4 new media & society 0(0)
embodied in the concept of “immaterial labor” (Hardt and Negri, 2000; Lazzarato, 1996).
On one hand, immaterial labor denotes expanding notions of work by including produc-
tive activities never before considered forms of labor (Lazzarato, 1996). Immaterial
labor is characterized by its affective nature, relying on communicative actions and
intangible emotions (pleasure, excitement, feeling of ease or security, or sense of com-
munity and companionship, etc.) as its basis of production and reproduction (Hardt and
Negri, 2000; Lazzarato, 1996). Specifically, Hardt and Negri (2000) have defined imma-
terial labor as “the production of services [that] results in no material and durable
good…—that is, labor that produces an immaterial good, such as a service, a cultural
product, knowledge, or communication” (pp.290–292). Not only are consumption and
leisure increasingly becoming forms of “productive”, “non-guaranteed labor”—such as
freelance, part-time work and piece work—but they have also turned into sites of capital-
ist reproduction (Hardt and Negri, 2000: 298).
The social, cultural and political consequences of the convergence of consumption
and labor, leisure and work, and commerce and community on the internet have justifi-
ably attracted scholarly attention. The debate has largely revolved around the “exploita-
tion or empowerment” dilemma. The labor perspective has rightly underlined the
often-contradictory interests of the industry and of consumers/fans/hobbyists (Andrejevic,
2008; Terranova, 2004). Critics often point to the persuasive neo-liberal discourse of
digital utopia, which celebrates the democratic potential of “participatory culture”
(Jenkins, 2006) and “prosumerism” (Benkler, 2006) without critical reflection on the
connections to the lucrative dot.com economy. However, the labor perspective has bifur-
cated in recent years, with the critical camp emphasizing the exploitative aspect of the
consumer laborer, whose innovations are being sold back to them by business corporations
(Andrejevic, 2002; Terranova, 2004), and the competing camp, which downplays the
inherent power inequality in the consumer–corporate relationship, framing consumption-
production relations in terms of a “moral economy”, a “gift economy” (Green and
Jenkins, 2009), a “co-evolution” between market and non-market, and the emergence of
the “social network market” (Banks and Potts, 2010).
A nuanced understanding of power presents a formidable counterargument to the
dominant neo-liberal discourse and is essential to achieving a realistic understanding of
digital consumer labor. However, simply crying exploitation will not afford a better
grasp of the institutional and subjective transformations resulting from the shifting capital-
labor/consumer relationship. In fact, the “exploitation or empowerment” duality may be
thwarting deeper insight into the “complex situatedness and embeddedness” of the medi-
ation of technology and its often-paradoxical role in creating new possibilities and new
problems (Hay and Coudry, 2011: 482). Eurocentrism further prohibits understanding of
this phenomenon; with only a few exceptions (Dyer-Witheford and De Peuter, 2009),
most studies have been conducted in the context of a Western “post-Fordist” economy,
assuming either a universalistic argument in which human beings share common needs
and motivational structures, or that the rest of the world is too busy engaging in out-
sourced “material labor” and building basic telecommunication infrastructure to concern
itself with “immaterial production” and consumer labor. In reality, with the outsourcing
of material manufacturing from the developed to the developing regions, high-tech
immaterial and consumer production have also been expanding on a global scale, as
more and more of the world’s population is getting “wired”.