What or who is the modern subject? Are people sovereign, filled with passion, creativity, freedom and autonomy; or are we slaves, robots and automatons forever tied to the chains of civilization? It is very common to critique modernity. From the Frankfurt school to Foucault, many seem to have focused primarily on its negative characteristics including the promotion of narcissism and its contribution to alienation and depression. However, this work arose from my general ambivalence toward how society, and ideology, impacts notions of the self or, more importantly, self-consciousness and autonomy. In this work I tried to offer a framework that not only challenges the tenets of a way of conceptualising the human subject by means of extreme objectivity, which is aligned with notions of cognitivism and stems, I argue, from the worldview of Protestantism, but also its antithesis, extreme subjectivity that manifests itself in intense hubris that can present a very real danger to the very foundations of civilization. Thus, the work takes aim at both the consequence of extreme objectivity i.e. nihilism, inherent within some of the tenets of contemporary capitalism, and extreme subjectivity i.e. relativism. This work provides a historical analysis starting with the Protestant Reformation and ending with Contemporary Capitalism. By doing so, I was able to emphasise a new conceptualisation of the master-slave dialectic into a hierarchal structure beginning with the Absolute Master and ending with the Quinary Master vis-à-vis death to work. What I demonstrated, and reinforced, is the notion that human consciousness is a highly complex hybrid of interacting master-slave dynamics that is fuelled by fantasy, structured by the law, is seized upon by the government and the marketplace and finally put to work. However, the essential core of the subject is a radical void that simply punches a hole through the processes of the unconscious, which is swallowed up by the desire of the other i.e. the desire of these given masters. Depression's genesis I view as the subject yielding too much to the desire of a specific type of societal structure. This reached its peak with the Puritans in England during the 16th and 17th century that aimed to purge any type of transcendent experience, which is characteristic of fantasy and led to widespread misery. On the other hand, the period of Romanticism led to a colossal eruption of the imagination that attempted to bypass established conventions and flooded the world with colour. However, this anarchistic worldview presented an extremely dangerous threat to the very foundation of society and thus had to be brought to heel by an evolved state structure. The overall structure of the work is based on a gradual unfolding of a hierarchical system starting with the very foundations of the subject, through the complexities of ideological influence and ending with the subject under contemporary capitalism. The final two chapters aimed to contemporise the critiques from Romanticism toward the Enlightenment by attacking the tenets of cognitivism as being indicative of a system put forward by thinkers prevalent in the 18th century that abstracted the human condition and tried to objectify the psyche. The scope of the work is large and diverse and hopes to contribute to psychoanalytical and philosophical literature by providing a hierarchical system of the master-slave dialectic in the development of self-consciousness. The work also provides a critique of ideology by highlighting how a certain structure of society can contribute to neurosis by either prohibiting or liberating fantasy. I do not endorse the cliché and wholly hostile view toward capitalism, but support the notion that one should remain ambivalent. That is to say that the work highlights that the free market is indeed innocent but only becomes problematic when it begins to work in collusion with a specific state system. In supporting the argument of Protestantism being closely tied to the development of capitalism, what should be viewed with great precaution is the very definition of what is deemed a beneficial characteristic. This meritocratic worldview is indeed essential to stave off overreach from politics, however, and as Rousseau addressed, the concept of meritocracy can promote a society of selfishness and pride as well as reinforce what I call the standard route via new forms of management, leading to a reduction of autonomy and enhancement of conformity. In attempting to generate this framework, I have utilised multiple philosophical paradigms including ancient Greek, Continental, Romantic, Idealist, Psychoanalysis and more to provide an eclectic approach to this inquiry. What the reader will take away from this project is a unique and new understanding of the individual, how the subject is impacted from engaging with different societal systems and a warning of what can happen if one submits too much to passion or reason.

This study is about voluntary productive activities in digital networks and on digital platforms that often are described as pleasur­able. The aim of the study is to relate the peer producers’ perceptions of their activities on a micro level in terms of play, game, work and labour, to their views on Wikipedia’s relation to capitalism on a macro level, to compare the identified ideological formations on both levels and how they relate to each other, and finally compare the identi­fied ideological formations with contemporary Marxist theory on cognitive capitalism. The intention is to perform a critical evaluation of the economic role of peer production in society.Qualitative and semi-structured interviews with eight Wikipedians active within the Swedish language version of Wikipedia con­stitute the empirical base of the study together with one public lecture by a Wikipedian on the encyclopaedia and a selection of pages in the encyclopaedia that are text analysed. The transcribed interviews have been analysed using a version of ideological analysis as it has been developed by the Gothenburg School. The views on the peer producing activities on the micro level has been analysed in a dialecti­cal way but is also grounded in a specific field model.Six ideological formations are identified in the empirical material. On the micro level: the peripheral, bottom-up- and top-down-formation, on the macro level: the Californian alikeness ideology, communism of capital and capitalism of communism. Communism of capital has two sides to it: one stresses the synergies and the other the conflicts between the two phenomena. The formations on the macro level conform broadly to contemporary Marxist theory, but there are important differ­ences as well. The study results in a hypothesis that the critical side of communism of capital and the peripheral and bottom-up-formation could help to further a more sustainable capitalism of communism, and counteract a deeper integra­tion of the top-down-formation with Californian alikeness ideology. The latter is the main risk of capitalist co-optation of the peer produc­tion that is underway as the manifestly dominant formations on the macro level are Californian alikeness ideology and communism of capital. / <p>©<strong> </strong>2015 Arwid Lund, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/</p><p></p>

This study is about voluntary productive activities in digital networks and on digital platforms that often are described as pleasur­able. The aim of the study is to relate the peer producers’ perceptions of their activities on a micro level in terms of play, game, work and labour, to their views on Wikipedia’s relation to capitalism on a macro level, to compare the identified ideological formations on both levels and how they relate to each other, and finally compare the identi­fied ideological formations with contemporary Marxist theory on cognitive capitalism. The intention is to perform a critical evaluation of the economic role of peer production in society.Qualitative and semi-structured interviews with eight Wikipedians active within the Swedish language version of Wikipedia con­stitute the empirical base of the study together with one public lecture by a Wikipedian on the encyclopaedia and a selection of pages in the encyclopaedia that are text analysed. The transcribed interviews have been analysed using a version of ideological analysis as it has been developed by the Gothenburg School. The views on the peer producing activities on the micro level has been analysed in a dialecti­cal way but is also grounded in a specific field model.Six ideological formations are identified in the empirical material. On the micro level: the peripheral, bottom-up- and top-down-formation, on the macro level: the Californian alikeness ideology, communism of capital and capitalism of communism. Communism of capital has two sides to it: one stresses the synergies and the other the conflicts between the two phenomena. The formations on the macro level conform broadly to contemporary Marxist theory, but there are important differ­ences as well. The study results in a hypothesis that the critical side of communism of capital and the peripheral and bottom-up-formation could help to further a more sustainable capitalism of communism, and counteract a deeper integra­tion of the top-down-formation with Californian alikeness ideology. The latter is the main risk of capitalist co-optation of the peer produc­tion that is underway as the manifestly dominant formations on the macro level are Californian alikeness ideology and communism of capital. / <p>©<strong> </strong>2015 Arwid Lund, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/</p><p></p>