The emergence of a leisure economy has been discussed at length by many scholars in recent years, and has called into question the definitions of both “work” and “play” in modern society. With digital labour dominating much of the leisure economy, the intersections of technology, leisure, and work must be examined separately and together in order to understand and address the trends, transformations, and issues arising from the development of a leisure economy. Current literature surrounding the subject of digital labour and the leisure economy seek to create new definitions of commonly-accepted terminology to replace archaic understanding; scholars also draw attention to issues surrounding empowerment and exploitation of workers, highlighting class and racial lines that had previously been dismissed in employment that is often anonymous. Current gaps in research include the mobility of workers, how content creators interact with each other, and the capitalization of wealth.
Defining “Work” and “Play”
Scholars have been trying to redefine the meanings of both “work” and “play” in order to examine and critique current issues facing workers of the leisure economy—much of what we associate with these words is tied to concepts and expectations that emerged during the age of industrialization, such as the idea that a task is only considered work if the person performing the task receives payment upon completion of all or part of the aforementioned task (Rogl, 2016). A landmark study by Terranova at the turn of the century pioneered scholarly study on digital, or “immaterial,” labour (Terranova, 2000). They view digital labour as the result of the formation of a social factory in which generated content (which can be anything from video content to social interaction) is sold to the creators (Terranova, 2000). This social factory arose due to the digitalization of the world, with internet allowing for extreme globalization and the creation of new social experiences, and both phenomena allowed for new methods of generating capital from this new form of labour. A new definition of work suggested by Taylor holds that a task can be considered work based on whether it “involves the provision of a service to others or the production of goods for the consumption of others” (Taylor, 2004). Ultimately, this definition suggests that being paid to perform a task is not what constitutes the task as work, but rather it is the end product or the type of activity that permits the adoption of that label. This definition also leaves room to question both paid and unpaid work in a variety of contexts, including the seemingly lax world of leisure economics in the modern world.
Play is generally accepted to be a form of leisure that is not necessarily productive; a common side effect of play is the formation of social groups that try to differentiate themselves from others through anonymity, secrecy, or imagination (Huizinga, 1949). Because play is often inherently social, and thought to be the opposite of work, redefining play in order to analyze the leisure economy has been the cause of much debate amongst scholars and employers. In the realm of online translation, for example, O’Hagan found that the act of translating itself is often perceived as a leisurely social activity that need not be viewed as productive by the person completing the task—instead of work, online translation is seen as play (O’Hagan, 2011). While this perception can be problematic, in part because of Taylor’s modern definition of work placing the translator in the position of a worker who is providing a recipient with a service and an end product, the formation of social groups that differentiate themselves from others can be seen, which results in the murkiness that has come to define the leisure economy.
The leisure economy’s workers predominantly desire the economy to be similar to market economies, where goods and services are exchanged for financial compensation. The barter economy, while less common than the market economy, would still be beneficial to workers because at least they would obtain something of similar value in exchange for their work and content. However, there is growing concern that the leisure economy has many elements of gift or moral economies, due to the idea that digital labour, which may include playing games, does not truly deserve financial compensation. A gift economy is one that is based on a good or service being treated as a gift, with the receiver under no obligation to return anything of similar, greater, or lesser value (Marcoux, 2009). A moral economy is generally understood to be a mode of exchange where goods and services are provided out of kindness or fairness, without the expectation of receiving anything in return (Marcoux, 2009). When the leisure economy is treated as a gift or moral economy, workers are often left to provide goods or services with the understanding that their effort was not truly deserving of compensation, or that because it did not require as much effort as traditional labour (which is not always true), sharing it for free is expected; this is observed in online translation, despite the existence of paid translators who work offline (Rogl, 2016).
Labour as Exploitation
As with all research on different forms of labour, scholars question whether or not the labourers are exploited by their employers. Because the leisure economy is largely operational due to digital labour, traditional understandings of exploitation must be reexamined. In recent years, scholars have come to criticise digital labour trends, citing the tendency for employers to sell labourers’ work back to them (Terranova, 2004). Fish and Srinivasan analyzed the agency of producers and freelancers at both Current TV, a cable television network, and Samasource, a global outsourcing firm (Fish and Srinivasan, 2011). By interviewing both groups of people, they found that while an organization may promote creativity “by providing dignified labour” (as opposed to traditional conceptions of sweatshop labour), there is a very real chance of employees not truly having a choice in what work they choose to pursue, leading to employees developing skills that cannot “catapult (the poor) out of poverty” (Fish and Srinivasan, 2011). Zhang and Fung conducted research on gaming guilds—which they define as “the intermediary institutions between the industry and gamers”—and found that the dependency of the gaming industry on the “productive play of consumers” has led to state control and bio-political control of consumer labour (Zhang and Fung, 2014). This causes friction between gamers, guilds that have become increasingly controlled by other stakeholders, and the gaming industry itself, resulting in social, economic, and political implications that often lead to the exploitation of gamers’ activities in order to accumulate capital (Zhang and Fung, 2014).
It is easy to view all digital labour in the leisure economy as conducive and helpful, both for the labourers themselves and for their employers. Neoliberal discourse surrounding digital labour as a whole often centers around the idea that this form of labour is a blessing that can help many people of various backgrounds generate an income even if they cannot find traditional employment (Deuze, 2007). Graham et al. focused on a study that examined digital labourers in Africa and Southeast Asia, and found that while “some workers are able to thrive in platforms that reward entrepreneurialism by skilfully building their ranking scores, aligning their self-presentation with the needs of clients, and re-outsourcing tasks to be performed for even lower wages,” four key concerns were plaguing the labourers of the leisure economy (Graham et al., 2017). One key issue they identified was that of safety and security in digital labour, and that both factors were inherently tied to geography; their research revealed that workers often had very little bargaining power and had to consistently undervalue their skills in order to get jobs, lest they have “trouble paying [their] rent on time” or are unable to find other employment (Graham et al., 2017). Additionally, many of the same issues that result in economic exclusion in traditional jobs (racism, classism, etc.) are present in the leisure economy, and workers in locations that are associated with negative stereotypes often hid their location from potential clients (Graham et al., 2017). Without the existence of a union for digital labourers, it is too easy for workers to perform tasks for under minimum wage, live with minimal job security, and be told that they should be grateful when the only alternative in many cases is unemployment.
Fish and Srinivasan dedicated a portion of their 2011 article to exploring power and its effects on understanding digital labour (Fish and Srinivasan, 2011). They believe that it is important to have a “nuanced understanding of power” in order to effectively argue against the idea that digital labour encourages prosumerism, or that the leisure economy is largely similar to a gift or a moral economy (Fish and Srinivasan, 2011). As with most forms of labour in modern society, keeping Taylor’s definition in mind, neoliberal capitalistic ideology will often place the worker in a position where they have less power than the system that employs them. It is because of this that digital labour is often referred to as a tool of neoliberalism (Andrejevic, 2009). Fish and Srinivasan believe that identifying exploitation in digital labour is not enough to understand the effects of this, or of shifts and transformations at economical and institutional levels and the effects on traditional relationships between producers, consumers, and capital (Fish and Srinivasan, 2011). Having a nuanced understanding of power is also essential to understanding how technology can both help labourers achieve more independence and opportunities, and perpetuate existing problems (such as the continuation of wealth-based stratification) and create new ones for workers (Fish and Srinivasan, 2011).
Examining the intersection of consumerism and labour is nothing new in academia, as many studies have been conducted on the blurring of two previously distinct entities with the emergence of the leisure economy (Mosco, 1998). In 2005, Kücklich analysed the history of modern modding in the video game industry, and how it contrasts to “playbour,” which is free labour in the context of gaming (Kücklich, 2005). Kücklich found that modding (that is, the unofficial modification of video games) and other forms of work in the gaming world’s leisure economy (as per Taylor’s definition) result in services and goods that the producers do not own themselves; rather, the goods produced are often owned by the game company and in many cases, “playbourers” or modders are not allowed to be compensated for their efforts (Kücklich, 2005). Because there is no incentive for game companies to pay modders and playbourers, it is easy to view the relationship as exploitative.
Zhang and Fung’s article drew attention to the secondary gaming industry in China, the bulk of which is composed of both amateur and professional gamers; the title of “professional gamer” is a title which in itself challenges traditional ideas of what professional work is (Zhang and Fung, 2014). Again, like Kücklich, they found that playbour led to feelings of exploitation among many gamers who are or were members of gaming guilds. Postigo analyzed the activities of various high-profile content creators on YouTube who specialized in creating videos of themselves playing video games (Postigo, 2016). He aimed to highlight how apparently invisible digital labour showed how both work and play could be combined to generate content of commercial value, and how technology and associated platforms (such as YouTube) allowed for this development in the leisure economy (Postigo, 2016).
What does need to be looked at more thoroughly, is how content-producers interact with each other, and how competitiveness manifests itself in online communities—on YouTube, for example, how do content creators compete to generate the most popular user-generated content, and are there fruitful attempts at sabotaging competitors? Additionally, while Graham et al. did excellent research on how geography affects digital labour in the leisure economy, more research needs to be done on how labourer mobility intersects with their geography, and how this affects their income, if at all. Lastly, more work needs to be done to examine whether or not the leisure economy in itself is a tool of neoliberalism. The capitalization of wealth is seldom highlighted in research surrounding the leisure economy, and it is important to examine how wealth is transferred from employers to employees, and if there is anything that can be done to realistically promote equity in this economy.
2017-10-16-1508156922