The sharing economies discussed in Belk's article are dependent upon a sense of trust in both the giver and the receiver, as well as generosity. While the "internet-facilitated sharing" is more of a breach of the economic transfer of goods between a music or movie company to its consumer via its spread on the internet, the sharing economies discussed in collaborative consumption rely upon trust between the giver and receiver. The giver is lending their belongings to a typically unknown person for temporary use or residency. The giver trusts the receiver to return their belonging back in generally the same condition, as well as to complete the monetary transactions. The receiver must trust the giver to have provided a good service or item to them in exchange. These exchange facilitate a sense of community, as Belk explains in relation to the loaning of items to others in the area in order to make their daily commute or chores easier. It can also promote reputation building, as sharing economies often allow those who use their services to rate those who have provided them in order to build a sense of security. Belk hypothesizes that the spread of sharing economies in the business industry may lead to a post-ownership society.
In summary, Belk believes contrasting the prototypes of sharing with the prototypes of gift giving and of marketplace exchange is the correct way to go about sharing. He states that we share for many reasons, but above all, we share for survival, convenience and kindness to others. It is usually done with friends and family members, but he mentions various other ways to "share" and addresses the differences between sharing, borrowing, etc. He then addresses that sharing with strangers usually consists of a one time helpful deed that doesn't get returned later like directions, spare change etc. He then branches off into internet facilitated sharing where he mentions companies like Napster, iTunes and Spotify as new ways to share - but not always legally especially in the name of Napster. Technically, companies like Ebay and Craigslist could play into there sharing economies by listing items that are free to share a specific person. On a broader scale, applications like Bittorrent allow for audio and video files to be shared to people all over the world. I think these economies end up promoting more diversified relations among people, especially via the internet using some of the programs mentioned.
Belk's article on sharing economies shows that it is necessary for trust and a sense of community for this kind of economy to exist. Sharing between to parties is usually the result of them being in similar situations, having a sense of community. The neighborhood in Australia that started ShareHood was built on certain people having items and others having other items. This could eventually lead to just one or two people in that area having a washing machine because if they are close enough then there is no reason for everyone in the neighborhood to spend money when a neighbor already has what is needed. Other online sites such as Airbnb require a great deal of trust but it does not create the same sense of community. The owner of the house is putting their trust in the tenant but they are not in a similar situation that the people on ShareHood are. Airbnb involves a monetary transaction and not an understanding that they can use each others belongings. I think that economies that are about sharing create closer relations. With out a mutual understanding and trust sharing economies cannot exist.
According to Belk, Social relationships play a role in determining the kind of sharing that is taking place within sharing economies. While it's almost expected of us to say yes to a classmate that has asked to borrow a piece of paper or for the time of day, this kind of sharing comes differently compared to people we might have a deeper connection or underlying relationship with. For example, when you use the term "my house is your house" with a guest, you're implying that whatever is within he confines of your household is available to them. However, this isn't a mode of sharing that you exhibit with strangers or basic acquaintances, but rather family or close friends. This type of sharing is what's known as "sharing in", and it promotes a deeper relationship and sense of kinship/trust between the sharer and the relationship. Furthermore, sharing based economies can strengthen ties between strangers or basic acquaintances through collaborative consumption. Collaborative consumption allows for a reduced cost of purchase in result for desired, equal consumption. However, for collaborative consumption to work there must be at least two parties involved that are in way working together. This method results in social interaction that would otherwise go unnoticed in a single buyer situation. As briefly mentioned, sharing in promotes a greater strength of community and familial ties where as sharing out with a piece of paper or providing the time of day creates a sense of repayment with a favor of equal value. These intertwining cause and effects unknowingly dominate most of our society and make up the majority of our social interactions.
The sharing economies discussed in Belk's article are dependent upon a sense of trust in both the giver and the receiver, as well as generosity. While the "internet-facilitated sharing" is more of a breach of the economic transfer of goods between a music or movie company to its consumer via its spread on the internet, the sharing economies discussed in collaborative consumption rely upon trust between the giver and receiver. The giver is lending their belongings to a typically unknown person for temporary use or residency. The giver trusts the receiver to return their belonging back in generally the same condition, as well as to complete the monetary transactions. The receiver must trust the giver to have provided a good service or item to them in exchange. These exchange facilitate a sense of community, as Belk explains in relation to the loaning of items to others in the area in order to make their daily commute or chores easier. It can also promote reputation building, as sharing economies often allow those who use their services to rate those who have provided them in order to build a sense of security. Belk hypothesizes that the spread of sharing economies in the business industry may lead to a post-ownership society.
ReplyDeleteIn summary, Belk believes contrasting the prototypes of sharing with the prototypes of gift giving and of marketplace exchange is the correct way to go about sharing. He states that we share for many reasons, but above all, we share for survival, convenience and kindness to others. It is usually done with friends and family members, but he mentions various other ways to "share" and addresses the differences between sharing, borrowing, etc. He then addresses that sharing with strangers usually consists of a one time helpful deed that doesn't get returned later like directions, spare change etc. He then branches off into internet facilitated sharing where he mentions companies like Napster, iTunes and Spotify as new ways to share - but not always legally especially in the name of Napster. Technically, companies like Ebay and Craigslist could play into there sharing economies by listing items that are free to share a specific person. On a broader scale, applications like Bittorrent allow for audio and video files to be shared to people all over the world. I think these economies end up promoting more diversified relations among people, especially via the internet using some of the programs mentioned.
ReplyDeleteBelk's article on sharing economies shows that it is necessary for trust and a sense of community for this kind of economy to exist. Sharing between to parties is usually the result of them being in similar situations, having a sense of community. The neighborhood in Australia that started ShareHood was built on certain people having items and others having other items. This could eventually lead to just one or two people in that area having a washing machine because if they are close enough then there is no reason for everyone in the neighborhood to spend money when a neighbor already has what is needed. Other online sites such as Airbnb require a great deal of trust but it does not create the same sense of community. The owner of the house is putting their trust in the tenant but they are not in a similar situation that the people on ShareHood are. Airbnb involves a monetary transaction and not an understanding that they can use each others belongings. I think that economies that are about sharing create closer relations. With out a mutual understanding and trust sharing economies cannot exist.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Belk, Social relationships play a role in determining the kind of sharing that is taking place within sharing economies. While it's almost expected of us to say yes to a classmate that has asked to borrow a piece of paper or for the time of day, this kind of sharing comes differently compared to people we might have a deeper connection or underlying relationship with. For example, when you use the term "my house is your house" with a guest, you're implying that whatever is within he confines of your household is available to them. However, this isn't a mode of sharing that you exhibit with strangers or basic acquaintances, but rather family or close friends. This type of sharing is what's known as "sharing in", and it promotes a deeper relationship and sense of kinship/trust between the sharer and the relationship. Furthermore, sharing based economies can strengthen ties between strangers or basic acquaintances through collaborative consumption. Collaborative consumption allows for a reduced cost of purchase in result for desired, equal consumption. However, for collaborative consumption to work there must be at least two parties involved that are in way working together. This method results in social interaction that would otherwise go unnoticed in a single buyer situation. As briefly mentioned, sharing in promotes a greater strength of community and familial ties where as sharing out with a piece of paper or providing the time of day creates a sense of repayment with a favor of equal value. These intertwining cause and effects unknowingly dominate most of our society and make up the majority of our social interactions.
ReplyDelete