TAKING PLATFORMS BEYOND HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH: PLATFORMS FOR HUMAN-NON-HUMAN INTERACTIONS
Abstract
Background. Platforms are generally seen as places for interaction between people. This assumption can be viewed as a manifestation of human-centric speciecist approach which is now being abandoned in the social research. It means that an analysis of potential use of platform model by non-human animals is in order.
The goal of the present research essay is to go beyond this speciecist approach and to find out if non-human sides can be present on platforms.
Research methodology. The theory used in the present research essay is based on key features of platforms described in the literature (network effects, coopetition, autonomy of users). The paper is conceptual and does not draw on empirical data.
Research findings. The paper demonstrates that platforms can be used for human-non-human interaction. Platforms can be initiated not only by people, but also by animals. People and animals can belong to the same side of a platform. These results show that platform approach can be used to analyze and to organize interactions between people and animals. Beyond the human-non-human interactions, the paper contributes to a better understanding of models of platform transformation. The paper sheds light on the nature of sides’ participation in platform interactions and shows that one of the sides may not be interested in these interactions and is turned into a platform side against its will. It demonstrates that platform transformation can be forced (carried out against the will of the owner of the infrastructure that is used as a marketplace) and induced (carried out by external actors). Forced platformization can be seen as a dark platform practice. While owners of infrastructure may be interested in platform transformation, they should protect their infrastructures against forced platformization.
Conclusion. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, it enriches our understanding of human-non-human interactions by demonstrating that they can be based on platform approach. Second, it contributes to platform research as it identifies new models of platform transformation that have not been described in the extant literature. A prospective direction of further research is use of platform approach by non-human animals (without a human side).
EDN: TTKBGD
Downloads
References
Agafonow A., Perez M. In search of a non-anthropocentric middle-range theory of the firm: On how the Patagonia Purpose Trust granted a controlling stake to nature. Ecological Economics, 2024, vol. 217, 108076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108076
Arcari P. Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in climate change, sustainability and food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 2017, vol. 34, pp. 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9697-0
Bakharev V., Mityashin G., Stelmashonok E., Stelmashonok V., Chargasiya G. Trends of evolution of food security: digital transformation, social entrepreneurship and human dignity. Siberian Journal of Life Sciences and Agriculture, 2023, vol. 15(2), pp. 363-391. https://doi.org/10.12731/2658-6649-2023-15-2-363-391
Bernstein A., Sivkov D. Yu. Resurrection is possible not only for people. The Russian Peasant Studies, 2024, vol. 9(3), pp. 119-126. https://doi.org/10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-119-126
Caiza-Villegas A., Ginn F., van Hoven B. Learning to live with synanthropic bats: Practices of tolerance and care in domestic space. Social & Cultural Geography, 2023, vol. 25(6), pp. 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2023.2209054
Clarke A., Parsell C. Resurgent charity and the neoliberalizing social. Economy and Society, 2022, vol. 51(2), pp. 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2021.1995977
Corciolani M., Dalli D. Gift-giving, sharing and commodity exchange at Bookcrossing.com: new insights from a qualitative analysis. Management Decision, 2014, vol. 52(4), pp. 755-776. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2012-0241
Cowden B. J., Young S. L. The copycat conundrum: The double-edged sword of crowdfunding. Business Horizons, 2020, vol. 63(4), pp. 541-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.012
Cudworth E. Beyond speciesism: Intersectionality, critical sociology and the human domination of other animals. In The rise of critical animal studies: From the margins to the centre, eds. R. Twine, and N. Taylor. New York: Routledge, 2014, pp. 19–35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203797631
Dolfsma W., Spithoven A. “Silent Trade” and the Supposed Continuum between OIE and NIE. Journal of Economic Issues, 2008, vol. 42(2), pp. 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2008.11507161
Evans D.S., Schmalensee R. Multi-sided Platforms. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2017, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_3069-1
Greenebaum J., Sanders C.R. Human-Non-Human Interaction. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, G. Ritzer (Ed.). 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosh050.pub2
Hagiu A. Merchant or Two-Sided Platform. Review of Network Economics, 2007, vol. 6(2), pp. 115-133. https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1113
Hagiu A., Altman E. J. Finding the Platform in Your Product. Harvard Business Review, 2017, vol. 95(4), pp. 94-100.
Hagiu A., Bruno J., Wright J. Creating Platforms by Hosting Rivals. Management Science, 2020, vol. 66(7), pp. 3234-3248. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3356
Hagiu A., Wright J. Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2015, vol. 43, pp. 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.03.003
Huff D. Archaeological Evidence of Zoroastrian Funerary Practices. In Zoroastrian Rituals in Context. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047412502_027
Hutter M. The Impurity of the Corpse (nasā) and the Future Body (tan ī pasēn): Death and Afterlife in Zoroastrianism. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook, 2009, vol. 2009(2009), pp. 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208818.13
Johnston J. Transspecies liminality: unpacking the politics and patchy legitimization of urban human-cat relations. Social & Cultural Geography, 2023, vol. 25(6), pp. 928–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2023.2209055
Karhu K., Gustafsson R., Lyytinen K. Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks. Information Systems Research, 2018, vol. 29(2), pp. 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0786
Lehtonen T.-K., Pyyhtinen O. From Trash to Treasure: Valuing Waste in Dumpster Diving. Valuation Studies, 2020, vol. 7 (2), pp. 197-220. https://doi.org/10.3384/VS.2001-5992.2020.7.2.197-220
Lundström M. The Political Economy of Meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2019, vol. 32, pp. 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09760-9
Lundström M. “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic. Agriculture and Human Values, 2019, vol. 36, pp. 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-09902-1
Luniak M. Synurbanization – adaptation of animal wildlife to urban development. The 4th International Symposium On Urban Wildlife Conservation. Shaw et al., Eds. 2004, pp. 50-55. https://costaricasilvestre.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/1f_37_synurbization-adaptation-of-animal-wildlife-to-urban.pdf
Mair J., Reischauer G. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, vol. 125, pp. 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023
MaMing R., Lee L., Yang X., Buzzard P. Vultures and sky burials on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Vulture News, 2016, vol. 71, pp. 22-35. https://doi.org/10.4314/vulnew.v71i1.2
Messmer T. A. The emergence of human–wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2000, vol. 45(3-4), pp. 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00045-7
de Moraes Farias P. F. Silent Trade: Myth and Historical Evidence. History in Africa, 1974, vol. 1, pp. 9-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/3171758
Morrow O. Sharing food and risk in Berlin’s urban food commons. Geoforum, 2019, vol. 99, pp. 202-212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.003
Nijman V., Morcatty T., Smith J. H., Atoussi S., Shepherd C. R., Siriwat P., Nekaris A. I. Bergin D. Illegal wildlife trade – surveying open animal markets and online platforms to understand the poaching of wild cats. Biodiversity, 2019, vol. 20(1), pp. 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2019.1568915
Pyyhtinen O., Lehtonen T.-K. The gift of waste: The diversity of gift practices among dumpster divers. Anthropological Theory, 2023, vol. 23(2), pp. 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996221117318
Reese L. A. Community factors and animal shelter outcomes. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2022, vol. 27(1), pp. 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2022.2063021
Reinartz W., Wiegand N., Wichmann J. R. K. The Rise of Digital (Retail) Platforms. University of Cologne, Cologne. 2019. https://marketing.uni-koeln.de/sites/marketingarea/Document/Research/2019_IFH_Whitepaper_ENG_Reinartz_Wiegand_Wichmann.pdf (accessed 07.01.2024).
Savio G. Organization and Stigma Management: A Comparative Study of Dumpster Divers in New York. Sociological Perspectives, 2017, vol. 60(2), pp. 416-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416632012
Skrzypek K., Zawojska E. What characteristics of dogs help them stay shorter in shelters? Evidence from a polish animal shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2024, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2024.2308171
Soulsbury C. D., White Piran C. L. Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildlife Research, 2016, vol. 42, pp. 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14229
Valença T., Resende B., Savalli C. Human–Wildlife Interactions with Different Species in a Brazilian Park: A Naturalistic Approach. Anthrozoös, 2021, vol. 34(5), pp. 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1914443
Veisdal J. The dynamics of entry for digital platforms in two-sided markets: a multi-case study. Electronic Markets, 2020, vol. 30, pp. 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00409-4
Woodburn J. Silent trade with outsiders: Hunter-gatherers’ perspectives. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2016, vol. 6(2), pp. 475-496. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau6.2.030
Yablonsky S. A. Multi-sided Platforms: Current State And Future Research. Russian Management Journal, 2020, vol. 17(4), pp. 519–546. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2019.407
York R., Mancus P. The Invisible Animal: Anthrozoology and Macrosociology. Sociological Theory, 2013, vol. 31(1), pp. 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275113477085
Zhao Y., Chen P., Kong X. More than human consumption space: human–animal encounters and relationships in cat cafés in Shanghai. Social & Cultural Geography, 2023, vol. 25(6), pp. 872–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2023.2206791
Zvonova E. E. Animal immortality in Russian cosmism: Scientific and religious aspects. The Russian Peasant Studies, 2024, vol. 9(3), pp. 92-104. https://doi.org/10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-92-104
Copyright (c) 2024 Ivan D. Kotliarov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
