Crowd funding: between politics and antipolitics Eduardo Vicente Gonçalves A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Soci- ology. University of Essex. Date of submission for examination: September 2018 For my grandma, who has taught me so much. 1 Table of Contents Abstract 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Methodology 19 2.1. Data collection and analysis 21 2.2. The broad and nuanced crowd funding community 34 3. Literature Review 46 3.1. Modern institutions and its discontents 49 3.2. Action, technology and politics 64 4. Re-signifying money 78 4.1. Playing the patron 81 4.2. Money ought to circulate 95 4.3. The moral behind circulating money 110 5. Autonomy 120 5.1. Hacking incumbent institutions 126 5.2. From avoidance to autonomy 137 2 6. A new realm to empower action 154 6.1. The failed attempt of incumbent institutions joining crowd funding 158 6.2. A political realm within crowd funding 170 6.2.1. Creating a new public realm 170 6.2.2. Empowering action 178 7. Isolation, silence and absence 185 7.1. Antipolitical crowd funding 190 7.2. Dodging dystopia 202 8. Conclusions and discussion 215 9. References 226 Notes 235 3 Abstract Crowd funding platforms make projects financially viable through contribu- tions from people in a way that apparently dismisses support from government or cor- porations. This realm is not precisely public but allows this community to sustain strong political claims. The tension in the divide between the public and the private is the core of this investigation: the emphasis put on action within the crowd funding community rein- forces a world view that puts forward the anew in the form of a very specific realm which blurs the public and the private boundaries. The relationship between these realms has been long debated in political and social theory. Arendt criticized the role of the modern state as a guardian of individual freedom, highlighting that the capacity for effective political action is often still restricted to elites. Private interests of corporations have compromised the political sphere, as Wolin and Schedler have argued, and states take decisions within the private realm, diminishing public interests. Finally, Bellah has argued this scenario emphasizes private interests, favor- ing individualism. Yet, he adds, the lack of social ties makes citizens eager for connections. This thesis combines these critiques together with a hacker culture that focuses on action, as described by Palmås. I draws on interviews I conducted with people engaged with crowd funding. The analysis suggests that if the institutional conjuncture seems to seize the public sphere from people, citizens might be fightingack b by recreating the public realm within the 4 purportedly private space on online crowd funding. In the process they rely on cathartic self-perceptions and dissonances regarding their position within society and their repre- sentativeness, a fact that calls into question the potential of crowd funding as political ac- tion. This research contributes to the understanding of digital culture by reaching online networks impact upon areas such as politics, professional careers, and money. Keywords: crowd funding, politics, antipolitics, public space, private space. 5 1. Introduction We are a lot of people, doing a lot. We are people that got together to transform and occupy public spaces, To propose new education models, And to rethink the laws of the country. We care for the environment, We have measured the magnetic field of the Earth, And reconnected science and society. Together we search for the truth of the facts and forgotten truths. We render the invisible ones visible. We fight for women empowerment and for a freer sexuality. We promote change and bring back traditional cultures. We are tireless innovators, Who intensely celebrate Carnival, And overcome any barrier to create. Collectively we have already organized meetings, theatre plays, songs, books, games, hundreds of movies, and comic books — a lot of comic books. We are tracing a path of more independence, proximity, honesty and transparency to turn ideas into action. And this is only the beginning. In 4 years more than 1500 projects were brought to life, Millions of Reais were donated by 200 thousand people to carry out these initiatives.1 And then I ask you: what if we were 1 million? (Catarse 2015c)2 Catarse is the biggest Brazilian crowd funding platform and these verses were recited in a commemorative video that was posted on YouTube once the platform reached 200,000 users. A crowd funding platform, simply put, is a website in which users can do two things: on the one hand, some users, creators, can propose projects together with an ideal target for funding; on the other hand, other users, supporters, can donate money 6 to contribute to the success of these projects. When celebrating the 200,000 users' land- mark, Catarse affirmed that roughly 10 million dollars had already changed hands from supporters to projects creators through their platform. The numbers might not be too impressive when compared to the big inter- national players — for instance, the same year that Catarse celebrated the 200,000th user Kickstarter, the biggest crowd funding platform in existence, had already managed to gather 3.5 billion dollars for projects (Kickstarter 2015).3 In spite of this difference in terms of the magnitude of the enterprise, the tone used to celebrate this sort of achieve- ment is very similar among a multitude of crowd funding platforms — Kickstarter in- cluded. And from a sociological perspective, these verses (referenced above) are very rich. Within the personal and welcoming tone granted by the first-person in the plural, together with the enthusiasm of the narrator, there are intriguing hints about so- cial values, political positions and world views. There is a clear trace of civic engagement in the appreciation of public spaces, of law-making and of new educational approaches. There are ideas usually linked to left-wing politics, such as environmentalism and femi- nism. In addition, there are very specific and practical approaches to life, as in the hands- on culture of makers and in communities that praise a variety of forms of art. Never- theless, these crowd funding platforms are still organized as for-profit organizations and many project creators are looking for profit, thus no onean c assume all projects have a charitable basis. There is an arguably unexpected combination of elements typically relat- ed to the public and also to the private spheres. 7 Even when projects — and sometimes whole platforms — are targeting charity, there are political elements in this mixture of those spheres, as in the case of medical care: YouCaring has helped its users raise more than $900m since 2011 and its momentum is building, with roughly $400m coming in over the past year. The company says close to half of its 350,000 active campaigns are related to healthcare and the fastest-growing category is fundraisers for cancer (Financial Times, 2018, quotes in US dol- lars). Platforms such as YouCaring and GoFundMe are dedicated to all sorts of char- ity crowd funding, and still the category of projects that boost their figures is that d-of me ical campaigns. On the one hand, money changes hands only in the private sphere, from private donors to private individuals in need. On the other hand, it would be extremely naïve to discard the role of national policies in this case: the lack of a public healthcare sys- tem in the US probably has something to do with this rapid growth, and also the growth per se might be read as a political statement about the government’s failure to provide health support to its citizens — after all, 60% of Americans believe it is the government’s responsibility to offer universal healthcare as a basic human right (Pew Research 2017). In fact, GoFundMe’s initial idea was to help people asking for donations for their holidays and weddings; nowadays the platform calls itself "the world’s no.1 site for medical, illness & healing fundraising" (Financial Times, 2018). To add yet another layer to the politics intertwined within crowd fund- ing — even in its charity branch — the GoFundMe CEO clearly stated that they fight the "monopoly of traditional charities." In his words: 8 This notion of democratising campaigning is when the light bulb went off iny m mind. I said, "Wait a minute. This is the disruption. This is the transformation" (Financial Times 2018). The Financial Times article is written by Barney Jopson, US policy correspon- dent — emphasis added. In June 2013 Brazil was going through a very intense political moment. In the middle of a "lavish spending on World Cup soccer stadiums" (New York Times 2013) all over the country, the mayor of São Paulo announced a 0.20 Brazilian Reais (less than 0.10 US dollars) raise in public-transit fare. In response, a social movement called The Free Fare Movement went to the streets in protest but the initiative was severely punished with po- lice brutality. These apparently local issues triggered a national reaction: in the next days, protests took place all over the country, mobilizing millions of Brazilians. These events have not passed unnoticed by international media. At their apex, for instance, they were at the front page and at within an editorial of the June 21st edition of The New York Times. One week later, by June 28th, the protests were featured on another front page in the same newspaper.4 One of the catchphrases heard everywhere was: "it’s not just about the 20 cents." In other words, people were not pulled onto the streets by the public-transit fare cause, neither by the excessive use of police force alone: these were merely the trigger to demonstrations based on the rather unpopular priorities of government expenditure at 9 the time, that is to say, a lot of public money allocated to hosting a World Cup, while basic rights such as education and healthcare were left unattended and in a precarious situation (New York Times 2013).