Abstract
In response to the often hyperbolic public and political valorization of cultural industry work in contemporary western economies, there is now an emerging and formidable body of academic critique. Research accounts of ongoing inequality, work intensification and precarious work in the cultural industries have proliferated, particularly in respect to the specific formation of cultural industries policy, development and organization in the UK. David Hesmondhalgh and Sarah Baker’s analysis of creative labour in three media industries in the UK offers one of the latest, but also what will likely become a leading contribution to this burgeoning field.
The power of this text rests largely on the authors’ decision to situate their rich, multi-method empirical research within a detailed and interdisciplinary framework of contested theoretical analyses. In Part One (Chapters 2 and 3) ideas about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ creative labour are very usefully synthesized from diverse analytic approaches (Marxism and post-structuralism) and disciplines including political economy, organizational, business and management studies and cultural studies. In these theoretical chapters the authors argue that there is a need to go beyond the tendency of many critical analysts (particularly those engaged in post-structural analysis of governmentality and discipline) to theorize out the possibility of ‘good’ work in the cultural industries. Rather, Hesmondhalgh and Baker seek to clarify the dimensions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ work in the cultural industries so that better forms of creative labour might be promulgated. By situating their analysis at the intersection of disciplinary boundaries, the authors create fertile space to achieve this objective in which industry norms, organizations and unions are re-centred as key contributors shaping cultural worker experience.
Part Two of the book incorporates six chapters that weave together empirical material drawn from three media industries: television, music and magazine publishing. The authors map both specific and common experiences of work across these creative sectors in regard to ‘good’ and ‘bad’ work. Important dimensions of ‘good’ work explored in the data include: the availability of decent pay; reasonable hours; autonomy (professional and creative); sociality; self-esteem; self-realization; work-life balance; and the opportunity to produce high quality and meaningful creative products. In contrast, dimensions of ‘bad’ work experienced by some of their cultural workers include: low pay; long hours; emotional labour; self-doubt; over-identification with work; insecurity; and fragile careers.
Hesmondhalgh and Baker’s attention to the specific formations of creative labour within and across creative sectors offers a significant contribution to the field of cultural industries research. Their analysis highlights the crucial influence of varied industry employment patterns (involving networks, freelancers, contractors, fixed-term and permanent employees) on the experiences of workers in different creative sectors. Their multi-industry approach also enables a thorough and stimulating consideration of the importance of the creative product in how workers experience their work – different creative sectors offer diverse means for creation of quality product, engagement with the audience and contribution to the common good.
A guiding argument in this text is that creative labour involves paradoxical dimensions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ work which are often experienced within a single cultural industry or occupation, or even by an individual worker within a single moment of their working life (as some of the ambivalent interview excerpts about gaining external recognition demonstrate). This argument contributes to broader debates within the study of employment relations and worker experiences which have recently highlighted that indicators of ‘decent’ or, alternatively, ‘precarious’ work do not always shift in consistent and predictable ways (e.g. Green et al., 2009). Indicators that suggest increasing quality of work in today’s workplaces (e.g. availability of meaningful, engaging and varied work) often correlate with indicators of reducing work quality (work intensification, increasing insecurity, uncertainty and risk). In this light, Hesmondhalgh and Baker’s analysis holds implications for theories of contemporary work broadly, highlighting the need for nuanced analyses which are able to portray the ambivalence and tensions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ work which we all negotiate in our daily working lives.
In summary, this text provides a detailed, insightful and stimulating analysis of experiences of creative labour in the cultural industries. As a recent addition to the CRESC ‘Culture, Economy and the Social’ series at Routledge, it is likely to gain a wide readership and become a key text for students and researchers interested in theorizing and progressing ‘good’ work in the cultural industries and beyond.