Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

The Rise of the Creative Class

Anarchy, state, and utopia

After virtue, a study in moral theory

Working in the digital media industry is not as much fun as it is made out to be. The “NetSlaves” of the eponymous Webzine are becoming increasingly vociferous about the shamelessly exploitative nature of the job, its punishing work rhythms, and its ruthless casualization (www.disobey.com/netslaves). They talk about “24–7 electronic sweatshops” and complain about the ninety-hour weeks and the “moronic management of new media companies.” In early 1999, seven of the fifteen thousand “volunteers” of America Online (AOL) rocked the info-loveboat by asking the Department of Labor to investigate whether AOL owes them back wages for the years of playing chathosts for free.1 They used to work long hours and love it; now they are starting to feel the pain of being burned by digital media. These events point to a necessary backlash against the glamorization of digital labor, which highlights its continuities with the modern sweatshop and points to the increasing degradation of knowledge work. Yet the question of labor in a “digital economy” is not so easily dismissed as an innovative development of the familiar logic of capitalist exploitation. The NetSlaves are not simply a typical form of labor on the Internet; they also embody a complex relation to labor that is widespread in late capitalist societies. In this essay I understand this relationship as a provision of “free labor,” a trait of the cultural economy at large, and an important, and yet undervalued, force in advanced capitalist societies. By looking at the Internet as a specific instance of the fundamental role played by free labor, this essay also tries to highlight the connections between the “digital economy” and what the Italian autonomists have called the “social factory.” The “social factory” describes a process whereby “work processes have shifted from the factory to society, thereby setting in motion a truly complex machine.”2 Simultaneously voluntarily given and unwaged, enjoyed and exploited, free labor on the Net includes the activity of building Web sites, modifying software packages, reading and participating in mailing lists, and building virtual spaces on MUDs and MOOs. Far from being an Tiziana Terranova Free Labor

/pdf/free-labor-producing-culture-for-the-digital-economy-cfimf9lzkj.pdf

Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy

Introduction: Change and Continuity, Power and Creativity PART ONE: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS Theories of Culture, Theories of Cultural Production Cultural Industries in the Twentieth Century: The Key Features Why the Cultural Industries Began to Change in the 1980s PART TWO: POLICY CHANGE Marketization in Telecommunications and Broadcasting Further Changes in Policy: Copyright and the Cult of Creativity PART THREE: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN THE CULTURAL INDUSTRIES, 1980 TO 2012 Ownership, Structure and Size Creativity and Commerce, Organization and Labour Internationalism: Neither Globalisation Nor Cultural Imperialism Digitalisation and the Internet The Impact of the Internet and Digitalisation on Existing Cultural Industries Texts: Diversity, Quality and Social Justice Conclusions: A New Era in Cultural Production? Glossary

The Cultural Industries

1. Introduction: can creative labour be good work? 1.1 Good and bad work in the cultural industries 1.2 Creativity as doctrine 1.3 The critical backlash, the debate and our own approach 1.4 Definitions and boundaries 1.5 Research design: selection of industries and cases 1.6 Methods: interviews and participant observation 1.7 Outline of the book Part 1 2. A model of good and bad work 2.1 Marx on work and alienation 2.2 A sociological concept of alienation 2.3 Towards a model of good and bad work beyond alienation 2.4 Good products as good work 2.5 Autonomy as a feature of good work? 2.5.1 Two accounts of workplace autonomy 2.6 Self-realisation as a feature of good work? 2.7 Post-structuralist critique of work and the problem of values 2.7.1 Good work: critique of a critique 2.8 Subjective experience 3. The specificity of creative labour 3.1 Outline of the chapter 3.2 Three approaches to cultural production 3.3 General neglect of labour in studies of cultural production and possible reasons 3.4 Political economy and the specificity of creative labour 3.5 Raymond Williams on the specificity of creative labour: The communication of experience 3.6 A critical conception of creative autonomy and its two variants 3.6.1 Variant 1: Aesthetic autonomy 3.6.2 Variant 2: Professional autonomy 3.7 Creative work and social class 3.8 Cultural studies on creative labour: Subjectivity and self-exploitation 3.9 The debate about creative work Part 2 4. The management of autonomy, creativity and commerce 4.1 Creativity, commerce and organisations 4.2 The creative management function 4.3 Managing creative autonomy: Magazines 4.4 Managing creative autonomy: The case of music recording 4.5 Pressures of Autonomy (1): Marketisation in broadcasting 4.5.1 Television documentary and factual television 4.5.2 Television drama 4.6 Pressures on autonomy (2): The rising power of marketing 4.7 Anxieties about autonomy 4.8 Pressures on autonomy (3): The obligation to network 4.9 Conclusions 5. Pay, hours, security, involvement, esteem and freedom 5.1 Quality of working life in the cultural industries 5.2 Pay, working hours and unions 5.2.1 Pay 5.2.2 Working hours 5.2.3 Unions 5.3 Security and risk 5.4 Esteem and self-esteem 5.4.1 Self-doubt 5.4.2 Cool and glamorous 5.5 Challenge, interest and involvement 5.5.1 Pleasurable absorption 5.6 The experience of autonomy 5.7 Ambivalent experiences 6. Creative careers, self-realisation and sociality 6.1 Decline of the career? 6.2 Finding the right creative occupation 6.3 The fragility of creative careers 6.4 Defining yourself too much through creative work 6.5 Teamwork, socialising, networking 6.6 Isolation 6.7 Self-realisation and sociality: Ambivalent features of modern creative labour 7. Emotional and affective labour 7.1 Immaterial labour, affective labour and 'precarity' 7.2 Emotional labour 7.3 Media labour and symbolic power 7.4 The talent show: Budget, commissioners and independents 7.5 Emotional labour and the anxieties of star-making 7.6 Pleasure and sociality on the production team 7.7 Affective labour and immanent co-operation? 7.8 Conclusions 8. Creative products, good and bad 8.1 Questions of quality 8.2 Pleasures and satisfactions of making good cultural products 8.3 Conceptions of good texts 8.4 Bad texts: Frustration and disappointment 8.5 Conceptions and explanations of poor quality work 8.6 Negative and positive experiences of quality 9. Audiences, quality and the meaning of creative work 9.1 Creative workers thinking about what audiences think 9.2 Magazines: is the reader everything 9.3 Music: a communicative thing or a private thing? 9.4 What can audiences handle? 9.5 Television and audience size: ratings tyranny? 9.6 Audiences, ambivalence and projection 10. The politics of good and bad work 10.1 The hardest way to make an easy living? 10.2 Unions and the struggle for good creative work 10.3 Work and life: choosing not to self-exploit? 10.4 Spreading good and bad work: how intractable is the social division of labour? Bibliography Appendix: The Interviews

Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries

This article evaluates Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural production in terms of its effectiveness for understanding contemporary media production. I begin by outlining the main features of Bourdieu’s work on cultural production, with an emphasis on the potential advantages of his historical account over other, competing work. In particular, I stress the importance of his historical account of ‘autonomy’ and of the emphasis on the interconnectedness of the field of cultural production with other social fields. I then draw attention to two major problems in the work of Bourdieu and others who have adopted his ‘field theory’ for the media: first, that he offered only occasional and fragmented analyses of ‘large-scale’, ‘heteronomous’ (to use his terms) commercial media production, in spite of its enormous social and cultural importance in the contemporary world; second, that Bourdieu and his key associates provide only a very limited account of the relationships between cultural production and cultural consumption. In this latter context, I briefly discuss recent debates in cultural studies about cultural intermediaries. I refer to examples from recent media production to provide evidence for my arguments. The article argues that, as practised so far, Bourdieu’s field theory is only of limited value in analysing media production. However I close by discussing the potential fruitfulness of research based on a dialogue between, on the one hand, field theory’s analysis of cultural production and, on the other, Anglo-American media and cultural studies work on media production.

/pdf/bourdieu-the-media-and-cultural-production-2swff2bvmt.pdf

Bourdieu, the media and cultural production:

This article analyses and contextualises a variety of relationships between the cultural industries and cultural policy. A principal aim is to examine policies explicitly formulated as cultural (or creative) industries policies. What lies behind such policies? How do they relate to other kinds of cultural policy, including those more oriented towards media, communications, arts and heritage? The first section asks how the cultural industries became such an important idea in cultural policy, when those industries had been largely invisible in traditional (arts‐ and heritage‐based) policy for many decades. What changed and what drove the major changes? In the second section, we look at a number of problems and conceptual tensions arising from the new importance of the cultural industries in contemporary public policy, including problems concerning definition and scope, and the accurate mapping of the sector, but also tensions surrounding the insertion of commercial and industrial culture into cultural polic...

/pdf/cultural-industries-and-cultural-policy-4s4n813yty.pdf

Cultural industries and cultural policy

The concept of subculture has been criticised a great deal in recent research on youth and popular music. Two concepts have emerged as offering new ways of conceiving musical collectivities, particularly among young people: scenes, and tribes (or neo-tribes). I offer criticisms of the work of advocates of both terms. I also argue, however, that there is no possibility of a return to the concept of subculture in any adequate sociology of popular music, even if the concept may have some residual use in the sociology of youth. I discuss the potential advantages of the concepts of genre and articulation as a way of at least beginning to address some of the problems raised in the literature on subcultures, scenes and tribes, concerning the politics of musical collectivities. The common feature of the three terms under discussion is that they have been discussed by those concerned with the relationship between youth and popular music, and I close by reflecting on the relationship between the study of these two entities. I suggest that the assumption that there is a close relationship between youth and popular music was the result of particular historical circumstances and I argue that, while the study of young people's relationships with popular music remains a topic of interest, the privileging of youth in studies of music has actually become an obstacle to a more fully developed understanding of music and society.

David Hesmondhalgh

Papers

The Cultural Industries

Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries

Bourdieu, the media and cultural production:

Cultural industries and cultural policy

Subcultures, scenes or tribes?: none of the above