维多利亚时代的零工经济:亨利·梅休《晨报》信件中的临时工

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08905495.2021.2023344
Kira Braham
{"title":"维多利亚时代的零工经济:亨利·梅休《晨报》信件中的临时工","authors":"Kira Braham","doi":"10.1080/08905495.2021.2023344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The traditional account of the Industrial Revolution goes something like this: beginning in the latter half of the eighteenth century, a relentless wave of concentration, mechanization, and rationalization demolished traditional forms of manufacturing. Decentralized systems of cottage industries and village workshops were replaced by hulking factories and “dark Satanic Mills”. Artisans and journeymen were transformed into the industrial proletariat, densely packed into manufacturing districts and subject to a rigid system of time discipline. The hourly wage – the ultimate symbol of abstracted labor – came to define what it meant to make a living. Worker autonomy and subjectivity were crushed by the deadening uniformity that industrialization brought in its wake. The quintessential image here is Dickens’s Coketown, with its grotesquely homogenized workforce that could no more be divided into individuals than the sea could be separated into its component drops. Scholars of the nineteenth century know that the process of industrialization was significantly more heterogeneous and complex. But the traditional narrative of the Industrial Revolution continues to have broad cultural purchase. The contemporary discourse surrounding the emergence of what has come to be known as the gig economy has made this particularly clear. Popularized in the years after the 2008 financial crisis, the term “gig economy” defines a diverse employment model that relies on contingent workers, freelancers, and independent contractors rather than full-time employees. Proponents of the gig economy argue that the spread of “flexible” employment throughout diverse sectors of the economy signals a cultural rejection of oppressive industrial labor regimes. For example, Silicon Valley CEO David Shadpour has argued that that our society is “evolving beyond the constraints of traditional work models” and “demanding the freedom of flexible work environments” (2018). Likewise, the economist Arun Sundararajan celebrates the replacement of “monolithic, centralized systems” with decentralizing labor platforms like TaskRabbit and Lyft (2016, 4). These platforms reject the “faceless, impersonal” nature of industrial capitalism in favor of economic interactions that are “embedded in a community” and “intertwined... with social relations” (35). According to an Uber press release, the gig economy democratizes economic opportunity by offering “turnkey entrepreneurship” to low-income workers who have historically had access only to waged labor (qtd. in Kessler 58). In this","PeriodicalId":43278,"journal":{"name":"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Victorian gig economy: casualization in Henry Mayhew's Morning Chronicle letters\",\"authors\":\"Kira Braham\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08905495.2021.2023344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The traditional account of the Industrial Revolution goes something like this: beginning in the latter half of the eighteenth century, a relentless wave of concentration, mechanization, and rationalization demolished traditional forms of manufacturing. Decentralized systems of cottage industries and village workshops were replaced by hulking factories and “dark Satanic Mills”. Artisans and journeymen were transformed into the industrial proletariat, densely packed into manufacturing districts and subject to a rigid system of time discipline. The hourly wage – the ultimate symbol of abstracted labor – came to define what it meant to make a living. Worker autonomy and subjectivity were crushed by the deadening uniformity that industrialization brought in its wake. The quintessential image here is Dickens’s Coketown, with its grotesquely homogenized workforce that could no more be divided into individuals than the sea could be separated into its component drops. Scholars of the nineteenth century know that the process of industrialization was significantly more heterogeneous and complex. But the traditional narrative of the Industrial Revolution continues to have broad cultural purchase. The contemporary discourse surrounding the emergence of what has come to be known as the gig economy has made this particularly clear. Popularized in the years after the 2008 financial crisis, the term “gig economy” defines a diverse employment model that relies on contingent workers, freelancers, and independent contractors rather than full-time employees. Proponents of the gig economy argue that the spread of “flexible” employment throughout diverse sectors of the economy signals a cultural rejection of oppressive industrial labor regimes. For example, Silicon Valley CEO David Shadpour has argued that that our society is “evolving beyond the constraints of traditional work models” and “demanding the freedom of flexible work environments” (2018). Likewise, the economist Arun Sundararajan celebrates the replacement of “monolithic, centralized systems” with decentralizing labor platforms like TaskRabbit and Lyft (2016, 4). These platforms reject the “faceless, impersonal” nature of industrial capitalism in favor of economic interactions that are “embedded in a community” and “intertwined... with social relations” (35). According to an Uber press release, the gig economy democratizes economic opportunity by offering “turnkey entrepreneurship” to low-income workers who have historically had access only to waged labor (qtd. in Kessler 58). In this\",\"PeriodicalId\":43278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2021.2023344\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2021.2023344","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对工业革命的传统描述是这样的:从18世纪下半叶开始,一股无情的集中化、机械化和合理化浪潮摧毁了传统的制造业形式。分散的家庭手工业和乡村作坊系统被庞大的工厂和“黑暗的撒旦工厂”所取代。工匠和熟练工变成了工业无产阶级,他们被密集地挤在制造业区,受到严格的时间纪律制度的约束。小时工资——抽象劳动的终极象征——开始定义了谋生的意义。工人的自主性和主体性被工业化带来的僵化的统一性所粉碎。这里最典型的形象是狄更斯笔下的焦炭镇,那里怪诞的同质劳动力无法被分成个体,就像大海无法被分成水滴一样。19世纪的学者们知道,工业化的过程明显更加多样化和复杂。但是,工业革命的传统叙事仍然具有广泛的文化意义。围绕“零工经济”(gig economy)出现的当代讨论,让这一点变得尤为明显。“零工经济”一词在2008年金融危机后流行起来,它定义了一种依赖临时工、自由职业者和独立承包商而不是全职员工的多样化就业模式。零工经济的支持者认为,“灵活”就业在不同经济部门的普及标志着对压迫性工业劳动制度的文化排斥。例如,硅谷首席执行官David Shadpour认为,我们的社会正在“超越传统工作模式的约束”,并“要求灵活工作环境的自由”(2018年)。同样,经济学家阿伦·孙达拉詹(Arun Sundararajan)也庆祝“单一的、集中的系统”被TaskRabbit和Lyft等分散的劳动力平台所取代(2016,4)。这些平台拒绝工业资本主义的“无面孔、非个人”性质,支持“嵌入社区”和“相互交织……”的经济互动。社会关系”(35)。根据优步的新闻稿,零工经济通过为低收入工人提供“交钥匙创业”(turnkey entrepreneurship),使经济机会民主化,这些低收入工人历来只能获得有偿劳动。在凯斯勒58)。在这个
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Victorian gig economy: casualization in Henry Mayhew's Morning Chronicle letters
The traditional account of the Industrial Revolution goes something like this: beginning in the latter half of the eighteenth century, a relentless wave of concentration, mechanization, and rationalization demolished traditional forms of manufacturing. Decentralized systems of cottage industries and village workshops were replaced by hulking factories and “dark Satanic Mills”. Artisans and journeymen were transformed into the industrial proletariat, densely packed into manufacturing districts and subject to a rigid system of time discipline. The hourly wage – the ultimate symbol of abstracted labor – came to define what it meant to make a living. Worker autonomy and subjectivity were crushed by the deadening uniformity that industrialization brought in its wake. The quintessential image here is Dickens’s Coketown, with its grotesquely homogenized workforce that could no more be divided into individuals than the sea could be separated into its component drops. Scholars of the nineteenth century know that the process of industrialization was significantly more heterogeneous and complex. But the traditional narrative of the Industrial Revolution continues to have broad cultural purchase. The contemporary discourse surrounding the emergence of what has come to be known as the gig economy has made this particularly clear. Popularized in the years after the 2008 financial crisis, the term “gig economy” defines a diverse employment model that relies on contingent workers, freelancers, and independent contractors rather than full-time employees. Proponents of the gig economy argue that the spread of “flexible” employment throughout diverse sectors of the economy signals a cultural rejection of oppressive industrial labor regimes. For example, Silicon Valley CEO David Shadpour has argued that that our society is “evolving beyond the constraints of traditional work models” and “demanding the freedom of flexible work environments” (2018). Likewise, the economist Arun Sundararajan celebrates the replacement of “monolithic, centralized systems” with decentralizing labor platforms like TaskRabbit and Lyft (2016, 4). These platforms reject the “faceless, impersonal” nature of industrial capitalism in favor of economic interactions that are “embedded in a community” and “intertwined... with social relations” (35). According to an Uber press release, the gig economy democratizes economic opportunity by offering “turnkey entrepreneurship” to low-income workers who have historically had access only to waged labor (qtd. in Kessler 58). In this
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Nineteenth-Century Contexts is committed to interdisciplinary recuperations of “new” nineteenth centuries and their relation to contemporary geopolitical developments. The journal challenges traditional modes of categorizing the nineteenth century by forging innovative contextualizations across a wide spectrum of nineteenth century experience and the critical disciplines that examine it. Articles not only integrate theories and methods of various fields of inquiry — art, history, musicology, anthropology, literary criticism, religious studies, social history, economics, popular culture studies, and the history of science, among others.
期刊最新文献
Unremarkable as “the bridge … or the butcher’s wife”: pregnancy, illegitimacy, and realism in Ellen Wood’s A Tale of Sin Fictions of depersonalization: inauthentic feeling at the fin-de-siècle Postsecularism, burial technologies, and Dracula Anthony Trollope: an Irish writer A club of “murder-fanciers”: Thomas De Quincey’s essays “On Murder” and consuming violence in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1