Advertisement

Controlling Labor in Makeathons: On the Recuperation of Emancipation in Industrial Labor Processes

  • Klara-Aylin WentenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This paper discusses the recuperation of emancipatory principles of the maker culture in the context of labor organization. By examining an event for prototyping (the ‘makeathon’), the paper illustrates how emancipatory demands were co-opted in capitalist innovation processes. Makeathons represent the recuperation of emancipation as they provide testing fields for organizing innovation labor differently. They are connected to the maker culture that calls for autonomous physical labor, collaborative communities and personal authority over technological knowledge. Yet, industrial companies have started to adopt such events for changing current innovation processes. The paper argues that the recuperation is mediated by the introduction of organizational control, collective control and self-control. The makeathon can be interpreted as an instance for the manufacturing of consent that might entail new and often conflicting work requirements.

References

  1. Banks, M. (2010). Craft Labor and Creative Industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 305–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630903055885.
  2. Bauwens, M., & Vasilis, K. (2014). From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism. TripleC, 12(1), 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-Based Peer Production and Virtue. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, J., & Strange, N. (Eds.). (2015). Media Independence: Working with Freedom or Working for Free? New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Böhmer, A., Beckmann, A., & Lindemann, U. (2015, December). Open Innovation Ecosystem: Makerspaces Within an Agile Innovation Process. Paper Presented at the ISPIM Innovation Summit, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2007). The New Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (25th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  8. Briken, K., Chillas, S., & Krzywdzinski, M. (2017). The New Digital Workplace: How New Technologies Revolutionise Work. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL: University Press of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Burawoy, M. (1985). The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes Under Capitalism and Socialism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. G. (2005). Relationships Between Open Source Software Companies and Communities: Observations from Nordic Firms. Research Policy, 34(4), 481–493.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delfanti, A. (2014). Is Do-It-Yourself Biology Being Co-opted by Institutions? UC Davis Previously Published Works. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nz3p0hf.
  13. Dickel, S., Schneider, C., Thiem, C., & Wenten, K.-A. (2019). Engineering Publics: The Different Modes of Civic Technoscience. Science and Technology Studies, 32(2), 8–23.Google Scholar
  14. Dickel, S., & Schrape, J.-F. (2015). Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung, Emanzipation: Zur Architektur des digitalen Technikutopismus. Leviathan, 43(3), 442–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (Eds.). (2018). Kollektivität und Macht im Internet: Soziale Bewegungen - Open Source Communities - Internetkonzerne. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  16. Dougherty, D. (Author) (2011, January). We Are Makers [Television Broadcast]. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/dale_dougherty_we_are_makers.
  17. Dougherty, D. (2012). The Maker Movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14.  https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135.
  18. Drewlani, T., & Seibt, D. (2018). Configuring the Independent Developer. Journal of Peer Production, Issue 12: Makerspaces and Institutions (12). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-12-makerspaces-and-institutions/peer-reviewed-papers/configuring-the-independent-developer/.
  19. Frayssé, O., & O’Neil, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital Labor and Prosumer Capitalism: The US Matrix. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital Labor and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making Is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity from DIY and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Harhoff, D., & Lakhani, K. R. (2016). Revolutionizing Innovation: Users, Communities, and Open Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatch, M. (2014). The Maker Movement Manifesto: Rules for Innovation in the New World of Crafters, Hackers, and Tinkerers. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  24. Hippel, E. V. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/DemocInn.pdf.
  25. Hostettler, R., & Böhmer, A. (2018). Experience TAF. Retrieved from https://taf.expert/experience/.
  26. Huws, U. (2010). Schöpfung und Enteignung: Die Dialektik von Autonomie und Kontrolle in der kreativen Arbeit. Standpunkte, 38(38), 1–6.Google Scholar
  27. Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  28. Irani, L. (2015). Hackathons and the Making of Entrepreneurial Citizenship. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(5), 799–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalff, Y. (2018). Organisierendes Arbeiten. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  30. Kröger, M. (2018, February 15). Mobileye, Nvidia und Co. Diese Start-ups erfinden die Zukunft des Autos. Spiegel Online. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/autoindustrie-so-treiben-start-ups-daimler-bmw-und-co-vor-sich-her-a-1193319.html.
  31. Lee, D. (2013). Creative Labor in the Cultural Industries. Sociopedia.Isa, 1–13.Google Scholar
  32. Lindtner, S., & Avle, S. (2017). Tinkering with Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3134705.
  33. Lindtner, S., Hertz, G. D., & Dourish, P. (2014). Emerging Sites of HCI Innovation: Hackerspaces, Hardware Startups & Incubators. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 439–448). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
  35. Maxigas. (2017). Hackers Against Technology: Critique and Recuperation in Technological Cycles. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 841–860.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717736387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (11., aktual. u. überarb. Aufl). Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  37. Menichinelli, M., Bianchini, M., Carosi, A., & Maffei, S. (2017). Makers as a New Work Condition Between Self-Employment and Community Peer-Production: Insights from a Survey on Makers in Italy. Journal of Peer Production (10). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-10-peer-production-and-work/peer-reviewed-papers/makers-as-a-new-work-condition-between-self-employment-and-community-peer-production-insights-from-a-survey-on-makers-in-italy/.
  38. Mota, C. (2011). The Rise of Personal Fabrication. In C&C ‘11 Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. P2P Foundation. (2012). Synthetic Overview of the Collaborative Economy. Amsterdam: P2P Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Pfeiffer, S., Schütt, P., & Wühr, D. (Eds.). (2012). Smarte Innovation: Ergebnisse und neue Ansätze im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  41. Richardson, M. (2016). Pre-hacked: Open Design and the Democratisation of Product Development. New Media & Society, 18(4), 653–666.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, A., Hielscher, S., Dickel, S., Söderberg, J., & van Oost, E. (2013). Grassroots Digital Fabrication and Makerspaces: Reconfiguring, Relocating and Recalibrating Innovation? (SPRU Working Paper Series; No. 2013–02). Brighton: SPRU, Science and Technology Policy Research.Google Scholar
  43. Söderberg, J., & Delfanti, A. (2015a). Hacking Hacked!: The Life Cycles of Digital Innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(5), 793–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Söderberg, J., & Delfanti, A. (2015b). Repurposing the Hacker: Three Temporalities of Recuperation. UC Davis Previsouly Published Works, 1–22. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9c86493g.
  45. Stangler, D., & Maxwell, K. (2012). DIY Producer Society. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00134.
  46. Troxler, P., & Maxigas. (2014). We Now Have the Means of Production, But Where Is My Revolution? Journal of Peer Production (5). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/editorial-section/editorial-note-we-now-have-the-means-of-production-but-where-is-my-revolution/.
  47. Turner, F. (2006). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wark, M. (2004). A Hacker Manifesto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open Innovation: The Next Decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zukin, S., & Papadantonakis, M. (2017). Hackathons as Co-optation Ritual: Socializing Workers and Institutionalizing Innovation in the “New” Economy. In A. Kalleberg & S. Vallas (Eds.), Precarious Work: Research in the Sociology of Work (31st ed., pp. 157–181). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Munich Center for Technology in SocietyTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations