Underperformative economies: Discrimination and gendered ideas of workplace culture in San Francisco’s digital media sector

Abstract

Drawing on recent research in feminist and cultural economic geography, as well as queer and affect theory, in this paper I examine the construction of ideas of workplace culture in the context of digital media work in San Francisco. I argue that in this context, workplace culture is produced as an idea that functions to describe certain individuals and behaviors as in or out of alignment with the firm’s established and gendered norms. I frame these observations around a discussion of affect and emotion in the workplace through a critical examination of interviews with workers in this setting. Drawing on Ngai’s framing of confidence as the tone of capitalism, and Berlant’s notion of underperformativity, I emphasize the gendered and affective dimensions of accumulation in the digital media sector, and how ideas of culture are discursively and materially constructed rather than natural or existing prior to their circumstances of production. In a practical sense, reproductions of a culture–economy dualism implicate gendered and other forms of discrimination in the workplace in terms of hiring practices, uneven distributions of (often emotional and unremunerated) work, and how difference in the workplace is valued or undermined.

Keywords

Affect digital media economy emotional labor workplace culture

Introduction

In the summer of 2013, I interviewed Rachel,¹ who worked as the chief operations officer of a small on-demand (see Cockayne, 2016a), or sharing economy firm, then located in the SOMA district of San Francisco. Rachel had left her position at Cisco, where she told me she was well paid, had numerous employee benefits, was treated well and had the option of working from home. In her new role she was one of five employees, and she described how she was responsible for almost everything, including

“negotiate[ing] with the insurance firm […]; overseeing customer service operations; all the email, chat, text; working to set up what those policies are […]; doing the analytics on profitability and price modelling; setting up the analytics dashboard; discussing strategy with the CEO and partnerships; and the budget…

Later in the interview, she noted that she was also responsible for recruitment and hiring, as well as for developing the firm’s policy around those practices. Rachel had left her role at Cisco because she was bored, wanted independence, and wanted more control over her work. Though she was aware that at a smaller and earlier stage firm she would be poorly remunerated, have longer hours, and work under potentially stressful and precarious circumstances she admitted too that she “wasn’t expecting the level of strain that coming up to the city puts on me.”

Despite this circumstance of overwork, and like many of my other interviewees, Rachel’s apparent and outward emotional disposition—how she presented herself to me during our interview—was mainly one of enthusiasm. Though my research pertained to the affective consequences of the culture of failure endemic in San Francisco’s digital media sector,² research subjects in the main found failure difficult to talk about outside of the register of optimism for future work (Cockayne, 2016b). The following year I interviewed Rachel again. This time, I felt that Rachel was a little more open about her discontent at work and with her CEO. Yet, in one moment of the interview I failed to notice Rachel’s sardonic tone that should have indicated to me her frustration. “[The CEO] does fundraising and goes to press events and occasionally sprinkles ideas across the table,” she said, “I’m doing all the…” She managed to stop herself before directly implicating her boss as lazy or disrespectful of her time, then continued,

I feel like I’m doing the majority of the work and then occasionally he’ll come in and share his insight or have an opinion on how we should do something and it’s like, I’ve been here doing it, so I don’t really want your…³ I don’t need your involvement at this point. It was very pleasant to have him [away from the office], thinking about something else and not disrupting the day-to-day operations. When he moved back […] it took about two months to get him back into like, this is working, you can just, go over there, do fundraising, do press events, be the figurehead.

Rachel modified her statement swiftly from an objective and accusatory tenor that directly indicted her boss’s disrespect for her time (“I’m doing all the…”) to making his actions and her issues with them conditional on her own feelings through the use of the first-person pronoun (“I feel like I’m doing the majority of the…”). Positioning her feelings in this way, Rachel manufactures an excuse for her boss’s conceit by making herself into the possible locus of appropriate blame.

In this paper, I add to research in cultural economic geography on the importance of emotions in the workplace (Ettlinger, 2004) through a discussion of affect as closely related to speculative investment (both pecuniary and emotional)—and the forms of near-celebrity status procured therein (Marwick, 2013)—that supports digital media work in San Francisco. I frame this around a discussion of how different ideas of workplace culture are constructed through the presentation of empirical material from interviews that discuss “cultural fit” in hiring practices and the diagnosis of certain firms and individuals as “cultural problems.” I discuss ideas of culture and economy as produced through affective and gendered bodily orientations that are not necessarily ostentatious or obvious, but often forms a backdrop template of behavior for young men to both initiate and imitate (Gill, 2007; Ho, 2009; McDowell, 2010). Given the widespread and commonplace popular and academic attention to gendered forms of discrimination, hostility, and harassment in digital media workplaces, key questions remain around how male power between men in these spaces is both constructed and maintained (Blumen, 2012; Gray and James, 2007; Massey, 1995; Sedgwick, 1985).

I examine this through an affective reading of how attitudes toward ideas of workplace culture contribute to the sexist reproduction of normative power relations in these settings. I relate this to Ngai’s writing on confidence as the tone of capitalism, which I situate conceptually as part of an ideological explanation for the culture–economy dualism that my interviewees describe. Confident ideas of appropriate workplace culture continue to underwrite transaction and privilege in San Francisco, and are closely linked to emotional and pecuniary (in particular equity-based) investments in terms of the, for example, (usually) white, youthful, masculine performativity of the “pitch” event, that allows the male body to function for male investors as an “an ideo-affective resonator” (Ngai, 2005: 75). This is particularly significant given the common coupling of the characteristics of heavily financialized economic activity and charlatanism (Blackburn, 2009) that apply to those seeking and trading in equity and venture capital, a group that includes firm founders. Complicity in these confident ideas of workplace culture is widespread, but often small-scale, understated, or in Berlant’s (2015) terms, underperformed and reticent, as Rachel’s subtle checking of her own words (that might commonly be framed through discourses of professionalism) demonstrates and to which the examples presented in the rest of the paper also attest.

I frame these observations around a discussion of how ideas of culture (see Mitchell, 1995) are constructed and understood in these working contexts, in which difference is framed as “merely cultural” (Butler, 1997) so as to render certain working practices less valuable than the supposed more serious economic concerns of, for example, pursuing and raising equity capital for one’s firm. I argue that in the digital media sector, ideas of workplace culture function to describe certain individuals and behaviors as in or out of alignment with the firm’s established and gendered norms. In the next section, I examine how academic ideas of culture and economy are constructed through the narration of particular industries, kinds of work, or economic practices as supposedly cultural. I then relate this to the underperformativity of affective investments in particular kinds of capitalist work to conceptualize how these ideas of culture and economy are underwritten. I then highlight the methods used to undertake this study, and the relation between underperformed confidence in working norms and the discourse analysis of ideas of workplace culture as interviewees described them. Following this discussion of methods, I examine how interviewees reified and resisted dominant ideas of culture through discussions of cultural fit in hiring practices and firms and individuals diagnosed as having cultural problems.

Ideas of culture and economy

Culture, the “merely cultural” economy, and digital media work

In her 1997 paper “Merely cultural,” Butler examines two major claims of scholarship at the time. The first claim is an objection made by Marxists to the perceived reduction of Marxism to a form of cultural studies; the second claim is the dismissal by Marxists of social movements and activist politics as concerns that are “merely cultural,” against the supposed more serious economic interests of class-based collective action. Butler examines how culture and economy are consistently constructed therein as separate spheres and how economy is rendered more important and more material than the “merely” cultural sphere. Butler reflects on how the intellectual hubris that subordinates culture to economy in these claims results in the marginalization of sexism and homophobia as legitimate concerns. In response she argues that ideas of culture and economy are materially and discursively produced, and that these products are not neutral but serve a political function.

I contend that Butler’s observations apply more broadly than to debates within contemporary Marxism alone. For example, Mitchell (1995) argues that geographers often (and perhaps inadvertently) ontologize culture and economy as separate and distinct objects of study that can then be discretely examined (see also Barnett, 1998; Castree, 2003). He argues instead that culture and economy are ideas that have particular discursive and material effects, and that unduly ontologizing these categories hides the power relations that might be reproduced, resisted, or reified through their use. I apply this critique in the rest of this subsection to discuss how ideas of culture are mobilized in descriptions of economic transition. I develop this further in the sections before the conclusion to discuss how ideas of workplace culture are reproduced in the context of digital media work in San Francisco.

In describing economic transition, academic writers often describe certain kinds of work and economic activity as cultural, but typically without examining how particular ideas of culture and economy are (re)produced in that description (Ettlinger, 2010). For example, in the case of the cultural industries discourse—inherited from Horkeimer and Adorno (2002)—culture is used to designate the production of supposed cultural commodities, such as movies, advertisements, radio programs (Banks and Deuze, 2009; Grabher, 2002; Hesmondalgh and Baker, 2008) and—pertinent for this study—digital media products such as websites and mobile applications (Girard and Stark, 2003; Ross, 2003). For Hesmondalgh (2013: 16), the cultural industries are associated with “the production of social meaning,” in which “the primary aim […] is to communicate to an audience, to create texts.” This idea of culture, in focusing on commodities that circulate as texts, elides the cultural lives of commodities that are less obviously textual but no less socially meaningful or affectively charged—an obvious example being automobiles. Enforcing these separations through this strictly outlined idea of culture forecloses the possibility of analysis that might usefully connect up the cultural with the presumed non-cultural (Pratt, 1997). A cultural industries framework may occlude the relation between Apple and Foxconn in a global production network situated between, yet dependent upon, for example, the supposed uncultural work of tin extraction in Indonesia and the cultural work of digital media development in California (Chan et al, 2013). This idea of culture in the cultural industries discourse is one that therefore ignores the appropriative, violent, and racialized processes that characterize the production of consumer electronics.

The cultural industries have to some extent been assimilated into a host of other terms that include cultural economy,⁴ creative economy, new economy, and knowledge economy (Florida, 2002; Neilson and Coté, 2014). Here, culture refers to a kind of work in tertiary and quaternary sectors that may include “high levels of human capital in regard to functions such as analytical thinking, judgement and decision-making, fluency of ideas, social perceptiveness, capacities for interaction with others, and imaginative” (Scott, 2010: 115), often including emotional and affective labor (Hardt and Negri, 2000), and that is often used to characterize a shift from Fordist to post-Fordist kinds of work (see Gibson and Kong, 2005). Here, culture is used as a description of work that depends upon characteristics such as cooperation and emotional and embodied interaction. In using culture to describe a particular kind of work—as is often done to describe digital media work—attention is directed away from how those characteristics are also present in other kinds of work. There is an implicit assumption that primary and secondary economic sectors are somehow less cultural, inter-personal, or knowledge-based than tertiary and quaternary sectors. As Pini et al.’s (2010) analysis has identified in terms of mining communities, ideas of culture and economy that are gendered, embodied, and dependent on emotional labor are also dynamically constructed in the non-cultural economy, and not just in tertiary and quaternary sector roles (see also Beer, 2018; Smith 2015). Cultural and creative economy narratives not only exclude certain groups in their designation of culture and creativity, but also ignore how the material and discursive construction of these categories is a process that is itself already exclusionary (Batnitzky and McDowell, 2011).

Although important in their attempt to designate real differences in working practices, these ideas of culture too quickly reproduce the notion that certain kinds of commodities, working practices, or periods of economic history are straightforwardly cultural and that others are not, occluding more than they reveal through a too abrupt and general narration of economic transition and categorization (Gill and Pratt, 2008; McDowell and Christopherson, 2009). As others have noted, the economy is always and already embedded within social and cultural systems (Granovetter, 1985; Peck, 2013; Polanyi, 1957), and thus the critical task becomes one of examining how different ideas of culture and economy are dynamically deployed as relations of power across these different systems (Mitchell, 1995). The ideas of culture produced in the cultural industries and cultural economies discourses are ones in which “cultural” remains an unmarked and unexamined category, a neutral adjective that merely describes an attribute of the noun-subject “economy,” yet one that somehow also functions objectively to delineate a distinct form of new work. If in Crang’s (1997: 4) critical assessment of how ideas of culture may be reified through cultural economy discourses, “culture is seen as materialized in the economic,” the implication is both that culture was not material before, and that it is dependent upon (and therefore subordinate to) the economy in order to render it material. While perhaps attempting to elevate culture as a category worthy of investigation in line with Butler’s challenge above, these distinctions reproduce an idea of culture in which primary and secondary sectors are less cultural, and in which the economic remains the foundational category. As Ettlinger (2009) notes through a discussion of the emotion–rationality dualism, the resulting (re)orientation of economy and culture organizes each term as once again separate, with the latter subordinate to the former.

Against those who strive to retain the concept of culture (Duncan and Duncan, 2004) I suggest that, in the context of work, we must examine how particular ideas of culture and economy are materially and discursively produced (Barnett 2001; Mitchell, 1998; Schoenberger, 1997). In this conceptualization, culture does not refer - it is not something with a capacity to act—instead is that which is referred to. Ideas of culture are produced and reified through their enactment, reproduction, and performance. This poststructuralist account of culture situates the deed before the doer, questions the temporality of the subject with respect to their acts, and pushes the idea of culture from a quasi-transcendental to an immanent register (Butler, 1990). By viewing culture as produced rather than pre-existent, we can see how ideas of culture function to examine the power relations therein. In the next subsection, I develop this line of thought alongside queer and affect theory to give an account of how this kind of production functions—through emotional investments in particular ideas of culture.

Confidence and underperformativity

The task here then is to articulate how different ideas of culture and economy are produced, circulate, and function in a given working setting. The point is not to find a more authentic definition of culture, but to examine what kinds of ideas about economy and culture are reproduced and reified. I theorize this through Ngai’s concept of confidence as the tone of capitalism and Berlant’s concept of underperformativity. These concepts both suggest that part of the work of producing ideas of culture and economy is conferred through the emotional labors and investments in these terms that are characterized by our unfeeling of them. In this section, I situate the ideological resonance of normative and gendered ideas of culture as an underperformed confidence in particular kinds of work around which both emotional and financial investments are made. The culture–economy dualism and—as I discuss below—interviewees’ accounts of it are one expression of this reification.

To emphasize that accumulation is accompanied by particular sets of bodily dispositions, behaviors, and affects that are not incidental to the mode of production, but that form some of its defining and constitutive components, Ngai (2005: 71) has described confidence as “the seemingly neutral tone of capitalism itself.” She describes the subtlety of confidence as the “feeling that cannot be felt and whose power to lubricate nonaffective exchanges rests precisely on its resistance to being psychically registered” (p. 76). Confidence in productive and financial systems is confirmed not by a psychic or somatic feeling, but by an unfeeling relation to them. Confidence describes a structure of unfeeling in which the absence of felt resonance consummates the “natural” qualities of markets, exchange, and flows of trust in these systems. Building on characterizations of market relations in terms of performativity (Christophers, 2014), I suggest that Ngai’s reading relates closely to Berlant’s (2015) concept of underperformativity, which she uses to point to the unreadability of overdetermined affect. Inscrutable or reticent affect cannot be equated with an absence of feeling toward – for example – a job or a system of accumulation. This underperformance of overdetermined affect may in fact confirm rather than deny the consistency of such attachments, precisely through our inability to acknowledge them.

Sociologists like Hochschild (1983) write about the relationship between emotion and service sector work in which emotions cannot be faked since surplus value must be procured through the manufacture of authentic feeling. For Hochschild, it is not feeling itself, but the conferral of its authenticity that connotes a successful working performance. That authenticity is actually a contrived production of emotional labor must be hidden or underperformed in order to mask the production of authenticity itself, so as to retain confidence in authenticity as something unfelt. Ahmed (2004: 12, original emphasis) notes that “attention to emotions allows us to address the question of how subjects become invested in particular structures.” The right working feeling, or unfeeling, is the set of subtle conferrals that we are appropriately invested in or oriented toward those right working objects, subjectivities, and structures. Emotion and feeling are “not ‘in’ either the individual or the social, but produce the very surfaces and boundaries that allow the individual and the social to be delineated as if they are objects” (Ahmed, 2004: 10). Emotional orientations and disorientations in this context contribute to a repetition of some of the dominant dualisms—culture and economy, home and work, emotion and rationality (Ettlinger, 2009; Massey, 1995)—that structure working life. In consonance with Ngai’s points above, the successful work product is not the right feeling, but the confirmation that the right feeling is a real one through our inability to detect that the feeling is manufactured in the first place. A successful manufacture of authentic feeling is precisely unfelt and underperformed.

Capitalism in this way offers a feeling of supposed community that is often more alluring than democratic society, familial kinship, or alternative relations of belonging, and that resonates ambivalently with subjects that seek reciprocity from somewhere, especially given the increasing absence of economic, social, and emotional forms of support from the state (Berlant, 2011; Joseph, 2002; Povinelli, 2011). From these points of view, more than demonstrating that the economy is an emotional system toward which we are materially and psychically attached (which it certainly is), the task is to show how this subjective system of attachment is covered over by the framing of those feelings as authentic, objective, and invisible, that is, by also attempting to account for how psychic attachments are unfelt or unreadable in terms of feeling, and thus how these systems are reified as natural expressions of the normal way of working and living. I suggest that an affective reading of the economic can be situated ambivalently in this middle ground between feeing and unfeeling, characterized as an underperformativity in which attachments that we do not necessarily feel confirm rather than deny our confidence in capitalist efficacy, and contributes to its reproduction. Though often unfelt, this underperformativity nevertheless has real discursive and material effects, that in this paper I conceptualize primarily in terms of the gendered and discriminatory ideas of culture that include cultural fit in hiring practices and the diagnoses of certain firms as having cultural problems.

In the analysis that follows I situate the particularly gendered ideas of the culture–economy dualism as the application of this conceptual framework—as what is confidently unfelt and underperformed in the workplace. Interviewees responded to these ideas of culture in different ways. Yet, the success of capitalism’s unfelt naturalness as outlined in this section was counfounded by interviewees in two ways that relate to the complexity of the relationality between feeling and the subject. First, not all interviewees demonstrated an unfeeling relation to the confident reiteration of established ideas of culture, or to working norms and practices more broadly. As Ngai (2005) notes in the quote above, capitalism’s confident tone resists psychic registration, but does not block it wholesale. Thus, the unfelt and underperformative character of these ideas of culture were never certain in all cases, and for many, discriminatory ideas of culture were very keenly and directly felt. For example, some interviewees questioned and rejected these confident ideas of culture and economy, while others self-consciously celebrated them. Second, the subject’s psychic and affective representations of these confident and only-sometimes-unfelt ideas of culture are complex and ambivalent since “affective qualities are revealed or ‘read’ by our own feelings (sentiments) but are not identical to them” (Ngai, 2005: 47). As I discuss next, this presents something as a methodological problem given the lack of relational clarity around the researcher’s reading of a subject’s felt, expressed, and discussed representation of a given affective structure.

Methodology, or, the problematic unreadability of affect

The findings and analysis presented here are the result of two years of fieldwork with workers in San Francisco’s digital media sector. I undertook 50 interviews in this setting and conducted participant observation at over one hundred conferencing and networking events. Interviewees were recruited through attendance at these events as well as through respondent-driven sampling (Gile and Hancock, 2010). To be included in the study the interviewees had to work for or have founded a firm developing a digital media product that was seeking, would soon be seeking, or had sought equity-based financing (i.e., through venture capital or other funds) rather than or in addition to debt-based financing (i.e., through bank loans). My empirical focus in this research was on the relationship between entrepreneurship, digital media work, and equity finance. I did not conceptualize this project as one specifically interested in so-called cultural workers. In many ways therefore, the implications of this research could also pertain to other kinds of startup firms, especially firms seeking equity finance, though I do not claim to make such a generalization here. Despite this, and particularly because of the tropes of cultural work that exceed academic discussion, one primary assumption that I held going into this research was that digital media workers would hold, vie with, reify, and resist particular ideas of a culture–economy dualism as conceptualized in the preceding section.

The epistemological approach through which I undertook interviews and participant observation was developed with a close attention to feminist methods, practices, and perspectives, in geography and beyond. I conceptualized the interview as an inter-subjective event co-constructed between myself and by the interviewee, as well as by the socio-spatial dynamics of the place in which the interview was undertaken (Sin, 2003). I paid close attention not just to what was said, but to how it was said, to gesture and expression, and, where possible, to what seemed difficult to articulate and to what went unspoken altogether. The discourse analysis that I present in the next section was not undertaken from the point of view of my certainty of the readability of a given scene, but was approached through a perspective of situated knowledge production that Haraway (1991: 195) has called a “politics of interpretation” that is always “translation, stuttering, and partly understood.” For Haraway, a situated approach to research is one that is not final or totalizing and carries with it uncertainty and ambiguity but that still attempts to engage in an interpretation of data.

Complimenting Haraway’s discussion of situated knowledge, Rose (1997) has critiqued epistemological frameworks that engage in what she calls “transparent reflexivity” in which the researcher attempts to create a total account of their own positionality by self-consciously acknowledging themselves in a way that reasserts a kind of objectivity through a performance of subjectivity. Rose points out the fallacy in this position by expounding on what she calls a failure in her own research—an instance in which an interviewee made a comment that she was confounded by and unable to adequately read. Rose relates this failure not only to the unreadability of research subjects, but also to the researcher’s inability to read themselves. I too began this paper with an example of my own failure to read Rachel’s feelings about her circumstances at work. This led to her pointed expression of her discomfort and frustration with her boss. In this example, my inability to adequately read Rachel’s affect (and what I read as her annoyance at me for failing to read her subtle hints of frustration) was perhaps productive and revealing. More than a methodological constraint, failure and unreadability can be considered a negotiated problematic that should not (and indeed cannot) be resolved, but from which certain kinds of analysis and examination can still persist.

In a practical sense, this failure highlights the methodological and epistemological difficulty related to asserting the unreadability and overdetermination of affect, and the complexity of the relationships between feeling, language, expression, and meaning. As Berlant (2015: 199) puts it, how might we “resist the methodological impulse to overread the body that is unforthcoming, while maintain[ing] attention to multiple forces expressed through that body”? Yet not all bodies in the interview scene were unforthcoming. Though some interviewees would present themselves as at first enthusiastic about their work, they would later contradict that appearance, both verbally and in disposition. Though attesting to apparent ambiguities of feeling where necessarily, I also attempt to draw out observations, however provisional and hesitant they might be, under the conviction that some conclusions can be drawn from discourse analysis. As Domosh (2014: 247) notes, “unanalyzed discourse serves to reinforce difference instead of laying bare the contingent social relations that constituted it in the first place.” I attempt to evade the deadlock tenet that an ambiguity or an absence of total conviction amounts to an absence of findings, while also suggesting that we not refrain from analysis for fear of failing to apprehend a given scene that might inadvertently excuse the discriminatory treatment of particular workers of which I seek to give an account.

In the next section, I explore how research subjects deployed ideas of culture. First, I discuss interviewees’ descriptions of firm culture and cultural fit. Second, I examine descriptions of “cultural problems” in the office, which refer to individuals and behaviors that did not fit with the established culture and were therefore marginalized. The ideas of culture deployed across these two broad themes were various and sometimes contradictory. Alongside the feminist epistemology discussed in this section, I highlight real findings that can be drawn from these accounts—for example, the relationship between gendered discrimination and ideas of workplace culture in this setting—while not downplaying the genuine ambiguity that characterized the ideas of culture that research subjects related to me.

Workplace culture

Firm culture, hiring practices, and “cultural fit”

In a fairly common outlining of how culture is understood in the sense of a firm’s culture, one interview subject, Adrian, noted that, “the combination or sum of those people [at your company] is essentially your culture, […] things that you can do as the leaders and managers to establish that, in terms of some norms and things that you might do to influence that.” In this rendition, culture was a paradoxically democratic and hierarchical logic, both immanent to the dispositions of the set of already-hired individuals, but also directed and guided by managers.

Another interviewee, Louise, emphasized that culture referred to the “silent agreements” that percolated into a firm or working milieu that intersected with national and local culture and shared languages and norms, leading her to ask, “what are the silent agreements of our [working] culture?” And, “how do we create this kind of implicit rules inside of the company?” In asking these questions, Louise emphasized how much goes unsaid in the workplace, how work actually undertaken may exceed tasks outlined in job descriptions (if they’re even formally outlined to begin with), and how certain expectations and conventions are tacit. I conceptualize these silent agreements as an underperformative confidence in a firm’s existing working system, since they are often, in Louise’s framing, unspoken aspects of working practice. Like Dyer et al.’s (2008) discussion of hidden work, Louise’s silent agreements implied circumstances in which work was not formally recorded and functioned to further rationalize some kinds of work as necessarily hidden, uncountable, or unpayable.

When discussing hiring practices, interviewees talked about cultural fit as a way to assess if someone was right for a firm’s culture, often irrespective of their formal qualifications (Rivera, 2012). Cultural fit was framed alongside concerns around when in a firm’s development certain kinds of hiring could take place. For example, Adrian said that cultural fit was about “bringing in the right kind of people,” but also that in the context of his own relatively early stage firm that it was “too early to worry about diversity.” By explicitly divesting diversity from definitions of cultural fit Adrian implied an association between the “right kind of people” and those that replicated the characteristics of existing founders, investors, and other early-stage employees. By stating that diversity and hiring the right kind of people were incompatible, and as I discuss further in the next section, cultural fit functioned as a silent agreement, an underperformed aspect of this idea of culture, to replicate sameness over difference and become a euphemism or excuse for hiring predominantly white male workers.

The silent agreements of cultural fit also coincided with an expectation that those who would best fit with the culture of a firm were those willing to work more or harder, or to perform tasks outside of their job description. Adrian stated,

there’s a guy been here every morning at like 5:30, 6am, and he would take care of any dishes that were left out, you know, he would help out with IT stuff, […] it wasn’t his job you know, but all this extra stuff, we were having a BBQ, and he would have a chef mock-up on, and would be flipping burgers, […] he would always volunteer, that kind of person. You know, who really cared more, it wasn’t just a job that you show up to every day, you know it was, about providing a really great experience for people around you.

In this case, the “right kind of person” was someone who would volunteer, who “really cared,” and who undertook office tasks like cleaning and cooking that remain stereotypically woman-gendered, domestic, and unpaid forms of work (McDowell, 2015). Reified here are a set of circumstances that “construct care as symbolically outside the economic” (Dyer et al., 2008: 2031). Here, the underperformed assumptions in the office were based on normative understandings of gendered work and how certain kinds of tasks are (under)valued. Assessing cultural fit was predicated on an employee’s willingness to enthusiastically undertake additional roles beyond their formal job at a firm. For Adrian, someone who was a cultural fit was someone who would work more for less.

Discussing how his firm assessed cultural fit, Craig said, “whenever we interviewed somebody, the final step of the interview was a five- to ten-minute presentation in front of the entire company by the interviewee, on something they were passionate about.” He continued, “that was just a way of ensuring, oh ‘is this guy [sic] gonna add to this culture, is he going to fit in?’ Yes, he has the technical skills, but does he have the cultural ones?” When I pressed Craig on what precisely he meant by cultural skills, he sought to clarify,

I don’t think anyone should discriminate based off of how buddy buddy they could be with someone after work. […] The number one priority was can this person help the company excel, and are they, hopefully they’re not combative, if they can communicate well and they’re good at their gig, that was all that mattered.

By shifting emphasis Craig introduced ambiguity in this idea of culture. He first described evidence of a candidate’s cultural fit through exclusively male-gendered pronouns in the context of appropriately passionate presentations of the self. He then avoided discussing how a performance in front of the whole firm might exclude those who were unable to produce those passionate performances—those who might disturb the unfelt confidence in the system—which as Vijaya et al. (2015) note may be a way to reproduce a firm’s maleness and whiteness. Craig then assured me that this was less a question of personal compatibility than of aligning the prospective hire’s disposition with that of the firm’s to ensure that employees are compliant and “not combative.” Finally, Craig claimed that communication and qualifications were all that really mattered, leaving the definition of cultural fit and the purposes of the firm-wide presentation ambiguous. By the end of Craig’s description, there is no clear sense of what idea of culture was being conveyed, perhaps pointing to the absence of a clear concept of culture beneath the practical performance of hiring practices. Though ambiguous with regards to an idea of culture, Craig does outline a situation in which the hiring practices at his firm were an attempt to reproduce the confident agreement in the given system around only particular and masculine working bodies.

This sentiment was repeated by Eric who said that a big part of hiring was a function of, “how dedicated are these people, you know? […] It’s all like Stanford students and kids, they’ll come in, they’re not really dedicated, […], they’re not willing to sacrifice anything, like all of us at this company has.” For Eric, working for his firm didn’t appear first and foremost to be about qualification or skill at all, but was described as a form of self-sacrificial dedication. Discussing his disappointment with many prospective hires, he said, “their hearts’ not in it […] they don’t really want it, because, […] really putting the time, and going through all the shit and putting up with it, almost every one of them washes out, it gets really tough.” Eric made more explicit what went unspoken and perhaps unfelt in earlier accounts of cultural fit, that is, that cultural fit was about finding the kind of person who would exchange their labor time not for a wage, the possibility of career advancement, to provide for their family, or to be able to pay into a health or pension fund, but in order to appeal to a sense of self-sacrificial, passionate, and loving deference to the firm itself, or, in Eric’s framing, for the sake of “their heart.” Rather than a kind of unfelt confidence that Ngai (2005) describes, Eric’s description was far more emphatic, less a reticent underperformativity, and more an explicit and excessive reification of some of the ideas of culture others described. He said, “we want people who really understand the collaboration process and selfless collaboration.” Financially Eric’s allusion was to taking equity over a wage as a form of payment. He said,

I don’t pay any rent, the company takes care of that, and then, I’ll maybe get a check for $1,000 a month, and everything [else] comes out of personal savings or whatever. If I really need some expense or something we can talk about it, but we all try and live as cheap as we can. And obviously, we all have equity, and there’s […] the vesting schedule, it’s the same as everybody else, everybody gets the same deal, there’s four years, one year cliff, obviously different amounts of equity.

In this case, the unacknowledged and inarticulable elitism implicit in previous descriptions of cultural fit was clearer in Eric’s framing—what was to be prioritized in terms of hiring was a male body privileged enough to able to live without a wage or other systems of employer-provided support through the use of personal resources.

Cultural problems

Another of my interviewees, Michael, highlighted the demand for emotional labor at work. He attributed his being asked to leave to his lack of enthusiasm. Commenting on the difficulty he had finding a job in the first place he said, “I didn’t really find anything that I felt I could get excited about, because most startups around here that I’ve talked to, they really want their employees to be excited about the mission of the company and the vision, and they believe in it themselves.” Michael implies that a prerequisite for working in San Francisco digital media startups is a certain enthusiastic disposition toward one’s work. He situated the demand to reproduce the underperformed confidence in particular ways of working as a kind of emotional labor represented through enthusiastic performances of the self, which he framed as more primary than qualifications. I asked Michael why he was laid off from his most recent position. He replied,

no specific reasons were stated; they told me that I was an excellent engineer, but I’m pretty sure it was because I just wasn’t excited about it. […] They were pushing me to lead an engineering team, which I didn’t want to do, because there wasn’t any more money in it, and I didn’t want the extra responsibility and stress.

Michael suggests that his employers were unable to articulate their reason for firing him, but that, in his interpretation, he was fired for refusing to accept additional work and responsibilities without a corresponding rise in pay. The inarticuability of his employers’ reason suggests both an underperformative and unfelt aspect of work that could not be spoken of but that functioned as a disciplinary mechanism in this setting. Michael’s refusal to represent confidence in this existing unspoken system through an enthusiastic manufacture of emotional labor presented a threat to the consistency of that structure of unfeeling.

Another interviewee, Amanda, relayed how her firm had received a diagnosis from their investors as having culture problems. Her firm, attempting to build a social media platform, had encountered difficulties around user-retention and were having trouble monetizing user activity. “I had the sense that it might be a sinking ship,” she said, “a product like [ours], that people didn’t really take very seriously.” These issues resulted in the firm’s investors flying in from Israel in an attempt to remedy the situation so that their investment might not be squandered. Part of their diagnosis was that the firm had a culture problem, related to, Amanda noted, “internal drama […], people were unhappy with the abilities of the CEO as a leader.” The response from the CEO, following recommendations from the investors, was to mandate a compulsory firm-wide retreat the following week to encourage team building and collegiality. “I felt especially frustrated by that retreat because I felt like […] it wasn’t an option, […] I felt like it was a waste of my time,” Amanda said, “when we were there trying to have some productive discussions around mission and stuff, they just didn’t go well.”

More than feeling that the retreat was a waste of her time Amanda said that afterwards she was “pulled aside by my new manager,” who told her, “some people felt like you weren’t really a team player on the retreat.” In this instance, not being a team player was a reference to Amanda’s decision to spend some of her time reading, which appeared to her managers’ as a less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of the retreat. Amanda emphasized how she was specifically singled out. “When other people went to their room […] or needed time to relax, they weren’t considered ‘not a team player.’” Her manager said, “I needed you to be going along with everything.” Yet, as she emphasized to me, “I’m not responsible for making this retreat successful, […] I felt like he was reprimanding me like I was in school, and I felt it was weird, like, ‘am I not doing my job?’ And then he was like, ‘no you are,’ so I was like, ‘well… what’s the problem?’” Her manager, Amanda relayed, was unable to answer her. Here again, the inarticulability of a response to Amanda’s question points to those silent agreements that are successful precisely because they remain unfelt. By refusing to be a “team player”—to display unconditional enthusiasm and to go along with everything—Amanda’s actions were met with confusion. By making felt a problematic around those usually unfelt and confident working performances Amanda become the source of the problem itself (Ahmed, 2010).

Amy emphasized how her nonparticipation in particular kinds of jokes and apparently optional social events at and after work marked her conduct as problematic. “I felt isolated in my own way, I kind of exhibited some kind of isolating behavior. I sat at a different end of the table, when they were having conversations, kind of like their boy talk. […] I get to a point, when I lose respect, it’s very visible and I just have to get out.” Amy noted a “crass humor, like woman jokes, racist jokes,” adding, “I was really honestly kind of surprised, with someone who represents those two groups present [i.e., herself as a woman of color] people felt it was okay to just joke like that.” Amy’s double adverbial and quasi-exclamatory narration of her own surprise (“really honestly”) that racist and sexist jokes would circulate even in her presence at work is testimony to the sanctity of white masculinity in the workplace, and the aestheticization of racial difference, endemic to this and other working contexts (Ahmed, 2012; Joshi et al., 2015). In being isolated and excluded both by and from the shared comfort of discriminatory and racist speech (Berlant, 2008), Amy physically removed herself from the table, and thereby became a target for further isolation by some of her co-workers. Her irritation marked Amy as different from the established idea of culture that normalized discrimination and harassment.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to further discussions and debates in cultural and feminist economic geography that have pointed toward the importance of emotion and feeling in the workplace and within systems of capitalist accumulation (Crang, 1994; Ettinger, 2004). I have also contributed to research that examines how embodiment and masculinity are produced in the workplace (McDowell, 1997; Warren, 2014) to explore how maintaining the divide between culture and economy takes work. I’ve argued that in the context of digital media work, culture is produced as an idea that functions to describe certain individuals and behaviors as in or out of alignment with the firm’s established and gendered norms. I have situated the importance of both feeling and unfeeling as complex, interrelated, and overdetermined with relation to not-exactly-sovereign subjects that are neither objective rational actors nor in complete control of their subjective emotions (Berlant, 2011). Alongside affect theorists, I have situated an ideological explanation for emotional and financial investment in particular working practices conferred through a confident and often unfelt relation to those investments (Ngai, 2005). Yet, though it was clear that many of the underperformative silent agreements and ideas of culture described by research subjects were unfelt and unarticulable—either through being directly unspoken as in the case of Michael’s employers, or being ambiguous in Craig’s prevaricating idea of culture—many were precisely the opposite.

Thinking against capitalocentric approaches in which the accumulation of capital and (un)feeling confers the reproduction of capitalism through an unfelt and therefore uncontestable confidence in the system (Gibson-Graham, 1996), many research subjects were not underperformative in either their confident acceptance or rejection of the ideas of culture and gendered working norms around them. Eric was emphatic in his agreement with the elitist, discriminatory, and exploitative hiring practices that his firm sought to reproduce. Michael, Amanda, and Amy caused problems for their firms by drawing attention to those unfelt and gendered silent agreements, therefore troubling the consistency of the usually underperformed and discriminatory ideas of culture. I suggest that by drawing attention to generally underperformed confidence of working practices and gendered ideas of culture in these settings, these interviewees pointed to the fallibility of the given system, the opportunity for resistance and change, and the fragility of dominant discourses that organize working culture in this setting. As Ettlinger (2010: 53, original emphasis) writes, “normalizing processes usually insure that everyday practices reproduce or elaborate macroscalar norms, although imperfections of the system allow for the possibility, even if relatively infrequent, or alternative trajectories.” Not only in spite of an affective attachment to certain ideas of culture, but in Michael’s case, because of it, there is opportunity for change within this system by making what is often unfelt and underperformed more visible or more felt.

The underperformativity of gendered discrimination with relation to the accumulation of capital in San Francisco’s digital media sector is nothing new. Yet, public attention toward these issues is occasional. Only particularly visible and egregious cases seem to warrant mainstream commentary. Examples include Ellen Pao’s lawsuit against her former employee Kleiner Perkins over discriminatory promotion and working practices, and, more recently, James Damore’s open letter to Google employees on the—in his view—biological superiority of men’s coding abilities. The toxic masculinity that circulates in this working setting and others is both subtler and more pervasive than implied by the waxing and waning of public and media interest toward the perennial - yet largely unfelt, if public opinion is anything to go by - intimacy between sexism and working practices. The little attention that is directed toward these issues, both from within the sector and from the academy, prevaricate around solutions that point to the necessity of women mimicking the sexist working practices of men in order to get ahead (Sandberg, 2013) and the endless studies (and walls of Facebook’s atrium plastered with rainbow flags and other LGBTQ nostalgia) that tell us with relief that in fact diversity is good for business after all, while never asking if business is good for diversity. What these rehearsals fail to consider is the historical and structural complicity between capitalism and patriarchy (Federici, 2004), in which, perhaps, in addition to accumulation, the consolidation of male power among men is a primary goal (Sedgwick, 1985). I’ve outlined one aspect—the gendered role of differently constructed and encountered ideas of culture—of this relationship between power and accumulation by foregrounding its affective and emotional dimensions and framing the consolidation of male power within capitalism as unfelt and underperformed. Without accounting for affect within the realm of accumulation, I contend that it will be difficult to acknowledge how subjects remain problematically attached to working practices—and to capitalism more broadly—as oppressive and discriminatory systems.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jessa Loomis and Nancy Worth for their expert feedback on this paper. I would also like to thank Trevor Barnes and three anonymous reviewers for the careful and considerate attention to this paper. The work is greatly improved thanks to their efforts.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research for this paper was supported by the Department of Geography and the Graduate School at the University of Kentucky, and a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, Geography and Spatial Sciences Program, award number 1536265.

Notes

References

Ahmed

(2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. London: Routledge.

Ahmed

(2010) The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press.

Ahmed

(2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.

Banks

Deuze

(2009) Co-creative labor. International Journal of Cultural Studies 12(5): 419–431.

Barnett

(1998) Cultural twists and turns. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16(6): 631–634.

Barnett

(2001) Culture, geography and the arts of government. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19(1): 7–24.

Batnitzky

McDowell

(2011) Migration, nursing, institutional discrimination and emotional/affective labor: Ethnicity and labor stratification in the UK National Health Service. Social & Cultural Geography 12(2): 185–201.

Beer

(2018) Living the cruel futures of industrial change. Social & Cultural Geography 19(1): 102–119.

Berlant

(2008) The Female Complaint: The Unfinished Business of Sentimentality in American Culture. Durham: Duke University Press.

10.

Berlant

(2011) Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.

11.

Berlant

(2015) Structures of unfeeling: Mysterious skin. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 28(3): 191–213.

12.

Blackburn

(2009) The subprime crisis. The New Left Review 50: 63–106.

13.

Blumen

(2012) Home-work relations and the spatialization of care: Wives on the margins of the Israeli high-tech industry. Gender, Place & Culture 19(1): 102–117.

14.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.

15.

Butler

(1997) Merely cultural. Social Text 52/53: 265–277.

16.

Castree

(2003) Economy and culture are dead! Long live economy and culture! Progress in Human Geography 28(2): 204–226.

17.

Chan

Pun

Selden

(2013) The politics of global production: Apple, Foxconn and China’s New working class. New Technology, Work and Employment 28(2): 100–115.

18.

Christophers

(2014) From Marx to market and back again: Performing the economy. Geoforum 57: 12–20.

19.

Cockayne

(2016a) Sharing and neoliberal discourse: The economic function of sharing in the on-demand economy. Geoforum 77: 73–82.

20.

Cockayne

(2016b) Entrepreneurial affect: Attachment to work practice in San Francisco’s digital media sector. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34(3): 456–473.

21.

Crang

(1994) showtime: On the workplace geographies of display in a restaurant in South East England. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12(6): 675–704.

22.

Crang

(1997) Cultural turns and the (re)constitution of economic geography. In: Lee

Wills

(eds) Geographies of Economies. London: Arnold, pp.3–15.

23.

Domosh

(2014) Concluding commentary on contemporary research strategies in cultural geography. Journal of Cultural Geography 31(2): 245–248.

24.

Duncan

(2004) Culture unbound. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 36(3): 391–403.

25.

Dyer

McDowell

Batnitzky

(2008) Emotional labor/body work: The caring labor of migrants in the UK’s National Health Service. Geoforum 39(6): 2030–2038.

26.

Ettlinger

(2004) Toward a critical theory of untidy geographies: The spatiality of emotions in consumption and production. Feminist Economics 10(3): 21–54.

27.

Ettlinger

(2009) Whose capitalism? Mean discourse and/or actions of the heart. Emotion, Space and Society 2(2): 92–97.

28.

Ettlinger

(2010) Brining the everyday into the culture/creativity discourse. Human Geography 3(1): 49–59.

29.

Federici

(2004) Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn: Autonomedia.

30.

Florida

(2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

31.

Gibson

Kong

(2005) Cultural economy: A critical review. Progress in Human Geography 29(5): 541–561.

32.

Gibson-Graham

(1996) The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of the Political Economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

33.

Gile

Hancock

(2010) Respondent-driven sampling: An assessment of current methodology. Sociological Inquiry 40(1): 285–327.

34.

Gill

(2007) Technobohemians or the new cybertariat? New media work in Amsterdam a decade after the web. Institute of Network Cultures. Available at: www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/17.pd (accessed 20 December 2017).

35.

Gill

Pratt

(2008) In the social factory? Immaterial labor, precariousness, and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society 25(7–8): 1–30.

36.

Girard

Stark

(2003) Heterarchies of value in Manhatten-based new media firms. Theory, Culture & Society 20(3): 77–105.

37.

Grabher

(2002) The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talent and teams. Regional Studies 36(3): 245–262.

38.

Granovetter

(1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.

39.

Gray M and James A (2007) Connecting gender and economic competitiveness: Lessons from Cambridge's high-tech regional economy. Environment and Planning A 39(2): 417–436.

40.

HarawayD (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books

41.

Hardt

Negri

(2000) Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

42.

Hesmondalgh

(2013) The Cultural Industries. London: SAGE.

43.

Hesmondalgh

Baker

(2008) Creative work and emotional labor in the television industry. Theory, Culture & Society 25(7–8): 97–118.

44.

(2009) Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street. Durham: Duke University Press.

45.

Hochschild

(1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

46.

Horkeimer

Adorno

(2002) Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

47.

Joseph

(2002) Against the Romance of Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

48.

Joshi

McCutcheon

Sweet

(2015) Visceral geographies of whiteness and invisible microaggressions. ACME 14(1): 298–323.

49.

Massey

(1984) Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geographies of Production. London: Routledge.

50.

Massey

(1995) Masculinity, dualisms and high technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20(4): 487–499.

51.

Marwick

(2013) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, & Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven: Yale University Press.

52.

McDowell

(1997) Capital Culture: Gender at Work in the City. Oxford: Blackwell.

53.

McDowell

(2010) Capital culture revisited: Sex, testosterone and the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(3): 652–658.

54.

McDowell

(2015) The lives of others: Body work, the production of difference, and labor geographies. Economic Geography 91(1): 1–23.

55.

McDowell

Christopherson

(2009) Transforming work: New kinds of employment and their regulation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economics and Society 2(3): 335–342.

56.

Mitchell

(1995) Such thing as culture: Towards a reconceptualization of the idea of culture in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20(1): 102–116.

57.

Mitchell

(1998) Fixing the economy. Cultural Studies 12(1): 82–101.

58.

Neilson

Coté

(2014) Are we all cultural workers now? Journal of Cultural Economy 7(1): 2–11.

59.

Ngai

(2005) Ugly Feelings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

60.

Peck

(2013) For Polanyian economic geographies. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 45(7): 1545–1568.

61.

Pini

Mayes

McDonald

(2010) The emotional geography of a mine closure: A study of the Ravensthorpe nickel mine in Western Australia. Social & Cultural Geography 11(6): 559–574.

62.

Polanyi

(1957) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.

63.

Povinelli

(2011) Economies of Abandonment. Durham: Duke University Press.

64.

Pratt

(1997) Production values from cultural industries to the governance of culture. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 29(11): 1911–1917.

65.

Rivera

(2012) Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review 77(6): 999–1022.

66.

Rose

(1997) Situating knowledge: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography 21(3): 305–320.

67.

Ross

(2003) No-Collar: The Humane Workplace and Its Hidden Cost. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

68.

Schoenberger

(1997) The Cultural Crisis of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell.

69.

Sedgwick

(1985) Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press.

70.

Scott

(2010) Cultural economy and the creative field of the city. Geografiska Annaler B 92(2): 115–130.

71.

Sin

(2003) Interviewing in ‘place’: The socio-spatial construction of interview data. Area 35(3): 305–312.

72.

Smith

(2015) Another place is possible? Labor geography, spatial dispossession, and gendered resistance in Central Appalachia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105(3): 567–582.

73.

Vijaya

Eshleman

Halley

(2015) The culture of class and its economic impact. The Review of Black Political Economy 42(1): 7–18.

74.

Warren

(2014) Working culture: The agency and employment experiences of nonunionized workers in the surfboard industry. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46(10): 2300–2316.