The Cultural Pirate

I am a human book.  My title?  The Cultural Pirate.  I was first published in January 2013, and a revised edition was issued a year later.  I’m a friendly book; feel free to copy me and share me with all your friends.  Strange, no?

Cultural Pirate: All Rights Ignored.

©2013 All Rights Ignored.

Actually, it is strange, and not just because of the weird reverse anthropomorphism of claiming to be a human book.  It’s strange because, as a general rule, you aren’t free to copy and share the books you read.  And I find that super strange, because, if you ask me, sharing copies of your work with your friends the entire point of writing a book.  Such is the weirdness of intellectual property:  If you have something to say, copyright ensures no one else can pass your words around without asking you first.

Which brings me to my title:  The Cultural Pirate.  What is a cultural pirate, you ask?  When I perform my book in person, I answer this audaciously:  I’m someone who believes I should be able to download whatever the hell I want from the internet and not pay for it.  That’s the headline, the attention-getter.  And it sets me up with a challenge, namely, why would I believe this?

Because I’m a pirate, that’s why!  Arrrrrr.  What, not a good answer?  Ok, let’s look at the other part of the title, the “cultural” part.  What kind of pirate am I?  A cultural (or cultured?) one.  Which means … what, exactly?

As a group, we don’t really have a good grasp of what “culture” means.  I’ve asked something like 50 people what culture means to them, and gotten 50 different answers in response.  Typically, people mumble something about food or language or tradition, or maybe they mention art.  All of which are good examples of culture, but none of which are particularly helpful in figuring out what this “culture” thing is in itself.

That blind spot is significant.  We all share this thing we call culture, but none of us can say exactly what it is that we share.  And that’s the point:  Culture isn’t about what we share.  It’s about the fact that we are sharing something together in the first place.  Culture is what knits a group of people together; it’s what makes a group of people a group.  Culture is fundamentally about sharing something in common with other people.

And that puts it directly at odds with the concept of intellectual property.  Because property is about ownership — private ownership — which is incompatible with the concept of sharing things publicly.  And so, when we start to talk about owning bits of culture — let’s say Disney owning Star Wars — I get a bit upset.  Because, whenever Disney exercises its right of ownership over Star Wars — by withholding the original 1977 release of Star Wars in favour of George Lucas’ re-imagined special editions for example — it is actively harming Star Wars as culture.  Intellectual property essentially says that the private value that Disney is able to extract from Star Wars trumps the public value it has as a cultural icon.

Ultimately, my book is about who gets to own our culture.  When I audaciously claim that I’m entitled to download whatever I want, it’s not because I want everything for free.  It’s because I believe I’m entitled to participate in my own culture — and I believe that cultural artefacts should be collectively owned by our culture as a whole, not by corporations or even the original authors.  A collective, shared ownership is the only way to ensure that culture can function as culture:  Shared freely by the members of that culture.  Allowing private ownership of culture distorts who is allowed to participate in culture, and I hope the dangers of such an arrangement are obvious.

The Cultural Pirate was first published in January, 2013.  If I were an actual book rather than a human one (or if I made a video of my performance), by law, I would automatically receive ownership of the book in the form of a copyright, dated at the time of publication.  How ironic it is that in publishing — in making my work public — I would gain private ownership over my work.

I want to correct this.  Look down.  At the bottom of this page, you’ll see a copyright notice, and a link to the CC-BY-SA license that this whole site is licensed under.  That notice tells you that you are welcome to use whatever you find on this site as your own — it’s yours already.  The “BY” is a request for attribution, and the “SA” stands for “Share-Alike” — I ask that you pay it forward and relinquish the ownership of any modifications you make under the same terms.  I don’t believe either of these requests give me ownership, and, really, I view them as requests, not requirements.  If you want it, take it, it’s yours.  And it’s also everybody else’s.  Just remember — I’m a human book.  Treat me well.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 The Cultural Pirate by Devonavar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Recent Posts

The Homicidal Bitchin’ that goes down in Every Kitchen

From the homicidal bitchin’
that does down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.

Democracy is coming
to the U.S.A.

Leonard Cohen

This post is inspired by Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, about how money is made of mass surveillance. I’m not overly impressed by the book, but there’s a section describing the Chinese Social Credit system which made me reflect on how we should determine — and how we actually determine — social status.

For the uninitiated, The Social Credit System is a “social score” that measures, in essence, how good a person you are (as determined by the Communist Party of China). It’s compiled automatically, without input or knowledge from the citizens themselves, on the basis of online behaviour: What you buy, who you communicate with, what topics you talk about. It’s enabled by mass surveillance, but the basic idea of keeping dossiers on social behaviour and using them for social control is much older than our current problems with online tracking. Think Stasi, the KGB, and all the stories of secret informants that came out of the Soviet era.

Essentially, it’s a government-run system of social status. Call it a class system (but don’t tell the Communist Party). By Western standards, it’s terrifying and Orwellian, and Zuboff’s description of the system is intended as a dystopia. She quotes the Economist to describe the systems social consequences:

People on the list can be prevented from buying aeroplane, bullet-train or first- or business-class rail tickets; selling, buying or building a house; or enrolling their children in expensive fee-paying schools. There are restrictions on offenders joining or being promoted in the party and army, and on receiving honours and titles.

China invents the digital totalitarian state — Economist — December 17, 2016

She goes on to describe the benefits of having a high social credit score:

Those with high scores receive honours and rewards … They can rent a car without a deposit, receive favourable terms on loans and apartment rentals, receive fast-tracking for visa permits, enjoy being showcased on dating apps, and a host of other perks.

Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, p.390

Dystopian it may be, but it got me thinking: How do we distribute the rewards of high social status here in Canada? Who gets social privilege in our society?

The answer should surprise no one: Money. Money is our system of social credit. Only people with money can buy aeroplane tickets or houses, or send their kids to private schools. Perversely, having money will gets you better mortgage terms from the bank or determine whether you qualify for a mortgage at all! We idolize the rich and we act as though the ability to make money is the mark of superior person — the more money, the more superior the person. Not having money is worse — without money, we are deprived of any number of privileges and comforts, including basic human needs like food or shelter.

That got me thinking even more: Is determining social status though wealth really a better system than determining it through social behaviour? Don’t we want to reward the people who act in socially positive ways rather than just rewarding the rich? Does that make the Chinese system better than our own?

I’m not here to defend the Chinese system. I think it’s terrifying. I think most Westerners would prefer equality — a fair system would distribute housing and aeroplane tickets more or less equally, not according to social status. That’s the American dream: Freedom and equality. The ability to make it on your own, no matter who you are.

But I think that’s how we ended up using money to represent social status. We’ve persuaded ourselves that we’ve actually built an equal society, and in doing so we’ve made ourselves blind to the ways that social status is actually determined. We believe in our ideals more than the reality we live in. By saying we have no class system, we have ignored how social status is actually determined. Like it or not, humans are incredibly sensitive to social status, and even the most egalitarian, communal organizations quickly and inevitably create a pecking order. We cannot create a fair system by ignoring status. Somebody has to speak first; someone has to take the first bite. Social status is our way of figuring out who deserves those privileges.

So what are our options? How should we determine social status? What’s fair? I can think of lots of ways that have been tried. Money. Popularity. Age. Heredity. Beauty. Strength. Intelligence. The Chinese system, terrifying as it is, assigns privilege on the basis of moral quality.

On a practical level, we make status judgments on a person-to-person basis. We compare ourselves to each other, and decide for ourselves whether we are superior or inferior, and then modify our behaviour based on that judgment. There are dozens or hundreds of social cues that go into this judgment: All the factors I mentioned above and plenty more. The important thing though, is that it is our judgment. The terrifying thing about the Social Credit system is that the system’s judgment of our worth may not match our own. We may be forced into a status that does not match our self-image. Money is harder to argue with. We may not like the amount we have, but we know how much is there. I’m not sure that makes money a better measure of status, but it may explain why we are more comfortable with it. Or, perhaps we are just more familiar with it.

I’ve struggled to think of a fair way to determine status, and I’m not sure there is one. Our sense of status is given to us by the culture we live in, and it’s immensely difficult to try and change it. There’s nothing about our culture — or any other — that says status has to be fair. Our individual assessments of status may be self-determined, but there are any number of small social pressures that let us know when others disagree with our self-assessed status. If we “choose” a status that doesn’t match social expectations, we may fool a few people (and ourselves), but in the long run, we’ll inevitably come across as foolish or delusional (two very low status images) if we act too far outside our station.

I’m not sure how social status should work, and that bothers me. I started writing this piece because of an intuition that the ways we determine who deserves to be high status could be improved. At the end of the day, I don’t think wealth is a good way to distribute housing and aeroplane tickets, and the idea that they could be distributed on the basis of some higher ideal of social worth appeals to me. At the same time, the Chinese Social Credit System is too horrifying to contemplate. I doubt any centralized institution of social status could be fair or workable. But, if we don’t think consciously about how social status works, we will be at the mercy of those who do, whether they are Chinese software engineers or American capitalists.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 The Cultural Pirate by Devonavar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

  1. Tofino, 2019 Leave a Reply
  2. Can Multi-Cultural Canada Tolerate a Prime Minister in Brownface? Leave a Reply
  3. Singh, Sheer and May debate who is the least trustworthy leader Leave a Reply
  4. Somewhere up North Leave a Reply
  5. Christmas 2018 Dogs on Echo Lake Leave a Reply
  6. UBC a Capella – Welcome Christmas Leave a Reply
  7. Documentaries, Respect, and Cultural Appropriation Leave a Reply
  8. Review: The Clean Money Revolution by Joel Solomon Leave a Reply
  9. Who gets to own our culture? Leave a Reply