Attention Economies: The Commodification of Consciousness

Overview

Grounded in Herbert Simon's observation that "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention," the "Attention Economies" theme examines how human attention—finite and increasingly scarce—has become a primary commodity in the digital age. This theme explores how platforms and technologies are engineered to capture, direct, and monetize attention, treating consciousness itself as an object of industrial extraction. It investigates the profound ethical, political, psychological, and existential implications, questioning the impact on individual agency (Crawford), the colonization of time and perception (Crary), the potential "proletarianization" of knowledge and care (Stiegler), and the possibilities for cognitive justice and a right to attention.

Historical Context

While attention manipulation has precedents (advertising, propaganda), the concept crystallized with Simon's scarcity principle (1971). The commercial internet (1990s) enabled large-scale attention capture, leading theorists like Goldhaber to describe an emerging "attention economy." Social media (mid-2000s) built business models explicitly on harvesting attention for advertisers. The smartphone intensified this, creating what Crary calls "24/7 capitalism"—an always-on system relentlessly pursuing attention, blurring work, leisure, and surveillance.

Key Debates

This theme encompasses several interconnected debates:

Agency and Manipulation: How do attention-capturing technologies (psychotechnologies) undermine autonomy and cognitive liberty?
Commodification: What are the ethical consequences of treating consciousness and attention as economic resources?
Well-being: How does the constant demand for attention impact mental health, focus (deep vs. hyper-attention), and human flourishing?
Justice and Rights: Are there rights to attention, mental integrity, or cognitive liberty? How are attentional harms unequally distributed?
Systemic Critique: Is the attention economy an inevitable outcome of information abundance, or a specific result of capitalist imperatives and technological design choices (psychopower)?
Alternatives: What ethical design principles, alternative economic models (commons, regenerative), or regulations could foster a more humane attention ecology?

Analytic Tradition

Analytic philosophy often approaches attention via cognitive science, economics, and normative ethics.

Herbert Simon identified attention scarcity as the core economic problem created by information abundance.
Matthew Crawford argues attention is skilled, embodied agency, undermined by digital environments designed for passive consumption and distraction, leading to a "mental equivalent of obesity." He stresses reclaiming agency through tangible, skilled practices.
Harry Frankfurt's work on caring highlights how external attention capture can prevent us from attending to what genuinely matters to us.
James Williams critiques the misalignment between human values and digitally directed attention, arguing it undermines individual and collective will.

Continental Tradition

Continental thought analyzes attention economies through critical theory, phenomenology, and critiques of capitalism.

Guy Debord's "society of the spectacle" anticipates how social relations become mediated by images optimized for attention.
Jonathan Crary critiques "24/7 capitalism" for its relentless colonization of time, perception, and even sleep, viewing sleep as a site of incompatibility and potential resistance.
Bernard Stiegler introduces "psychopower" operating through "psychotechnologies" (digital media) to capture attention and channel desire. This leads to a "proletarianization" of savoir (know-how, life-skills, critical thought) and "symbolic misery," eroding care and intergenerational bonds by disrupting the temporal structure of consciousness (retention/protention).
Byung-Chul Han connects attention economies to a "burnout society" driven by self-exploitation and the imperative to perform.
Iris Murdoch offers a moral perspective, framing attention ("a just and loving gaze") as central to ethical life itself.

Intersection and Tensions

Analytic approaches often focus on individual cognitive limits and rational responses, while continental critiques emphasize systemic power structures, historical context, and existential impacts. Synthesizing them is crucial: analytic insights reveal how attention is captured (cognitive biases, limits), while critical perspectives explain why (economic imperatives, power dynamics) and the deeper consequences (alienation, loss of savoir). Both converge on the threat to autonomy but may differ on solutions (system redesign vs. radical reconfiguration). The debate also involves whether attention is merely a resource to manage or constitutive of flourishing itself.

Contemporary Relevance

The "attention economy" is now a mainstream concern (e.g., "The Social Dilemma"), impacting well-being, social cohesion, and democratic discourse. Concerns are acute for younger generations developing within attention-engineered environments. Emerging technologies (VR, AR, BCI) threaten further intensification. The concept of "surveillance capitalism" (Zuboff) links attention extraction to broader threats against autonomy and democracy, demanding collective action and regulation alongside individual resistance and the pursuit of ethical design and alternative economic models.