Attention is a socially produced and politically governed resource, not merely a scarce one.

Evidence

A narrow focus on “attention economy” could benefit from being reformulated as a broader social question regarding the political economy of attention. To follow Karl Polanyi (1957), we would be well-advised to start by recognizing that the “production,” “circulation,” and “consumption” of attention are inherently social and political activities. Social scientists must cast a wider net than seeing attention merely as a scarce resource. As Citton (2017) points out, the task at hand is to “identify the collective ‘attentional regimes’ through which we are led to perceive the world” (p. 17). — Annual Review of Anthropology contributors (⚠ verify author line), The Political Economy of Attention, 19

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the reader’s platform/surveillance reading thread: platform economics treats ‘attention’ as a raw input, whereas a Polanyian lens reframes it as embedded in social institutions — echoes work on surveillance capitalism and data extraction. — connects to: Herbert Simon defined attention as the scarce resource that information consumes. — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 35; Collective political attention is structured by environmental agenda-setting mechanisms. — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 133; Attention is the scarce resource that powers the information economy. — Michael H. Goldhaber, The Attention Economy and the Net, 8 (+12 more)
  • SEED: Angle for an essay: reframe ‘attention economy’ critiques (ads, doomscrolling) through Polanyi’s embeddedness/disembedding — how algorithmic attention is the financialization of a previously socially embedded activity.

Broader Connections