthening the argument that sharing is a form of neologistic repurposing, John (2013c) positions file-sharing in relation to the rhetorical service of therapeutic culture and the historical context of the digital practices in networked culture. What is most compelling of these prior interventions is the centrality of social relations to sharing, the positioning of sharing as a cultural value that highlights the ongoing negotiations of normative aspects of sharing as cultural practice, and the evidential – if not foregrounded – interplay of socio-technical features. Observed throughout these discussions is the difficulty of pinning down the meaning of sharing. As discussed so far, the literature provides a spectrum of descriptions of some characterizations or features of sharing, yet the question of what sharing is remains both profound and elusive. Conceptual beginnings in early internet culture While social media platforms dominate the current social imaginary, a technologically situated discourse of sharing has persisted throughout networked culture. Early computers were expensive and typically shared by users who developed their programmes on punch cards while waiting in turn for access. In the 1950s, a new process allowed users to access a single computer with the impression of simultaneous and uninterrupted human–computer interaction by rotating through Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 4 J. Kennedy the interacting sequences of multiple users to continuously maximize the capacity of a mainframe computer (Abbate, 1999, p. 24; Hauben & Hauben, 1996). This process, called time-sharing, allowed for the sharing of common resources which was both economically and efficiently feasible. The network dubbed Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), launched in 1969, was a military-funded network of time-sharing computers mostly based in universities (Hafner & Lyon, 1996; Rosenzweig, 1998). Some describe ARPANET as being an early peerto-peer network which birthed the internet through open systems of collective intelligence with identifiable peers providing access to shared resources, motivated by the imaginations of a select few (Malone, Laubacher, & Dellarocas, 2009), while alternative histories of the internet emphasize the politics of its military origins and application (Clarke, 2004; Moschovitis, Poole, & Senft, 1999; Sterling, 1993) or its manifestation from precursive technologies (see Milne, 2010, p. 138). In all regards, the rationale for building the network was to share resources (Leiner et al., 2009, p. 25). While early users respected the principles of what the ARPANET enabled, a lack of perceived common purpose meant that many saw it as simply a money-saving exercise by ARPA and an intrusion on local researcher requirements. Lawrence Roberts, programme manager and office director at the ARPA, describes this clash of intentions as follows: [T]he universities were being funded by us, and we said, “We are going to build a network and you are going to participate in it. And you are going to connect it to your machines … So over time we started forcing them to be involved, because the universities in general did not want to share their computers with anybody. They wanted to buy their own machines and hide in the corner. … Although they knew in the back of their mind that it was a good idea and were supportive on a philosophical front, from a practical point of view, they … wanted their own machine. It was only a couple years after they had gotten on it [ARPANET] that they started raving about how they could now share research, and jointly publish papers, and do other things that they could never do before. All of which was a great boon to them and the artificial intelligence community for sharing information. (Roberts cited in Norberg, 1989, pp. 16–17) Amidst the tension of coercion and reluctance, the development of networking technologies was socially constituted. Indeed, as Abbate (1999) attests, the development of the internet is ‘a tale of collaboration and conflict among a remarkable variety of players’ which demonstrates ‘how technologies are socially constructed’ (p. 3). Examining this early history of the internet reveals that what may now be conceived of as a cohesive, well-defined technology was shaped through the intersection of many divergent forces – political, social, and cultural (for fuller accounts of internet history, including the development of specific technological protocols, see Abbate, 1999; Banks, 2008; Goggin, 2004; Hauben & Hauben, 1996). The serendipitous emergence of email shifted the focus of collaboration from resource sharing to communication. Initially used to convey messages to users of the same computer as early as 1965 (i.e. MIT’s Compatible Time-Sharing System), the first networked email was sent in 1972. Email introduced a social dimension to the ARPANET, at odds with the interests of the funding institution: ‘once the first couple of dozen nodes were installed, email users turned the system of linked computers into a personal as well as a professional communication tool’ (Hafner & Lyon, 1996, p. 189). Science fiction author and critic Bruce Sterling elaborates further: By the second year of operation [ … ] an odd fact became clear. ARPANET’s users had warped the computer-sharing network into a dedicated, high-speed, federally subsidised electronic post-office. [ … ] Not only were they using ARPANET for person-to-person communication, but they were very enthusiastic about this particular service – far more enthusiastic than they were about long-distance computation. (Sterling, 1993) Information, Communication & Society 5 By 1973 email accounted for three-quarters of all ARPANET traffic (Hafner & Lyon, 1996, p. 194). While the imaginary of sharing through ARPANET at the time of development focused on resource efficiency, the practices of users exerted a profound paradigm shift that was not anticipated by ARPANET planners. Les Earnest, a computer scientist at Stanford University, describes: Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 I was surprised at the way the use of email took off, but so were the others who helped initiate that development … We thought of [the ARPANET] as a system for resource sharing and expected that remote login and file transfers would be the primary uses. (Earnest cited in Abbate, 1999, p. 232, endnotes) Instead, sharing via email and mailing list was used to develop a sense of community and relational ties between ARPANET users. Databases of list members related to particular topics, such as science fiction, allowed for individuals to communicate with large groups but also helped develop a community identity among geographically disparate people. Increasingly, the resources of the ARPANET were seen to be the community of users rather than the use of remote devices or access to specific programmes. Evident within this narrative of early internet culture is the provenance of three distinct motivations for sharing: sharing as an economical means of maximizing usage of expensive mainframe computers through time-sharing; the distribution of content at an unprecedented and unexpected scale; and social intensifications through networked sharing. However, it is not until the ‘sharing turn’ in the mid-2000s that these distinct modes are mobilized into particular discourses which each frame technologically situated sharing is a particular way. The sharing turn Networked culture brings about a conflation of definitions of sharing. In order to add precision and nuance to the field, I disentangle these definitions by identifying three distinct narratives: sharing as an economy; sharing as a mode of scaled distribution; and sharing as site of social intensification. Most significantly this serves to demonstrate the contradistinctions between these discourses, which are often considered together as a single body of literature. Rather than collapsing the variegated and rich meanings and practices, I now want to map the discursive threads to sketch a framework for a theory of sharing. Sharing as an economy Sharing as an economy is a significant thread in the literature on collaborative consumption and participatory culture. Sharing in this context refers to access to services or resources without ownership. This is not to say that monetary exchanges are absent. Broadly this discourse engages with the way in which commodities are valued and distributed in networked culture, and often frames such exchanges in relation to gift-giving. Gift-giving, or gifting, is the socialized practice of exchange which is considered separate or distinct to economic models of exchange. Gift-giving practices are invested with physical, social, psychological, and emotional value according to the everyday contexts in which they are situated. In his classic study, The gift (1954), anthropologist Marcel Mauss develops his idea of gift-giving from Malinowski’s observations on Trobriand culture in Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922). Malinowski studied the system of exchange known as the ‘Kula Ring’ in the Trobriand Islands. Kula valuables, shell necklaces (veigun), and shell armbands (mwali), are exchanged in opposite circular directions around the islands in systems demonstrating political authority and status. Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 6 J. Kennedy While the exchange of Kula valuables is distinct from practices of bartering, bartering of goods generally accompanies the gift-giving of Kula valuables in Trobriand culture (Malinowski, 1922). Similarly in networked culture there is both connection and tension between gift-giving and commodity exchange principles. Commodities hold ‘a particular type of social potential’ (Appadurai, 1986, p. 6). The gift economy is one which places emphasis on social motives to move objects rather than economic motives (Jenkins et al., 2013). Social and economic motives are often counterpoised in networked culture, though gift-giving and commodity exchanges in fact occur alongside each other (Benkler, 2004, 2006; Leadbeater, 2008; Shirky, 2010). For example, Baym (2011, p. 22) identifies in her analysis of gift-giving practices in music communities that networked culture amplifies tensions between gift-giving and commodity exchange. As Hyde (1983) rightly argues in relation to art practices in market societies, there is a need for gift-giving to be reconciled with commodity exchange to show how gift-giving and commodity exchange are interdependent and concurrent practices, yet enabled by distinct motivations. Jenkins et al. (2013) state that ‘gift economies are relatively dynamic in terms of the fluid circulation of goods while commodity cultures are relatively dynamic in terms of the fluid social relations between participants’ (p. 52). This indicates that in commodity exchanges, the value of the goods is somewhat stabilized, it is the relationships of those engaged in the exchange process that are in flux, whereas in gift economies relationships are ‘stabilized’ through ongoing gift circulation practices which continuously transform the value of the objects circulated. These distinctions are problematic in regard to the sharing economy which similarly destabilizes the value of goods, though does not necessarily stabilize relationships as a consequence. The sharing economy is a socio-technical system for the exchange of goods and services. The sharing economy refers to a collection of services that enable private and commercial owners of particular resources to make them available to others. Internet-based services aggregate assets and services for access. Broadest definitions of the sharing economy include object-oriented systems which ‘rent’ access to particular objects or facilities – i.e. washing machines (www.streetbank. com), spare bedrooms (www.airbnb.com), cars (www.flexicar.com.au); redistribution systems that shift ownership of an object from one person to another, i.e. www.freecyle.com; and collaborative lifestyle systems where amenities such as work spaces or skills are shared, i.e. www. deskcamping.com or www.byfork.com. The sharing economy therefore emphasizes collaborative consumption, non-ownership models of temporary access to resources, and reliance of internet technologies to coordinate access. Digital technologies are hailed as providing a means of effectively and efficiently connecting those requiring access to a particular shareable good to those with the resources required at such a scale that the model becomes economically viable as an alternative to commodity exchange (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Importantly, the sharing economy uses the language of sharing rather than gift-giving to describe practices of consumption to imply community-fostering practices and altruistic ‘neighbourly’ values, emphasizing the notion that relationships are stabilized through participation. In demonstration of this, consumer theorist Belk (2013) describes the use of the following terms: ‘commercial sharing systems’ (Lamberton & Rose, 2012), ‘co-production’ (Humphreys & Grayson, 2008), ‘co-creation’ (Lanier & Schau, 2007), ‘consumer participation’ (Fitzsimmons, 1985), and ‘online volunteering’ (Postigo, 2003). Each of these terms is specifically employed in relation to imaginaries of sharing but it is questionable whether such systems actually do stabilize or intensify social relations. One reason such systems may not stabilize social relations is the non-necessity of reciprocation. There is, I suggest, a distinction between compensation and reciprocity. The sharing economy holds expectation of compensation. The difference between compensation and reciprocity is based on ownership and control. Compensation requires a counter transferal of ownership, Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 Information, Communication & Society 7 whereas reciprocity confirms an extension of control. By control I mean having agency over future practices of exchange or processes of circulation. I provide a table of the distinctions between reciprocity and compensation to demonstrate this more clearly (see Table 1). Belk (2007, 2010, 2013) suggests that commodity exchange, gift-giving, and sharing are part of a continuum, with commodity exchange and sharing the extremes. While sharing does not require reciprocation, gifts and commodities do. Thus, Belk (2007, p. 128) positions sharing as a practice which makes no attempt at material balance or compensation. For Belk, sharing is a practice that involves ‘the act and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use and/or the act and process of receiving or taking something from others for our use’ (2007, p. 126, emphasis mine). Indicated in the ‘and/or’ of Belk’s description of sharing (he avoids calling it a definition of sharing, which further points to the complexities and difficulties inherent in the term), is the non-necessity of reciprocity or compensation. Also indicated is non-transferal of ownership. According to his description, transferal of ownership occurs in gift-giving and commodity exchange, and not sharing. Much of what is described as the sharing economy is not actually sharing. Transferals of ownership or compensation do not occur in practices of sharing. The sharing economy occupies a space between sharing and commodity exchange markets in which transferal of ownership and compensation does occur. Sharing as scaled distribution The second problematic way sharing in networked culture is discursively framed is in terms of scale. Digital technologies provide opportunities to scale the sharing of digital ephemera to a massive volume. In relation to peer-to-peer sharing and user-generated content, sharing is therefore burdened by the properties of digital cultural objects that are multiplied rather than divided, which blur the line between producer and consumer, and whose related processes of copying, distributing, accessing, and altering run counter to economic models of scarcity (Stalder & Sützl, 2011, p. 2). Sharing in this context involves an extension of ownership rather than a transferal. The term file-sharing can be located in the history of networked culture (John, 2013c), however it derives from the digital nature of the process rather than social practices. From time-sharing to shared file and disk access, file-sharing has actually always been a principle of networked culture yet others wish to oppose this, prompting the ongoing ‘war on sharing’ (Stallman, 2009), where various legislative bodies and stakeholders debate rights of distribution, signalled by contesting terminology, i.e. ‘piracy’ and ‘file-sharing’. Similarly, the term ‘piracy’ incites imagery of a violent transferal of ownership, perpetuated by the notion that works of art ‘bleed’ if they are shared (Aigrain, 2012, p. 22). Furthermore, economist Liebowitz (2006) says ‘File sharing is a misnomer because filesharers do not experience these files together nor are they likely to ever meet or even know one Table 1. Distinctions between reciprocity and compensation. Expectation of reciprocity Sharing Gift-giving Commodity exchange Yes, in communicative models Yes, as a non-contingent possibility No Transfer of ownership Expectation of compensation No Yes, as a non-contingent possibility Yes, negotiated No. Extension of control Yes Yes Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 8 J. Kennedy another’ (p. 4) which makes reference to an assumption of the centrality of social relations in sharing practices and emphasizes the distributive processes of file-sharing over the social. There are therefore two critical tensions in the discourse of sharing as scaled distribution which emerge in such debates on file-sharing. The first is its supposed disconnect from the social. Reputation is in fact shown to be significant to users of file-sharing technologies, who are often pseudonymous rather than anonymous (Marti & Garcia-Molina, 2003). The second is the conflict with commodity markets. File-sharing is often framed as another form of giftgiving (Cenite, Wang, Peiwen, & Chan, 2009) because it occurs separate to market principles of commodity exchange, which as we have seen are conceptualized as mutually exclusive. Cynics claim that file-sharing detracts from and directly threatens the commodity market by removing thresholds of scarcity, though this is shown to not be the case (e.g. The Swedish Model, see Baym, 2011). Relatedly, there is interest in the devices and platforms that afford sharing practices. The digital properties of technology operate as both intermediaries and mediators (Latour, 2007). As intermediaries, technologies (and their users) transport and distribute content and meaning without altering its original properties, i.e. file-sharing. Distribution and multiplication of digital content requires little monetary or labour cost. The cost is in the production which occurs at a different site. Additionally, while distribution has the potential to enact social relations, it is not essential or guaranteed. As mediators, technologies provide opportunities to transform, distort, or modify digital content in the process of distribution. For example, mailing lists, blogs, discussion boards, and fandom mash-up forums are sites of both production and distribution (Jenkins, 1992; Leadbeater & Miller, 2004; Shirky, 2008). The labour of production is downplayed as ‘creativity’ through which users become producers (or ‘produsers’) rather than consumers (Bruns, 2008). As producers, social relations are central to users of mediator technologies. There is also a distinction between what types of immaterial objects are scaled up in distribution. Social media platforms, peer-to-peer file-sharing, peer-production, and mass collaboration afford large-scale intellectual and affective sharing. Large-scale intellectual sharing is framed as innovative (Rheingold, 2002; Tapscott & Williams, 2008; Weber, 2004), exampled by Wikipedia, open source software, and open publishing. When intellectual immaterial objects are shared en masse, the contribution to the digital commons is often celebrated (Benkler, 2006; Reagle, 2010; Von Hipel, 2005). However, when affective immaterial objects are scaled up in distribution, the reaction is highly cautionary and interspersed with tales of social solitude and meaningless engagement (Turkle, 2011). Large-scale affective sharing raises broader questions about community. Sharing as social intensity The third significant discursive thread of sharing in networked culture is that of social intensification. Sharing is defined in relation to disclosure and affect, meaning to make oneself available to others through some form of sentiment articulation. This framing is central to debates on social connectivity, and immaterial and affective labour, especially where enabled through social media platforms who vigorously advocate the discourse (John, 2013a; Kennedy, 2013). As Wittel (2011) accurately claims, the social discourse of sharing is distinct from the other narratives of sharing already described. Sharing has the potential to intensify the social: ‘the decision to share will generally produce an intensification of social activity and social exchange’ (Wittel, 2011, p. 5). The sharing of material objects requires some form of social activity, while the sharing of immaterial objects, whether intellectual or affective is considered to be inherently social: Whereas the sharing of material things produces the social (as a consequence), the sharing of immaterial things is social in the first place. Whether we share intellectual things such as thoughts, Information, Communication & Society 9 Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 knowledge, information, ideas, and concepts, or affective things such as feelings, memories, experiences, taste, and emotions, the practice of sharing is a social interaction. (Wittel, 2011, p. 5) If the sharing economy’s purpose is to redistribute access to resources and services without redistributing ownership, and sharing as scaled distribution is to extend ownership, affective sharing purpose is to provoke social intensification (and the political economy that thrives through such practices). Social intensification or sociability has always been a key purpose in online communities (Preece, 2000; Rheingold, 1993), where intellectual and affective objects are shared as well as material culture (Baker, 2012). Communities are constructed around the identities, relationships, and communicative practices of members (Baym, 1995; Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004), where exchanges among members intensify social bonds. Yet such frameworks of sharing are still fraught with tensions, especially in terms of privacy and disclosure. These tensions are pervasive to debates on networked culture in which users of social media platforms share personal details about themselves as a condition of access to such platforms. Early studies of disclosures in social media platforms show the challenges users face in sharing (Barnes, 2006; Donath & Boyd, 2004). The multiplicity of social contexts, referred to as ‘context collapse’ (Wesch, 2009), requires that people employ a range of strategies such as sharing different content, withdrawal, or censorship of content. Despite perceived risks, and despite the shifting nature of privacy policies on platforms such as Facebook, people do share through social media platforms. Prior research has also illustrated the social motivations of these practices. For example, Collins and Miller (1994) find that there is a direct correlation between those who disclose and those who are liked. The purpose of including these examples is to reinforce that such tensions in sharing practices precede social media platforms. When attempting to define sharing, it is problematic to consider each of these three distinct narratives of sharing in unison. Yet given that there are certainly overlaps between them, the precise boundaries of each are conceptually fluid: both sharing as an economy and sharing as a mode of scaled distribution may also effect social intensification; and sharing as social intensification may have implications for scale of content and access to resources or services. The further problem with sharing as it is discussed in each of these contexts is that it is discursively wrapped up with other terms such as gift-giving, exchange, and disclosure. Attention to practice Without an agreed definition of sharing, I suggest that it is productive to follow the example of those who use a practice approach to analyse what is it people do in relation to media (Couldry, 2012; Postill, 2010). A practice approach is concerned with: ‘what, quite simply, are people doing in relation to media across a whole range of situations and contexts?’ (Couldry, 2012, p. 39). In media studies, a practice approach is not actually new. It follows a tradition of studying domestic practices in relation to media technologies (Bakardjieva, 2005; Mackay & Ivey, 2004; Silverstone, Hirsch, & Morley, 1992). The turn towards practice marks a shift in the critical language of media research, though it is one that not all are happy about. For instance, Hobart (2010) quips ‘has not the phrase “media practices” been used so promiscuously as to be a cliché?’ (p. 55). Yet a practice approach has not yet produced a more complex understanding of sharing. Acknowledging the contribution of practice theorists, Couldry (2012) details the many practices that exemplify networked culture, such as: ‘searching and search-enabling’, ‘showing and being shown’, ‘presencing’, ‘archiving’; and ‘complex’ media practices: ‘keeping up with the news’, ‘commentary’, ‘keeping all channels open’, and ‘screening out’. Though as he himself points Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 10 J. Kennedy out, this typology of media practices is ‘initial, if crude’ (p. 44), the omission of sharing as a distinct practice is symptomatic of networked culture critiques where sharing is acknowledged but rarely probed. Practices may be both ‘media-related’ (Hobart, 2010) and ‘media-oriented, in all its looseness and openness’ (Couldry, 2010, p. 39), meaning that there is a tension between sharing as it is implied through ‘recognised, complex forms of social activity and articulation, through which agents set out to maintain or change themselves, others and the world around them under varying conditions’ (Hobart, 2010, p. 63) and as it is defined within ‘bounded worlds of media organisation’ (Postill, 2010, p. 20). Such tensions call into question issues of power, in terms of who regulates and sanctions practices in the field. Cammaerts (2011) describes three particular arrangements of sharing practices in networked culture with distinct power and symbolic processes: sharing code, sharing content, and sharing access. Each form of sharing co-opts and appropriates capitalist agendas. Sharing code diverts revenue processes to indirect or auxiliary services rather than bypasses commodity markets entirely. Sharing content, described as ‘propriety software, music, e-books, magazines, films, TV shows and even live sport broadcasts’ (p. 52), disrupts property rights regimes, yet problematically supports intrusive advertising or premium downloading services. Sharing access, especially by municipalities, perpetuates boundaries of social inclusion and facilitates commercial stimulation. As with Belk (2010), each of these sharing arrangements described by Cammaerts, positions sharing as a consumption practice. Also, in each arrangement described, the object (code, content, access) holds potential market value. Yet Cammaerts does not sufficiently describe how these sharing arrangements are performed. Indeed there are few descriptions of how sharing is performed, as Christopher Kelty observes in relation to sharing within the open source movement: It is these practices and forms of life ‒ not the software itself ‒ that are most significant, and they have in turn served as templates that others can use and transform: practices of sharing source code, conceptualizing openness, writing copyright (and copyleft) licenses, coordinating collaboration, and proselytizing for all of the above. There are explanations aplenty for why things are the way they are: it’s globalization, it’s the network society, it’s an ideology of transparency, it’s the virtualization of work, it’s the new flat earth, it’s Empire. We are drowning in the why, both popular and scholarly, but starving for the how. (Kelty, 2008, p. x) Many of the studies which do focus on how sharing is performed, do so in relation to market resources (for examples, see Brown, Sellen, & Geelhoed, 2001; Levine, 2001; Voida, Grinter, Ducheneaut, Edwards, & Newman, 2005). An exception is Sproull, Conley, and Moon (2005) who frame sharing online as a prosocial activity, though problematically also position it in contradistinction to prosocial activity offline. This leads to another issue with existing studies: each of the studies thus described is limited to specific groups, on particular sites or with particular devices with little acknowledgement of broader social contexts. While the how of sharing has not yet been the subject of extensive qualitative analysis, there are several qualitative studies which address sharing practices as they relate to other social phenomena. For example, while not explicitly adopting a practice approach, Baker (2012) looks at how rock fans coordinating the exchange of material culture through mediated communication strengthens bonds within the community, and how social status is accrued through provision of resources, including information. Similarly, Lingel and Naaman (2012) look at how videos of music concerts are later shared via YouTube to address the use of technology in social settings, and how technologies carry implications for the construction of labour. Such studies contribute to understandings of how sharing is an integral part of networked culture, but more is required to illuminate the social significance of sharing for participants. That there are few qualitative studies of sharing clearly demonstrate a gap in the research. Probably one Information, Communication & Society 11 Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 reason there are few studies on sharing is because, as John (2013a) demonstrates, sharing in networked culture is only a recent label for pre-existing phenomena. As various interlocutors converge on the terminology of sharing, there is a need to reconsider the broader socio-technical landscape of sharing practices if we are to come to an agreement on how they are actually constituted. Crucially, this calls for a systematic extrapolation of the elements that constitute sharing practices across each of the ‘faces’ of sharing identified in this paper. Conclusion The use of the term sharing in the existing literature requires ongoing critical interrogation. This paper began by providing conceptual boundaries between existing social theories in relation to sharing. I demonstrated how sharing is positioned with limited critical reflection in current debates as a mode of economy, distribution, and social intensification. Furthermore, existing interrogations fall short of developing an understanding of sharing as it is practised in relation to media. My contention is that critical research into sharing practices is lacking yet essential in media studies, the purpose of this paper having been to expose that gap. Acknowledgements I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, and Esther Milne who also provided useful feedback on an earlier draft of this paper. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes on contributor Jenny Kennedy is a research fellow at The University of Melbourne. She recently completed a Ph.D. on sharing practices in networked culture. Her research interests include media theories of everyday life, social discourses around technology use, and material culture. References Abbate, J. (1999). Inventing the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Agger, B. (2012). Oversharing: Presentations of self in the internet age. London: Routledge. Aigrain, P. (2012). Sharing: Culture and the economy in the internet age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. AOL. (2011). AOL research: Content is the fuel of the social web. Retrieved from http://advertising.aol.com/ research/research-reports/social-web Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The internet in everyday life. London: Sage. Baker, A. (2012). The exchange of material culture among rock fans in online communities. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 519–536. Banks, M. A. (2008). On the way to the web: The secret history of the internet and its founders. New York: Apress. Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, Vol. 11, No. 9. Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 138–163). London: Routledge. Baym, N. (2011). The Swedish model: Balancing markets and gifts in the music industry. Popular Communication, 9, 22–38. Belk, R. (1979). Gift-giving behaviour. Research in Marketing, 2, 95–126. Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 12 J. Kennedy Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 126–140. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734. Belk, R. (2013). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600. Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production. The Yale Law Journal, 114, 273–358. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedoms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York: Harper Collins. Brown, B., Sellen, A. J., & Geelhoed, E. (2001). Music sharing as a computer supported collaborative application. Proceedings of the ECSCW, Bonn. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishers. Cammaerts, B. (2011). Disruptive sharing in a digital age: Rejecting neoliberalism? Continuum, 25, 47–62. Cenite, M., Wang, M. W., Peiwen, C., & Chan, G. S. (2009). More than just free content: Motivations of peer-to-peer file sharers. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33, 206–221. Clarke, R. (2004). Origins and nature of the internet in Australia. In G. Goggin (Ed.), Virtual nation: The internet in Australia (pp. 30–43). Sydney: UNSW Press. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475. Couldry, N. (2010). Theorising media as practice. In B. Bräuchler & J. Postill (Eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 35–54). Oxford: Berghahn Books. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. London: Polity. Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82. Fitzsimmons, J. (1985). Consumer participation and productivity in service operations. Interfaces, 15, 60–67. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books. Goggin, G. (Ed.). (2004). Virtual nation: The internet in Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. Hafner, K., & Lyon, M. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the internet. New York: Touchstone. Hauben, M., & Hauben, R. (1996). Netisens: On the history and impact of usenet and the internet. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Hobart, M. (2010). What do we mean by ‘media practices’? In B. Bräuchler & J. Postill (Eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 55–76). Oxford: Berghahn Books. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace. Humphreys, A., & Grayson, K. (2008). The intersecting roles of consumer and producer: A critical perspective on co-production, co-creation and presumption. Sociological Compass, 2, 963–980. Hyde, L. (1983). The gift: Imagination and the erotic life of property. New York: Vintage Books. Intel. (2012). 2012 state of mobile etiquette and digital sharing: Intel survey, Intel corporation. Retrieved from http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits/mobileetiquette/pdfs/Mobile_Etiquette_2012_FactSheet.pdf Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press. John, N. A. (2013a). Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media & Society, 15, 167–182. John, N. A. (2013b). The social logics of sharing. The Communication Review, 16(3), 113–131. John, N. A. (2013c). Critical studies in media file sharing and the history of computing: Or, why file sharing is called “file sharing”. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31, 198–211. Katriel, T. (1987). ‘Bexibùdim!’: Ritualised sharing among Israeli children. Language in Society, 16, 305–320. Katz, J., Rice, R., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and community, communication yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 315–371). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Kelty, C. (2008). Two bits: The cultural significance of free software. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 Information, Communication & Society 13 Kennedy, J. (2013). Rhetorics of sharing: Data, imagination and desire. In G. Lovink & M. Rasch (Eds.), Unlike Us reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 127–136). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. Kennedy, J. (2015). Sharing in networked culture: Imagination, labour and desire (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. Lamberton, C., & Rose, R. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76, 109–125. Lanier, C. Jr., & Schau, H. (2007). Culture and co-creation: Exploring consumers’ inspirations and aspirations for writing and posting on-line fan fiction. In R. Belk & J. Sherry Jr. (Eds.), Consumer culture theory: Research in consumer behaviour (pp. 321–342). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leadbeater, C. (2008). We-think: Mass innovation, not mass production. London: Profile Books. Leadbeater, C., & Miller, P. (2004). The Pro-Am revolution: How enthusiasts are changing our economy and society. London: Demos. Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., … Wolff, S. (2009). Brief history of the internet. Retrieved from http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/historyinternet/brief-history-internet Levine, S. (2001). Kindness in cyberspace? The sharing of valuable goods on-line. Proceedings of the 10th annual EICAR conference, Bilbao. Liebowitz, S. J. (2006). File sharing: Creative destruction or just plain destruction? The Journal of Law and Economics, 49, 1–28. Lingel, J., & Naaman, M. (2012). You should have been there, man: Live music, DIY content and online communities. New Media & Society, 14, 332–349. Mackay, H., & Ivey, D. (2004). Modern media in the home: An ethnographic study. Rome: John Libbey. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagos of Melansian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Malone, T., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2009). Harnessing crowds: Mapping the genome of collective intelligence (MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4732-09). Marti, S., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2003). Identity crisis: Anonymity vs reputation in P2P systems. IEEE P2P 2003 proceedings, Linköping, Sweden, pp. 134–141. Mauss, M. (1954). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Psychology Press. Meikle, G., & Young, S. (2012). Media convergence: Networked digital media in everyday life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Milne, E. (2010). Letters, postcards, email: Technologies of presence. London: Routledge. Moschovitis, C. J., Poole, H., & Senft, T. M. (1999). History of the internet: A chronology, 1843 to the present. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio Incorporated. Norberg, A. (1989). An interview with Lawrence Roberts. Minnesota: Charles Babbage Institute. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/107608/1/oh159lgr.pdf Postigo, H. (2003). Emerging sources of labor on the internet: The case of America online volunteers. International Review of Social History, 48, 205–223. Postill, J. (2010). Introduction: Theorising media and practice. In B. Bräuchler & J. Postill (Eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 1–33). Oxford: Berghahn Books. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Reagle, J. M. (2010). Good faith collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia. Cambridge: MIT Press. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge: Basic Books. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York: Basic Books. Rosenzweig, R. (1998). Wizards, bureaucrats, warriors and hackers: Writing the history of the internet. The American Historical Review, 103, 1530–1552. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York: Penguin. Silverstone, R., Hisch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 15–31). London: Routledge. Downloaded by [203.217.68.251] at 14:42 01 September 2015 14 J. Kennedy Sproull, L., Conley, C., & Moon, J. Y. (2005). Prosocial behavior on the net. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Human behavior in cyberspace (pp. 139–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stalder, F., & Sützl, W. (Eds.). (2011). Ethics of sharing. Special Issue of International Review of Information Ethics, 15(9), 2. Stallman, R. (2009). Ending the war on sharing. Richard Stallman’s personal site. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html Sterling, B. (1993). The internet. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, 84(2). Retrieved from http:// www.internetsociety.org/fr/node/325 Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Voida, A., Grinter, R. E., Ducheneaut, N., Edwards, W. K., & Newman, M. W. (2005). Listening in: Practices surrounding itunes music sharing. Proceedings of the CHI, Portland, OR. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wesch, M. (2009). Youtube and you: Experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorations in Media Ecology, 8(2), 19–34. Wittel, A. (2011). Qualities of sharing and their transformations in the digital age. International Review of Information Ethics, 15(9), 3–8.