“协作”消费模式的兴起

    今年2月，我参加了CommonPitch活动，结果我的疑心更重了。这次活动邀请了面向协作消费的初创公司的创业者，让他们向著名专家组成的小组阐述自己的想法。除了时间限制太短，无法真正解释清楚他们的理念（更不用说他们关于减少浪费和公共建设的具体想法）之外，在他们的阐述中还存在着一个明显的倾向。有些创业者不是在寻找重新思考消费方式以减少浪费的方法，而是在寻找以前在“真正的”浪费领域，有哪些赚钱的机会，但却错过了。只有当初创公司找到了创造或参与已有对等关系的正确方法时，他们才有可能赚到这些利润。

    Common Pitch活动中有两个这样的例子特别突出：有个初创公司的想法是“在聚会上募集资金是件非常尴尬的事情，为什么不让我们来处理这件事呢？”，而另一个公司的想法是“如果你可以把自己的自行车租出去挣钱，为什么还要让它闲置呢？”。把创造类的担忧（聚会和骑车）和经济类的方法（将之货币化！）结合起来，这真是奇怪！我在想，这真是雷切尔•波特曼在向全世界介绍协作消费这个概念时所赞扬的那种东西吗？我回过头，重新查看了TED大会上的讲话。

    第二次查看时，几个矛盾出现了，最明显之处在于这场运动的口号以及“协作”（共同创造）和“消费”（摄取或破坏）对立面的结合。而且，通过Swaptree网站用《欲望都市》（Sex in the City）DVD交换《24小时》（24）DVD的人被波特曼称为使用“令陌生人彼此信任”技术的“高能力协作者”。但这种说法很奇怪。信任不必依靠第三方的保障，比如有种系统，要是已经注册该系统的交换方行为不端，那么这个系统就会确保他得到差评。难道不是这样吗？

    最令人不解的是这种观点：分享是人的天性，因为“我们是猿进化而来，天生就是为了分享”，但“技术使得分享没有了摩擦并变得有趣”，因为协作消费最终不是“在沙箱里做好人”。那么，分享到底是人类天生的倾向，还是我们天生拒绝分享，因此需要“快感”系统的帮助，我们才会做出正确的事？技术“带来了信任”，正如人们深情地所说的那样，还是说，它只是在强加责任？

    总体上说，我喜欢这些服务（Netflix极其方便，Airbnb提供了新的旅行方式，Skillshare以非传统的方式把老师和学生联系到了一起），但我怀疑，协作消费并没有从根本上改变我们的消费方式，而只是改变了我们作为消费者看待自己的方式。正如许多人已经指出的那样，我们的消费习惯早就已经塑造了我们的特性，这种特性的展现可能比消费本身的最初行为越来越重要。如今，很多人的个人购买力都在减退，协作消费这种方式是否只是跟以前的有机/可持续消费等“好”模式一样，不仅根据我们购物的内容，还根据我们的购物方式来定义我们自己？如果“购买”变得更像是“分享”，我们是否就能感觉好点？另外，考虑到工作岗位短缺，难以满足文科学位持有者的期望，出租多余物品的情况是否会变成现实，甚至“创造性”地解决不充分就业问题？

    交易、方便、效率、减少浪费，似乎协作消费为实现这些美好的东西带来了新的可能性。然而，创造力、团结、分享和信任彼此来自于人性，而并不是主要来自于系统或者消费方式（这是《分享杂志》提出的观点）。因为邻居使用了你的钻子而收点钱（尽管这确实很尴尬），通过使用Zipcar的服务来降低交通费用，或者通过邮递交换DVD，这些都没有什么错，但我们不要因此就假装自己是在拯救世界，是在做个更好的人，或者真的是在（因为关怀）而分享。

    译者：千牛絮

    My skepticism grew sharper in February when I attended CommonPitch, an event which invited entrepreneurs with collaborative consumption-oriented start-ups to pitch their ideas to a celebrity panel of experts. Besides the fact that the time limits were too short for any real examination of the concepts (much less their implications for waste reduction and community building), there was a noticeable trend among the pitches. Rather than identifying ways to reconsider consumption to reduce waste, some entrepreneurs seemed to be identifying areas where the real waste was a missed opportunity for profit -- profit that a start-up might claim if only they could find the right way to create or insert themselves into an existing peer-to-peer relationship.

    Two such examples at Common Pitch stood out: a start-up based on the notion that "collecting money at a party is so awkward, why not let us handle the transaction?" and another along the lines of "why let your bike just sit there when you could rent it out for money?" It was an odd combination of creative class concerns (parties and bike rides) with a financial class approach (monetize it!). I wondered, is this really what Rachel Botsman was celebrating when she introduced collaborative consumption to the world? I went back and re-watched the TED talk.

    Upon second viewing, several contradictions stood out, the most obvious being the title of the movement and its union of opposites in "collaborate" (joint effort of creation) and "consume" (to ingest or destroy). Also, Botsman's description of people who trade DVDs of "Sex in the City" for "24" through Swaptree as "highly enabled collaborators" using technology that "enables trust between strangers," struck a strange note. Isn't the definition of trust not needing to rely on a third party's insurance, such as a system that ensures your fellow registered swapper will be subject to poor ratings should she misbehave?

    Most confusing were the assertions that sharing is natural because "we're monkeys, born and bred to share," but that "technology makes sharing frictionless and fun," because ultimately, collaborative consumption is not about playing "nicely in the sandbox." So, is sharing an innate human tendency, or do we inherently reject it and need "fun" systems to help us do what's right? Is technology "enabling trust," as it is so lovingly put, or really just enforcing accountability?

    While I'm a fan of these services in a general sense (Netflix is incredibly convenient, Airbnb offers new ways to travel, Skillshare brings teachers and students together in non-traditional ways), I wonder if collaborative consumption isn't fundamentally changing how we consume, just how we might see ourselves as consumers. As many have noted, our identities have long been shapedbyourconsumptionhabits, and increasingly, the display of that identity is possibly more important the original act of consumption itself. At a time when personal purchasing power is on the decline for many of us, is collaborative consumption, like the "good" form of organic/sustainable consumption before it, a way to define ourselves not only by what we buy but how we buy? If that "buy" becomes more like "share" do we feel better about it? Additionally, given the deficit of jobs to match the expectations of a vast class of liberal arts degree holders, does the prospect of renting out our extra stuff become a realistic, even "creative" solution to underemployment?

    Deals, convenience, efficiency, waste-reduction - there seem to be new possibilities for these wonderful things with collaborative consumption. Creativity, togetherness, sharing, and trust in each other, however, come from us -- human beings -- not primarily from systems or styles of consumption (apointmadeonShareable). There's nothing wrong with making a buck off your neighbor for use of your drill (however awkward that might actually be), or lowering your transportation costs by signing up for Zipcar, or trading DVDs through the mail; let's just not pretend we're saving the world, being better people, or truly sharing (in the caring sense) as a result.