Specificity, Ambivalence, and the Commodity Form of Creative Work

Matt Stahl, The University of Western Ontario

Paper presented at the International Communication Association's 63rd Annual Conference, Challenging Communication Research held in London, England

Conference program available at https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/ica/ica13/index.php?click_key=1&cmd=Multi+Search+Search+Load+Publication&publication_id=633358&PHPSESSID=enprqrckj92oc0snn0vdr9s595

Abstract

There are two predominant, contrasting Western conceptions of work: work ‘as the appropriation of workers’ materialized labor via its products’ (rooted in Britain’s political-industrial history), and ‘as the timed appropriation of workers’ labor power and disposition over workers’ labor activity’ (rooted in that of Germany) (Biernacki 1995: 12). The nub? The former treats managerial prerogative as non-controversial, the latter as a problem. Through the examination of an unacknowledged shift between the two evident in Hesmondhalgh and Baker’ Creative Labour (2010), and against the backdrop of sociological and legal accounts of the development of the distinct employment systems associated with them, this paper outlines these conceptions and argues the importance of their explicit engagement in studies of creative work. It argues that awareness of the histories and logics of these conceptions can strengthen the alignment of evidence, analysis, and prescription, and may support increased solidarity in conditions of escalating worker peril.