The Californian Ideology: An Insider’s View

Celia Pearce

Vol 1 #4, Winter/Spring 1996

I first read a draft of ‘The Californian Ideology’ during Andy Cameron’s visit to Los Angeles last Summer for the SIGGRAPH 95 Convention. Andy stayed at a beachside motel near my house and wore sandals every day. We ate cheap Mexican food for lunch and had lively discussions. He seemed to have a lovely visit, and, if I am not very much mistaken, left Southern California with a bit of a tan.

What, Precisely, Is California?

‘America and England are two nations divided by a common language,’ quipped George Bernard Shaw some 60 years ago. But there’s more to it than mere linguistics. Especially when you are talking about California.

It is typical of Americans to be myopically ignorant of their own history – which is how the Republican Party is able to repeatedly succeed at the polls. But a glimpse into our history, and particularly the history of California, is useful in understanding the basis for the Californian Ideology.

California has always been characterised by pioneers and gold-diggers. From the gold rush, to the movie industry, to the computer revolution, the Californian Ideology has always been one of spirited individualism and entrepreneurialism. It is also a breeding ground for greed and self-interest. By way of example, take a look at this list of just a few of the things California has brought the world:

Levi’s

Movies

Charles Manson

The Grateful Dead

Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon

Silicon Graphics

Microsoft and Apple

Industrial Light & Magic

Los Angeles and San Francisco

Scientology

Disneyland

Toy Story

A View From Inside

What is it like to live – and survive – the Californian Ideology on a daily basis? As a bona fide member of the so-called ‘virtual class’, I am certainly qualified to answer this. The description – independent contractor, free to come and go as they wish, well-paid, but at the same time, suffering from acute workaholism – fits me to a tee. All except the well-paid part. And that is a myth. It is true that many of us are well paid by the hour. However, we also spend 75 percent of our time trying to secure that hour of work, negotiating elaborate (and expensive) contracts, being expected to work on spec, etc. Those who are pushing the envelope the hardest, and especially those with a social conscience, must fight every step of the way. The true vanguards of the digital revolution are blazing their trail at tremendous personal risk. The condition of the virtual class cannot be blamed on the individuals within it, but must be looked at in a larger context. Artists here receive very little support from the government or, for that matter, the society-at-large. In our anti-intellectual culture, art is considered subversive and unnecessary. In America, anything that does not generate revenue – such as art and education – is viewed as gratuitous. Once you realise this fact, the Californian Ideology becomes historically inevitable.

Capitalist Cyberhippies

Why is Silicon Valley overrun with capitalist hippies? It is easy to label them revolutionaries who ‘sold out’ to the capitalist ethic – unless you have to live within that ethic. In the 1960s – while fighting a pointless war, and after our President, his brother, and our two most influential civil rights leaders were murdered – we learned that politics was a dangerous path to take towards revolution. The Nixon regime in the ’70s further drove home the point that politics was no place for an ethical person. Furthermore, it doesn’t take a genius to see that, in reality, there is no politics in America, only economics. So, it is absolutely correct to say that Americans are apolitical. In the European Community, there are countries. In America, there are corporations. Those things which are typically government-supported in social democracies – like medical insurance, education, and the arts – are provided by corporations here. We live in a modern-day feudal society consisting of corporate fiefdoms, mini-nations each with its own culture and language. And these fiefdoms are what drives politics in this country.

In the 1960s, the generation that seemed destined to revolutionise America was utterly derailed. They did ultimately change America, but not in the ways we thought they would. Those who might have excelled in politics turned instead to industry. In another time and place, it might have been Bill Gates in the White House rather than Bill Clinton. But their generation learned the hard way that politics are as treacherous in America as they are pointless. I don’t think I need to tell you which of the two Bills has more power – the one who pays the bills, or the one who signs them.

Siliwood and the Military Entertainment Complex

California’s two nexi of activity, Silicon Valley and Hollywood, are, ironically, connected by a common faultline. These two powerful forces have now ‘gotten in bed together’ (as we say in showbiz) and given birth to a new phenomenon aptly known as ‘Siliwood’.

But, beneath the self-congratulatory glitter of this marriage of convenience, both regions are tied together by another bond, a bond less glamorous, but no less profitable. That bond is the military. As ‘The Californian Ideology’ very astutely points out, virtually every aspect of the computer industry has its roots in government-funded military technology, and California has always been a leader in military contracts. For every Apple in California, there is a Lockheed. Considering Silicon Valley is the domain of the cyberhippie-turned-capitalist culture, there is a deep irony in the fact that former peacenicks have built an empire on the shoulders of their military enemies. (Shh … don’t tell anyone.)

Nowhere has this become more evident than in Siliwood’s companion movement, the ‘Military Entertainment Complex’. In the wake of military downsizing, many military contractors were faced with the vexing problem: ‘Who, but the military, can afford us?’ There was only one conceivable answer – Hollywood! The result is a series of hybrid technologies, some of which I have helped to develop. I like the idea of turning weapons into ploughshares, especially since both of the military-cum-entertainment projects I have worked on consisted of non-violent content. In spite of my staunchly pacifistic position, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the many brilliant and innovative minds behind military technologies. In a way, the military could be looked at as the front end of the technological adoption curve. ‘Adoption curve?’ you may ask, ‘What the hell is that?’ Allow me to explain…

Adoption Curve

The authors of ‘The Californian Ideology’ call it elitist technological determinism. In America, we call it the ‘adoption curve.’ Here’s how it works: Technology is developed at tremendous capital expense. It is released on the market at exorbitant prices, well beyond the means of the ‘average’ person. A certain demographic – affluent, young, educated, eager to impress themselves and each other – lead the market. They run out to buy ‘the latest’ thing, speed home in their BMWs to Marin County, and plug it in. Then, one of two things happens: either it becomes obsolete within a few months, or the ‘early adopters’, as they are called, build up enough market saturation that the product can then begin to be produced at a lower price and in larger quantity, thus making it accessible to the general public. This is the formula by which mass market penetration of any new product or technology is achieved in the US.

It is true that this is an elitist system. But, on the other hand, it is people at the head of the adoption curve who pay the price for making these technologies available to everyone. They buy at a premium, subsidising R&D, so that, later, others can buy at a fraction of the cost. Underlying it all is the ‘bottom line’: Profits, profits and more profits. In France, you give free Minitels to everyone. In America, you sell them for a lot of money to early adopters.

The Virtual Class Revisited: Social Capitalism and Autodidactic Communalism

Surviving in this complex landscape is nothing if not a challenge. You can never really separate yourself from the power structure, but, if you prefer to exist outside the corporate culture, the only alternative is to become a renegade member of ‘the virtual class’. If you play your cards right, you can evolve into a consultant, which is basically just a renegade who knows how to market themselves.

Contrary to the myth, renegades do not operate in a vacuum, nor would the vast majority of us claim to. Instead, we form our own loosely structured, somewhat anarchistic communities. Because we share the common resource of the ‘digisphere’, we can, in fact, function in this way, without submitting completely to the protection of a feudal master. This has given rise to two systems of community. I call these ‘autodidactic communalism’ and ‘social capitalism’.

Autodidactic communalism is our educational system. Most people in new media are autodidacts. As in all fields, education is always about twenty years behind industry, so anyone with any time in the new media business is, by definition, self-taught. The computer is, of course, the ultimate heuristic tool (and as I am speaking to a British audience, I can rest assured that you all know what this word means). But lone autodidacticism is also a myth and nowhere is this more true than in the computer field. In fact, most autodidacts work together. We learn by doing, and we learn by showing each other how to do things. We teach each other HTML, we pass around shareware, we bootleg software for each other. This is very much a part of the hacker ethic. While the corporate world takes a proprietary posture, hoarding ‘intellectual property’ and charging a premium for its use, and the military world is entirely shrouded in secrecy, autodidactic communalists freely share ideas and information, believing (and rightly so) that such an open architecture is to the benefit of all.

Social capitalism is an economic system characterised by the lateral, collaborative approach taken by many small companies and new media ‘boutiques’. Sometimes, this work is done on contract, other times, it is taken in barter. Relationships under social capitalism are reciprocal. I may be your client one day and you may be mine the next. Or, we may be partners on a larger project. This is a sharp contrast to the hierarchical corporate system where large organisations vie for absolute power and total ownership. In this model, cooperation and a sense of community is seen to benefit all. Companies that operate this way have become the backbone of the industry, often producing content for large corporations. Unhindered by the burden of high overheads or executive bottlenecks, they are often more efficient, less expensive, and, well, just better.

Joining Forces

These two movements combine to create a community of individualists. For those of us who are trying to break new ground, we have no choice but to live on the edge. But we cannot live on the edge alone. We must of necessity join together. Many of us do share a sense of social conscience and do everything in our power to broaden the landscape to create more inclusive forms of technology. But we must always fight an uphill battle. Many young entrepreneurs are creating cybercafés, websites, and other venues that allow free and open access of technology to a much wider audience. And, although the internet does promote individual, ego-based expression, as suggested by ‘The Californian Ideology’, it also promotes freedom of access to information and a sense of community that transcends geographical boundaries. This disintegration of these international boundaries is precisely what makes this type of discourse possible.

As an inhabitant of the Californian Ideology, I can choose to write this article for Mute, rather than Wired. At the same time, Andy Cameron can spend his Friday nights watching American television programmes. As much as the British may regard the Californian Ideology with disdain, neither can they or its other critics deny their inextricable ties to it.

Let us consider another approach. Here we are in the midst of a number of major planet-wide transformations. Multinational corporations are changing the face of the global economy. The Earth’s environment is on the brink of major disaster. While half of Europe coalesces, the other half disintegrates. Asia has become a major force in the world economy. And in and around this complex landscape is the digital ‘Global Village’ (to quote the oft-maligned Marshall McLuhan), simultaneously contracting and exploding, a parallel universe of which we are all the architects – whether we read Mondo 2000 or Mute.

In light of all this, it seems absurd to speak at all of geographical ideologies. California has a lot to learn from Britain and vice versa. We may be divided by a common language, but we are connected by another one – HTML and the language of cyberspace. We ought to use that to form a new ideology – one which takes into account our individual political, social and economic realities, while creating a forum for change that goes beyond those limitations towards a global community consciousness that we can all work together to create.