Michael Burawoy’s Manufacturing Consent remains foundational to labor process theory, but its analysis is rooted in the era of monopoly capitalism. This article extends Burawoy’s framework by examining platform-based food delivery work through an extended case study of DoorDash and Instacart in Greater Boston. We put Burawoy in conversation with Zygmunt Bauman to contrast labor processes under “solid modernity” marked by relative stability with those under “liquid modernity” marked by relative instability. While Burawoy showed how stable shop-floor relations under monopoly capitalism generated worker consent, we argue that today’s platform labor generates a more fluid form. We introduce the concept of melted consent to describe how gig workers are drawn into production through flexible, fleeting, and app-mediated relations. Though less stable, this consent remains effective in securing and obscuring surplus. Our analysis highlights how core dynamics of hegemony persist, albeit in forms reshaped by liquid modernity.
BryantA (2020) Liquid uncertainty, chaos and complexity: the gig economy and the open source movement. Thesis Eleven156(1): 45–66.
4.
BurawoyM (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. University of Chicago Press.
5.
BurawoyM (1983) Between the labor process and the state: the changing face of factory regimes under advanced capitalism. American Sociological Review48(5): 587–605.
6.
BurawoyM (2009) The Extended Case Method: Four Countries, Four Decades, Four Great Transformations, and One Theoretical Tradition. University of California Press.
7.
BurawoyMvon HoldtK (2012) Conversations with Bourdieu: The Johannesburg Moment. NYU Press.
8.
ChaiSScullyMA (2018) It’s about distributing rather than sharing: using labor process theory to probe the “sharing” economy. Journal of Business Ethics159(4): 943–960.
9.
CameronLD (2021) (Relative) freedom in algorithms: how digital platforms repurpose workplace consent. Academy of Management Proceedings1(1): 11061.
10.
CameronLD (2022) “Making out” while driving: relational and efficiency games in the gig economy. Organization Science33(1): 231–252.
11.
CameronLD (2024) The making of the ‘good bad’ job: how algorithmic management manufactures consent through constant and confined choices. Administrative Science Quarterly69(2): 458–514.
12.
CohenL (2003) A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
13.
FlemingPSturdyA (2009) ‘Just be yourself!’: towards neo-normative control in organisations?Employee Relations31(6): 569–583.
14.
FoucaultM (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (ed. SenellartM and trans. BurchellG). Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
GalièreS (2020) When food-delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: a Foucauldian perspective. New Technology, Work and Employment35(3): 357–370.
16.
GriesbachKReichAElliott-NegriL, et al. (2019) Algorithmic control in platform food delivery work. Socius5: 1–15.
17.
JoyceSUmneyCWhittakerX, et al. (2023) New social relations of digital technology and the future of work: beyond technological determinism. New Technology, Work and Employment38(2): 145–161.
18.
LarkinP (2020) Relationship between employment status and scope of social security protection: the United Kingdom example. In: BeckerUChesalinaO (eds) Social Law 4.0. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, pp.117–146.
19.
LeidnerR (1993) Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life. University of California Press.
20.
MacKinnonC (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Harvard University Press.
21.
ManriquezM (2019) Work-games in the gig economy: a case study of Uber drivers in the city of Monterrey, Mexico. In: CherrySPosterA (eds) Work and Labor in the Digital Age. Emerald Publishing, pp.165–188.
22.
MarxKEngelsF (1848) The Communist Manifesto. Workers’ Educational Association.
23.
PurcellCBrookP (2022) At least I’m my own boss! Explaining consent, coercion and resistance in platform work. Work, Employment and Society36(3): 391–406.
24.
RattansiA (2017) Bauman and Contemporary Sociology: A Critical Analysis. Manchester University Press.
25.
RoyD (1952) Restriction of output in a piecework machine shop. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
26.
RoseN (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.
27.
RubertA (2023) From discreet resistances to Yellow Vests protests in platform capitalism? An ethnographic survey among bicycle delivery workers. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology10(1): 68–97.
28.
SallazJJ (2009) The Labor of Luck: Casino Capitalism in the United States and South Africa. University of California Press.
29.
SallazJJ (2015) Permanent pedagogy: how post-Fordist firms generate effort but not consent. Work and Occupations42(1): 3–34.
30.
SchorJB (2020) After the Gig: How the Sharing Economy Got Hijacked and How to Win It Back. University of California Press.
31.
SchorJBTirrellCVallasSP (2024) Consent and contestation: how platform workers reckon with the risks of gig labor. Work, Employment and Society38(5): 1423–1444.
SeimJAdamsJHuangJ, et al. (2025) Taking ethnography to court: pedagogical reflections on a collective field study. Teaching Sociology53(1): 3–15.
34.
ShermanR (2007) Class Acts: Service and Inequality in Luxury Hotels. University of California Press.
35.
VallasSPKronbergA-K (2023) Coercion, consent and class consciousness: how workers respond to Amazon’s production regime. Socius9: 1–16.
36.
VallasSPSchorJB (2024) Labour platforms as mechanisms of class reproduction: middle-class interests as the basis of worker consent. Work in the Global Economy4(2): 235–258.
37.
VasudevanKChanNK (2022) Gamification and work games: examining consent and resistance among Uber drivers. New Media & Society24(4): 866–886.
38.
WoodAJ (2020) Despotism on Demand: How Power Operates in the Flexible Workplace. Cornell University Press.
