Abstract
Craft is re-emerging in debates on improving contemporary work. A recurring theme in research on craft is its potential to thwart alienation, which is considered one of the central pathologies of modern work. Through a case study of the Swedish craft beer community, we examine craft’s potential for de-alienating work. Drawing on Jaeggi’s conception of alienation as a relation of relationlessness, we show that craftworkers cultivate relations to themselves and to their material and social environments. These relations foster receptiveness and transformation, enabling experiences of work as unalienated. Yet, craft work also remains deeply ambivalent: to sustain unalienated experiences, craftworkers must accept several downsides of craft work. Our findings suggest that de-alienation in craft is best understood as a continuous process of negotiating alienation, which is constrained by the broader dynamics of capitalism.
Introduction
Craft – defined as a ‘humanist approach to work that prioritises human engagement over machine control’ (Kroezen et al., 2021: 503) – has been a steady adversary to the proliferation of industrialisation. The current social and ecological challenges are contributing to a revival of craft (Luckman, 2015; Ravasi et al., 2025). Extant research on craft outlines its potential to re-establish ‘good work’ (Bozkurt and Cohen, 2019), to increase the sustainability of production processes (Luckman, 2015) and to serve as a form of emancipatory activism (Vachhani et al., 2025), which might even be instructive for overcoming growth-centred capitalism (Rennstam and Paulsson, 2025). Craft researchers largely agree that craft has the potential to counter the ‘alienation that stems from the speed, competition, and division of labor inherent to factory production systems’ (Fox Miller, 2017: 3). However, despite the recurring evocation of craft as a remedy for alienation in the workplace, the ways in which craft can help overcome alienation have not been analysed fully, leaving unclear how craft mitigates alienation in practice.
Extant studies on unalienated forms of work mainly build on the perspectives of meaningful and enchanted work. These studies either take an essentialist view in which de-alienation is the result of appropriate work arrangements and job characteristics (see, e.g. Rostain and Clarke, 2025) or they take a subjectivist view, understanding de-alienation as a result of employees’ meaning-making and of managers’ influence on employees’ identities (see, e.g. Endrissat et al., 2015). In contrast to these perspectives, an alternative approach emphasises the relational nature of alienation (Jaeggi, 2014). To bridge essentialist and subjectivist approaches and account for the relational nature of alienation that these approaches tend to overlook we adopt a relational perspective in our empirical study of the Swedish craft brewing community and ask the following research question: How do craftworkers establish relations aimed at thwarting the experience of alienation in work? Based on our empirical findings, we argue that de-alienation – which we regard as a process of countering alienation in contrast to unalienated work as a state in which work is experienced as not alienating – is accomplished through the development and maintenance of relations to the self and the world, which allow for intimacy, receptiveness and transformation. At the same time, these relations expose craftworkers to downsides that may hinder – yet are integral to – de-alienation. We thus advance a relational understanding of de-alienation as an inherently ambivalent process.
We contribute to research on craft and alienation in three ways. First, we complement essentialist and subjectivist perspectives on overcoming alienation by showing how de-alienation in craft is accomplished through relations that enable workers to experience work as unalienated. Second, whereas prior studies have treated the downsides of craft primarily as sources of dissatisfaction, we show that these downsides are integral to processes of de-alienation. Third, we extend emerging discussions of craft’s potential as a transformative force by demonstrating that, although craft can temporarily mitigate alienation, its capacity for social transformation remains limited in the absence of structural change at the macro level of capitalism. Overall, our contributions advance craft research by challenging the assumption that craft work naturally overcomes alienation, and by showing how unalienated experiences are relationally accomplished, sustained and constrained. In this way, we specify how craft can – and cannot – serve as a transformative force.
Our article is structured as follows. In the next section, we review research on alienation and de-alienation and focus on the portrayal of craft as a remedy against alienation. Subsequently, we present method and data. We then describe the craftworkers’ experiences of unalienated work, the various relations that enable such experiences, as well as the downsides that accompany craft work. In the discussion, we outline the contributions of our study to research. We conclude the article with a summary of our arguments, a brief discussion of the limitations of our study and an outline of implications for research.
Alienation, de-alienation and the potential of craft to thwart alienation
Understanding alienation in the workplace
As an essential feature of capitalism (Fromm, 1961), alienation was one of the central notions in sociology during the 1960s and 1970s, before scholarly interest gradually waned in the following decades (Yuill, 2011). There is, however, a renewed interest in alienation (e.g. Jaeggi, 2014; Kociatkiewicz et al., 2021; Soffia et al., 2022) due to its potential to help explain the problematic aspects of contemporary capitalism and of modern forms of work more specifically (Yuill, 2011).
According to Marx (1844[1964]), alienation refers to the worker’s estrangement from herself, from nature, from the product of her labour, from the production process and from other people. As elaborated by Fromm (1961), in conditions of alienation individuals cease to perceive themselves as active agents and, consequently, the self, nature, the product, the productive activity and others appear as external and alien. Earlier approaches to alienation contrasted such alienated forms of being and work with an ideal state in which individuals fully realise themselves (Fromm, 1961).
Seeking to move beyond this focus on the material conditions of alienation, Jaeggi defined alienation as a disturbed relation of individuals to the world: a ‘relation of relationlessness’ (2014: 1, emphasis in original). By this she means that under conditions of alienation, individuals are deprived of the freedom to appropriate themselves and the world and to relate to both by simultaneously accepting and shaping given conditions. In Jaeggi’s terms, alienation results from an ‘impairment of acts of appropriation’ (2014: 36, emphasis in original). Such impairment can occur in relation to the self as well as to the social and material world. Conversely this means that practical engagement with the world can enable individuals to re-appropriate both self and world, thereby overcoming alienation. Rosa’s (2019, 2020) work adds to such a relational perspective by showing how the compulsion towards escalation of contemporary capitalism systematically undermines relations of appropriation. From this perspective, alienation is not only an individual or workplace experience, but a structurally produced condition that shapes the possibility of unalienated work. Research on work and alienation has primarily focused on meaningful and enchanting work as responses to alienation, which we review in the following section.
Current approaches to de-alienating work
Work is commonly defined as meaningful if individuals perceive it as positive, significant and valuable due to opportunities for self-efficacy – which describes the belief that attaining a desired goal is possible – and meaning-making (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017). In a similar vein, Laaser and Karlsson (2022) argue that objective autonomy, dignity and recognition are important preconditions for meaningful work. In the absence of such opportunities, individuals experience meaninglessness, which has long been identified as a central aspect of alienation (Blauner, 1964). Consequently, scholars argue that the meaningfulness of work can be increased through measures such as job enrichment (Hackman et al., 1975) and increased autonomy (Martela et al., 2021). This view suggests that meaningfulness is largely the result of an appropriate design of job characteristics and thereby risks an essentialist understanding of meaning as an inherent property of work.
Alternatively, the establishment of shared purposes and values (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017), the individual experience of an authentic connection between work and a broader purpose (see Bailey and Madden, 2017), and a subjective experience of autonomy, dignity and recognition (Laaser and Karlsson, 2022) are regarded as important means for countering alienation in the workplace. This view suggests that meaningfulness lies largely in the eyes of the beholder and therefore runs a risk of subjectivism, which tends to neglect the relevance of material factors and social relations as preconditions for meaningfulness and unalienated work (see Laaser and Karlsson, 2022 for a critique of purely essentialist or subjectivist views on meaningful work).
Endrissat et al. (2015) argue that treating work as either meaningful or alienating may impose a false dichotomy that overlooks the complex and ambiguous nature of work. Instead, they propose the concept of ‘enchanting work’, which captures both the potential of enchantment to counter alienation and its use as a technique of neo-normative control. On the one hand, (re)enchantment can enable workers to experience themselves as ‘full participants in their work life’ (Boje and Baskin, 2011: 419) and thereby sustain unalienated engagement (Mitra and Buzzanell, 2017). On the other hand, (re)enchantment may serve instrumentally as a ‘form of symbolic manipulation’ (Endrissat et al., 2015: 1566) to foster commitment in essentially meaningless jobs. Ultimately, however, the idea of enchanting work tends towards a subjectivist emphasis on individual identity as the central determinant of alienation and de-alienation.
While meaningful and enchanting work offer valuable insights, they pay limited attention to the relational nature of alienation and de-alienation. We therefore focus on the relational properties of (de)alienation. Craft provides an especially fertile context for examining these properties, as it relies on ongoing relations between bodies, materials, tools and communities of practice (Bell and Vachhani, 2020).
Craft as an attempt to thwart alienation in the workplace
Craft-based forms of production have proliferated in recent years, indicating a rekindled interest in traditional modes of making. Portrayed as a humanist model of work, craft is characterised by skills such as mastery and embodied expertise, as well as by attitudes of dedication and exploration (Ravasi et al., 2025). In a contemporary context, craft practices have re-emerged in new economic and cultural forms often referred to as neo-craft, blending artisanal traditions with entrepreneurial and symbolic dimensions (Gandini and Gerosa, 2025). While we acknowledge Gandini and Gerosa’s (2025) conceptualisation of neo-craft and draw on their insights, we use the broader term ‘craft’ for consistency with prior literature and to emphasise continuities with longer-standing debates on craft and alienation. As a response to dissatisfaction with dominant forms of consumption and production, craft harbours the promise of serving as an alternative form of organising work (Bell et al., 2021; Kroezen et al., 2021; Ravasi et al., 2025). Existing research – whether adopting the perspective of meaningfulness (e.g. Gandini and Gerosa, 2025; Rostain and Clarke, 2025) or enchantment (e.g. Dioun et al., 2025; Endrissat and Noppeney, 2018; Suddaby et al., 2017) – tends to assume that craft offers the possibility to overcome alienation.
However, this portrayal of craft as an unequivocal remedy against alienation has been contested. Fox Miller (2017: 10) cautions against ‘the tendency to see utopia in craft’. This warning aligns with the analysis of Delgaty and Wilson (2024) who demonstrate that although craft promises meaningfulness and authenticity, it can simultaneously be a source of strain (see also Fox Miller, 2019). Yet Fox Miller (2017: 10) also concedes that ‘we must not be too quick to dismiss the transformative potential of craft’. From this perspective, craft can act as a form of social activism that challenges socio-political and cultural norms (e.g. Black, 2017; Vachhani et al., 2025) and holds potential to counter the fixation of contemporary capitalism on economic growth (Rennstam and Paulsson, 2025).
Taken together, existing research often portrays craft as an unproblematic path towards de-alienation and locates its potential either in the properties of work or in individuals’ meaning-making. In doing so, it overlooks that de-alienation is a contested and ambivalent process that is ‘the result of encouraging a sense of connectedness to self, others and world’ (Kociatkiewicz et al., 2021: 937). This view resonates with Jaeggi’s (2014) conceptualisation of alienation as a relational condition discussed earlier. We contend that to better understand de-alienation, the potential of craft to thwart alienation and the capacity of craft to support societal transformation, it is crucial to examine the inherently relational and contested nature of both alienation and de-alienation. Framing craft in relational terms therefore allows us to move beyond depictions of craft as either inherently emancipatory or merely exploitative and to examine how de-alienation is relationally accomplished and constrained in practice.
Methodology
To explore whether and how craft thwarts experiences of alienation at work, we empirically studied the Swedish craft beer community. A qualitative research design was most appropriate, as it enabled us to focus on the cultural, everyday and situated aspects of the brewers’ thinking, learning, knowing and acting in contrast to ‘technified’ approaches to studying human lives (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 12). Given our interest in individual experiences within craft settings, this approach allowed our informants to articulate and justify their perspectives in depth.
Research setting
During the last 20 years, the number of craft breweries worldwide has seen explosive growth (Holl, 2015; Reid et al., 2014). In Sweden, the number of breweries has sharply risen from 15 in 1995 to over 400 at the end of 2021 (SverigesBryggerier, 2022). Owing to its size and popularity, the craft brewing community in Sweden is an informative and rich empirical context in which to study the experience of craft. Drawing on Gandini and Gerosa’s (2025) conceptualisation of neo-craft work, we approach craft brewing not as a traditional artisanal trade but as a contemporary form of craft in which cultural and symbolic meanings intertwine with material production. To select an adequate sample of breweries, we derived our criteria from the US Brewers Association: independent ownership, small batch production volume and a focus on manual or embodied work processes.
Data collection
Our empirical material comprises semi-structured interviews as well as field notes from ‘go-alongs’ and participant observations. We further drew on secondary sources – including popular podcasts and YouTube channels on craft brewing – to corroborate the data. The first author conducted 34 semi-structured interviews in 27 breweries. Interviews lasted between 30 and 120 minutes with an average of 75 minutes; 31 interviews were recorded and transcribed, and in three cases detailed notes were taken immediately after the conversation due to a technical failure of the recording device. Most interviews were conducted face-to-face on site, often accompanied by a tour of the brewhouse, during which the interviewer took notes. Nine interviews were conducted by phone or video link due to geographical distance and travel constraints.
To describe our sample, we are inspired by Gandini and Gerosa’s (2025) account of neo-craft work, which highlights how industries such as craft brewing bring together overlapping categories of producers, business owners and employees. We adapted this framework by distinguishing participants by organisational position (owners versus employees) and by functional area (brewing/production versus administrative or sales roles). While these categories provide transparency, in practice, roles often overlapped; for instance, administrative staff also worked in production. To provide further detail, we included three additional dimensions: brewery size, years in craft brewing and previous work experience.
Brewery size was classified by annual output, which reflects differences in work organisation, role specialisation and mechanisation. In our sample, 33.3% of participants were from small breweries (less than 100,000 litres per year), 33.3% from medium-sized breweries (100,000–1,000,000 litres per year) and 33.3% from large breweries (1,000,000–2,000,000 litres per year), reflecting a balanced distribution across different scales of craft beer production.
Years in craft brewing indicate the approximate length of time participants had worked in the industry, grouped into ranges (zero to two years, three to five years, six to 10 years, more than 10 years) to capture variation in experience without overemphasising individual biographies. Previous work experience records whether participants had worked in mainstream/industrial brewing, other industries, or solely in craft brewing. These dimensions highlight the diversity of trajectories into craft brewing (Table 1).
Interviewees.
Another method we employed in our data collection besides interviews was ‘go-alongs’ (Kusenbach, 2003, see also Delgaty and Wilson, 2024). During go-alongs the first author accompanied informants while they went about their activities in their ‘natural’ social space and asked questions, listened to their interactions with others and observed their behaviours. Go-alongs enabled us to understand and interpret in more depth informants’ interactions and experiences within their physical and social environments. As such, go-alongs are a ‘hybrid between participant observation and interviewing [and] a more modest, but also a more systematic and outcome-oriented, version of ‘hanging out’ with key informants’ (Kusenbach, 2003: 463). Go-alongs are vital to corroborate interpretations as well as to focus the study on initial theoretical ideas. It is an effective method of collecting data during numerous occasions to add essential insights to emerging concepts but also provide further stimuli for exploring issues that had only received marginal attention previously.
We used go-alongs to identify relevant interview partners as well as to discuss emerging conceptualisations from tentative interpretations of the empirical material. The first author used numerous opportunities at craft beer festivals and trade fairs to ‘hang out’ with informants. Through his background in homebrewing and close ties to the craft brewing community, he obtained the opportunity to attend but also to work for breweries at craft beer festivals, during which he talked to and observed other brewers. On three occasions he worked for a local brewery at a national festival. On another occasion he participated as a visitor in craft beer festivals where he had the opportunity to engage in conversations with brewers (Table 2). During the initial phase of the research project, the first author also carried out a participant observation at a mid-sized craft brewery. He worked there for two weeks, helping to package beer, talking to the owners and brewers and getting a sense of how a craft brewery works.
Ethnographic observations.
Data analysis
Our data analysis is based on a constructionist grounded theory (CGT) approach (Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz positions CGT against an objectivist epistemology underpinning ‘classic’ grounded theory and instead urges researchers to acknowledge their subjectivity in theory building and knowledge construction. To make productive use of subjectivity, Charmaz (2006) suggests using ‘sensitising concepts’ (Blumer, 1954) to loosely couple an initial theoretical framework to empirical phenomena. In our data analysis, we were sensitised by Jaeggi’s claim that alienation is a ‘relation of relationlessness’ (Jaeggi, 2014). In our initial reading of the empirical material, we therefore focused on experiences of alienated and unalienated work and on the relations that our respondents talked about and how those relations were described and experienced. Our initial screening of the empirical material revealed a plethora of different relations.
Based on the initial screening we developed descriptive open codes to group these relations and then clustered them into aggregate, abstract categories that summarised and qualified the open codes. We subsequently drew on these categories to derive the theoretical constructs that frame our findings: intimacy, receptiveness and transformation. These constructs characterise the relations through which craftworkers experience and negotiate de-alienation, alongside a set of unalienated work experiences and associated downsides that render these processes of de-alienation ambivalent. Table 3 provides an overview of these steps. In what follows we will present our findings in more detail. Please note that in presenting excerpts from our empirical material, we use identifiers (e.g. Interview #6, Go-along #1) to maintain anonymity and ensure consistency across the interviews, while keeping the text concise and readable. Detailed contextual information about participants’ roles, experience and brewery size is provided in Table 1.
Analysis table.
Findings
Overall, our empirical material indicated that craft brewers in many cases managed to achieve an experience of unalienated work. In the empirical material, it became clear that brewers’ relations with self and the social and material world served as constituent elements of de-alienation. However, simultaneously, these relations were subject to significant downsides that render craft work decidedly ambivalent. This enabling as well as constraining character of craft relations forms the central tension that informs our findings. In the following, we describe the experience of de-alienation and the underlying relations as well as the downsides of craft work.
Experiences of unalienated work
A key theme that permeates our empirical material was that relations in craft brewing helped counteract the alienating working conditions often associated with employment in large breweries or in previous jobs. In contrast to industrial breweries, craft brewing was frequently experienced as relationally rich and personally meaningful. These relations could be categorised according to their orientation: towards the self, the social and the material world.
The relation to the self for the craft brewers involved discovering passion and energy in their work. One brewer captured this sense of personal fulfilment and passion: I think it’s working with a passion. I think that’s a big thing for me – working with the stuff I really, really, really think is fun and want to do. [. . .] I feel that gives me a lot of energy. (#7)
For many, this fulfilment represented a re-appropriation of their working lives. One interviewee explicitly articulated this motive: ‘I wanted to possess my working life’ (#5). This statement highlights the general desire to truly make one’s relation to work one’s own.
Relations to the social world were often described as inclusive and non-competitive. Rather than viewing other breweries as rivals, brewers emphasised collaboration and community, especially in settings like festivals and shared brewing events. These spaces fostered genuine interaction and mutual support. One employee illustrated this ethos when reflecting on the purpose of their taproom: It’s a place where you can build community, which is, for me, at the heart of what we’re trying to do. Build meaningful community and be a local for people like you. [. . .] And I think, you know, it’s not just the community of people that drink here, but it’s the community of businesses that we have. (#28)
Another interviewee described the building and maintenance of community as a source of a feeling of connectedness: ‘And I think, like, for us, we are feeling more and more connected to the, the scene, or whatever you want to call it: the community’ (#7). These meaningful social relations were also evident during our go-alongs. At festivals, brewers consistently engaged with visitors, explaining their brewing processes and discussing their products. The atmosphere among brewers was open and collegial and many tried each other’s beers, planned collaborations and simply enjoyed each other’s company.
Relations to the material world were contrasted by the brewers with mass production, which prioritises efficiency and profit. Craft brewers emphasised care, quality and a hands-on relationship with their materials. For many, this tactile engagement with ingredients and processes was a core reason for becoming a craft brewer. One brewer shared his motivation for leaving a different industry to engage in craft: ‘I went to the food industry and I didn’t like it at all . . . I wanted to work with my hands’ (#5). This preference for manual work was a recurring theme among brewers. They consistently described the physical nature of brewing as central to their experience. One interviewee explained the difference between their small-scale system and industrial brewing: ‘And it’s all more of a handicraft system. Many of them [bigger breweries] have electronics to support the process. We are actually stirring by hand’ (#1).
Such immediate, sensory contact with the brewing process was often described as deeply fulfilling. As one brewer put it: ‘It’s a special feeling, you know, choosing your ingredients, brewing the beer, following it through the fermentation process to finished products’ (#25). Our findings thus suggest that manual engagement fosters a sense of connection with the material world and a re-appropriation of the tools, processes and outcomes of one’s labour.
Overall, our findings align with existing research that frames craft as a path towards unalienated work (see, e.g. Dioun et al., 2025). Yet what remains less explored is the process through which such experiences emerge. Hence, rather than treating unalienated work as an inherent property of craft, we now turn to the relations through which these experiences emerge. In the next sections, we develop a more detailed analysis of how establishing relations with the self, the social and the material world enables the experience of work as unalienated.
Intimacy as connectedness and immediacy in de-alienating relations
Our empirical material shows that a first constituent of de-alienating relations is intimacy. In our context, intimacy refers to close acquaintance or association informed by familiarity and personal knowledge. Intimacy in craft work relations has two main aspects: connectedness and immediacy.
Connectedness was evident in the associations and close ties of brewers with products, places of production as well as with the craft brewing community. One brewer highlighted the sense of equality and mutual support within the craft brewing community: I think we’re equals and I help. More than they help me because we have the biggest production in [region], so therefore we have to help everybody else. It’s the norm. The biggest kid takes care of the little ones. [. . .] It’s an unwritten law. It just happens. It’s by nature. (#5)
Such a sense of duty and support is not enforced by formal agreements or contracts but is part of the community’s culture. The notion that ‘the biggest kid takes care of the little ones’ speaks to an amicable and caring attitude of supporting the members of the community. Similarly, the empirical material showed a strong connection to the places of production and the regions where breweries are located. One brewer expressed his desire to return to a more localised approach as part of the entire craft brewing movement: My hope is that it goes back to a level of what brewing was in Sweden, before the 50s. We had local breweries that you supported. So you wanted to drink what’s local to me. So that kind of consumption, whereas instead of having factory beer that’s produced in three or four places in Sweden, drink something that you know, was brewed here, so we feel we have a local connection. (#18)
This connection to place is not just about geography but also about fostering a sense of belonging to a certain place. This became evident during the participant observation where the first author accompanied brewers to pick elderflower, which was later used in the beer. This hands-on approach to sourcing local ingredients showed the brewers’ direct engagement with the environment and brewing beers that have (literal) roots in a local context.
Immediacy in our context refers to a direct, unmediated relation without any intervening factors. Such immediacy was evident in the interactions between brewers and consumers and in their relation to the brewing process. The first author experienced those direct relations to consumers when he poured beer for local breweries. He engaged in constant conversations with interested consumers who were curious about the brewing process, the ingredients and flavours of the beer (Go-alongs #1, #2 and #3). One brewer highlighted the special, unmediated nature of interactions between craft brewers and consumers: I would say it’s a different interaction when the customers get to actually speak with the brewers and the guy that made the beer. Usually, the customer is quite surprised that the person they are speaking with at the festival is actually the one producing it [. . .] and they get happily surprised when it’s actually the brewer standing there so they can actually talk and see them in real life, the one that produces the product that they are drinking. (#6)
Such an unmediated relation was also a significant part of the brewing process, allowing for a direct sensual contact with the utilised materials and the brewing process more generally. A brewer describes his immediate experience of the brewing process: when you walk into a factory like that [referring to an industrial brewery] everything becomes abstract, which was already borderline in [a bigger brewery he worked for before]. You see everything on the computer; the things there are so huge, you can’t even imagine it. When you’re in a small brewery, you smell everything, taste everything. [. . .] This directness is kind of fun, it makes you relevant. (#31)
This description of the sensory richness and hands-on nature of working in a small brewery compared with a large factory emphasises the direct engagement with the brewing process. Instead of reliance on computerised systems, direct engagement makes the work enjoyable and the person in this process becomes relevant for the process. What our interviewee emphasises clearly here is the ability to exert immediate influence on the brewing process. Yet such relations not only foster intimacy but also render craftworkers receptive and vulnerable to the responses of others, as we demonstrate in the following section.
Receptiveness in de-alienating relations: Exposure and indeterminacy
Receptiveness in de-alienating relations refers to the craft brewers’ openness and readiness to being emotionally affected by feedback or other non-physical ‘attacks’. Such receptiveness appears to be a necessary condition for transformation (see below). In our empirical material, receptiveness manifested in two ways: exposure and indeterminacy.
Exposure describes how one is subjected to external influences, gaining the attention of others, and thereby becomes subject to external evaluations. Such exposure was, on the one hand, related to openness regarding knowledge and processes, which renders brewers visible and accessible to others, as one brewer describes: ‘We are completely open . . . If someone wants our [one of their famous beer recipes], I’ll give them our [beer] recipe. It actually doesn’t matter’ (#29). This interviewee highlights the transparency and willingness to share knowledge within the brewing community, a practice that not only fosters openness but also makes brewers and their work available to scrutiny. Exposure was also evident in how brewers were deeply involved with their products, seeking feedback and confirmation. The brewers exposed their ‘selves’ to others. One brewer reflects on this need for validation: I just had this enormous passion about creating something. [. . .] it’s a bit to do with your personality. Because the same with comedians, actors, chefs, painters, what have you. There’s this insecurity. You’re constantly seeking feedback, positive feedback, or kind of something. Confirmation. (#12)
This constant search for validation concerning their creativity underscores the brewers’ exposure and receptiveness resulting from putting their beers out there and being judged and assessed by the community. Such exposure is exacerbated by the widespread use of an app called ‘Untappd’ in which beer drinkers can rate and discuss beers. During the participant observation, one brewer remarked that he had to delete the app as he kept checking people’s reviews and kept getting upset about negative feedback. Another brewer described how user-generated reviews on Untappd can feel disconnected from the intention behind the beer and emotionally taxing: That’s why I don’t look at Untappd any longer. In the beginning, it was quite interesting and useful. But these days, everyone has an Untappd account [. . .] and you get this all the time: ‘Oh, this is the best coffee beer I’ve ever had’ – five stars, and the second check in four minutes after that: ‘I hate coffee beers’ – half a star. [. . .] It’s not fair, that shouldn’t define you or what you do or the intention you have. (#12)
This account of how exposure may backfire illustrates that while brewers aim to engage meaningfully with their audiences, they also risk being misunderstood or unfairly judged.
Indeterminacy, as a feature of relations that allow for receptiveness, refers to the fluid and unpredictable nature of the brewing process and its outcomes. One key aspect of indeterminacy in the brewing process is the interplay of different ingredients and how small changes in the amounts and types of ingredients may change the taste and character of a beer. A brewery owner highlighted this challenge with regard to yeast: Especially the fermentation process . . . And that’s even more complex. The yeast is very fascinating in how it can produce different aromas under different circumstances. [. . .] it’s very interesting, only small changes in fermentation temperature, and so on, can actually make quite a big difference in the result. That’s crazy. What is very different between different strains. So it’s most fascinating. (#11)
In addition to the brewing process, there is also indeterminacy in consumer tastes and preferences. A brewery and bar owner shared his experience of trying to educate consumers and influence their tastes: I realised [. . .] I tried to force people in enjoying beer. [. . .] Trying to form my customer to enjoy and when somebody’s being pushed to enjoy something, it doesn’t really work. I realised how wrong I have been for so long. [. . .] Somebody may turn them into a beer geek and it wasn’t me forcing them. (#2)
This observed futility of trying to force consumers to appreciate beer in a specific way resulted in the realisation that allowing customers to discover their preferences naturally leads to a more genuine and enjoyable experience for them. As such, relations with consumers were fickle in terms of educating them about craft beer, but also with regard to more experienced consumers who had high expectations of many breweries to release new beers all the time. Yet, in addition to fostering intimacy and receptiveness, relations in craft opened up possibilities for transformation.
Transformative experiences in de-alienating relations through affect and creativity
Transformation involves changes in form, shape and experience in the relation to self, material and social world. In our empirical material, transformation had two main aspects: affect and creativity.
Affect describes not only emotions but also the involvement of all senses in a de-alienating relation. It encompasses the emotional and sensory experiences that create a deep connection to craft and triggers transformative experiences, especially when ‘discovering’ craft brewing, both by the craft brewers and by others in their social environment. For instance, one brewer recalled a pivotal moment during his final year of college: My brother-in-law [. . .] had Charlie Papazian’s home brew book and I see it and I pick it up and it was like that scene in Pulp Fiction when they opened the briefcase and it just glows gold, you don’t know what’s in there and I opened that book and it was just like, whoa! [. . .] I was like, absolutely I want to do that! So, we brewed a batch of Porter and I was transfixed. There was something about it that I would lock in and I had never been locked in on something before. (#26)
He recounts an almost spiritual experience when he encountered brewing for the first time and it ignited a passion and, ultimately, a lifelong devotion to craft brewing.
Another aspect of affect is intuition, which goes beyond the mere application of scientific knowledge in the brewing process. It involves a deeper sense of what works and what does not and how it transforms the product and the process. One brewer explains: For me, it sounds a little bit weird, but it’s also a form of art [craft brewing]. On the one hand, it’s the process. But on the other hand, it’s also a little bit of a feeling, you know what I mean? What works, what doesn’t, and, you know, there needs to be a certain percentage of ambiguity in the beer-making process. If you only follow a recipe that wouldn’t cut it for me. Obviously, follow a recipe, but I think it’s a form of expression as well. [. . .] I think that’s the fun part. (#7)
This perspective emphasises the importance of intuition in brewing, where the process is not just about following recipes but also about expressing oneself through brewing. Such intuitive knowledge based on a ‘feeling’ leaves room for expression and transformation.
Creativity relates to generating, evaluating and possibly implementing new ideas in the brewing process. This often involves experimentation with flavours and ingredients that would not be possible in a macro brewery. Creativity is mainly related to the possibility of producing a variety of beers and not just one mass-produced generic lager. Small batch production makes it easier to produce different beers and try new things. One brewer described how the focus is entirely on brewing different beers and not on profits: . . . the most important thing for us is the beer. And if we start being stingy, setting a limit on what we can produce, then we’re lost. That doesn’t work. And, for example, there are beers; we brew a beer maybe once a year, and larger breweries say there’s no money in that for us. But we can do it. (#14)
This creative freedom that smaller craft breweries have compared with larger breweries allows them to experiment and produce a diverse range of beers, catering to the community of beer enthusiasts who seek unique and interesting flavours rather than a generic type of beer.
Yet the same relations that enable experiences of de-alienation also generate pressures and tensions that render craft work ambivalent, as we discuss next.
The downsides of craft work as sources of ambivalence
The findings above may suggest an outright positive view on the relations established in the context of craft brewing. Yet, at the same time, the respondents mentioned various downsides of craft brewing, and therefore perceived their work as ambivalent. One brewer expressed this overarching ambivalence poignantly when he stated that, ‘[i]n general, it’s not . . . it’s not a fun job. But like, it’s fun’ (#7). This ambivalence stemmed from competitive pressures, the exploitation of community goodwill, self-exploitation through overcommitment and the glamorisation of craft brewing.
Competition and the resulting constraints are one of the major downsides our interviewees struggle with. They faced continuous expectations from the community to constantly innovate and create new products to keep up with a consumer demand for new beers that had been created by producing many different varieties. One brewer explained: We are creating a monster. You know what I mean? Craft beer needs to be cooler every time. I need to make it bigger, fatter, you know, juicier or whatever. And we are teaching the customer [that there will always be new products]. If a customer buys a smoothie sour from us, they are never going to buy it again if they don’t like it a lot. News hype is everything. [. . .] So that’s a problem. We need to always try to innovate. And I feel that’s not very healthy for the community. We are always trying to top each other. [. . .] Even if I like it, as I have talked about, it’s also unhealthy for the community and for the business as a whole. I think if we could just slow the tempo down in some way [. . .]. (#7)
This relentless drive for novelty can be unhealthy for both the community and the business, as it fosters a competitive environment where brewers are always trying to outdo each other: OK. I give you my recipe for my best beer. I will give it to you. What will you give to me? What? What will you give back? Because we’re here, we’re brothers. We’re all equals, right? And then you have to explain yourself. (#5)
A further implication of competition is demands for higher quantities and increased efficiency that potentially collide with the craft ideal for which our interviewees did strive: But then [other brewery] really took off with their products, which meant I had to brew more of that [a beer], which I didn’t really want to . . .. (#25)
These pressures were compounded by instances of exploitation, as we show next.
Exploitation was consistently mentioned as a problem in craft work: some actors tended to take advantage of the openness of the community instead of connecting to others with honest intentions. One brewer commented: ‘Some breweries only copy everything. [. . .] and that’s a bit annoying when you see repeatedly other craft breweries copying, just doing exactly the same as you’ (#4).
This exploitation of the community’s openness undermines the collaborative spirit that many value. Exploitation can also take the form of self-exploitation, resulting in stress, which is a major ambivalence with a view to the manual labour involved in craft brewing, and with respect to the long working hours and the feeling that it was underpaid. One brewer commented: A lot of people are overworked. Some people are feeling underpaid, that they cannot compete fairly with the big guys [macro breweries]. I guess the conditions at some breweries are . . . it’s a lot of heavy lifting involved in brewing, a lot of malt bags, a lot of manual labour, people work with cleaning chemicals, not healthy always. (#6)
This quote illustrates that manual labour is not only a source of de-alienation (as shown earlier: ‘I wanted to work with my hands’ [#5]), but can also be a source of significant strain. Another aspect of self-exploitation were the continuous efforts of our interviewees to maintain a healthy work–life balance. This problem resulted from craft work being more of a lifestyle than work, which had its price. A brewery owner shared his experience when starting his own brewery: An average week’s work would have been at least 60 hours and that’s so very, very tiring. And non-stop, and it’s still tiring and non-stop. It’s more a mental thing now rather than an actual physical type of work. It’s now the amount of different head spaces that you find. That is hard. That is hard. (#29)
Another brewer echoed this assessment: ‘a lot of people are overworked. That is something that I guess is common’ (#6). At the same time, craft work was often glamorised.
Glamorisation describes how the community made efforts to appear exciting and appealing, projecting seductive images and downplaying negative aspects. Reality and image, however, diverged. One brewer talked about how some brewers elevated themselves: They [another brewery] were really trying to make the whole thing into something else, trying to treat themselves as rockstars from the beginning and were like assholes to people. [. . .] by the end of the festival, they were drunk and being assholes to women. It was so strange to see this happening because I haven’t thought that this was a part of what we were doing. But I think it became a part of what we were doing because of the coolness, which drew out the worst of people. (#2)
Such an attitude was also discernible during a go-along in which one of the authors worked for a brewery. He met a brewer who had been described recurrently as someone ‘with an attitude’. He appeared ‘stand-offish’, strolling around from booth to booth with a large entourage visibly enjoying the attention. In a conversation with a brewer observing this at the same festival, he talked about how this particular individual enjoyed ‘the glamour more than producing quality beer’ (Go-along #1).
In sum, our findings show that the very relations that enable experiences of unalienated work in craft also generate pressures that are hard to avoid, rendering craft work decidedly ambivalent. Hence, craft is not a naturally stable alternative to alienated work; rather, de-alienation through craft must be continually accomplished and remains fragile.
Discussion
Our empirical findings reveal that de-alienation in craft work emerges through relations that connect workers to themselves, others and their materials. Yet these same relations also expose craftworkers to downsides that make their experience of work fundamentally ambivalent. In what follows we draw on these insights to discuss in more detail how our findings contribute to research on (de)alienation and craft.
Theorising de-alienation through relations of appropriation
Extant research portrays craft as a pathway to meaningful (Rostain and Clarke, 2025), enchanted (Suddaby et al., 2017) and, ultimately, unalienated (Luckman, 2015) work. However, the processes through which craft facilitates a de-alienation of work have not been explored previously. To deepen the theoretical understanding of how craftworkers pursue de-alienation, we analysed the relations that craftworkers establish and maintain.
According to Jaeggi (2014), de-alienation is a relational process in which individuals re-appropriate both themselves and the social and material world through engagement that fosters a sense of ownership. Our findings show how craftworkers facilitate such appropriation through developing intimate relations that encourage receptiveness and support ongoing transformations of both the self, the social and the material world. We find that brewers deliberately minimise their experiential distance from the world, and strive for close connections with their tools, materials, coworkers and community. These connections allow for an immediate experience of their environment and of themselves.
In Jaeggi’s (2014) terms, such ‘practical engagement’ goes beyond passive understanding. It entails an active, formative interaction with the world through which individuals work through experiences and make them their own. In our study, this process manifests as the creation of intimate relations, which means close, embodied connections between craftworkers, their materials and their social environments. Within these intimate relations, brewers open themselves to the indeterminacy of their work and, in doing so, become receptive, which forms the basis for both personal and material transformation. As Jaeggi (2014: 38) notes, in genuine appropriation, ‘both what is appropriated and the appropriator are transformed’. Ultimately, we argue that through this ongoing mutual transformation, work is experienced as unalienated.
Our findings explain how alienation can be thwarted in craftwork and thereby contribute to the discussion about (de)alienation and craft work. While prior research has emphasised structural work settings (essentialist view) (see, e.g. Rostain and Clarke, 2025) or meaning-making by individuals (subjectivist view) (see, e.g. Endrissat et al., 2015), our study suggests that these perspectives overlook the relational dimension of (de)alienation. By foregrounding the central role of relations, we offer a framework for understanding how relations in craft work foster experiences of unalienated work.
The downsides of de-alienating relations: Ambivalence as an inherent feature of craft work
Despite its promise, some scholars challenge the idealised view of craft as an inherently meaningful alternative to the rationalised structures of modern work. This critique highlights the gap between the romanticised image of craft and the actual conditions of craftwork (Bell et al., 2018; Delgaty and Wilson, 2024; Wallace, 2019). Fox Miller (2019), for example, critiques the ‘glamorisation of craft’, which can obscure the often harsh realities faced by craftworkers, namely low wages, physical strain and long hours (see also Endrissat and Noppeney, 2018).
With a view to bridging idealisation and critique, Kociatkiewicz et al. (2021: 937) emphasise that overcoming alienation is ‘an ambivalent and contested process’. We substantiate this observation by demonstrating how the downsides inherent to craftwork are not merely constraints – as observed in previous research (see, e.g. Delgaty and Wilson, 2024; Fox Miller, 2019) – but are integral to the processes of de-alienation. Rather than viewing relations in craft as simply beneficial or harmful, we show that their ambivalent and contradictory nature is an inherent feature of de-alienation.
Craftworkers need to accept certain hardships to be able to experience their work as unalienated. While intimacy and receptiveness may foster transformation and de-alienation, they also expose workers to exploitation, stress, competitive pressures and romanticised narratives. As we show in our analysis, the ability to produce a variety of beer fosters creativity and personal expression, yet at the same time it heightens expectations from the community and peers. Hands-on engagement in the brewing process deepens connection to the craft process, but it also means that work cannot be automated or easily left behind at the end of the day. Openness to others enables the exchange of knowledge and a community spirit, but it also increases the risk of ‘leaking’ knowledge, as what is shared may be misused by others. Finally, a strong community identity cultivates solidarity among brewers, yet it can just as easily be co-opted to glamorise the industry, reproduce idealised narratives of passion and authenticity, and boost one’s self-image.
These continuous tensions between de-alienating relations and their downsides might be seen as impediments by scholars who are critical of craft’s potential to thwart alienation. In contrast, we argue that such tensions and the resulting ambivalence are integral to the de-alienating relational dynamics of craftwork. Recognising ambivalence as a defining feature rather than a flaw of craftwork reframes de-alienation as an ongoing, negotiated process and not as an endpoint.
The potential of craft to support systemic transformations
Besides its promise to facilitate de-alienation, craft has also been discussed for its potential to act as a transformative force at the societal level (see, e.g. Rennstam and Paulsson, 2025). Our findings, however, suggest that the transformative potential of craft is largely confined to individual experiences of de-alienation at work.
The very relations that enable craftworkers to experience their work as unalienated – intimacy, receptiveness and transformation – also expose them to significant downsides such as (self-)exploitation, stress and the struggle for work–life balance. These downsides are not merely unpleasant aspects of craft work but reflect the broader systemic pressures of contemporary capitalism, including the responsibilisation of workers (Pongratz and Voss, 2003) and the commodification of authenticity (Murtola and Fleming, 2011). That is, the downsides that craftworkers undergo to establish de-alienating relations, and that simultaneously threaten the success of de-alienation, have their roots at the macro level of capitalism.
On the one hand, these points suggest a limited potential of craft to create desirable social realities. However, on the other hand, and following Rosa’s (2013) observation that alienation is one of the problematic aspects of the inherent ‘compulsion towards escalation’ of late capitalism, we believe that craft can be an important source of prefigurative inspiration for alternative ways of organising work that allow for closer relations to materials and communities and greater possibilities for appropriating relations in work (Rosa, 2020). More generally, such a reorganisation of work and society might also be suitable to address the problematic accelerating dynamics of late capitalism that underlie the ambivalences that characterise attempts to thwart alienation in the workplace.
Our study is subject to several limitations that imply avenues for further research. First, we focus on small-scale craft settings and therefore our study offers limited insight into how alienation-thwarting relations might emerge, be sustained or break down in larger or more formalised organisations. Therefore, future research might explore what specific organisational conditions support, or impede the emergence of the de-alienating relations that characterise craft; the extent to which such relations can emerge in larger organisations; and at what point they lose the capacity to thwart alienation. Second, our study does not examine how the downsides of craft might be alleviated through organisational redesign, collective arrangements, or regulatory interventions. Future research should explore how these downsides can be reduced – through reorganisation on the level of the firm, but also through laws and regulations – without reducing the potential of craft to thwart alienation. Third, we focus on relational dynamics within craft work itself and therefore provide only limited insight into how these dynamics connect to broader systemic conditions. Future research should explore the role craft might play in systemic transformations.
Conclusion
Growing discontent with alienation has rekindled interest in craft as a way to thwart alienation in the workplace. Our study reveals the specific relations that allow craftworkers to experience their work as unalienated and shows that de-alienation is accomplished through the ongoing development and maintenance of relations that enable intimacy, receptiveness and transformation. In doing so, we contribute to research on craft and alienation by theorising the de-alienation of work as a relational and inherently ambivalent process rather than an outcome. Yet, while the studied craftworkers succeeded in establishing relations that allowed for unalienated experiences, they had to simultaneously cope with problematic aspects of craft work, which continuously threatened the process of de-alienation. We thereby show that while unalienated experiences are possible in craft work, they remain fragile and conditional, as the same relations that enable de-alienation also expose craftworkers to pressures that stem from contemporary capitalism. While we argue that craft work alone has only limited potential as a source of systemic change, it may nonetheless constitute an important component in transformation processes aimed at reducing overconsumption and ever-expanding production in favour of a less alienating economic system.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Professor Charles Umney for his expert guidance throughout the review process, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. Their insights significantly strengthened and sharpened our arguments. We are also indebted to our interviewees, who generously shared their experiences and gave their time to make this research possible. We further appreciate the valuable comments provided by Erik DuPlessis and Joost Luyckx on earlier drafts of the article. Finally, we thank the participants of PROS 2024 and the Academy of Management Conference 2024 for their thoughtful feedback, which helped to further improve this work.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was generously funded by the Handelsbanken Research Foundation as part of the project ‘Exploring Craft in Search of Alternative and Sustainable Forms of Organizing’ (P22-0095).
Ethics statement
In accordance with the research ethics policy of Lund University, this study did not require formal institutional ethics approval. However, all participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the research prior to participation. Informed consent was obtained from each interviewee. Participants were given the opportunity to review their statements and were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw or request the removal of their contributions prior to publication.
