Enterprises Doing Philanthropy and Users Becoming “Worker Ants”: The New Production Politics of Commercial Platforms——The Case Study of Alipay “Ant Forest”

WANG Chuangye, DONG Jiaying

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (11) : 46-67.

PDF(1686 KB)
PDF(1686 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2024, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (11) : 46-67.
Research Articles

Enterprises Doing Philanthropy and Users Becoming “Worker Ants”: The New Production Politics of Commercial Platforms——The Case Study of Alipay “Ant Forest”

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Research on the philanthropic activities of commercial platforms has rarely explored the underlying power dynamics and governance techniques. Taking “Ant Forest” on Alipay as a case study, this paper employs participatory observation and semi-structured in-depth interviews, and proposes the concept of “new production politics” of commercial platforms within the framework of Michael Burawoy’s production politics theory. The study analyzes why and how commercial platforms engage in philanthropic activities from the three dimensions of “state-platform-individual”. The findings reveal that commercial platforms respond to government policy demands through policy sensitivity and discourse appropriation strategies; they utilize gamification mechanisms to drive users into labor competitions and create labor consent through redesigning the digital platform with factory-like features; Within this political framework, individuals’ capacity for “self-organization” is constrained, and behaviors such as “cheating” and “lying flat” are viewed as forms of weak resistance, manifesting more as “labor burnout”. This paper argues that the embedding of commercial platforms into “state-society” relations represents a governance technique that absorbs resistant forces and fosters social stability.

Key words

Ant Forest / political behavior / new production politics / factory polity

Cite this article

Download Citations
WANG Chuangye , DONG Jiaying. Enterprises Doing Philanthropy and Users Becoming “Worker Ants”: The New Production Politics of Commercial Platforms——The Case Study of Alipay “Ant Forest”[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2024, 46(11): 46-67

References

[1]
埃米尔·涂尔干(1902/2000). 《社会分工论》(渠敬东译). 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
[2]
蔡华杰, 王越(2021). 拯救生态环境还是拯救资本主义?——新自由主义“生态环境治理术”批判. 《国外理论动态》,(6),129-137.
[3]
曹钺, 徐偲骕(2022). 平台社会研究的历史脉络、另类想象与亚洲道路——新加坡国立大学邱林川教授学术访谈. 《新闻记者》,(9),17-28.
[4]
陈羽轩, 肖筱(2022). “蚂蚁森林”对低碳经济的影响研究. 《中国市场》,(35),73-75.
[5]
丁未(2021). 遭遇“平台”:另类数字劳动与新权力装置. 《新闻与传播研究》, 28(10),20-38+126.
[6]
杜松华, 徐嘉泓, 张德鹏, 杨晓光(2022). 游戏化如何驱动电商用户绿色消费行为——基于蚂蚁森林的网络民族志研究. 《南开管理评论》, 25(2),191-204.
[7]
弗朗西斯·福山(1992/2014). 《历史的终结与最后的人》(陈高华译). 广西师范大学出版社.
[8]
付宜强, 陈志军(2016). 国内企业政治行为研究文献计量分析. 《山东社会科学》,(3),124-131.
[9]
管泽旭, 张琳(2020). 阿里巴巴的进化史与小资本主义的平台化:对本土语境平台化的考察. 《国际新闻界》,(2),28-49.
[10]
郭国庆, 刘仁杰, 王建国(2023). 蚂蚁森林用户转向线下绿色消费的内在机制研究——基于行为推理理论视角. 《管理学刊》, 36(1),56-69.
[11]
黄月琴, 黄宪成(2023). 粉丝公益传播中的时空套利与“数据人”异化:数据主义批判的视角. 《新闻与传播研究》, 30(7),55-74+127.
[12]
纪盈如, 陈洁(2023). 企业社会责任传播对公众灾后网络亲社会行为影响研究. 《新闻春秋》,(3),43-54.
[13]
贾文娟(2016). 国家社会主义的劳动体制及其转型——基于对国家社会主义时期的苏联、东欧和中国劳动体制的比较. 《兰州大学学报(社会科学版)》, 44(3),11-19.
[14]
姜红, 龙晓旭(2022). 在“可见”与“不可见”之间: 微信运动中的个体生活与数字交往. 《现代出版》,(3),11-20.
[15]
凯文·韦巴赫, 丹·亨特(2012/2014). 《游戏化思维: 改变未来商业的新力量》(周逵,王晓丹译). 浙江大学出版社.
[16]
李岚(2008). 西方企业政治行为研究综述. 《中州学刊》,(6),55-57.
[17]
李永胜(2021). 数字经济视域下构建新型政商关系机制研究. 《人民论坛》,(32),60-63.
[18]
梁萌(2007). 在生产体制中发现工人阶级的未来——读布洛维劳动过程理论三步曲之一《辉煌的过去》. 《社会学研究》,(1),229-236.
[19]
林蔷薇, 朱秀凌(2022). 青年群体参与“蚂蚁森林”公益游戏的动机研究——基于八角行为分析模型. 《青少年学刊》,(5),49-55.
[20]
刘海龙, 谢卓潇, 束开荣(2021). 网络化身体:病毒与补丁. 《新闻大学》,(5),40-55.
[21]
刘战伟, 李嫒嫒, 刘蒙之(2021). 平台化、数字灵工与短视频创意劳动者:一项劳动控制研究. 《新闻与传播研究》, 28(7),42-58+127.
[22]
刘战伟, 刘蒙之, 李嫒嫒(2022). 从“赶稿游戏”到“老板游戏”:互联网平台中自由撰稿人的劳动控制. 《新闻与传播研究》, 29(1),66-85+127.
[23]
蚂蚁金服(2017).未来好社会: 蚂蚁金服2016可持续发展报告. https://gw.alipayobjects.com/os/basement_prod/beb7dae2-96d9-424d-bc39-d62ee98fcd12.pdf.
[24]
蚂蚁集团.(2017年9月5日) 我是“蚂蚁森林”产品经理,听说有2.3亿人想认识我? https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/PLGqHPrh29KGNAjgLAMOoQ.
[25]
蚂蚁集团(2021). 蚂蚁集团碳中和路线图. https://gw.alipayobjects.com/os/bmw-prod/05b3bbe2-003c-4577-acdf-22430201859c.pdf.
[26]
蚂蚁集团.(2023年5月6日) 蚂蚁集团:2022年可持续发展报告. https://mdn.alipayobjects.com/huamei_f5zjmk/afts/file/A*ixdpSL7H6BUAAAAAAAAAAAAADgx7AQ/蚂蚁集团2022可持续发展报告.pdf.
[27]
蚂蚁集团(2023).蚂蚁集团2022年社会公益报告. https://mdn.alipayobjects.com/huamei_f5zjmk/afts/file/A*679GQprBc_oAAAAAAAAAAAAADgx7AQ/2022蚂蚁集团社会公益报告.pdf.
[28]
麦克·布洛维(1979/2005). 《制造甘愿: 垄断资本主义劳动过程的历史变迁》(林宗弘等译). 群学出版有限公司.
[29]
麦克·布洛维(1982/2008). 《制造同意:垄断资本主义劳动过程的变迁》(李荣荣译).商务印书馆.
[30]
麦克·布洛维(1985/2023). 《生产的政治: 资本主义和社会主义下的工厂政体》(周潇,张跃然译). 上海人民出版社.
[31]
南希·弗雷泽(2022/2023). 《食人资本主义》(蓝江译). 上海人民出版社.
[32]
庞梦如, 张艳(2020). 蚂蚁森林的社交营销研究. 《电子商务》,(7),73-74.
[33]
彭兰(2022). “数据化生存”:被量化、外化的人与人生. 《苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》, 43(2),154-163.
[34]
彭兰(2023). 数字化与数据化: 数字时代生存的一体两面. 《人民论坛》,(17),42-47.
[35]
田莉, 张玉利, 唐贵瑶, 魏立群(2015). 遵从压力或理性驱动?新企业政治行为探析. 《管理科学学报》, 18(3),16-30.
[36]
童桐, 孙萍(2022). 从“全民义务植树”到“碳账户”:蚂蚁森林的平台化与青年话语策略反思. 《中国青年研究》,(11),79-87.
[37]
王维佳, 周弘(2021). 规制与扩张的“双向运动”:中国平台经济的演进历程. 《新闻与传播研究》,(S1),76-90+127.
[38]
王宇飞(2023). 关于互联网背景下全民参与生态保护的思考——对“蚂蚁森林”项目的案例分析与启示. 《可持续发展经济导刊》,(3),44-47.
[39]
温家宝.(2001年4月11日) 大力植树造林加快国土绿化. 《人民日报》,5.
[40]
温旭(2021). 数字劳动、数字资本主义与数字资本积累——基于大卫•哈维的剥夺性积累理论. 《学术论坛》, 44(4),104-112.
[41]
肖红军, 李平(2019). 平台型企业社会责任的生态化治理. 《管理世界》, 35(4),120-144+196.
[42]
杨旸(2021). 青年群体为何热衷于网络公益游戏——认知视角的动机分析. 《中国青年研究》,(10),70-77+102.
[43]
易前良(2021). 平台研究:数字媒介研究新领域——基于传播学与STS对话的学术考察. 《新闻与传播研究》, 28(12),58-75+127.
[44]
张婧(2020). 走向中国社会: 构建中国本土的公益理论——“中国公益实践与理论的本土化转型”研讨会综述.《文化纵横》,(1),104-110+143.
[45]
张心宇(2020). 价值共创理论视角下环境传播游戏化研究——以“蚂蚁森林”为例. 《新闻前哨》,(5),96-97.
[46]
张学娟, 郝宇青(2017). 现代治理体系下的新型政商关系构建. 《理论探索》,(1),77-81.
[47]
周黎安(2018). “官场+市场”与中国增长故事. 《社会》, 38(2),1-45.
[48]
周雪光(2017). 《中国国家治理的制度逻辑:一个组织学研究》 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
[49]
周雪光(2013). 国家治理逻辑与中国官僚体制:一个韦伯理论视角. 《开放时代》,(3),5-28.
[50]
Yu-Kai Chou(2014/2017). 《游戏化实战》(杨国庆译). 华中科技大学出版社.
[51]
Alacovska A., Bucher E., & Fieseler C. (2024). A relational work perspective on the gig economy: Doing creative work on digital labour platforms. Work Employment and Society, 38(1), 161-179.
[52]
Bogost I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding. (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications. (pp.65-79). MIT Press.
[53]
Bowker G. C. (1995). Second nature once removed: Time, space and representations. Time & Society, 4(1), 47-66.
[54]
Brown L. W., Rasheed A. A., & Bell R. G. (2022). How and why? A review of corporate political activity predictors and actions. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 440-484.
[55]
Burawoy M. (1983). Between the labor process and the state: The changing face of factory regimes under advanced capitalism. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 587-605.
[56]
Chen J. Y., & Qiu J. L. (2019). Digital utility: Datafication, regulation, labor, and DiDi’s platformization of urban transport in China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12(3), 274-289.
[57]
Chen S., Li B., Zhou Q., & Liu H. (2024). From virtual trees to real forests: the impact of gamification affordances on green consumption behaviors in ant forest. Environmental Communication, 18(5), 525-549.
[58]
Chung H. (2022). The flexibility paradox: Why flexible working leads to (self-)exploitation. Bristol University Press.
[59]
Couldry N., & Mejias U. A. (2023). The decolonial turn in data and technology research: What is at stake and where is it heading? Information, Communication & Society, 26(4), 786-802.
[60]
Deci E. L., Koestner R., & Ryan R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
[61]
Gandini A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039-1056.
[62]
Gaver W. W. et al. (2004, April 24-29). The drift table: Designing for ludic engagement [Paper presentation]. CHI’04: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria.
[63]
Gekker A., & Hind S. (2020). Infrastructural surveillance. New Media & Society, 22(8), 1414-1436.
[64]
Graham M., Hjorth I., & Lehdonvirta V. (2017). Digital labour and development: Impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 135-162.
[65]
Graham S., & Thrift N. (2007). Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 1-25.
[66]
Hoang K. K. (2022). Spiderweb capitalism: How global Elites exploit frontier markets. Princeton University Press.
[67]
Höglund L., Mårtensson M., & Thomson K. (2021). Strategic management, management control practices and public value creation: the strategic triangle in the Swedish public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(7), 1608-1634.
[68]
Hong Y., & Xu J. (2019). Toward Fragmented Platform Governance in China: Through the Lens of Alibaba and the Legal-Judicial System. International Journal of Communication, 13, 464-466.
[69]
Huo F., & Huo C. (2024). Exploring the determinants of maternal and infant health knowledge adoption, sharing and purchase in short videos from an empathy theory perspective. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2023-0204
[70]
Kwak J., Zhang Y., & Yu J. (2019). Legitimacy building and e-commerce platform development in China: The experience of Alibaba. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139, 115-124.
[71]
Langley P., & Leyshon A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 3(1), 11-31.
[72]
Langlois G., & Elmer G. (2013). The research politics of social media platforms. Culture machine, 14, 1-17.
[73]
Liang J., & Ma L. (2020). Ownership, affiliation, and organizational performance: Evidence from China’s results-oriented energy policy. International Public Management Journal, 23(1), 57-83.
[74]
Lin J., & de Kloet J. (2019). Platformization of the unlikely creative class: Kuaishou and Chinese digital cultural production. Social Media+Society, 5(4), 1-12.
[75]
Maffie M. D. (2020). The role of digital communities in organizing gig workers. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 59(1), 123-149.
[76]
Mekler E. D., Brühlmann F., Opwis K., & Tuch A. N. (2013, October 2-4). Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements [Paper presentation]. Gamification’13: Gameful Design, Research, and Application, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
[77]
Mellahi K., Frynas J. G., Sun P., & Siegel D. (2016). A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1), 143-173.
[78]
Moore P. V., & Joyce S. (2020). Black box or hidden abode? The expansion and exposure of platform work managerialism. Review of International Political Economy, 27(4), 926-948.
[79]
Mumford D. (2022). Data colonialism: Compelling and useful, but whither epistemes? Information, Communication & Society, 25(10), 1511-1516.
[80]
Plantin J., Lagoze C., Edwards P. N., & Sandvig C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293-310.
[81]
Purcell C., & Brook P. (2022). At least I’m my own boss! Explaining consent, coercion and resistance in platform work. Work, Employment and Society, 36(3), 391-406.
[82]
Sadowski J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1).
[83]
Sadowski J. (2020). The internet of landlords: Digital platforms and new mechanisms of rentier capitalism. Antipode, 52(2), 562-580.
[84]
Sapienza P. (2004). The effects of government ownership on bank lending. Journal of Financial Economics, 72(2), 357-384.
[85]
Star S. L., & Ruhleder K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111-134.
[86]
Steinbaum M. (2022). Establishing market and monopoly power in tech platform antitrust cases. The Antitrust Bulletin, 67(1), 130-145.
[87]
Sun P., Yujie Chen J., & Rani U. (2023). From flexible labour to ‘sticky labour’: A tracking study of workers in the food-delivery platform economy of China. Work, Employment and Society, 37(2), 412-431.
[88]
Thatcher J., O’Sullivan D., & Mahmoudi D. (2016). Data colonialism through accumulation by dispossession: New metaphors for daily data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6), 990-1006.
[89]
Tobon S., Ruiz-Alba J. L., & García-Madariaga J. (2020). Gamification and online consumer decisions: Is the game over? Decision Support Systems, 128.
[90]
Tse T., & Li X. (2023). Recoupling corporate culture with new political discourse in China’s platform economy: The case of Alibaba. Work, Employment and Society, 37(6), 1544-1564.
[91]
Tucker J. A., Theocharis Y., Roberts M. E., & Barberá P. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of democracy, 28(4), 46-59.
[92]
Wei Y., Jia N., & Bonardi J. P. (2023). Corporate political connections: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 49(6), 1870-1910.
[93]
Yan J. Z., & Chang S. J. (2018). The contingent effects of political strategies on firm performance: A political network perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2152-2177.
[94]
Zhou P., Arndt F., Jiang K., & Dai W. (2021). Looking backward and forward: Political links and environmental corporate social responsibility in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(4), 631-649.

Footnotes

1. 布洛维在《生产的政治》一书中放弃了《制造同意》一书中的“内部国家”与“外部国家”的区分,代之以“生产政治”与“国家政治”。

2. 众所周知,马云在2020年上海外滩金融峰会上发表演讲后销声匿迹了很长一段时间。2023年6月6日,央行发布银许准予决字[2023]第189号文,同意支付宝(中国)网络技术有限公司变更为无实际控制人。截至2023年7月,蚂蚁集团已累计被罚金额超70亿元。

3. 3. 逻辑如下:如果支付宝真的是在做公益,而且如其所言,其绿色能量的汇算是科学的,那么一旦“减碳行为”发生,绿色能量也就应该随即产生,而且这些绿色能量也不会因为没有被及时收取而消失。

4. 蚂蚁森林官方账号,内置于支付宝之中,是供蚂蚁森林用户获取官方消息、观看真树生长和讨论交流的平台。

5. 在摇步器的底部和放置手机的摇摆支架处各装有一块磁铁,当摇步器通过电后,会产生电磁,两块磁铁相互排斥,从而产生摇摆。

PDF(1686 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/