Robin Hoods of Cyberspace: A Philosopher Examines the Difference Between Good and Bad Hackers

[Matthew Gaylor]

This article from NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/technology/04HACKER.html

Robin Hoods of Cyberspace: A Philosopher Examines the Difference 
Between Good and Bad Hackers

March 4, 2001

Reviewed by STEVEN JOHNSON

It can sometimes seem as if the number of people who have speculated
on the social implications of Linux, the free computer operating
system collectively engineered by thousands of programmers
worldwide, exceeds the number of people who have actually used
Linux itself. Ever since the open-source software movement entered
into the public consciousness in the late 90's, we've been awash in
prophesies about the end of the Windows era and the birth of a less
proprietary digital age. Together, the emergence of open-source
software and the related Napster music file sharing system
constitute the most significant technological development since the
arrival of the World Wide Web.

  Up to now, most ruminations on the impact of open-source software
have limited their view to the computer desktop itself: does the
stability of the Linux platform prove that open software
development models are intrinsically more stable than the
proprietary ones used by Microsoft? Is there an economic model that
can support the development of free software?

  These are important questions, but they don't do justice to the
most remarkable fact about the open-source movement: at the very
epicenter of New Economy capitalism, something that looks a great
deal like a wired version of communism has prospered beyond
anyone's wildest imagination. While private companies are free to
sell ''flavors'' of Linux, and to sell technical support, no one
owns Linux proper. It belongs to the people. If the Web served as a
launching pad for the Xtreme capitalism heralded in magazines like
Fast Company and Wired, the launching pad itself was partly built
by freely contributed collective labor.

  Itself something of a collaborative project, ''The Hacker Ethic:
And the Spirit of the Information Age'' begins with the premise
that the programmers behind the open-source movement (called
''hackers'' throughout the book) represent a ''spiritual challenge
to our time.'' As Pekka Himanen writes in his preface, ''the hacker
ethic is a new work ethic that challenges the attitude toward work
that has held us in its thrall for so long, the Protestant work
ethic, as explicated in Max Weber's classic 'The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism.' ''

  ''The Hacker Ethic'' begins with a breezy prologue from the
legendary programmer behind the Linux revolution, Linus Torvalds,
centered on what he calls ''Linus's Law.'' (His theory: people are
motivated by ''survival,'' ''social life'' and ''entertainment.'')
Himanen, a philosopher of technology who teaches at the University
of Helsinki and at the University of California, Berkeley, then
presents a longer essay -- the bulk of the book, really -- on the
core attributes of the hacker ethic, contrasting them with Weber's
work and that of his modern disciples. The techno-sociologist
Manuel Castells arrives in the closing pages to deliver a somewhat
freeze-dried rendition of his grand theory on the difference
between today's ''network society'' and the industrial systems of
yore.

  Because Torvalds's contributions are so slender, and because
Castells has presented his ideas elsewhere, ''The Hacker Ethic''
needs to be judged primarily on the substance of Himanen's
argument: that the values associated with the open-source movement
present a significant challenge to the Protestant ethic. While
Himanen's text relies on almost no primary research in terms of
interviewing programmers, his survey of the core components of the
hacker ethic (which he calls the nethic) is as comprehensive and
instructive as any to date. Unlike the dutiful labor of Weber's
Protestant ethic, the nethic embraces flexible hours, creativity
and a passion for one's work. The nethic also disdains monetary
reward for one's achievements, preferring what the open-sourcers
call Egoboo -- the respect of one's peers. While Himanen can
present a strained image of hacker sainthood, he makes a persuasive
case that the nethic stands in direct opposition to the Weberian
tradition.

  But that opposition raises two questions. First, is the Protestant
work ethic still a useful category in modern industrialized
societies? Weber's theory had little room for today's frenzied
leisure-time consumption. (Sunday was a day of rest -- not the day
for PlayStation 2 and Old Navy.) We may be programming our TiVo's
with time-management skills that would have made the efficiency
expert Frederick Taylor proud, but surely there's a difference
between using those techniques to tape episodes of ''Temptation
Island'' and using them for crop rotation. The dominant culture may
still be clinging to older, Weberian notions of labor-as-duty, but
it certainly spends a great deal of energy persuading us to kick
back and live a little on the weekend. Himanen avoids dealing with
the prominence of today's consumer society by wishing it away with
the old ''false consciousness'' dismissals: ''Only when work uses
up all energy and people are too tired to enjoy the pursuit of
their passions are they ready to be reduced to the passively
receptive state suited for television.'' In other words, that
feeling you have of actually enjoying ''Seinfeld'' reruns -- that's
just an illusion.

  But even if you accept Himanen's most optimistic scenario -- a
band of impassioned hackers challenging the oppressive
establishment -- the question remains: What does it mean for the
rest of us? Can the playful, work-for-art's-sake nethic be
transferred to the analog world? For anyone who is excited about
the promise of the open-source revolution, that may well be the
most provocative question of all, and Himanen has meager answers
for it. ''The hacker open model,'' he writes, ''could be
transformed into a social model -- call it the open-resource model
-- in which someone announces: I have an idea, I can contribute
this much to it, please join me! . . . For example, I could
announce on the Net that I would be willing, once in a while, to
help some elderly person take care of things. I can announce that
kids can come and play at our house after school.''

  This is a nice idea, but hardly a radical break from, say, a
real-world bulletin board at a community center. Himanen has a
powerful grasp on that strangely intoxicating contradiction that is
open-source, but when it comes to potential extensions of that
model, he falls short. You can't help being let down to find that a
mainstream adoption of the hacker ethic might only make it easier
to find a baby sitter for the kids.

Steven Johnson is the co-founder of Feedmag.com and the author of
''Interface Culture.'' His next book, ''Emergence,'' will be
published in September.






/-----------------------------------------------------------------\


Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.

Become a member today! It's free!

http://www.nytimes.com?eta

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************