Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
Richard A. Lanham. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. cloth, 326 p., ISBN 0226468828, US$29.00. University of Chicago Press: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/
Richard A. Lanhams The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information has much to recommend it: a breezy, insouciant, generally enviable, often entertaining style of writing; some interesting and important ideas; some fascinating digressions; a close look at some postmodern visual artists and fields of graphic design and typography; a brilliant explanation of the value of rhetoric; a prescription for reviving and
1 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
redirecting the study of the humanities in general; and more. Given the emphasis on style, rhetoric and design, one might take the first word in the title, economics as meant only metaphorically, and thus see the whole work as simply a broad attempt at artistic and literary criticism. But Lanham seems to intend that the title be taken literally. It is not a promise he keeps. Lanham [1], a scholar of rhetoric and a retired UCLA English professor, has something in common with two other people with quite different backgrounds: Georg Franck, an Austrian professor of city planning; and me, trained as a theoretical physicist. It seems that each of us independently hit on the idea that what dominates economic life today is no longer material goods. Nor is it ubiquitous and superabundant information. Instead, it is the scarcity of attention, which somehow goes along with all that flow of information. Since economies are based on scarcity, we each reasoned, this means we are now in some sense in an attention economy. (The competition for attention remains superabundantly obvious on the Internet, with more new means to try to snare it developed almost daily.) I believe I was first to hit on the Attention Economy idea, which was in about 1985 [2]. Because Franck writes in German, and apparently does not speak English, we have not communicated, and I am not sure when he began his work on this [3]. Lanham himself is quite explicit that he hit on his version of this discovery about 1994. (He somewhat churlishly nowhere mentions either Franck or me in his book, though in my case he certainly knows better. He and I took part in a couple of small seminars on this subject in the 90s. Our attitudes and approaches were clearly somewhat different, yet I nonetheless proposed that we continue to communicate at least by email. He demurred on the grounds of illness.)
2 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
3 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
that economics studies the allocation of what is scarce. Supply matters, but only in relation to demand. Plenty of things, such as grotesquely enlarged hearts or poisoned spinach may be scarce, but they are not in much demand. Who would want them? Attention is not like that; it is very desirable, in almost endless amounts, at least to some people. That is how its scarcity really enters in. If you want attention, you must, in some sense, put out information or something like it. An economy is a set of activities that ties people together, and this activity only exists, ultimately on the basis of some sort of desire. (Some may act only out of compulsion, but then what motivates those who compel them?) Raw desire, in turn, is not enough, either. Unicorns, Picassos painting Guernica (the original) and the kingship of England all are scarce and quite desirable, yet who bothers to go after them? They are so obviously out of reach for most of us that it wouldnt occur to us to try. (Prince Charles may feel differently, but, if so, hes the exception who proves the rule.) We expend effort to get what seems at least somewhat within our grasp. One more question comes up. Who seeks attention for itself? Principally, human beings do, not texts, pictures, data streams or Web sites. Not even corporations want attention for its own sake, though the people behind many corporations well might. If a new economy is to emerge, it also requires something else: a principle of growth, or, in other words, a dynamic of its own. It does not start out with everyone already on board, so it must grow, and the question is how? Does all this require that the economics of attention be at all different from standard, that is industrialera, economics? Well, yes.
4 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
If attention economics were mathematizable, it would certainly require a rather different mathematics.
Why does precise quantifiability matter? Sometime around 1945, conventional economics took a highly mathematical turn. Now, mathematics often deals with entities that are not strictly quantifiable, such as stretchable topological surfaces. That is not the kind of mathematics that economists chose. Theirs involves elaborations on the curves typically found in economic graphs. Such curves derive their meaning from one key underlying assumption. The entities being graphed must have numerical values that can be distinguished at different times (or positions of whatever parameters are plotted). Otherwise, it would be impossible to know, at any given point on the graph, whether the curve goes up or down or stays even. Thus, empirical economists are always reporting slight variations in things like the money supply, the value of the DowJones industrial average, the number of housing units sold in the last week, the unemployment rate, the price of a barrel of oil, the national debt, etc. The more sophisticated mathematical economists offer theoretical results based on the underlying quantifiability of such entities. With attention, however, there are at best no more than numerical proxies for partial attention, such as bestseller lists, Nielsen ratings, and counts of Web site visits. That tells us little about how and to what extent attention gets paid. We could not determine, for instance, whether the total per capita attention supply went up or down last week or last year, or, usually, whether your share of attention did. If attention economics were mathematizable, it would certainly require a rather different mathematics.
5 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
quite expansively. It seems to me he has already conceded too much, as well as claiming too much for rhetoric. In fact, a standard economist is no longer a real economist, since she or he can no longer get her or his mind around attention economics. Nonetheless, certain economic thoughts, not requiring mathematical sophistication, still ought to be considered for possible relevance in discussing a new economy. Lanham fails to make the attempt. We can try to pin down something of what a simple attention transaction is, and what it means to pay attention in the first place. We can talk about what makes attention scarce, what makes it desirable, how it can be used to obtain various sorts of wants, how one person may channel or divert the attention of another, how attention is multiplied by having an audience, what causes people to pay attention to a particular other person in the first place. We can try to understand larger chains, networks, or loopings of attention, as it passes, say from person to person. We can view the entire economy, or some large subset of it as a system, and try to show how people respond to relative scarcities of attention and how they might be attracted to those who have lots. And so on. An economics of attention should encompass any and all of this. Very broadly then, an economics of attention will bear some relation to industrialera economics. It will for instance have elements that are more micro and others that are more macro. As some economists have done in recent years, it will focus quite heavily on underlying motivations, some rational, some irrational. It may have its own versions of: minimax principles; satsificing strategies; concepts of efficiency (obtaining the most attention for the least attention put in, for instance); relative, if not absolute, growth (of audiences, say); international and intercultural effects; notions of advanced versus underdeveloped attention economies; etc.
Lanham starts off on the wrong foot on the first page of the preface, and though he pursues a complex and interesting
6 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
So there you have the three ages of economy redefined: agriculture, industrialism, fluff.
So there you have the three ages of economy redefined: agriculture, industrialism, fluff. But when you interpret nature as information, stuff and fluff change places. This is charmingly put indeed, but how relevant is it, or right? Where does attention come in? If we are going to be discussing an attention economy, the interpretation of nature as information is slightly misplaced. An economy is not ultimately about nature at all; it is about human interactions. What matters
7 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
in an attention economy is much more why and how humans want, seek, obtain and pay attention. And, despite my own early formulation about attention and information going in opposite directions, in an attention economy, attention has to be primary.
8 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
their full working, utterly unprecedented. That is definitely the light in which we have to take the attention economy, if we are to understand it. In The Electronic Word, Lanham argued that the highly pictorial and graphical forms of current computer interfaces and other aspects of contemporary culture are nothing really new, basically a reworking of the illuminated manuscripts of the medieval period. Dont get me wrong; I love to look at such manuscripts. Quite a few of them are objects of rare beauty. Indeed, they are and were always rare, because they took immensely detailed and skilled artisanal effort to be completed. Only a very few very rich nobles or priests or the inmates of very wealthy monasteries would have even been able to count such items as parts of their environment. Today, the opposite is the case, in much of the world. Colorful graphics and the means to create them are widely available. Further, a video camera is now nothing unusual; just about anyone in the western world can get hold of one and proceed to make videos that then can be uploaded to the likes of YouTube.com. This is just one aspect of the world that in its effects is wholly new. It is one aspect that helps make the current advance of this startlingly new economy so rapid. Lanham himself oscillates (or toggles) on this. He seems to grasp it, and then he doesnt. He apparently lacks the categories or the coherence of thought to see that he has codiscovered something truly new. Or perhaps, to be more charitable, one could say that he and I approach the world from different ideological standpoints, that he is looser and less uptight, and more willing to cobble together his thoughts in ways that do not demand any great rigidity or rigor. Is this an attention economy or an information economy or simply the good old market economy, perhaps a little spruced up and more stylish? It matters not to Lanham. He is very largely just having fun, and he is quite willing to talk about what is considered fluff. As he says quite specifically, the rhetorician does not normally concern himself with rigor. Style is what counts.
Staying in Style
Let us return to the other meaning he attaches to his concept of oscillatio that our attention oscillates (or, again, toggles) back and forth, first to style, and then through style to underlying substance. At other points, Lanham fully recognizes that style and substance cannot truly be separated in the way this formulation suggests. We cannot present anything in a truly styleless way, although one form of style is to ignore style and try to proceed without it. Consider architecture. Many a building has been thrown up with no conscious thought as to how it will look, with the only concern being whether it will serve its intended function, say as a barn or a strip mall. Still, it is subject, at the least, to prevailing styles of building, including available materials, tools and accepted methods of construction, along with ideas about how slanted or not roofs should be, how wide and where placed should be windows, doors and stairs, and so on. All this will play out as interpreted by whoever is in ultimate charge of the construction. Such buildings may appear stylefree to a cursory look by a contemporary with only local experience. That over there is just a barn, or just a strip mall or even more often just a house. To more observant colleagues in the neighborhood, slight peculiarities will almost surely give away the builders or architects identity. Anyone looking with wider knowledge will see how the building is an example of a certain period, a certain locality and a certain outlook. A New England 1960s strip mall does not closely resemble a Los Angeles 1990s version. A sixteenthcentury British barn would never be mistaken for a late ninteteenthcentury Illinois one. Style in building cannot be avoided.
9 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
Much the same holds for supposedly unstyled sentences, paintings, photos, films, or works of music. There is no underlying meaning without style, or without rhetoric. This formulation still leaves a lot out. First of all, our attention always goes through what is before us, but not in my view in the limited path from style to substance that Lanham suggests. Rather we attend to the person who put out what is before us, whether that is a snippet of speech or text, a work of art, or even a welldesigned computer program or car. In paying attention to a particular person, we are held by whatever is characteristic about that person and their way of uttering, and this is at once both style, personality, and what we have encountered from her before. That can include personal details, name, face, voice, biographical facts, opinions, etc. Neither style nor personality is ever wholly uncontrived, wholly natural and nothing more.
Some Glue
Speaking of university talks, except for his first chapter, Lanham has mostly cobbled his book together from disparate talks or occasional articles. The clever glue he uses to bind the different chapters into a whole is the set of lengthy bibliographical and autobiographical narratives offered as background after each chapter. Still, the glue is only holding together a patchwork without complete coherence. The book remains something of a little of this and a little of that, with Lanhams effervescent personality bubbling through like a more literate Pinky Lees [4].
10 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
Wrapping Soup
In the second chapter, for instance, Lanham undertakes to describe what he calls attention economists. His chief two examples are two postmodern artists, Andy Warhol, the pop artist most famous for his deadpan depictions of Campbells Soup cans, and Christo, the artist famous for draping textiles in unlikely places, such as wrapping the Berlin Reichstag. They are certainly both interesting and worthwhile examples of how artists can play with our attention, drawing it from us and even making us examine our own attentiveness as they do. Still, despite Warhols oftquoted though invalid remark that in the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes, it makes no more sense to speak of them as attention economists than it does to speak of a successful car salesman, industrialist or boat builder as a standard industrialera economist. Like Lanham, perhaps even more than Lanham, they undoubtedly each intuited (and Christo is still intuiting) some salient aspects of attention economics, and they may have had some pretty explicit thoughts on this as well. But they have not explicitly engaged in a proper study of how an attention economy works, so it seems odd to set them up as parallels to the sort of people who populate academic economics departments or even to those who impart economic advice to banks and governments.
11 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
This last part is especially silly. Evidently, the 80yearold news of Niels Bohr and the quantum mechanical notion of complementarity has yet to reach Lanham. The idea of the dialectic and of the social construction of reality also appear to be beyond his ken. But in one way he is right about his list and the potential objections to it. It is completely arbitrary. There is no sense in which he even bothers to suggest that with these categories he has covered any particular or general swath of human experience, values, or behavior. What all this has to do with attention economics is another mystery.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
infringement. In this case they wanted the attention that the novelty of the scrolls might engender to pass to them, or so it could be argued. The difference between this and more straightforward cases is substantial. More commonly, as in the controversy over the sharing of music for free over the Internet, large publishers of book, movies, videos, pictures or music insist on exclusive rights so as to obtain corporate profits. They do so even though that limits the attention that authors and artists can receive. While the original creators might benefit more from a reduction in copyright enforcement, they tend not to see this, because the issue is generally discussed only from the standpoint of the old economy. I dont think Lanhams farrago on the subject is likely focus anyones thinking very much, even though he does say a few things with which I agree.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
economy. This chapter strikes me as quite possibly added to satisfy the editors at the university press. Or maybe it is a widespread assumption that any serious book by a humanist academic these days must close with an examination of how to revivify the humanities. Another University of Chicago Press book by another University of California English professor that I read recently, The Laws of Cool: Knowledge Work and the Culture of Information (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) by Alan Liu, which covers a related topic from a very different standpoint and with a very different tone, and never even mentions attention, still ends with a similar final chapter on possible new roles for academic humanities departments. Not surprisingly, given his predilections, Lanhams tack is to call for renewed emphasis on rhetoric and style. Both he and Liu see their recommendations as helping students obtain worthwhile jobs in business. This is actually an odd conclusion for each of them, since Liu rather looks askance at the grinding down of knowledge workers , while Lanham is presumably discussing a new, intrinsically postbusiness economy. This is probably not the place to delve too far in this discussion, but I suspect both Lanham and Liu take far too shallow a look at how academia will probably shift if the new economy comes into being. Universities are in some ways a bit on the periphery of economic systems, since they owe their origins to the Middle Ages, and, up until now, have rarely been viewed as centers of profit. At the same time, they have become an important stage for academic and student stars of various sorts, and this is only likely to increase if universities survive in the new economy. At the same time important academic categories are likely to shift even more substantially than the current divisions into professionalschool and liberalartsyetsciencecentered undergraduate curricula would easily allow.
Tomeward Bound
In one way, the pastichelike quality of Lanhams book does go along with his suggestion of history as cyclic. It has some of the qualities of the cobbledtogether works found in monasteries in the mediaeval period. Then the bookform was dictated partly by the difficulty of obtaining fresh parchment and biding it together with heavier leather or wood. As printing became more commonplace, the currently customary idea of a book as a highly coherent and unified work arose. In the age of the blog, that seems like one of the chief justifications of adhering to the book form and especially to the published, printed, material book that can still hurt when it falls on your foot. One wonders why exactly to risk this minor calamity for such a disjoint work as Lanhams.
14 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
propensities. See, in this regard, e.g., The mentality of Homo interneticus: Some Ongian postulates ( First Monday, volume 9, number 6 (June 2004), at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/goldhaber/) and also Reinventing Technology: Policies for Democratic Values (Boston: Routlege & Kegan Paul, 1986). His Ph.D. is in theoretical physics. Web: http://www.goldhaber.org Email: michael [at] goldhaber [dot] org
Notes
1. Richard A. Lanham is also the author of the useful A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms: A Guide for Students of English Literature, second edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991, and The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), and other works. 2. Earlier references to my work may be found in http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue2_4/goldhaber/index.html , where I also refer to Lanham, and more recently in http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/goldhaber/index.html. See also, my blog http://goldhaber.org for additional references. Note also that a book entitled The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business by Thomas Davenport and John C. Beck (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001) admittedly took their title from my Web site (see page viii of their preface) and have a different idea altogether. They also cite Lanham. 3. See http://www.t0.or.at/franck/g_franck.htm 4. Pinky Lee was an American childrens TV personality, who danced, sang and performed very innocent jokes from 1954 56. (The author P.G. Wodehouse, the creator of Jeeves, once referred to himself as the Pinky Lee of literature.) 5. Lanham chooses to discuss this case by means of a dialogue among an odd cast of characters, and with an assortment of different kinds of footnotes. The footnotes themselves sometimes obtrude into the dialogue as well. This is too obviously meant to be witty, but the humor is a bit too broad and the results somewhat flatfooted, at least for me. Lanham took the conceit of using footnotes in this active way from the mediocre, slightly experimental 1992 novel Book, by Robert Grodin. In my view, it was done better in the 1968 novelette Willie Masters Lonesome Wife,, by the philosopher William H. Gass (TriQuarterly Supplement Number 2, 1968, Northwestern University Press, Evanston Ill.)
15 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
How (Not) to Study the Attention Economy: A Review of The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information by Michael H. Goldhaber First Monday, volume 11, number 11 (November 2006), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html
16 of 16
11/23/06 10:12 AM