Toward a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries
Toward a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries
复制标题
媒体行业劳动力的政治经济学
DOI：
10.1002/9781444395402.ch17
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Sarah Baker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Hesmondhalgh;Sarah Baker
382 David Hesmondhalgh和Sarah Baker例外情况讨论如下)。相比之下，受文化研究影响的学者--出于某种原因，传统上被认为是学术文化左翼中政治经济学的主要对手--近年来对劳工问题给予了认真的关注。为了做到这一点，他们借鉴了似乎对政治经济学非常不感兴趣的社会理论的发展，如治理理论(Rose 1999)和作家的作品，如Hardt和Negri(2000)或Boltanski和Chiapello(2005)。本着知识和政治更新的精神，本章考察了政治经济学、文化研究和其他资源，以考虑我们所说的“创造性劳动”。虽然所有的工作，至少是潜在的，都有文化和创造性的方面，我们使用这个术语来指代那些具有特别强的美学、表现力和信息符号制作元素的劳动形式。这包括媒体和文化产业的工作，与政治经济学一致，这是我们在这里关注的核心问题，但也包括艺术工作，通常是在公共补贴部门。1我们提供了两个主要研究和思想的概述，以阐明政治经济学在调查创造性劳动时可能利用的资源。在第一部分中，我们在三个独立但有时重叠的传统中追溯现代工作和工作组织的概念：马克思主义者、管理分析家和社会学家的传统。我们讨论了创造性劳动是如何在这些分析传统中孕育出来的，指出了它日益增长的重要性和中心地位。然后我们转向第二个研究主体，关于文化生产本身。现在有关于这个主题的令人敬畏的文献，从各种规范和理论角度出发，我们介绍其中的一些。然后，我们看看令人惊讶的罕见案例，在这些案例中，此类研究专门研究了创造性劳动。我们表明，文化的政治经济学只是这里的一个可用的视角--一个重要而有用的视角，但并不像一些政治经济学家似乎认为的那样重要。我们的论点是，对创造性劳动的研究需要提供对权力、制度和主体性的理解相结合的分析，但还没有成功做到这一点。为了为这样的分析奠定基础，我们在这里引入一些概念，我们认为这些概念需要在分析现代社会中作为一种特定形式的劳动的创造性劳动时发挥关键作用，并澄清这些劳动是如何被构思的。这些问题包括剥削、异化、自主、创造力和商业之间的矛盾、规范性、代理和道德。
382 David Hesmondhalgh and Sarah Baker exceptions are discussed below). By contrast, scholars influenced by cultural studies–traditionally considered, with some reason, to be the principal adversaries of political economy on the academic cultural Left–have paid serious attention to labor in recent years. To do so, they have drawn on developments in social theory that seem to have been of remarkably little interest to political economy, such as governmentality theory (Rose 1999) and the work of writers such as Hardt and Negri (2000) or Boltanski and Chiapello (2005). In the spirit of intellectual and political renewal, this chapter examines political economy, cultural studies, and other resources to consider what we refer to as “creative labor.” While all work, at least potentially, has cultural and creative aspects, we use this term to refer to those forms of labor with an especially strong element of aesthetic, expressive, and informational symbol making. This covers work in the media and cultural industries, which, in line with political economy, is our central concern here, but also artistic work, often in publicly subsidized sectors. 1 We provide an overview of two main bodies of research and thought in order to illuminate the resources that political economy might draw upon in investigating creative labor. In the first section, we trace modern conceptions of work, and of work organizations, in three separate but sometimes overlapping traditions: those of Marxists, management analysts, and sociologists. We discuss how creative labor has been conceived in these traditions of analysis, pointing to its increasing importance and centrality. We then turn to the second main body of research, on cultural production itself. There is now a formidable literature on this topic, from a variety of normative and theoretical standpoints, and we introduce some of them. We then look at the surprisingly rare cases where such studies have examined creative labor specifically. We show that political economy of culture is just one available perspective here–an important and useful one, but nevertheless not as significant as some political economists would appear to believe. Our argument is that research on creative labor needs to provide analysis that combines understanding of power, institutions, and subjectivity, but has not yet succeeded in doing so. In order to lay the foundations for such analysis, we here introduce a number of concepts that we believe need to play a critical role in analysis of creative labor as a specific form of labor in modern societies and to clarify some of the ways in which these have been conceived. These include exploitation, alienation, autonomy, tensions between creativity and commerce, normativity, agency, and ethics.